45 replies to this topic

[us3yournam3]

Specifically which 5-Htp receptors "regulate" so to say homosexuality, and how would one negate it?

[iseethelight]

It's not just 5htp. I'm a straight guy. I took somehigh dose pure bcaa  once and within an hour I had full blown homosexual urges and fantasies. It subsided within a couple of hours.. It freaked me out but it also made me realize that gays don't choose to be, it's a chemical imbalance, it's genetics.  BCAA lowers lowers both dopamine and serotonin, norepinephrine etc. So I couldn't tell you which one. Could be some obscure neurotransmitter coming to the forefront, there are a couple dozens or more of them. So it's hard.

Edited by iseethelight, 05 May 2016 - 02:09 AM.

[umop 3pisdn]

Sexuality isn't a chemical switch in your brain, it's way too complex for that model to work. It's like taking a drug to suddenly become left-handed or have a completely different personality or something. There's some wiring you can change and some you're stuck with. We're looking at not only phenomena that apparently have genetic and pre-natal bases or determinants, they've also developed and grown with us throughout our lives. At some point you just have to accept that it is a part of your own unique perspective of the world, just like all of those other things that might make us different from another person.

Edited by umop 3pisdn, 05 May 2016 - 02:39 AM.

[platypus]

What??

[PeaceAndProsperity]

I keep reading on other forums for celibacy I frequent how after the users have masturbated they feel like a sissy and have various homosexual urges, but they only have heterosexual urges during abstinence. It's definitely chemical in some.

 

Also, most homosexual men who act like women will show their manly, true side if they get annoyed too much, just like with the "transsexual" men. You push them too hard and suddenly they want to strangulate you.. So much for that femininity haha..

 

Some of the homosexual urges heterosexual men get is obviously due to pornography viewing, the camera filming the male parts in the video, and some weird psychological phenomenon happening. Some of it is due to experiences in the childhood (this one has been documented over and over again, boys who are raped almost always turn homosexual even though they weren't before).

 

Like psychologists say, in case it is psychological and not just a chemical imbalance, observe your experience and see notice when you have the experience, notice what triggers it and when it goes away, and so on.

[PeaceAndProsperity]

Sexuality isn't a chemical switch in your brain, it's way too complex for that model to work. It's like taking a drug to suddenly become left-handed or have a completely different personality or something. There's some wiring you can change and some you're stuck with. We're looking at not only phenomena that apparently have genetic and pre-natal bases or determinants, they've also developed and grown with us throughout our lives. At some point you just have to accept that it is a part of your own unique perspective of the world, just like all of those other things that might make us different from another person.

How can you explain how "transsexual" men on female hrt eventually get homosexual urges? It's definitely chemical. It could be a changing of the brain structure but I definitely do not believe that since these men exhibit typical male violence patterns and dominance patterns in their behaviors, such that if provoked they would indulge in violence and dominance typical of men even in spite their very low levels of testosterone.

[platypus]

Weird stuff in this thread. 

 

Many homosexuals are very manly. 

 

Also, there are homosexual transsexuals, i.e. men who turn into women and then want to sleep with women. A person who undergoes a sex change and then has sex with members of the (new) opposite sex are not homosexual, but heterosexual. 

[maik2013]

There is general homosexuality and the recent rise of it. The first i think is either genetic or hormonal. Some guys are hardwired to be attracted to men. But some have just hormonal deviations from the norm. Low DHT is one of them. But i do think there are more. The recent rise has more to do with xenoestrogens, porn use and the emasculation of men in the west. I think there are studies about it, that a fraction of porn users get homosexual thoughts over time. 

[maxwatt]

Some may be due to estrogen mimetics found in plastics and other things in the environment.  But the old mantra from the 60's applies here:  "if it feels good, do it. "  Otherwise, don't.

[Kinesis]

Weird stuff in this thread. 

 

Many homosexuals are very manly. 

 

Also, there are homosexual transsexuals, i.e. men who turn into women and then want to sleep with women. A person who undergoes a sex change and then has sex with members of the (new) opposite sex are not homosexual, but heterosexual. 

 

If the sex change really changed gender and not just superficial traits.  If a male had an XY chromosome pair in each of some 37 trillion cells and then underwent surgical and hormonal sex change treatment, but still had all those trillions of XY chromsomes, then some might question whether a sex change has really taken place.  For it to be an unequivocal sex change, all those chromosomes would have to be changed too.

