Will humanity devolve to wearing nothing at all again and will the rise of homosexuality cause human

[Tefal]

Dear oh dear. That's a chemical addiction. Not a mental addiction. Even chemical addictions can be overcome if the mind is strong enough.

chemical addictions can't just be overcome by "mind power" as quite a few of them have fatal withdraw symptoms.

 

[asim18]

About 50% of gays is determined in the womb by chemicals/genes and the other 50% is a result of childhood sexual abuse.

This is my understanding. But not genes, chemicals yes, such as hormones.

 

[Tefal]

This is my understanding. But not genes, chemicals yes, such as hormones.

your understanding is that 50% of gay people are gay because of sexual abuse?

 

[kwerk]

Source please.

When I meet a gay I always make a point of asking them if they were abused as a child and about half of them say yes.

 

[Cleeecooo]

When I meet a gay I always make a point of asking them if they were abused as a child and about half of them say yes.

Thank you Kwerk, that genuinely made me laugh and brightened my day!

 

[ash_scotland88]

Dear oh dear. That's a chemical addiction. Not a mental addiction. Even chemical addictions can be overcome if the mind is strong enough.

For a start you didn't specify, secondly these mental addictions are surely a cause of a chemical reaction in the brain?
The fetishes you described above, the user get's a bigger kick when masturbating to them and a bigger hit of endorphines released while "cumming" that is what he's addicted to. They realise their body get's more pleasure from the fetish.
Love has been described as a chemical change in the body for any sexuality.

Again I'll ask you.
Have you had a sexual and love relationship with a man to make sure you made the right "choice"?

And, wow, the level of ignorance in this thread is huge and that's just from two posters.

 

[asim18]

your understanding is that 50% of gay people are gay because of sexual abuse?

I don't know about that but it sounds possible. Abuse can shape many things in our future lives. Surely you've heard that a lot of pedos were abused as children themselves?

 

[Tefal]

When I meet a gay I always make a point of asking them if they were abused as a child and about half of them say yes.

did you then follow that up and ask if they were abused because they were gay or were they gay because they were abused?

 

[PMKeates]

But probably won't work as this is not how economy works, if everyone in the country were high skilled workers i.e. programmers, designers, architects, engineers, managers etc. then who will be the chavy guy in his late 20's working in McD serving me my fries?

Supply and demand should sort that. Who wants to work in McDs if you could get a job elsewhere and the wages are crap? Nobody, so the wage goes up. This causes the cost of the product to also go up, but it will only go up to a certain level that people are willing to pay for it, so you end up with more automation, better use of technology and fewer staff. That is, generally, a good thing. Switzerland is an example of this, where someone working in McDs earns a wage sufficient to lead a reasonable life. You'll also notice there's very few staff in restaurants etc.

It does take a lot of investment to raise a child but if you start limiting who can and can't have a child then you start to get into rather dubious moral areas. You've also got questions about how well off is enough to be sufficient to raise a child? Is a recent lottery winner who has gone from minimum wage to £10m+ now a better person to raise a child than they were before the win? They're wealthier certainly but have their moral characteristics changed to any significant degree?

Remember I'm not limiting who can and can't have a child at all. Everyone is free to have whatever children they want. However, today there is an 'incentive' to have children in the form of child support. The poorer you are, the more significant and important that child support is. It's almost to the point that having children is an attractive proposition. Even if it isn't, it certainly doesn't require a deep commitment and careful planning. You can just have a child and know you'll get the bill covered by the government. Wealthy parents get none of that. I think if you switch it around, and direct the money that poor people would get to look after their kids to the wealthy parents, you'd have far less incentive for the poor to have children - as it would almost certainly ruin their quality of life - and additional encouragement for the wealthy to have them.

That isn't a removal of any rights or freedoms, simply a switch in what demographic you are inadvertently incentivising to have children.

