Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Do many dislike 'gay people' because of instinct? Watch

    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RocketCiaranJ)
    I mean in the traditional sense; the traditional form of reproduction that would be the only method available to cave people.
    That's still available to gay people...they don't suddenly lose the ability to have penis-in-vagina sex.

    Regarding your points about "the pack" and maybe we're programmed to dislike people who don't reproduce, I don't think that could even slightly be a contributing factor because:
    1 many straight people don't want to reproduce
    2 gay people can still reproduce
    3 "the pack" would only want "the best" to reproduce and wouldn't want to "pass on" gayness
    4 it could be beneficial to have non-reproducing members of society

    People are homophobic because they've been brought up that way, through religious indoctrination, homophobic parents/guardians, lack of education that "different" =/= "wrong" etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katie_p)
    That's still available to gay people...they don't suddenly lose the ability to have penis-in-vagina sex.

    Regarding your points about "the pack" and maybe we're programmed to dislike people who don't reproduce, I don't think that could even slightly be a contributing factor because:
    1 many straight people don't want to reproduce
    2 gay people can still reproduce
    3 "the pack" would only want "the best" to reproduce and wouldn't want to "pass on" gayness
    4 it could be beneficial to have non-reproducing members of society

    People are homophobic because they've been brought up that way, through religious indoctrination, homophobic parents/guardians, lack of education that "different" =/= "wrong" etc.
    1/2. Many straight people, today, don't want to reproduce. But when we lived in caves, all would be expected to reproduce. Maybe things have changed, but that very simplistic idea of straight = reproduction gay = no reproduction might have been programmed into us from when we lived in these times.
    3. The 'pack' would have absolutely no understanding of genetics. We didn't until a very long time after when we're talking about.
    4. Not really. From an entirely 'cave man' perspective, the cost of food and resources that non-reproducing people would consume would outweigh their contribution to the pack: hunting, killing, etc...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RocketCiaranJ)
    Considering that so many, non-religious, people dislike gays, with little reason to do so, is it not possible that there is another, more biological/psychological, reason? Could we be driven to loathe anyone who does not reproduce, and thus is of no use to the pack?
    If this were true, then girl on girl action wouldn't be such a hit.

    But it is definitely an interesting concept, evolutionarily speaking, humans are a community based species who move and work together.
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RocketCiaranJ)
    1/2. Many straight people, today, don't want to reproduce. But when we lived in caves, all would be expected to reproduce. Maybe things have changed, but that very simplistic idea of straight = reproduction gay = no reproduction might have been programmed into us from when we lived in these times.
    3. The 'pack' would have absolutely no understanding of genetics. We didn't until a very long time after when we're talking about.
    4. Not really. From an entirely 'cave man' perspective, the cost of food and resources that non-reproducing people would consume would outweigh their contribution to the pack: hunting, killing, etc...
    1/2. I expect that a gay caveman would be more inclined to reproduce if it was so strongly expected of him, and from what I've heard/read homosexuality was generally accepted in many civilisations. As long as he could "do his duty" or however a caveman would have phased it, they probably wouldn't have an issue.
    3.I disagree. If you had a man who was clearly weaker than the others but still useful, you wouldn't want him to reproduce. I struggle to believe that ancient civilisations and even cavemen didn't notice that certain characteristics of the parents appeared in the children.
    4. LMAO Babies don't hunt until they're adults. People without babies to look after can hunt more often than people with babies to look after. If one couple can have 15 kids, even if only half of those survive to adulthood, you can have 3 other "couples" who are childless. Apart from genetic diversity, which you've already said you don't think cavemen cared about, it doesn't matter where the babies come from, as long as enough are made. It probably makes more sense to have specific people reproducing and not, so that you have some people available all the time for hunts/defence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katie_p)
    1/2. I expect that a gay caveman would be more inclined to reproduce if it was so strongly expected of him, and from what I've heard/read homosexuality was generally accepted in many civilisations. As long as he could "do his duty" or however a caveman would have phased it, they probably wouldn't have an issue.
    3.I disagree. If you had a man who was clearly weaker than the others but still useful, you wouldn't want him to reproduce. I struggle to believe that ancient civilisations and even cavemen didn't notice that certain characteristics of the parents appeared in the children.
    4. LMAO Babies don't hunt until they're adults. People without babies to look after can hunt more often than people with babies to look after. If one couple can have 15 kids, even if only half of those survive to adulthood, you can have 3 other "couples" who are childless. Apart from genetic diversity, which you've already said you don't think cavemen cared about, it doesn't matter where the babies come from, as long as enough are made. It probably makes more sense to have specific people reproducing and not, so that you have some people available all the time for hunts/defence.
    1/2. Yes but they would still have sex with the opposite sex less than a hetrosexual counterpart. So we would see them as being less inclined to reproduce than straights.
    3.Nope. It's also difficult to believe that many believed, for a long time, that the Earth was at the centre of the universe. Or what about the ideas of the sun orbiting the Earth? As difficult as it is to believe with our modern understanding of the world, genetic inheritance went entirely unnoticed for a long time. And even when Mendel published his ideas, they were entirely ignored because people saw them as ridiculous.
    4. Bad analogy. Yes, babies are much weaker than an adult; but the 'cave people' would know that it would inevitably (avoiding injury) grow into becoming stronger. Why? Why because they would have seen it happen to themselves, and everyone around them. Besides, this has little to do with the worth of a non-reproducing person's contributions to the pack. More resources would be used to feed them than the resources they could find themselves.
    And we couldn't have specific people reproducing, because 'cave people' wouldn't have thought on that level.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RocketCiaranJ)
    1/2. Many straight people, today, don't want to reproduce. But when we lived in caves, all would be expected to reproduce. Maybe things have changed, but that very simplistic idea of straight = reproduction gay = no reproduction might have been programmed into us from when we lived in these times.
    3. The 'pack' would have absolutely no understanding of genetics. We didn't until a very long time after when we're talking about.
    4. Not really. From an entirely 'cave man' perspective, the cost of food and resources that non-reproducing people would consume would outweigh their contribution to the pack: hunting, killing, etc...
    In regards to your last response Katie beat to the post.
    Why do you assume that we would all be expected to reproduce?
    In what way would a homosexual consume more resources than they contribute?
    Breeding round the clock for humans would have been detrimental to our survival. Infact homosexuality would have carried several benefits for the group


