Homosexuality and Population Control

The Science


Since I’ve begun studying neuropsychology, at university, and on my free time, I have learned a great deal about the human nervous system. By far, the greatest discovery of the last 100 years has been the malleability and plasticity of the human brain, how through various processes - neurogenesis (the creation of neurons, such as in the hippocampi), synaptogenesis (the creation of synapses - spaces between neurons where neurotransmission happens) and myelinogenesis (the creation of glia cells which enwrap the axon channels of neuron, adding to the speed in electrical transmission) - the brain literally change it’s structure over a lifetime.

Over the last decade or so, neuroplastic psychotherapies have been developed that seek to spur neuroplastic change within the brain by utilizing the power of attention and the power of emotion - the two main ingredients in facilitating brain change.

My main area of research is trauma - how the brain reacts when psychological trauma occurs, and how through psychotherapy, the client can learn to develop the neuropsychological capacity to regulate their emotional arousal, and overtime, literally “shape” the development of their cortical and subcortical brain networks.

The most essential technique in effecting change has been a combination of western psychological self introspection, as well as the eastern practice of mindfulness. Introspection allows us to gain knowledge of what is occurring within us - at the 3 generalized levels of processing within the mammalian nervous system: the autonomic/brain stem area, also called the “reptilian brain”; the limbic area, also called the “paleomammalian brain”; and the neocortex, also called the neomammalian brain. Since activities within the mind correspond to processes within these 3 networks, its helpful to recognize how the 3 levels interact in any particular experience.

Mindfuless is the “linchpin” that maintains forward progress. With mindfulness, one is taught to simply observe, remain open and objective, and watch non-judgementally what unfolds within your mental landscape. Initially, this can be hard, but overtime, one develops the orbitofrontal focus and dorsal-lateral fluidity to move with experiences without “holding” onto them in a self-judgemental and critical manner. Mindfulness actually works. People who say that looking inward and observing your inner world “makes things worse” have no learned how to remain mindful, and so adopt an unnecessarily pessimistic view of what people can know about themselves.

As powerful as mindfulness is, it is a mostly passive awareness that allows us to respond with equanimity, instead of automatically. When someone is dealing with a particular pathology (a rage disorder, such as in BPD, or depression, anxiety, obsessions, mania), it is imperative that one surrounds himself with positive and resilient people. This is the 3rd leg of neuroplastic change; there is the mind - where we place our attention; there is the brains processes i.e understanding its biases; and the other minds we interact with - the relationships we function and autoregulate within. When each of these factors are controlled, the brain begins to change.

Jaak Panksepp is a revolutionary neuroscientist whose theory of primary emotions is bound to change the field of psychology in the next 100 years. Jaak (pronounced Yak) has mapped 7 primary emotional systems that occur throughout the mammalian kingdom. They are: SEEKING, RAGE, LUST, FEAR, CARE, GRIEF, and PLAY. Unlike modern theorists who believe that the neocortex “reads out” emotional signals in subcortical areas before an affective state is experienced, Jaak has amply shown that it is not necessary - and its even unintelligible - to believe that higher brain regions (what he terms tertiary processes) are required to activate affective experiences, since we see all the time that animals, instead of being mindless automatons that react to stimuli (as behaviorists think) experience these primary emotions whenever they respond to unconditioned stimuli, even though they don’t possess a neocortex to “read out” this information for them.

Panksepps theory is modeled on Paul Macleans theory of the triune brain.




Animals like rats at and mice - who are often used in research - possess the reptilian and paleomammalian parts of the brain. Panksepp believes - and preeminent neuroscientists like Antonio Damasio have since begun to support - that inner brain regions produce the emotions we experience when we act. Similarly, a mouse which is scurrying around sniffing is EXPERIENCING the world from a primary level of awareness. This is a state Panksepps calls “anoetic” - without knowing, without reflection. Nevertheless, it is an experience of movement that is exquisitely tied in to outer and inner events; an outer stimulus might trigger an experience of SEEKING; or conversely, the brains natural bias towards movement, whether it be sensory, emotional, or homeostatic, will engender the inner experience of SEEKING.