 

[Tefal]

Supply and demand should sort that. Who wants to work in McDs if you could get a job elsewhere and the wages are crap? Nobody, so the wage goes up. This causes the cost of the product to also go up, but it will only go up to a certain level that people are willing to pay for it, so you end up with more automation, better use of technology and fewer staff.

or, you know, immigrants do it.

 

[Cleeecooo]

Supply and demand should sort that. Who wants to work in McDs if you could get a job elsewhere and the wages are crap? Nobody, so the wage goes up. This causes the cost of the product to also go up, but it will only go up to a certain level that people are willing to pay for it, so you end up with more automation, better use of technology and fewer staff. That is, generally, a good thing.Remember I'm not limiting who can and can't have a child at all. Everyone is free to have whatever children they want. However, today there is an 'incentive' to have children in the form of child support. The poorer you are, the more significant and important that child support is. It's almost to the point that having children is an attractive proposition. Even if it isn't, it certainly doesn't require a deep commitment and careful planning. You can just have a child and know you'll get the bill covered by the government. Wealthy parents get none of that. I think if you switch it around, and direct the money that poor people would get to look after their kids and directed that at the wealthy parents, you'd have far less incentive for the poor to have children - as it would almost certainly ruin their quality of life - and additional encouragement for the wealthy to have them.

That isn't a removal of any rights or freedoms, simply a switch in what demographic you are inadvertently incentivising to have children.

I'm not entirely sure what that would achieve. Unless you are saying that wealthy parents are more deserving of kids, or would raise them better?

Either way, money is still essentially being given out for people to have kids, except now it's to those who don't need it.

 

[Amleto]

The cheese has slid fully off the cracker now.

 

[kwerk]

I don't know about that but it sounds possible. Abuse can shape many things in our future lives. Surely you've heard that a lot of pedos were abused as children themselves?

Yes and there is a huge gay conspiracy to cover up gay abuse, because the gays know that's where half of their "new recruits" come from. If it the spot light was put on it, and the abusers were stopped the number of gays would drop drastically, along with their political influence.

 

[Kenai]

oh lawd

 

[asim18]

Yes and there is a huge gay conspiracy to cover up gay abuse, because the gays know that's where half of their "new recruits" come from. If it the spot light was put on it, and the abusers were stopped the number of gays would drop drastically, along with their political influence.

****! I should've known!

 

[semi-pro waster]

Oh dear no. I'm just saying it's possible. Just possible.

Look at sexual fetishes. How do they come about? Surely you aren't born wanting to suck feet? Certain events happen during growth, certain thoughts occur, hormonal imbalances. Whether it's concious or subconscious... This is what shapes your sexual desire.

One can be furiously masturbating one day and suddenly realise he's sexually attracted to feet. Just like the Duncan James example above realising he is attracted to boys too.

No one can be genetically homosexual or heterosexual. It's genetically impossible to be homosexual or heterosexual. Genetically, it's as simple as the sperm and the egg, that is all. Mental attraction is just that, Mental. The type of women you like, your fantasies and fetishes, and whether you like boys or girls is all down to the events in your life. These "events" can happen even when you're a year old which is why people commonly think you're born gay.

You cannot be technically born gay or even straight for that matter.

If one can master his own mind, he can choose to not do the drugs he's addicted to right? You aren't born with a drug addiction, even though it becomes the norm of your life.


I hope you can somewhat understand my ramble.

So you're very firmly on the nurture side of the debate then or would you accept that nature might have a role in sexual orientation?

The reason I ask is because there has been at least one study which showed that there were differences in the brains of heterosexual and homosexual individuals e.g. a heterosexual male brain has more in common with a homosexual female brain than it does with a homosexual male brain and the alternate that a homosexual male brain has more in common with a heterosexual female brain than otherwise. The study is relatively small so comes with all the caveats that entails but it is at least prima facie evidence that nature plays a large role in sexual orientation and that you can be born gay. Source although you could look up the original study from there.

Some fetishes may be learned and indeed nurture will often have an impact but to say it is the only influence seems a little bit too certain given that we probably don't know all there is to know about the determinants yet.

