Remember all those wack shrinks from back in the day who were always blaming the mothers for doting too much on the sons, and deducing that this was why we’re all limp-wristed fairy types? A group of scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis are claiming that this isn’t exactly incorrect. Their theory is that being a homo is linked to “epimarks” which are “extra layers of information that control how certain genes are expressed.” The story is that these “epimarks” are normally erased between generations. But these guys are theorizing that in gays they aren’t erased, and mothers pass it to their sons and fathers to their daughters. This is from an evolutionary biologist at UC Santa Barbara and not from a screeching twink on a gay pride float so keep reading.
“These epi-marks protect fathers and mothers from excess or underexposure to testosterone — when they carry over to opposite-sex offspring, it can cause the masculinization of females or the feminization of males,” Rice says, which can lead to a child becoming gay. Rice notes that these markers are “highly variable” and that only strong epi-marks will result in a homosexual offspring.
I like the strong part but not so keen on the whole bit about me being gay cuz’ these epimarks made me girly? Wiliiam Rice, the leader of the study and the biologist at UC Santa Barbara, says that this is easy to test and they can verify it in just six months by doing some nerdy science stuff with genomes. No, really – me liking man ass is because nature didn’t want my mom growing a beard? Thoughts?
– J. Harvey
I almost wrote this very same post, except the title of mine was going to be “You Got It From Your Mama”.
I almost wrote this very same post, except the title of mine was going to be “You Got It From Your Mama”.
I almost wrote this very same post, except the title of mine was going to be “You Got It From Your Mama”.
I almost wrote this very same post, except the title of mine was going to be “You Got It From Your Mama”.
I almost wrote this very same post, except the title of mine was going to be “You Got It From Your Mama”.
It really would have just been an excuse to link to this music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPoWDLg-FjE
It really would have just been an excuse to link to this music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPoWDLg-FjE
It really would have just been an excuse to link to this music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPoWDLg-FjE
It really would have just been an excuse to link to this music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPoWDLg-FjE
It really would have just been an excuse to link to this music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPoWDLg-FjE
I’ve read how it’s the mothers fault, biologically speaking. The more children a woman has, the less testosterone she makes. So the last male child has a higher chance of being gay. Usually… now, I’m the youngest of my parents children. I like the cock & ass. I have 3 cousins who are gay (one died of AIDS some year ago, although he was the firstborn). The other 2, one is a lesbian, the other gay. Both are the youngest. But then, my father is also gay, and the oldest of his group.
More bull-shit form the world of medicine
“bull-shit form the world of medicine”? Huh? The same medicine that has cured countless disease, ended suffering, gave us insight into how our bodies work with an understanding far beyond our ancestors claiming whatever ailed us was bad humours and evil spirits? That kind of bullshit?
13 seconds in I had to turn it off… why, oh why didst thou post that?
Ugh, so stupid. Why not go a find a cure for cancer or something important.
It would make sense though; both of my mom’s brothers were gay and everyone on my dad’s side is straight as an arrow. Well, except me lol.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that hman probably wasn’t suggesting that everything that comes out of the medical field is bull-shit. I’d also like to say that medicine hasn’t ended suffering because there’s still plenty of that around in this world. Also our ancestors had a highly sophisticated understanding of their bodies that went way beyond ascribing fault for illness to miasma, out of balance humors, and evil spirits. To suggest that the past is unsophisticated because they described and understood the world in a different fashion than we do is foolishly Whiggish. And I would agree that the idea that being gay results from a man being feminized and being a lesbian means a woman has been masculinized is in fact bull-shit. It reveals that these scientists have a complete lack of understanding of the differences between gender ideologies, sexuality, and sex. Perhaps if they took the time to look up from their petri dishes and peruse some literature written by their cousins in the humanities then they might actually start developing better models for understanding gender, sexuality, and gender on a biological level. This is in fact bull-shit, pure and simple.
insulting
“My fear is that there currently exists no framework in which to ask about the origins or development of individual gay identity that is not already structured by an implicit, trans-individual Western project or fantasy of eradicating that identity.” — Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, _Epistemology of the Closet_ (1990)
This field of study is essential and fascinating; if you allow yourself to step back from your own thoughts and opinions. It is not meant as an assault. Being able to clearly show that homosexuality is genetically based would potentially annihilate the “lifestyle choice” argument that is often totted about as a damnation of homosexuality. I do see the theory detailed above as an interesting and potentially groundbreaking one; however, I would much rather see a theory that focuses on a potential evolutionary purpose for homosexuality. Perhaps it’s beneficial for animal and human populations to have homosexual members. If not, then why is homosexuality naturally found in nature among animal populations? What’s the connection? Is there one?