This leads me to the topic of my discussion: homosexuality. Psychologists have debated back and forth about the etiology of homosexuality and so far we have no definite conclusions. But knowing what we do about child development, a few things can be said with certainty: both nature and nurture contribute to it’s development.

With regard to nature, so far no “gay genes” have been found, but the researcher Simon Levay (who is himself gay) discovered that a particular area in the hypothalamus called the INAH3, which appears to regulate sexual arousal, is smaller in gay men (resembling the size in woman) while in heterosexual men it is twice the size.

This doesn’t prove that homosexuality is “genetic”, because we don’t know if this is a cause or an effect of homosexual proclivities: as pointed out before, the brain is plastic. In london cabbies, for example, researchers found that compared with bus drivers, taxi drivers had greater gray matter volume in mid-posterior hippocampi and less volume in anterior hippocampi. Link. They deduced that this was the result of years of navigational experience which produced a great deal of spatial knowledge about Londons complicated street systems.

On the nurture side of the equation, researchers have noted the power of FEAR (in Panksepps language, these subcotical action systems energize our conscious experiences, and so, is the engine behind experience dependent plasticity) in energizing plastic development in directions that the FEAR system is cognitively and socially correlated with. In brain language, the subcortical FEAR pathways become strongly associated with upper limbic (insula, anterior cingulate) and neocortical areas (prefrontal cortex) which process emotions related to self, identity and preference.

[continued]

reply to post by Astrocyte


Of course, it would be wrong to say that every gay person is gay because they were “nurtured” to become that way. As mentioned, there are epigenetic aspects that rig the brain towards heterosexuality or homosexuality. But in the wrong context, a boy with mild feminine tendencies might be scolded and berated by his father for “being girly”, which in turn would bias his attention (orbitorontal cortex) towards negative self appraisals with regard to his masculinity. This confusing stimulus will prompt a GRIEF response, as well as a RAGE and FEAR response, synergistically combined at times, helping to establish cognitive/cortical orientations that augment the emotional system.

As some people have noticed, we tend to draw the thing we fear towards us. This may be due to the priming effect negative emotions have in biasing our attention - cortex - towards the thing that is feared. An example: if I fear experiencing emotions of shame in front of others, my unconscious modules will become “activated” - energized, when I am around other people - in situational contexts that might arouse the experience of shame. In the same way, a kid who has been lambasted about his sexuality will have his FEAR system activated when he sees a man without his top on - and this will, when puberty hits, produce LUST feelings - since one system can prime another system.

I’d like to mention at this point that I am completely in support of gay marriage - I am completely and utterly opposed to mistreating or belittling homosexuals. In my mind, were all brothers and sisters and so it’s imperative that we treat one another with respect, tolerance and compassion.

That being said, all the research we’ve done into the brains neuroplasticiy has shown that any of these primary emotion systems can be changed: RAGE can be diluted and tempered by cortical input i.e. understanding reflection. LUST can controlled; FEAR can be mastered. If this is so, and in every case we’ve studied, we’ve seen the remarkable force higher brain structures can exercise over lower brain structures (the most extreme example is shown by Yogis, for example, who can literally take control of their lowest brain networks, such as those which control breathing, heart rate, muscle tension, pain reception etc, allowing them to perform feats that 20 years ago were considered scientifically impossible). Given that this is the evidence, why don’t we ever hear about sexual neuroplasticity?

In my experience, there are 3 reasons for this.

1) Cognitive dissonance. Some researchers are just so caught up in cliches and having other people think for them, that they simply aren’t aware enough to come to an objective conclusion

2) FEAR. They will be marginalized and their contributions wont be acknowledged if they begin researching sexual neuroplasticity. I know many people who are interested in this area, but afraid to pursue this interest because of the effect it’ll have on their careers and reputations. I think most researchers fall into this category.

3) Social Planning. This is the only logical alternative to the above two possibilities. Many people today believe our planet is over-populated. The way to handle this, they argue, is to promote homosexuality as a way to reduce reproduction rates amongst the populations.