 

[Woden]

Yes and there is a huge gay conspiracy to cover up gay abuse, because the gays know that's where half of their "new recruits" come from. If it the spot light was put on it, and the abusers were stopped the number of gays would drop drastically, along with their political influence.

Gayluminati?

 

[Richdog]

Sexual promiscuity is at an all time high. With the rise in popular media (cheaper TVs, cheaper internet, cheaper computers, phones, tablets, etc.) the world is being fed tonnes of sex propaganda.

We humble Overclocker-ers might not notice this, but the current generation of young girls are growing up idolising Beyonce, Rihanna et al. (and Justin Beiber, who I'll get to later). Boys and girls are becoming sexually active at unprecedented ages. Lets face it, you rarely, if ever, see "celebrity idols" fully or decently clothed these days.

For example (among many), on several occasions I have witnessed girls who I thought had completely forgotten to wear a skirt over their tights (these weren't jeggings).

Now this is where Justin Bieber comes in. These young girls are growing up believing Justin Bieber is a man. When they become sexually active, the age of which is also getting younger and younger, they will naturally limit themselves to skinny-jeans wearing borderline homosexuals. Gone will be the days when women were attracted to manly-men.

This brings me onto the topic of homosexuality. (I stress that I'm not judging homosexuality in any way, merely discussing the evolutionary impact of increasing homosexuality.)
The media is full of homosexuality. Gok Wan, Alan Carr, David Walliams et al, are filling the media with gayness. These days, heterosexuality is being phased out as a necessity of life and homosexuality is being influx as a choice of life. Gone are the days when adolescents having their first sexual attractions initially tried to like girls, and only turned gay if it didn't work. Now it's a choice and they're both normal, a kid growing up will think "ah I remember that guy saying liking boys is normal" and will initially start having homosex with his buddies rather than even trying to get a girlfriend for heterosex.


I'm not saying decent women and straight men will be wiped out in a months time; I'm simply predicting that they will become scarce, like ancient tribes are today, in 100 to 5,000 years time.

Proof of why religion has no place in modern society.

 

[asim18]

The reason I ask is because there has been at least one study which showed that there were differences in the brains of heterosexual and homosexual individuals e.g. a heterosexual male brain has more in common with a homosexual female brain than it does with a homosexual male brain and the alternate that a homosexual male brain has more in common with a heterosexual female brain than otherwise. The study is relatively small so comes with all the caveats that entails but it is at least prima facie evidence that nature plays a large role in sexual orientation and that you can be born gay.

That doesn't mean you're born gay. Well not conceived gay anyway.

Changes in the brain happen continuously. Even right now new connections are forming and others are deforming. This is why I said I cant be gay because I've passed sexual maturation (puberty). The connections in my brain have "fixed" or matured. In a sexually immature individual these changes can happen when you're 10 hours old or even 10 years old.

 

[Woden]

So you're very firmly on the nurture side of the debate then, to the point where you won't accept that nature has a role?

The reason I ask is because there has been at least one study which showed that there were differences in the brains of heterosexual and homosexual individuals e.g. a heterosexual male brain has more in common with a homosexual female brain than it does with a homosexual male brain and the alternate that a homosexual male brain has more in common with a heterosexual female brain than otherwise. The study is relatively small so comes with all the caveats that entails but it is at least prima facie evidence that nature plays a large role in sexual orientation and that you can be born gay.

Some fetishes may be learned and indeed nurture will often have an impact but to say it is the only influence seems a little bit too certain given what evidence is available.

The whole thing is very interesting. Unfortunately studies like this are usually met with hostility from many angles. I can understand why, if something akin to a "gay gene" were ever discovered, no doubt there would be some jumping back on the eugenics kick.

But, being i myself, I would like to know why. No other reason, just to know. We know what causes hair my colour, eye colour, why I dont like carrots. But this seems to be some sort of taboo subject.