What causes heterosexuality?

135

Comments

  • Stever7Stever7 Posts: 1,675
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jackboy18 wrote: »
    If you look at all animals, including humans, the males are always the more impressive looking. For example:
    • Ostriches: The male stands tall, dark and handsome, while the female is grey and dowdy.
    • Ducks: The male is multi-coloured and attractive, while the female is frumpy.
    • Lions: The grand male has a flowing mane, while the lioness is bland in comparison.
    • Turkeys: The male is grander here too.
    • Peafowl: The same is true here.
    The list can go on and on.

    It can go on for ever... proves nowt :/

    If you care, I can produce a list of animals which can fly to prove how humans can? :/
  • Neda_TurkNeda_Turk Posts: 8,447
    Forum Member
    Heterosexual relationships are the norm hence why kids are bought up with hetro role play as that is how they're expected to turn out statistically. If they turn out to be gay when they're older then deal with it then. Nobody brings their kids up from the start expecting them to be gay apart fro the old weirdos we sometimes hear about in the DM who treat their children as social experiments.

    So why bring a child up who may be gay as if they were straight and then have to adjust to the major disappointment they turned out to be later? :rolleyes:

    That's child abuse.

    Why not treat all children as they are and go on to be rather than trying to force the roles of the parents onto the child?
  • academiaacademia Posts: 18,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AndrewPd wrote: »
    In gender studies.

    People rear children with role expectations.

    Well, if you had any children you would know for sure that neither masculinity nor femininity are caused by some strange brainwashing. They happen naturally - a boy child is no more like a girl child than fly in the air. And I say vive la difference!
    Look at reality instead of books - you'll know and understand more.
  • Digital SidDigital Sid Posts: 39,870
    Forum Member
    Jackboy18 wrote: »
    If you look at all animals, including humans, the males are always the more impressive looking. For example:
    • Ostriches: The male stands tall, dark and handsome, while the female is grey and dowdy.
    • Ducks: The male is multi-coloured and attractive, while the female is frumpy.
    • Lions: The grand male has a flowing mane, while the lioness is bland in comparison.
    • Turkeys: The male is grander here too.
    • Peafowl: The same is true here.
    The list can go on and on.

    Apart from the Lion they are from one class of animal, birds, where the male impresses the female into mating with their plumidge. Ape males use their position in the social hierarchy and their actions. Plus what's attractive is subjective, I've yet to see a man anywhere near as attractive as Karen Gillan/ (face URL="http://www.genckizlar.net/attachments/yabanci-guzeller/7842d1311086609-karen-gillan-936full-karen-gillanjpg"]1[/URL URL="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EgHOXYRNHog/TokzDUQdTpI/AAAAAAAAA2Q/eFlNa9a6YqQ/s1600/5.JPG"]2[/URL, body or personality). The same is probably true for you vice versa, with your ideal man. You're attracted to the more masculine male physique and I'm attracted to the more feminine female physique.
  • Digital SidDigital Sid Posts: 39,870
    Forum Member
    AndrewPd wrote: »
    In gender studies.

    People rear children with role expectations.

    That's because 95% or more of the time, sexuality wise, they will fulfull those expectations (where those expectations are heterosexuality).
  • academiaacademia Posts: 18,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jackboy18 wrote: »
    Actually, males are the more attractive gender. This is true in all creatures in which there are noticeable differences between the males and the females of the species.

    In regard to humans, even the "fittest" female bodies are outshined by moderately maintained male physiques, let alone male bodies that have been totally worked up to top quality.

    To a gay man perhaps..but there's no use trying to explain to a straight man that he finds other men more attractive than women...he'lllaugh in your face.
  • dip_transferdip_transfer Posts: 2,327
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AndrewPd wrote: »
    Someone came up with the term "Compulsory heterosexuality".

    I don't see why just because you are born male you should be attracted to a female and vice versa.

    It didn't happen to me and I can't imagine what it would be like being sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

    It seems quite a feat to get someone to be attracted to some one who is other in some ways as opposed to being attracted to what you know.

    I could explain what it's like to be heterosexual to you, I won't, because you wouldn't understand what it's like to be attracted to a female rather than a male. The same could be said if you tried to explain to me what it's like to be gay.

    The way i see it, It's a good job some of us males were attracted to women thousands of years ago otherwise we would have all been ****ed, and we wouldn't be here now discussing this.
  • AndrewPdAndrewPd Posts: 6,718
    Forum Member
    academia wrote: »
    Well, if you had any children you would know for sure that neither masculinity nor femininity are caused by some strange brainwashing. They happen naturally - a boy child is no more like a girl child than fly in the air. And I say vive la difference!
    Look at reality instead of books - you'll know and understand more.