Now, I understand this fear people have about over-population. But at the same time, I feel it robs people of personal choice when you tell them that “feeling this way makes you this way” - when all the research today shows that the cortex can regulate how primary emotions interact with secondary and tertiary processes. Meaning: the associations that our upper brain areas build - for example, associating LUST + girls - is under our conscious control.

Whats your opinion of this? Should we promote homosexuality as a way to counter over-population? Or should people be given the choice to have (their own genetic) children if they so choose?

Astrocyte
reply to post by Astrocyte

 

Whats your opinion of this? Should we promote homosexuality as a way to counter over-population? Or should people be given the choice to have (their own genetic) children if they so choose?

Interesting read. Appreciate the time you took to put this together.

I'm going to wait until I'm better read on this Jaak Panksepp character before commenting in full, but wanted to give you some props.

Now, for the nasty part. ( c'mon now, you knew I wasn't going to let you off that easy, right? )

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy in the last few sentences. I'd say that developed countries are having trouble enough replacing their population, and are as much in a trouble because of overpopulation, as they are underpopulation in the coming years. The game changer may be teching our way out of the demographics to fill in the gap with AI robots.

You don't have to be homo to not have kids. In fact, more people than ever are choosing not to live together, get married, or have kids. Many I hear of choosing this lifestyle aren't even consciously reasoning it out. It seems to be instinctual to some degree. People have it better than ever, colliding with the notion that the next generation may have it much worse = no kiddos for me!

I wonder if you've heard of the influence mucking up of one's local environment has on the propensity to develop into a homo? Basically, I think everything is already in play. There's already been enough organization by groups wanting to warm people up to homo's. I think we can just let everything coast through on this front.

reply to post by Astrocyte


Having made decades of amateur sociological observations myself, it doesn't surprise me at all that you are interested ( both ) in trauma, and homosexuality.

Among my friends and acquaintances, they sort of go hand in hand, and I'm sorry for that. Good people hurting is not my thing.
Still, homosexuals and many other people seek legitimacy ( not aware that maybe they already have it ? ), and genetics is the latest venue.

I only hope science isn't hijacked any more than it already has been, by partisans.

The issue I have with stating that homosexuality is a combination of nature and nurture is that it gives validation to the label, which is just that...a label.

Obviously labels have legitimate uses and that's how we segment ourselves into being Raiders or Cowboys fans, but in the study of sexuality I think it is irresponsible at best.

Human beings have very complex social structures and like all great apes, same sex sexual behaviors are common place. They have been common place before homosexual and heterosexual identities were even created. Now there's a name for every type of sexual preference. Imagine if we labelled people based on the flavors of ice cream they preferred.

There is one thing that's missing in all of these studies in regard to same sex behaviors which is that children who are raised in glbt households from birth are just as likely or unlikely to be gay. In those households they report being more likely to act on their attractions but there's no more of an increase or decrease in the occurrence.

If it was something where men become gay because they internalize sexism in regard to their being feminine etc. then in gay households they would be more likely to be straight as those households report being less hateful in regard to what could be considered effeminate behavior in boys.

I think in the context of humans that same sex behaviors are actually the norm and might actually be healthy from social structure standpoint. I don't think it's caused by anything, rather people identifying with extremes(hetero or homosexual) is the behavior that's created from conditioning. In a natural environment humans would probably enjoy sex without feeling ashamed one way or the other, thus creating a label to have to "explain" their attractions.

I identify as lesbian because I really really love women. I just love them. I love beautiful women. Always have.

I dislike sexual labels though and cringe at the whole system. It has never made sense to me and seems so intrusive and weird. It IS the way it is though and instead of people feeling free to socialize and be attracted to who you are it's a constant label game. Labels then determine whether you can marry who you love or get benefits. It's weird and intrusive and unfair.


I would bet money that they will never find a gay gene because human sexuality is very complicated and people find each other attractive for many different reasons. Also, sex in humans isn't just for reproduction. Again, we are VERY complex social creatures. Social customs change and evolve over time and sexuality has as well. Taboos come and go, knowledge is shared and changed. People go from being more free to less free depending on how strict and severe their society is.

In the end, I agree with Kinsey. I think everyone's probably bisexual to some degree, it's society that forces us into boxes.

Some women will like men because they are big and strong and they like that I guess.