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miscounted_time)
    In regards to your last response Katie beat to the post.
    Why do you assume that we would all be expected to reproduce?
    In what way would a homosexual consume more resources than they contribute?
    Breeding round the clock for humans would have been detrimental to our survival. Infact homosexuality would have carried several benefits for the group


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Greater number of pack members, the greater the number of people that can defend the territory against predators. So all would be expected to reproduce, so that there are more members of the pack to fight. (I use pack as a colloquialism).
    An average man requires around 2500 calories to maintain his weight. Could you really hunt 2500 calories worth of food every day? And then, you'd need more food to replace the fat that has been lost in the process of hunting exercise.
    True, breeding round the clock would be detrimental. However, we're not talking about continuous sex, but reproduction when it's necessary; ensuring not to increase in numbers beyond sustainable levels. There would be an etiquette for how many times one should reproduce, and gays - reproducing less than straights - would be holding back the pack, in a sense. Certainly, if this person were to be straight, he/she would reproduce more. Thus, a loathing for gays, as they do not follow the etiquette.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RocketCiaranJ)
    Considering that so many, non-religious, people dislike gays, with little reason to do so, is it not possible that there is another, more biological/psychological, reason? Could we be driven to loathe anyone who does not reproduce, and thus is of no use to the pack?
    no i think its to do with...

    sexual violence aka sodomy.
    sexual abuse aka pedophiles. in many cultures there is little distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia.

    unhygienic. i think a lot of people find the combination of anal and oral sex pretty repulsive.

    i think its rarity makes people uncomfortable when they see it because its not a social norm.

    then I think theres gender behaviour. homosexuality is associated with female behaviour.

    generally female traits such as irresponsibility, emotional outbursts, weakness, lack of loyalty and *****yness are strongly discouraged amongst men.

    a man that embodies female behaviour is not respected by other men and makes other men uncomfortable.

    so its lose lose.

    if you are a masculine homosexual, men are threatened because of chances of sexual abuse.

    if you are effeminate homosexual, men do not respect you and are not comfortable with your effeminate behaviour.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mick.w)
    no i think its to do with...

    sexual violence aka sodomy.
    sexual abuse aka pedophiles. in many cultures there is little distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia.

    unhygienic. i think a lot of people find the combination of anal and oral sex pretty repulsive.

    i think its rarity makes people uncomfortable when they see it because its not a social norm.

    then I think theres gender behaviour. homosexuality is associated with female behaviour.

    generally female traits such as irresponsibility, emotional outbursts, weakness, lack of loyalty and *****yness are strongly discouraged amongst men.

    a man that embodies female behaviour is not respected by other men and makes other men uncomfortable.

    so its lose lose.

    if you are a masculine homosexual, men are threatened because of chances of sexual abuse.

    if you are effeminate homosexual, men do not respect you and are not comfortable with your effeminate behaviour.
    Right? I'm being sarcastic. So are gays more likely to sexually abuse people? Right? And if a man is not respected for demonstrating female characteristics, are we all just misogynists; or is it just you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RocketCiaranJ)
    Right? I'm being sarcastic. So are gays more likely to sexually abuse people? Right? And if a man is not respected for demonstrating female characteristics, are we all just misogynists; or is it just you?
    hold on to your panties there susan.