 

However, a man who has a sex change that wants to sleep with women who have had a sex change, would still be heterosexual ...

 

Edited by Kinesis, 05 May 2016 - 08:49 PM.

[us3yournam3]

Sexuality isn't a chemical switch in your brain, it's way too complex for that model to work. It's like taking a drug to suddenly become left-handed or have a completely different personality or something. There's some wiring you can change and some you're stuck with. We're looking at not only phenomena that apparently have genetic and pre-natal bases or determinants, they've also developed and grown with us throughout our lives. At some point you just have to accept that it is a part of your own unique perspective of the world, just like all of those other things that might make us different from another person.

Everything is a chemical switch, and everything can be manipulated with, we just need to figure out how.

 

I keep reading on other forums for celibacy I frequent how after the users have masturbated they feel like a sissy and have various homosexual urges, but they only have heterosexual urges during abstinence. It's definitely chemical in some.

 

Also, most homosexual men who act like women will show their manly, true side if they get annoyed too much, just like with the "transsexual" men. You push them too hard and suddenly they want to strangulate you.. So much for that femininity haha..

 

Some of the homosexual urges heterosexual men get is obviously due to pornography viewing, the camera filming the male parts in the video, and some weird psychological phenomenon happening. Some of it is due to experiences in the childhood (this one has been documented over and over again, boys who are raped almost always turn homosexual even though they weren't before).

 

Like psychologists say, in case it is psychological and not just a chemical imbalance, observe your experience and see notice when you have the experience, notice what triggers it and when it goes away, and so on.

Indeed I felt like a sissy after masturbation, that's why I limit it as much as possible. Oh if only you knew more about that "weird psychological phenomenon" :p. I have to add that everything psyhological is also chemical. And finally, what should we do then, watch only female on female action ?

 

 

Weird stuff in this thread. 

 

Many homosexuals are very manly. 

 

Also, there are homosexual transsexuals, i.e. men who turn into women and then want to sleep with women. A person who undergoes a sex change and then has sex with members of the (new) opposite sex are not homosexual, but heterosexual. 

 

If the sex change really changed gender and not just superficial traits.  If a male had an XY chromosome pair in each of some 37 trillion cells and then underwent surgical and hormonal sex change treatment, but still had all those trillions of XY chromsomes, then some might question whether a sex change has really taken place.  For it to be an unequivocal sex change, all those chromosomes would have to be changed too.

 

However, a man who has a sex change that wants to sleep with women who have had a sex change, would still be heterosexual ...

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

[platypus]

 

Sexuality isn't a chemical switch in your brain, it's way too complex for that model to work. It's like taking a drug to suddenly become left-handed or have a completely different personality or something. There's some wiring you can change and some you're stuck with. We're looking at not only phenomena that apparently have genetic and pre-natal bases or determinants, they've also developed and grown with us throughout our lives. At some point you just have to accept that it is a part of your own unique perspective of the world, just like all of those other things that might make us different from another person.

Everything is a chemical switch, and everything can be manipulated with, we just need to figure out how.

Incorrect statement, brain structures have a lot to do with everything and many of them formed already when you were in the womb. 

[Kinesis]

I wonder from a biological point of view if homosexuality might play an evolutionary role.  Maybe to control population growth.  I don't have studies to cite, but I recall reading once that it was more common in younger siblings than older, which might imply that at a young age genetic expression was sensitive to a sort of 'we're already doing pretty well' factor at a family level.  It may also turn out that homosexuality is more prevalent in areas of high population density than lower population density, e.g. in cities than in rural areas, which would also tend to support such a speculation.  Again, I have no data at hand, but wouldn't be surprised if someone went looking for it it could be found.  Going even further out on speculative limb, the same considerations might be extended to interest in pornography.

 

As for what mechanisms might be at play, I haven't a clue.  But it's pretty well accepted that sexual orientation isn't an absolute either/or proposition; that is, that it spans a spectrum from unipolar heterosexuality to bisexuality to unipolar homosexuality.  This does suggest there is room for manipulation in individuals for whom sexual orientation has some ambiguity.

 

[PeaceAndProsperity]

I wonder from a biological point of view if homosexuality might play an evolutionary role.  Maybe to control population growth. 

 

Random violence and killings seems to have done a pretty good job for much of humanity's existence. I don't think there's need for a second or third mechanism of natural population control.