For me I like women because they are beautiful, delicate regardless how strong they are, and I like our anatomy. They are also softer and don't have stubble. LOL. Thought I'd throw that one in there.

Anyway, this is my two cents.

Edit: I accidentally clipped my last response.

In relation to homosexuality being an answer to population increases that's not the way it works. If anything increase in same sex behaviors might be a way of shifting the current family paradigm in terms of mating behaviors but it wouldn't keep people from having kids. Lesbian identifying women are just as likely to have children as their straight counterparts. Gay men who make friends with stable lesbian couples, are more likely to be asked to be the donors.

So end the end, if anything it could represent a change in the types of relationships people engage in if anything.

reply to post by Astrocyte


I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Many have talked about a "gay gene" but I have not found anything identifying such a gene, and while I do think there may be a genetic component to homosexuality I have always thought of it as a kind of psychological manifestation.

But even if this is true and homosexual behavior can somehow be reversed through therapy; there would be no reason to encourage such a practice.

And there is no "promotion" of homosexuality. The only thing even close are people promoting the idea that being homosexual is "natural" (i.e. a common occurrence within human society). I have never heard anyone (anyone sane that is) promote homosexuality as a solution for overpopulation.

The idea of overpopulation to begin with is a very complicated subject. One which both sides make valid points about.

Interesting and informative.

Hi ....I am a technical student and hence I am not very much aware about the biological terms but your topic was quite clear to me. Thank you so much.

Let me share an experience regarding this topic. There was a gay in my neighborhood, it was about 10 years back. I was very small then. he was forced to marry a girl, and after 3 years his wife got pregnant . I really do not know how that came from .

reply to post by Astrocyte



Because your posts are soooooo excellent and soooo lonnnng overdue . . .

I'm going to take a brief break from my public posting break hereon to say:

1. You are EXCEEDINGLY ACCURATE. I cannot think of a single detail I think you are off on in terms of your descriptions of the physiological, psychological, sociological, emotional and relational realities involved; the factors involved and the results involved. CONGRATS. It is uncommon for me to come across such perceptiveness, such accuracy and such a comprehensive grasp of the whole as well as the details . . . exceedingly rare as in 67 years of observations rare.

2. Last I checked, only 10-20% of the difference between factors resulting in homosexuality in males could be accounted for by 'innate' genetic, hormonal, gestational factors. Certainly I've never seen any reputable researchers claiming more than roughly 50%, at most--and that was a wild guesstimate, imho, IN SPITE OF vs because of solid research.

3. Certainly I believe the globalist oligarchy has at least 2 big reasons to support homosexuality

A) They are . . . spiritually compelled to do so by their own values and focus . . . and associations.
B) They do believe it is a useful way to decrease the population as well as to identify those unwilling to conform to dutiful serfs and slaves of a more conventional, predictable sort.

3.1 So, yes, I do believe that is a huge part of the propaganda picture of the last many decades.

4. I do believe that such governmental, social, cultural propagandizing does rob otherwise successful heterosexuals of a more robust conventional sexuality and the peace and pleasures associated therewith . . . as well as a 20 year longer lifespan.

I think I'll stop there and return to my self-appointed posting break. I don't expect to respond publicly to any responses to this post until after my chosen break period is over.

reply to post by OrphanApology


Even in the event of a serious discussion, I cannot help but make play with the OP title. It referred to population control: I don't see how homosexuality applies to population control... seems like there's more of ' em every day.

But seriously folks- you is what you choose or are pushed into. Live with it and try to do good things. Or change.. it really is up to us.

The way I see it, Nature likes to cover all the bases it can. And that is particularly true when it comes to sex. It maintains a fairly consistent percentage of "deviants" from the norm to allow the species to survive just in case a particularly nasty virus kills off everybody who engages in "normal" sexual activity.

My personal theory is that it does it through pheromone triggers, the same way it regulates the sex of babies such that males and females are pretty close to equal in number in the general population.

webedoomed

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy in the last few sentences. I'd say that developed countries are having trouble enough replacing their population, and are as much in a trouble because of overpopulation, as they are underpopulation in the coming years. The game changer may be teching our way out of the demographics to fill in the gap with AI robots.