    They actually have explored this on a study filmed by the BBC. Parents claimed that they weren't enforcing gender stereotypes but they tested this by dressing androgynous looking babies in clothing of the opposite sex.

    The parents of baby boys dressed in a dress looked visibly uncomfortable to see their children dressed like that. So despite their claims of treating each child individually they clearly weren't.

    Men and women in different cultures like tribal cultures and middle eastern cultures dress differently than in western culttures so I don't see that fashion is dictated to by biological impulses.

    I think social pressures can be as powerfull as biological ones. Take for instance the fact that we go to work in a suit and not naked. People conform to socially precribed norms and don't often seriously rock the boat even though these social norms are contrived.

    Try going to work naked and see how easy social pressures are to overcome.
  • AndrewPdAndrewPd Posts: 6,718
    Forum Member
    Some people have never heard of evolution.
    Hetrosexuality is the evolutionary 'norm' in most animal species.

    I don't think what animals do is neccessarily heterosexuality. sexual reproduction can happen without lust. Such as when fish just unload eggs and sperm into the water or flowers non erotic pollenation with no courtship and when some females express no sexual desire but the male just impregnates them wildly when the time is right.

    I think what we have as a sexuality runs much deeper than what happens for most other animals and involves long and loving relationships.

    The greeks thought highly of male loving relationships and women were seen in the light of their reproductive role.

    You can have a scenario where the sex is divorced from the deep feelings and attachments.

    I find it strange the amount of abuse and disrespect and lack of cohesiveness exhibited in opposite sex relationships.
  • vanzandtfanvanzandtfan Posts: 8,897
    Forum Member
    Jackboy18 wrote: »
    If you look at all animals, including humans, the males are always the more impressive looking. For example:
    • Ostriches: The male stands tall, dark and handsome, while the female is grey and dowdy.
    • Ducks: The male is multi-coloured and attractive, while the female is frumpy.
    • Lions: The grand male has a flowing mane, while the lioness is bland in comparison.
    • Turkeys: The male is grander here too.
    • Peafowl: The same is true here.
    The list can go on and on.

    As others have said, these are examples of where the female makes the primary choice in who to mate with (since mating is the greater investment for the female).

    In species in which both male and female make an equal investment, such as those which mate for life, they are equally as attractive. Angel fish have been mentioned but swans and bald eagles are others, although the male is bigger than the female, the plumage of these birds is identical across the sexes.
  • AndrewPdAndrewPd Posts: 6,718
    Forum Member
    In human history and cultures it varies as to which gender or sex is considered more attractive.

    At one stage it was men and then women dominated especially fat women. Then it was men acting like fops and wearing wigs and painting their faces. Now big busted but slim women are in and men are in if muscly, boyish or foppish. Androgyny and gender bending appeared in the 80's.

    But I don't think heteronormativity has ever being thoroughly challenged.
  • Neda_TurkNeda_Turk Posts: 8,447
    Forum Member
    But why do experiments by dressing little boys in girls clothing when gay men do not wish to be females, that's transvestites!

    And what has 'role' got to do with sexuality anyway?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,177
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zx50 wrote: »
    According to National Geographic, enough testosterone makes the brain masculine in the womb. The opposite for men who are homosexuals.

    I believe this to be the case sometimes but not with everyone. I know men who have spent their whole life straight & then decided they'll try men, one of them due to being off his face half the time on drugs.
  • AndrewPdAndrewPd Posts: 6,718
    Forum Member
    Neda_Turk wrote: »
    But why do experiments by dressing little boys in girls clothing when gay men do not wish to be females, that's transvestites!

    And what has 'role' got to do with sexuality anyway?

    I was mentioning that in relationship to compulsory heterosexuality and the social construction of sexuality.

    Boys actually used to be dressed as in elaborate dresses when babies in the victorian era.

    The experiment was to test whether parents are enforcing implicitly or otherwise gender roles.

    Showing that parents are uneasy to see a boy not confoming to a gender stereotype suggests they will be unconsciously or subconsciously influenceing that childs behaviour and sense of what is desirable.

    I am in two minds as to whether sexuality is purely biological or has a significant possibly overarching social dimension.
  • EspressoEspresso Posts: 18,047
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AndrewPd wrote: »
    I find it strange the amount of abuse and disrespect and lack of cohesiveness exhibited in opposite sex relationships.

    That's a numbers game, though.
    You see more abuse and disrespect and lack of cohesiveness in straight relationships because you see more straight relationships full stop.