[Kinesis]

 

I wonder from a biological point of view if homosexuality might play an evolutionary role.  Maybe to control population growth. 

 

Random violence and killings seems to have done a pretty good job for much of humanity's existence. I don't think there's need for a second or third mechanism of natural population control.

 

 

Me neither.  But it's not up to us, is it?
 

[us3yournam3]

 

 

I wonder from a biological point of view if homosexuality might play an evolutionary role.  Maybe to control population growth. 

 

Random violence and killings seems to have done a pretty good job for much of humanity's existence. I don't think there's need for a second or third mechanism of natural population control.

 

 

Me neither.  But it's not up to us, is it?
 

 

Yes it is, the way you're leading your own life is part of your and the species' evolution.

[wanderlust]

Table manners gentlemen

the line of this conversation is currently a Hate crime here in the UK
and with good reason ,  the LGBT  community deserves equal  and fair treatment .
as a straight man ,secure in his sexuality I enjoy  the vibrancy they add to English culture .and what they choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms is perfectly healthy and fine with me.

however, this conversation is an interesting read and has some value so

can we please reframe this conversation from one that is shockingly homophobic and transphobic into something socially acceptable.

we could move this conversation    into better terms if we talked about how we humans could change the gender and sexuality we are Born with as a personal choice to enhance our personal freedom and happiness with out any reference to one sexuality being better than another.

Or shall I message the admin and request this topic be deleted ?
before all of lounge city is branded homophobic & transphobic

 

[Baten]

It's pretty civil so far though. But yes, controversial topics like these can quickly invite the wrong people, or cause drama.

 

We can just see how it goes, though, I guess.

[us3yournam3]

I'm all about being in tune with human nature, improving it even and it's a long way ahead before I figure everything out, but homoerotic thoughts only weaken one I find.

[Kinesis]

 

 

 

I wonder from a biological point of view if homosexuality might play an evolutionary role.  Maybe to control population growth. 

 

Random violence and killings seems to have done a pretty good job for much of humanity's existence. I don't think there's need for a second or third mechanism of natural population control.

 

 

Me neither.  But it's not up to us, is it?
 

 

Yes it is, the way you're leading your own life is part of your and the species' evolution.

 

 

That referred to whether there is a need for a second or third mechanism, not how you lead your life.  Context ... ;-)

 

[bossmanglb]

I wonder from a biological point of view if homosexuality might play an evolutionary role.  Maybe to control population growth.  I don't have studies to cite, but I recall reading once that it was more common in younger siblings than older, which might imply that at a young age genetic expression was sensitive to a sort of 'we're already doing pretty well' factor at a family level.  It may also turn out that homosexuality is more prevalent in areas of high population density than lower population density, e.g. in cities than in rural areas, which would also tend to support such a speculation.  Again, I have no data at hand, but wouldn't be surprised if someone went looking for it it could be found.  Going even further out on speculative limb, the same considerations might be extended to interest in pornography.

 

As for what mechanisms might be at play, I haven't a clue.  But it's pretty well accepted that sexual orientation isn't an absolute either/or proposition; that is, that it spans a spectrum from unipolar heterosexuality to bisexuality to unipolar homosexuality.  This does suggest there is room for manipulation in individuals for whom sexual orientation has some ambiguity.

 

 

While biological and unchosen, homosexuality is not substantially heritable in any Mendelian sense. Monozygous twin discordance is too high. 

Neither are their sufficient reproductive benefits to overcome its severe reproductive hit. 

 

A kind of reproductive sterility, it's a clearly a disease.

In males, the most likely etiology of homosexuality is pathogenic at some level. 

Edited by bossmanglb, 11 May 2016 - 05:44 PM.

[nowayout]

I wonder from a biological point of view if homosexuality might play an evolutionary role.  Maybe to control population growth.

 

In most cultures until recently most gay men got married and had kids due to social expectations, so I doubt this hypothesis.

 

Even if this were not the case, I don't think there is any good model for how a gene that supposedly reduces your number of descendants would become more common (or even just stable) in the population. Even recessive traits such as sickle cell anemia that actually kill people directly are present in certain populations because they would increase your number of descendants (by, e.g., protecting carriers against malaria), not reduce them.

 

In any case, since there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, why bother trying to change it?