Best answer so far. It's the small print at the bottom, and maybe a little at the top too. All I see is psycho trash and so called subliminal key words.

reply to post by Bazart

Having made decades of amateur sociological observations myself, it doesn't surprise me at all that you are interested ( both ) in trauma, and homosexuality.

Sure, it's an interest I have. But I am not about to go risking my career trajectory by investigating an area this emotionally explosive.

Eventually, I think neuroscience will veer into this area - perhaps once things have settled down and homosexuals/liberals don't confuse interest in sexual neuroplasticity as an attack against their lifestyle choice.

Since I study trauma, I know very well how arduous the journey is to bring primary emotional processes under prefrontal-cortical (conscious) control. Since everyone has the right to choose how they live, and being homosexual really doesn't hurt anyone, there's no basis in opposing it. That also goes with regard to the idea that two dads or two moms will produce an imbalanced child. That's not the case; developmental psychology has made it very clear that so long as a secure attachment is established, children can grow fine. The presence of a masculine-femine context, although it might have some subtle effects we still cant quantify (evolutionary psychology might help shed light on this area), research still shows that it's not going to create the type of problems that religious fundamentalists claim.

reply to post by webedoomed


I know you like to read. Pick up this book The Archeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human Emotions

You don't have to be homo to not have kids. In fact, more people than ever are choosing not to live together, get married, or have kids. Many I hear of choosing this lifestyle aren't even consciously reasoning it out. It seems to be instinctual to some degree. People have it better than ever, colliding with the notion that the next generation may have it much worse = no kiddos for me!

I've read studies that suggest the opposite.

What we do know from evolutionary psychology is that people have an instinctual need to form lasting bonds with other people - we are a social animal after all. And so, the overwhelming general trend wherever you look (with a few exceptions) across different cultures are individual family units made up of man+woman+children, and farther out, with extended family members. The circle of course should widen to include others, but there will always be differentiations of emotional intensity.

I don't see why this context wouldn't work for gays. But, of course, gays can't reproduce. It's in the very nature of their relationship that children do not come forth - it should really go without saying that heterosexual relationships increase population, while homosexual relationships reduce population. If homosexuals want children, it more often than not involves adoption. Which can be a palliative for kids who grow up without a family context.

I can't imagine this ever changing. It's deeply hardwired into what we need as individuals.

reply to post by OrphanApology

Human beings have very complex social structures and like all great apes, same sex sexual behaviors are common place. They have been common place before homosexual and heterosexual identities were even created. Now there's a name for every type of sexual preference. Imagine if we labelled people based on the flavors of ice cream they preferred.

That seems like a ridiculous distinction to me.

What flavor ice cream one likes is superficial compared to the general orientation of your sexual preference. In sexual preference - there are two viable options, corresponding to the primary categories of gender. So, I don't think this is an unnecessary distinction, inasmuch as it describes a very basic aspect - a fundamental one - in human sexual relationships.

Another thing which cannot be controlled is one's own intuitive preference. Although same sex relationships have occurred in all cultures, strangely enough, it was practiced more often amongst the upper classes (people who thought more), and derided by the common people. One could argue that the mainstream cultural attitude towards homosexuality is inbuilt by evolution as a way to promote reproduction.

Within the animal kingdom in particular, primates specifically, homosexuality doesn't come with the social/metaphysical input that human beings ascribe to these sorts of actions. Meaning, I think, that human beings and bonobos are in two very different existential categories. Although they are related to us, their experience of the world is dramatically different from ours. We ask questions of the world - something no other animal can do (so far as we've been able to discern from research), and one of those natural questions which occurs to us: is homosexuality right? People ask this question because they are pattern finders: we see patterns in nature, within the mammalian kingdom in particular, where males and female come together and reproduce. Seeing this drives our higher cortical functions into overdrive and we begin to hypothesize fundamental principles in the world: A "male" principle and a "female" principle - and we imagine that this dynamic forms a fundamental metaphysical relationship that human beings should imitate. It's one way we find to live a life of meaning.