Here is a larger article from Science Daily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121211083212.htm
As for those of you getting offended by the terms feminization and masculinization please consider the fact that these are not being used in the cultural sense, but in the biological/genetic sense. For lack of a term our society can easily understand, the article and explanation utilizes the gender/role specific terms, while sadly over generalizing and simplifying. It’s a tactic many journalists and the scientific community uses to aid those with a lesser understanding of the scientific terms regarding biology and genetics. This allows a wider audience, including other scientists from vastly unrelated fields, to grasp this potential discovery.
What the theory explores is that the role of various enzymes and hormones during our development can easily be altered, redirected, and completely switched if epi-marks are passed on by a specific parent. This does not cheapen human expression, sexuality, or our individual gender identity. Instead it is merely a biological basis to aid in our understanding of the human condition. It also provides a plausible explanation at the genetic level that can help further our sociological development and exploration, yet by no means fully define it.
except…gay men have been shown to have higher testosterone levels…
There are some good working theories on the genetic advantage of a group containing homosexuality. I only know them from some books though, and don’t have fancy links. However, Mary E Clark’s In Search of Human Nature, has some interesting perspective on it, and is a good place to start. The theory as I understand it is interlinked to co-operation and bonding, and how social animals tend to have higher incidences of homosexual expression. The obvious advantage is that basically, a group can get larger with more young males in it, if not all the males are competing for the same thing (females, babies). And group survival is more important in many ways than individual survival or gene transmission. (That is way way oversimplifying it) However, it is a factor as to why Bonobos are able to live in larger groups with more males than Chimpanzees.
The History of Homosexuality is another good title on the subject, as the concept of an assigned ‘sexuality’ is relatively modern it gets clumsy when applying it to the course of human evolution.
I actually would like to do a film about this very subject as there is a lot of disparate information that someone ought to pull together sometime soon as it’s becoming a lil’ pertinent.
There are some good working theories on the genetic advantage of a group containing homosexuality. I only know them from some books though, and don’t have fancy links. However, Mary E Clark’s In Search of Human Nature, has some interesting perspective on it, and is a good place to start. The theory as I understand it is interlinked to co-operation and bonding, and how social animals tend to have higher incidences of homosexual expression. The obvious advantage is that basically, a group can get larger with more young males in it, if not all the males are competing for the same thing (females, babies). And group survival is more important in many ways than individual survival or gene transmission. (That is way way oversimplifying it) However, it is a factor as to why Bonobos are able to live in larger groups with more males than Chimpanzees.
The History of Homosexuality is another good title on the subject, as the concept of an assigned ‘sexuality’ is relatively modern it gets clumsy when applying it to the course of human evolution.
I actually would like to do a film about this very subject as there is a lot of disparate information that someone ought to pull together sometime soon as it’s becoming a lil’ pertinent.
There are some good working theories on the genetic advantage of a group containing homosexuality. I only know them from some books though, and don’t have fancy links. However, Mary E Clark’s In Search of Human Nature, has some interesting perspective on it, and is a good place to start. The theory as I understand it is interlinked to co-operation and bonding, and how social animals tend to have higher incidences of homosexual expression. The obvious advantage is that basically, a group can get larger with more young males in it, if not all the males are competing for the same thing (females, babies). And group survival is more important in many ways than individual survival or gene transmission. (That is way way oversimplifying it) However, it is a factor as to why Bonobos are able to live in larger groups with more males than Chimpanzees.
The History of Homosexuality is another good title on the subject, as the concept of an assigned ‘sexuality’ is relatively modern it gets clumsy when applying it to the course of human evolution.
I actually would like to do a film about this very subject as there is a lot of disparate information that someone ought to pull together sometime soon as it’s becoming a lil’ pertinent.
As was stated above by Prolapsingbunnies, they aren’t using the terms in the same context as you are.