    People can be rotten to their other halves whatever their gender and whatever their sexuality, because horrible people are horrible people, regardless of what gender they go for.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,275
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    if they're wasn't we wouldnt exist

    you do know homosexuals cant have babies?

    I didn't know that. Possibly because it is not true.
  • KJ44KJ44 Posts: 38,093
    Forum Member
    Stever7 wrote: »
    Sorry to state the obvious, but genetics? It's in built into (most) people to want to have it away with the opposite sex so that their DNA gets passed on to the next generation. It's the same kind deal with breathing, it's just hardwired in there.

    Exactly. We're being trolled into an obvious debating trap. We say M-F sex is "natural" because of biology, it's an excuse to jump down our throats about M-M or F-F sexuality; if we try to wriggle out of that by saying sexuality just is, you can ask faux naive questions like the OP.
  • dip_transferdip_transfer Posts: 2,327
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jackbell wrote: »
    I didn't know that. Possibly because it is not true.


    How, Without a 3rd party, I'm interested as to how they can :confused:
  • TheSilentFezTheSilentFez Posts: 11,102
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AndrewPd wrote: »
    Someone came up with the term "Compulsory heterosexuality".

    I don't see why just because you are born male you should be attracted to a female and vice versa.

    It didn't happen to me and I can't imagine what it would be like being sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

    It seems quite a feat to get someone to be attracted to some one who is other in some ways as opposed to being attracted to what you know.

    Because life is about reproduction and producing offspring. Seeing as humans cannot produce more humans asexually, at least some humans need to be attracted to the opposite sex otherwise we would all become extinct.
    You probably all disagree and hate my world view, but I believe there is no meaning to life other than we our freaks of chemistry which has become self aware.

    Saying that, I have nothing against homosexuals and I see no reason why they shouldn't exist. However, the question "why does heterosexuality exist" has to be the most stupid question I've heard in a while.
  • d'@ved'@ve Posts: 45,431
    Forum Member
    Jeez here we go again, DS:GD is turning into a Sex and Sexuality forum, I am starting to think we need a suitably named sub-board for it all, like Chatter.

    Some of you thread starters (you know who you are - and so do the rest of us!) ought to at least try to think of something other than sex and sexuality for at least part of each day.
  • AndrewPdAndrewPd Posts: 6,718
    Forum Member
    However, the question "why does heterosexuality exist" has to be the most stupid question I've heard in a while.

    Yes but the question of this thread is what is the cause of heterosexuality.

    I think you are mistaking the neccessity of sexual reproduction for humans an explanation of the mechanics.

    Homosexuality does contradict the view of humans as mindlessly reproducers as do condoms and heterosexuals that choose not to have children.

    They obviously have found a richer meaning in their life than the one you suggest.
  • Digital SidDigital Sid Posts: 39,870
    Forum Member
    AndrewPd wrote: »
    I don't think what animals do is neccessarily heterosexuality. sexual reproduction can happen without lust. Such as when fish just unload eggs and sperm into the water or flowers non erotic pollenation with no courtship and when some females express no sexual desire but the male just impregnates them wildly when the time is right.

    I think what we have as a sexuality runs much deeper than what happens for most other animals and involves long and loving relationships.

    The greeks thought highly of male loving relationships and women were seen in the light of their reproductive role.

    You can have a scenario where the sex is divorced from the deep feelings and attachments.

    I find it strange the amount of abuse and disrespect and lack of cohesiveness exhibited in opposite sex relationships.

    No they didn't.
  • billyboy789billyboy789 Posts: 1,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How, Without a 3rd party, I'm interested as to how they can :confused:


    Oh, stop digging a hole for yourself, Lesbians are Homosexuals, Lesbians can have babies.

    I don't think Homosexuals can ever grasp or concede the concept that Hetrosexuality is the default setting for most animals on the Planet, Homosexuality is not, that's why species propagate and evolve.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,284
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AndrewPd wrote: »
    In gender studies.

    People rear children with role expectations.

    Gender roles are almost entirely socially constructed.
  • Digital SidDigital Sid Posts: 39,870
    Forum Member
    AndrewPd wrote: »
    In human history and cultures it varies as to which gender or sex is considered more attractive.

    At one stage it was men and then women dominated especially fat women. Then it was men acting like fops and wearing wigs and painting their faces. Now big busted but slim women are in and men are in if muscly, boyish or foppish. Androgyny and gender bending appeared in the 80's.

    But I don't think heteronormativity has ever being thoroughly challenged.

    Again, no it doesn't, most men have always been more attracted to women and most women have always been more attracted to men.
Sign In or Register to comment.