Of course, the above isn't logically justified - it's just one of many possible ways to interpret the world an our experience of it. My problem, i feel, is that your interpretation might be a bit authoritarian, where you basically say that making a distinction between sexual preference is arbitrary.

I'm straight myself. I feel that, given what I know about how the brain works, that if I "trained" my brain, I could experience homosexual experiences. But I don't want to do this - not because I am homophobic, or that I hate gays - far from it! I am super-understanding and make a strong effort to empathize with why they've decided to live this, and I support them in anyway I can (compassion eliminates categories), but because, inside, I want to live heterosexually. It is a relevant distinction to me - because I have to admit, that metaphysical idea I described above sort of does resonate with me.

I think in the context of humans that same sex behaviors are actually the norm and might actually be healthy from social structure standpoint. I don't think it's caused by anything, rather people identifying with extremes(hetero or homosexual) is the behavior that's created from conditioning. In a natural environment humans would probably enjoy sex without feeling ashamed one way or the other, thus creating a label to have to "explain" their attractions.

That idea simply does not jibe with an evolutionistic or biological framework. I find it hard to understand how you think natural mechanisms i.e. the female+male relational context - hasn't biased are biology towards heterosexual behavior.

Homosexuality would thus seem to be the "socially learned" behaviour. Although it occurs within the animal kingdom, most of the contexts it happens in are unnatural i.e some contextual enforcer guides individuals towards homosexual behaviour. Its the way they discharge the energy from those SEEKING/LUST circuits within the brain.

It's weird and intrusive and unfair.

Do you think it's possible that you feel this because of your experiences of being gay? Objectively speaking, most social scientists, biologists, and philosophers, wouldn't regard the "label game" as weird, intrusive and unfair.

In fact, understanding the world requires that we "name it to tame it" - as psychologists often say. Our cortical areas need to bring the emotional hurricane of perceptions into an understandable way - we do this - and we need to do it. It's essentially how we stay sane, and keep things orderly, structured, and harmonized.

What flavor ice cream one likes is superficial compared to the general orientation of your sexual preference. In sexual preference - there are two viable options, corresponding to the primary categories of gender. So, I don't think this is an unnecessary distinction, inasmuch as it describes a very basic aspect - a fundamental one - in human sexual relationships.

Human beings derive pleasure from sexuality. Therefore it is akin to which flavor of ice cream one enjoys. There is also the reproductive angle of human sexuality, but except in the context of state marriages that remove the personal choice of the experience, pleasure comes first. So because pleasure comes first, what people enjoy during sexual experiences is as broad as the flavors of ice cream that exist out there(and the people who eat them).

Another thing which cannot be controlled is one's own intuitive preference. Although same sex relationships have occurred in all cultures, strangely enough, it was practiced more often amongst the upper classes (people who thought more), and derided by the common people. One could argue that the mainstream cultural attitude towards homosexuality is inbuilt by evolution as a way to promote reproduction.

Is it really practiced more among rich people or do more educated people tend to write and read more? Meaning throughout history their tales of same sex lovin' are the ones recorded? Please show me the data on where you are getting the information that same sex sexual experiences happen more in rich people. I am not talking about how people "identify" but rather, how they have sex.

For instance, among poor black men they report being one of the straightest groups yet have one of the highest HIV infection rates due to "down low" MSM practices.

The only reason I could see why the poor may report less same sex sexual experiences is that they usually are more dependent financially on the statist male/woman marriage structure that exists. Meaning regardless of their inclinations they may be stuck in situations where heteronormative behaviors are the only options.

Within the animal kingdom in particular, primates specifically, homosexuality doesn't come with the social/metaphysical input that human beings ascribe to these sorts of actions. Meaning, I think, that human beings and bonobos are in two very different existential categories. Although they are related to us, their experience of the world is dramatically different from ours. We ask questions of the world - something no other animal can do (so far as we've been able to discern from research), and one of those natural questions which occurs to us: is homosexuality right? People ask this question because they are pattern finders: we see patterns in nature, within the mammalian kingdom in particular, where males and female come together and reproduce. Seeing this drives our higher cortical functions into overdrive and we begin to hypothesize fundamental principles in the world: A "male" principle and a "female" principle - and we imagine that this dynamic forms a fundamental metaphysical relationship that human beings should imitate. It's one way we find to live a life of meaning.