They are and they aren’t. They’re referring to a process of shifting from one biological sex to another; I get that. But that’s not where I’m finding a problem. There is an assumption present in this study/article that sexuality and sex are linked in the sense that in the “normal” order of things males are only sexually attracted to females and females are only sexually attracted to males. So male homosexuals then are like women because they want to have sex with other men. And female homosexuals are like men because they want to have sex with other women. This assumption lies at the heart of a lot of studies trying to investigate the biological origins (if any) of homosexuality. And yet science is not really closer to understanding the biology of homosexuality than it was in the 70s. Perhaps it’s time this assumption is critically interrogated.
They are and they aren’t. They’re referring to a process of shifting from one biological sex to another; I get that. But that’s not where I’m finding a problem. There is an assumption present in this study/article that sexuality and sex are linked in the sense that in the “normal” order of things males are only sexually attracted to females and females are only sexually attracted to males. So male homosexuals then are like women because they want to have sex with other men. And female homosexuals are like men because they want to have sex with other women. This assumption lies at the heart of a lot of studies trying to investigate the biological origins (if any) of homosexuality. And yet science is not really closer to understanding the biology of homosexuality than it was in the 70s. Perhaps it’s time this assumption is critically interrogated.
Evolution’s Rainbow by Joan Roughgarden is good book to look at.
i’m the oldest of my siblings. and i am a same-gender-seeker (by at least 91%); as far as i know, my younger siblings are not same-gender-seeker (by at least 97%).
incidentally, i have a comparatively-lower libido than my peers (in my opinion).
maybe there is something to this “testosterone” component of genetic predisposition.
maybe not.
if i am, apparently, wired to experience a reduced-level of imperative to shoot my load (in/on/because of/with other dudes), then what explains my peers feeling a higher-than-average level of imperative to orgasm (on/with/in/because of other dudes)?
does testosterone really do what some scientists seem to be theorizing…or is it rather, the testosterone that i did receive (and presently make) didn’t (and doesn’t) reach all “hetero-relevant” and “sex-positive” parts of my brain (consistently)?
i am willing to wager that for every one “Nelly the Fabulous” type and for every one “Bruno the (Leather Clad) Destroyer” type, there are 78 “Average Joe” types whose only real distinguishing characteristic is they happen to be SGS.
maybe i should look over these studies, to see just what role testosterone is playing!
also, i have long-been a believer in the possibility that the disinclination/aversion to bringing forth off-spring is a function of “population control” — i personally know of one man who’s brought forth two children … who, 3 decades later, has long-since completely sworn his allegiance to boning biologically-born men only.
i know of one other man who had deluded himself into thinking he could be have a heterosexual relationship, and would have had children himself, except something happened to avert this.. ..and, a couple of decades later, he himself is 96% SGS.
i mention them, as way-of-allusion to all those other individuals (female and male) who, if they hadn’t felt compelled to go against their natures, would have fulfilled their role of keeping the population down as intended.
there is a catch to the “natural population regulation” theory: one has to be inclined to believe in Intelligent Design or/and a Man in The Sky.
i’m agnostic, and i’m not really into Spookisms… …but when i had considered just how much more competition for pussy there could be, if we fellows-all were at least bi-sexual, it had became harder for me to believe that the random cropping up of the homosexually-inclined (and its ilk) through the population, for what may very well have been millennia, is a complete coincidence.
then again.. ..what with sexuality being what it is, it would do all of us a lot of good to remember that we all are what we are, for different “internal” reasons. (this is within the same vein for why some have disposition of being submissive, and for some others to have a strong psychological aversion to any sort of fellatial activities but then harbour no especial problem with having their asses plowed.)
i am remain convinced that, if left to figure things out for themselves, humans would not have the hang-ups about “who” sticks “what” “where?” that we ‘educated folk’ have.
i’m the oldest of my siblings. and i am a same-gender-seeker (by at least 91%); as far as i know, my younger siblings are not same-gender-seeker (by at least 97%).
incidentally, i have a comparatively-lower libido than my peers (in my opinion).
maybe there is something to this “testosterone” component of genetic predisposition.
maybe not.
if i am, apparently, wired to experience a reduced-level of imperative to shoot my load (in/on/because of/with other dudes), then what explains my peers feeling a higher-than-average level of imperative to orgasm (on/with/in/because of other dudes)?
does testosterone really do what some scientists seem to be theorizing…or is it rather, the testosterone that i did receive (and presently make) didn’t (and doesn’t) reach all “hetero-relevant” and “sex-positive” parts of my brain (consistently)?