Edited by nowayout, 11 May 2016 - 10:32 PM.

[nowayout]

 

While biological and unchosen, homosexuality is not substantially heritable in any Mendelian sense. Monozygous twin discordance is too high. 

 

Some discordance exists but actually concordance is substantially higher (about 50%) than would be the case if it were not genetic (somewhere less than 1%). This argues for a substantial genetic component.

 

Having said this, I don't think in a free society it matters if it is nature, nurture, personal choice (as it may be for some bisexuals), or any combination of the above. Everyone should pursue their own happiness without judgment.

 

It should be mentioned that so-called "conversion therapy" (which tries to change sexual orientation through various means) is generally considered quackery, i.e., without scientific basis.

Edited by nowayout, 11 May 2016 - 10:41 PM.

[nowayout]

 

Neither are their sufficient reproductive benefits to overcome its severe reproductive hit.

 

The continued existence of gay people after millions of years of hominin evolution clearly argues against this statement.

Edited by nowayout, 11 May 2016 - 10:37 PM.

[bossmanglb]

 

I wonder from a biological point of view if homosexuality might play an evolutionary role.  Maybe to control population growth.

 

In most cultures until recently most gay men got married and had kids due to social expectations, so I doubt this hypothesis.

 

Even if this were not the case, I don't think there is any good model for how a gene that supposedly reduces your number of descendants would become more common (or even just stable) in the population. Even recessive traits such as sickle cell anemia that actually kill people directly are present in certain populations because they would increase your number of descendants (by, e.g., protecting carriers against malaria), not reduce them.

 

In any case, since there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, why bother trying to change it?

 

 

Even assuming that's true for the the entirety of homo sap's history, "most" gay men having children is not precisely relevant.

 

Gay men must do more than reproduce. In the long run, they must reproductively compete with heterosexuals.  

If heritable gay behavior causes even a 1% reduction in reproductive success it will in short order be inexorably eliminated. 

 

We reproduce sexually. You'd think interest in the opposite sex is well, you know, kind of a big deal lol.

 

In modern societies, homosexuality has a reproductive penalty of about 90%. That's nigh worse than schizophrenia or falciparum malaria. 

Homosexuality shows no evidence of the heterozygous advantage of something like sickle cell. If it is protective, it must protect against something totally unknown and truly horrific. And, moreover, that's a ridiculous default hypothesis.

 

 

If someone is born blind, we know something's wrong.

If someone is born deaf, we know something's wrong. 

If someone is born asexual, we know something's wrong.

 

From a Darwinian perspective, homosexuality is no more normal than 3-5% of the population,  in the prime, of youth suddenly combusting.

It's obviously a disease from any Darwinian standpoint.

 

There are plenty of potential reasons to want to change it. 

For starters,  most people on the globe reject the premise: they do think it's wrong -- morally or otherwise.

 

And even those who don't, most still find it repulsive, a social hindrance, opposed to their genetic interests, et cetera.

[bossmanglb]

 

 

Neither are their sufficient reproductive benefits to overcome its severe reproductive hit.

 

The continued existence of gay people after millions of years of hominin evolution clearly argues against this statement.

 

 

 

No. 

Progress for the tick is not progress for the dog. 

The mere existence of homosexuality is not persuasive evidence for its fitness. 

No more than the continued existence of the syphilis, narcolepsy, or small pox is evidence that these are nonpathological developments of mankind.

 

Say, I tell you that over a long period of time, I have reliably observed a sizable fraction of mice who are sexually attracted to cats. 

And the mice are promptly eaten.

 

Do you just say, "Ho hum. That's not surprising at all. Exactly what I'd expect! It's just an altogether normal, beautiful expression of alternative sexuality."

 

 

No, of course not. No one is that stupid. Something"s gone wrong. This is a bug. Not a feature. 

Any sufficiently disinterested alien observer of earth would make the same judgement about human homosexuality. 

 

This is not a made up example. We have model of parasitic manipulation of sexual mammalian behavior with

Toxoplasma gondii and mice: 

 

And it's not the only one. Another parasite feminizes the behavior of male crabs.

Toxo effects humans, as well. This is a sadly underappreciated phenomenon, but fertile field of study. 

 

 

And this is exactly what you'd predict from Darwinian first principles. Evolution has optimised function.

 

If you go to Africa, and you find a population where 20% of the young men are infertile, do you look for an sterility gene?