Sexuality among other primates is very social more often than not. I am not sure what you're saying in regard to it not being social(metaphysical is an unknown since we don't have the ability to read ape's minds). It has been observed to for sure be social however. And of course primates sexual behavior is different than humans, they are a different species. That doesn't change the fact that you can still learn from our close relatives and ponder on how various behaviors might manifest themselves in beings that are similar with higher intelligence.

Of course, the above isn't logically justified - it's just one of many possible ways to interpret the world an our experience of it. My problem, i feel, is that your interpretation might be a bit authoritarian, where you basically say that making a distinction between sexual preference is arbitrary.

Sexual preference is arbitrary and is more fluid than people like to think it is. Otherwise the men in prison would never have sex and women would find the L Word boring and no fun to watch(still haven't met any straight woman who wouldn't admit that they would go there with at least one of the women on that show).

I'm straight myself. I feel that, given what I know about how the brain works, that if I "trained" my brain, I could experience homosexual experiences. But I don't want to do this - not because I am homophobic, or that I hate gays - far from it! I am super-understanding and make a strong effort to empathize with why they've decided to live this, and I support them in anyway I can (compassion eliminates categories), but because, inside, I want to live heterosexually. It is a relevant distinction to me - because I have to admit, that metaphysical idea I described above sort of does resonate with me.

That's your choice on how you decide to define your own sexuality. I like women, always have and like you I have no interest in trying to like men. It's nothing against people who have opposite sex sexual preferences, I just like women.

That idea simply does not jibe with an evolutionistic or biological framework. I find it hard to understand how you think natural mechanisms i.e. the female+male relational context - hasn't biased are biology towards heterosexual behavior.

You are misunderstanding how survival of the fittest works. Survival of the fittest means each person is going to pursue the reproduction strategy that holds the greatest benefit to them. Sexual reproduction and biology is not about what's best for the species but rather what's best for the individual. So for women the hetero-normative relationship isn't always the best for her. An example of that would be a young woman being married off at 11 and having a baby before her body is ready. The relationship is great for the man from a pleasure standpoint, but from the girl's reproductive standpoint it is harmful to her health. So in comparison, a woman in a lesbian relationship waits til she is 30 and then chooses very carefully which man sires her child, then has the full support of another woman to raise the child. If you were to compare those two reproduction strategies the latter is much more beneficial to the woman.

In nature you'll see that elephants actually travel in groups of females only and only come into contact with males for reproduction purposes. The males in the meantime form sexual bonds with each other away from the females. Again that whole family unit structure is something that will have more studies as time goes on, as will gay male relationships. For those the reproductive value could be in the fact that they are in sexually satisfying relationships where they are still able to sire children without having the responsibility of raising the child(an example of that would be a gay man, and lesbian couple teaming up to reproduce).

reply to post by Openeye

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Many have talked about a "gay gene" but I have not found anything identifying such a gene, and while I do think there may be a genetic component to homosexuality I have always thought of it as a kind of psychological manifestation.

Note that I said "epigenetic" in the thread title.

At this point, we don't know if there might be a gay gene. There's both reasons for and against homosexual "genes". But, I feel - and modern research is going more in this direction - that homosexuality might be regulated by epigenetic markers i.e. the intercellular information outside the chromosomes. Epigenetic Theories of Homosexuality

Heterosexuality, on the other hand, you would expect to find in the genome, since biological evolution in mammals happens in a male-female context - so individual organisms would need the genetic information to inform them to SEEK copulation with the other sex.

This is why homosexuality as a socially learned behavior would make more sense.

reply to post by OrphanApology

Human beings derive pleasure from sexuality. Therefore it is akin to which flavor of ice cream one enjoys. There is also the reproductive angle of human sexuality, but except in the context of state marriages that remove the personal choice of the experience, pleasure comes first. So because pleasure comes first, what people enjoy during sexual experiences is as broad as the flavors of ice cream that exist out there(and the people who eat them).