i am willing to wager that for every one “Nelly the Fabulous” type and for every one “Bruno the (Leather Clad) Destroyer” type, there are 78 “Average Joe” types whose only real distinguishing characteristic is they happen to be SGS.
maybe i should look over these studies, to see just what role testosterone is playing!
also, i have long-been a believer in the possibility that the disinclination/aversion to bringing forth off-spring is a function of “population control” — i personally know of one man who’s brought forth two children … who, 3 decades later, has long-since completely sworn his allegiance to boning biologically-born men only.
i know of one other man who had deluded himself into thinking he could be have a heterosexual relationship, and would have had children himself, except something happened to avert this.. ..and, a couple of decades later, he himself is 96% SGS.
i mention them, as way-of-allusion to all those other individuals (female and male) who, if they hadn’t felt compelled to go against their natures, would have fulfilled their role of keeping the population down as intended.
there is a catch to the “natural population regulation” theory: one has to be inclined to believe in Intelligent Design or/and a Man in The Sky.
i’m agnostic, and i’m not really into Spookisms… …but when i had considered just how much more competition for pussy there could be, if we fellows-all were at least bi-sexual, it had became harder for me to believe that the random cropping up of the homosexually-inclined (and its ilk) through the population, for what may very well have been millennia, is a complete coincidence.
then again.. ..what with sexuality being what it is, it would do all of us a lot of good to remember that we all are what we are, for different “internal” reasons. (this is within the same vein for why some have disposition of being submissive, and for some others to have a strong psychological aversion to any sort of fellatial activities but then harbour no especial problem with having their asses plowed.)
i am remain convinced that, if left to figure things out for themselves, humans would not have the hang-ups about “who” sticks “what” “where?” that we ‘educated folk’ have.
i’m the oldest of my siblings. and i am a same-gender-seeker (by at least 91%); as far as i know, my younger siblings are not same-gender-seeker (by at least 97%).
incidentally, i have a comparatively-lower libido than my peers (in my opinion).
maybe there is something to this “testosterone” component of genetic predisposition.
maybe not.
if i am, apparently, wired to experience a reduced-level of imperative to shoot my load (in/on/because of/with other dudes), then what explains my peers feeling a higher-than-average level of imperative to orgasm (on/with/in/because of other dudes)?
does testosterone really do what some scientists seem to be theorizing…or is it rather, the testosterone that i did receive (and presently make) didn’t (and doesn’t) reach all “hetero-relevant” and “sex-positive” parts of my brain (consistently)?
i am willing to wager that for every one “Nelly the Fabulous” type and for every one “Bruno the (Leather Clad) Destroyer” type, there are 78 “Average Joe” types whose only real distinguishing characteristic is they happen to be SGS.
maybe i should look over these studies, to see just what role testosterone is playing!
also, i have long-been a believer in the possibility that the disinclination/aversion to bringing forth off-spring is a function of “population control” — i personally know of one man who’s brought forth two children … who, 3 decades later, has long-since completely sworn his allegiance to boning biologically-born men only.
i know of one other man who had deluded himself into thinking he could be have a heterosexual relationship, and would have had children himself, except something happened to avert this.. ..and, a couple of decades later, he himself is 96% SGS.
i mention them, as way-of-allusion to all those other individuals (female and male) who, if they hadn’t felt compelled to go against their natures, would have fulfilled their role of keeping the population down as intended.
there is a catch to the “natural population regulation” theory: one has to be inclined to believe in Intelligent Design or/and a Man in The Sky.
i’m agnostic, and i’m not really into Spookisms… …but when i had considered just how much more competition for pussy there could be, if we fellows-all were at least bi-sexual, it had became harder for me to believe that the random cropping up of the homosexually-inclined (and its ilk) through the population, for what may very well have been millennia, is a complete coincidence.
then again.. ..what with sexuality being what it is, it would do all of us a lot of good to remember that we all are what we are, for different “internal” reasons. (this is within the same vein for why some have disposition of being submissive, and for some others to have a strong psychological aversion to any sort of fellatial activities but then harbour no especial problem with having their asses plowed.)
i am remain convinced that, if left to figure things out for themselves, humans would not have the hang-ups about “who” sticks “what” “where?” that we ‘educated folk’ have.
and still.. ..bi-sexuality, itself, doesn’t seem to be explained by these “epi-marks.”
not that it has to, right now.
all the variations in (and expressions of) sexuality doesn’t have to be accounted for, only by one sole factor.