If in another population, 10% of the babies are born blind, is your first inclination to frantically search for a blindness gene?

In what universe is it sane to assume this is just healthy human development?

 

If a condition occurs with a frequency greater than the background noise of copy errors, strikes early, is deleterious to reproduction, lacks

heterozygous advantage, and is not syndromic,  the overwhelming probability is that there is a pathogen involved at some point in the causal chain. 

 

 

 

N.B. In these discussions, it's important to distinguish facultative homosexuality from obligate, preferrential homosexuality. In extreme circumstances, men  will substitute women with weaker, submissive men. As this reverses and has no impact on fitness, it's no more an evolutionary conundrum than autoeroticism or your dog humping the furniture. To my knowledge, the only other species to consistently demonstrate preferential homosexuality is sheep. Suggestively, humans have domesticated and lived with sheep for some time. Any efforts to reverse homosexuality, should probably start with that model. Plenty of natural incentives for sheep farmers, incidentally.

Edited by bossmanglb, 12 May 2016 - 04:37 AM.

[bossmanglb]

 

 

While biological and unchosen, homosexuality is not substantially heritable in any Mendelian sense. Monozygous twin discordance is too high. 

 

Some discordance exists but actually concordance is substantially higher (about 50%) than would be the case if it were not genetic (somewhere less than 1%). This argues for a substantial genetic component.

 

Having said this, I don't think in a free society it matters if it is nature, nurture, personal choice (as it may be for some bisexuals), or any combination of the above. Everyone should pursue their own happiness without judgment.

 

It should be mentioned that so-called "conversion therapy" (which tries to change sexual orientation through various means) is generally considered quackery, i.e., without scientific basis.

 

 

Last I checked, the concordance *upper-bound* estimates ranged from 20-40%.   

 

Everything's genetic. I've intentionally said heritable. In any event, the discordance levels are more than high enough to suggest something nonheritable and likely environmental at work.

 

A pathogenic etiology for homosexuality is not inconsistent with a nontrivial genetic contribution.

Genes code for immune cells as much as neurons.

 

 

This has nothing to do with ethically normative practice. Something can be biologically wrong and morally neutral or even virtuous.

Even if homosexuality is a form of mental sterility, you can't conclude from that any sort of moral failing.

Nonetheless, it's not hard to see how once it becomes optional, it likely goes away purely by choice via preference cascades.

 

Yes, I'd agree that conversion therapy is generally considered quackery. 

 

I'm unaware of any method of reliably converting orientation. I think people have tried hardest with paedophilia.

But all paraphilias appear pretty much permanent.

 

With modern methods there's probably a lot more that could be done if it weren't a political mind field. No one can fund such research in the US.

Any cure that comes will probably be found accidentally; if intentionally, then in China, Israel, Japan, South Korea or Russia. 

[platypus]

Trying to change one's sexuality is generally a really bad idea, unless not doing it would mean hurting other people and ending up in jail. 

[nowayout]

 

 

 

While biological and unchosen, homosexuality is not substantially heritable in any Mendelian sense. Monozygous twin discordance is too high. 

 

Some discordance exists but actually concordance is substantially higher (about 50%) than would be the case if it were not genetic (somewhere less than 1%). This argues for a substantial genetic component.

 

Having said this, I don't think in a free society it matters if it is nature, nurture, personal choice (as it may be for some bisexuals), or any combination of the above. Everyone should pursue their own happiness without judgment.

 

It should be mentioned that so-called "conversion therapy" (which tries to change sexual orientation through various means) is generally considered quackery, i.e., without scientific basis.

 

 

Last I checked, the concordance *upper-bound* estimates ranged from 20-40%.   

 

Everything's genetic. I've intentionally said heritable. In any event, the discordance levels are more than high enough to suggest something nonheritable and likely environmental at work.

 

 

 

Well no, even assuming it is 20%, this means homosexuality is substantially heritable, since 20% is vastly larger than the less than 1% concordance that would have been the case if it was not heritable.

 

There are many known gene variations that make a difference of less than 10% in the occurrence of some trait, so even the 20% estimate you quote is huge.
 

Edited by nowayout, 12 May 2016 - 02:57 PM.

[Ben]

the line of this conversation is currently a Hate crime here in the UK

 

This is a science conversation you SJW censorship fascist. Keep your beak out if you want to discuss politics and not science.