I disagree with how you're thinking about this. There are really only two options with sexual preference: males or females. Pleasure can be had with females, or, with males. So it is not as broad as ice-cream selection, nor is it as meaningless as which sort of ice-cream you prefer.

Sexuality among other primates is very social more often than not. I am not sure what you're saying in regard to it not being social(metaphysical is an unknown since we don't have the ability to read ape's minds).

Most biologists who study mammalian brains would laugh at the idea of them having the capacity for metaphysical speculation. One: because there is no evidence in their behaviour of it; and two: they lack the cortical areas which in human brains, during fMRI scans, light up during philosophical speculation.

All the evidence points to them not having this capacity. It would be pretty strange to maintain an agnostic position despite all the evidence we've accumulated thus far.

In fact, studying the brains of other mammals has helped us understand our own brains - as the original post showed, lower structures within our brains correspond to structures found in animal brains. The higher structures we have - and we have the largest Brain-Body ratio of any species - are literally "built atop" the lower, evolutionary older structures.

This knowledge is giving ample ability to pry into the inner world of animals and postulate the nature of their experience. Although it is not definitive - by virtue of the fact that the brain creates our experiences - and that every last inch of the brain handles some aspect of the experiences we have - by studying the brains of animals, we can extrapolate what type of experiences they have.

So, mice and rats (little mammals), will have one type of experience, while more evolved creatures with larger brains, like dolphins, elephants and primates, will have more complex experiences. It's interesting just thinking about this; it both allows us to relate with animals as sentient beings who feel and experience, albeit, in a very unconscious and unreflective way relative to us.

Since i am ignorant about "Scientific and genealogy" i will try and answer as best as i can.

personally it seems as if it's just one way to look at things in order to place "homosexuality" into it's "Scientific Place" what about other factors that go into the Growing of the brain from conception?

What if we (Homosexuals) were born with more Estrogen, or such factors as that? what if other occurrences happen throughout birth? maybe not a "Gay Gene" but a multitude of contributing factors?

reply to post by Astrocyte

Sexual preference is arbitrary and is more fluid than people like to think it is. Otherwise the men in prison would never have sex and women would find the L Word boring and no fun to watch(still haven't met any straight woman who wouldn't admit that they would go there with at least one of the women on that show).

Thats generally in holding with what I've said: the brain is plastic. In the absence of the other sex, the SEEKING/LUST primary emotions need expression. Some inmates masturbate, while others rape/molest or have sex with other men. It's a contextual enforcer, in behaviorist lingo.

You are misunderstanding how survival of the fittest works. Survival of the fittest means each person is going to pursue the reproduction strategy that holds the greatest benefit to them. Sexual reproduction and biology is not about what's best for the species but rather what's best for the individual. So for women the hetero-normative relationship isn't always the best for her. An example of that would be a young woman being married off at 11 and having a baby before her body is ready. The relationship is great for the man from a pleasure standpoint, but from the girl's reproductive standpoint it is harmful to her health. So in comparison, a woman in a lesbian relationship waits til she is 30 and then chooses very carefully which man sires her child, then has the full support of another woman to raise the child. If you were to compare those two reproduction strategies the latter is much more beneficial to the woman.

Survival of the fittest isn't the only way evolution works. It's only one of many different mechanisms.

In anycase, my point was, within the genetic "hardware" of mammals - there must coding which drives individuals within the species to connect with members of the opposite sex: this is a staple of neodarwinism i.e. the relationship between evolution processes and genetic processes.

There needs to be something within the information hardware of the cell that tells the brain to SEEK connection in this way.

I wonder, has your research also let you to wonder what trauma creates heterosexuals? It would seem, objectively, to be just as important a question, if not more so.

Also, not to be too graphic, I think you're discounting the ingenuity of the primate when it comes to sexual gratification, pardon the pun. Not only is there the choice of male and female as object of attraction/simulation, but there are multiple ways in which the various pleasure centers can be stimulated by the realities of sexual equipment ... "innies and outties" as it were.

Do you view homosexual behavior as within biological norms? Do you draw a distinction in your mind between homosexual behavior and homosexual identification? And if so, is there a different "trauma" track resulting in the two related but different outcomes?

Much appreciation in advance for your thoughts.