    i am not responsible for the way society is. it is the way it is.

    its nothing to do with misogyny its to do with gender roles and gender behaviour.

    their roles and behaviour are against the societal norms.

    women simply get away with poor behaviour due to feminism and misogyny alike.
    misogynists do not expect women to behave as well as men. and feminists make excuses for why women behave badly and blame men.

    when men take on negative female traits its not respectable because they have no excuse. the feminists nor misogynists will come to their aid to excuse their behaviour if they are acting like a "diva"

    also i said there are societies such as Jamaica that do not draw a distinction between a pedophile who molests little boys and a homosexual.

    yet you still seem to have become a bit lost with what i said and assume my knowledge of other cultures as some how taking on those opinions as my own.

    I cannot vouch for the fact that gays are more likely to abuse people.

    however male rape and sexual abuse victims always rises with cultures that except homosexuality such as ancient greece.

    for example in the united states gay people are almost treated like an ethnic group and have such large numbers in new york that they were able to riot when one of their own was killed.

    notice how the united states is the only nation in the world where male rape victims out number female rape victims 3 to 1.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iEatMuFFiNS)
    Can be kinda weird seeing men acting all effeminate
    But that's all down to the constructed gender roles in society anyway. So what if a man has feminine traits or vice versa, it has no negative impact on anybody so why do people care so much about the way people behave i it causes no harm?

    It baffles me that people place so much importance on men acting manly, and girls acting girly. If the world had a much more relaxed view point on gender roles and didn't force blue on boys and pink on girls and put people into limiting boxes, then there would be nothing to be weirded out about at all, we would just accept it without question. So it's only just because of the way society has taught us to view males and females that people would have this unnecessary view.

    Also it should be noted that gender identity and sexuality, while often seen as overlapping characteristics, are separate things. A straight man can have feminine qualities, a gay woman can have feminine qualities, a gay man can have masculine qualities and all the variables in between because there is no rule that says gay man = camp and gay woman = butch. Those are just damaging stereotypes continually perpetuated by the media, that make the wider public think that all lgbt people fit neatly into boxes when they don't.

    Of course there are feminine gay men and masculine gay women, and that is okay obviously, it just becomes frustrating when straight people assume that that is the way all gay people must act. It leads to ignorant comments such as 'You're too girly to be a lesbian/Oh really, you're too pretty to be a gay girl' that reduce lesbians down to a stereotype, and it gets pretty tiring to hear.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chloemily)
    But that's all down to the constructed gender roles in society anyway. So what if a man has feminine traits or vice versa, it has no negative impact on anybody so why do people care so much about the way people behave i it causes no harm?

    It baffles me that people place so much importance on men acting manly, and girls acting girly. If the world had a much more relaxed view point on gender roles and didn't force blue on boys and pink on girls and put people into limiting boxes, then there would be nothing to be weirded out about at all, we would just accept it without question. So it's only just because of the way society has taught us to view males and females that people would have this unnecessary view.

    Also it should be noted that gender identity and sexuality, while often seen as overlapping characteristics, are separate things. A straight man can have feminine qualities, a gay woman can have feminine qualities, a gay man can have masculine qualities and all the variables in between because there is no rule that says gay man = camp and gay woman = butch. Those are just damaging stereotypes continually perpetuated by the media, that make the wider public think that all lgbt people fit neatly into boxes when they don't.

    Of course there are feminine gay men and masculine gay women, and that is okay obviously, it just becomes frustrating when straight people assume that that is the way all gay people must act. It leads to ignorant comments such as 'You're too girly to be a lesbian/Oh really, you're too pretty to be a gay girl' that reduce lesbians down to a stereotype, and it gets pretty tiring to hear.
    Firstly, i was just answering the question.

    Secondly, nice try at trying to sidestep millions of years of evolution. N.B. that without these traits you hate so much our species would likely be extinct.

    Thirdly, stereotypes are stereotypes because more often there is a lot of truth to them (even if they are slightly oversimplified).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iEatMuFFiNS)
    Firstly, i was just answering the question.

    Secondly, nice try at trying to sidestep millions of years of evolution. N.B. that without these traits you hate so much our species would likely be extinct.

    Thirdly, stereotypes are stereotypes because more often there is a lot of truth to them (even if they are slightly oversimplified).
    I know that and I am just responding to your answer. I wasn't intending it to seem like a personal attack on you, sorry if it came across that way, it was supposed to be more of a general response to the way many people seem to think and I accept my view is probably the minority one.

    I'm not trying to sidestep evolution; I'm more than aware that certain masculine and feminine characteristics were useful with regards to evolution. However I'd argue that they are not necessarily needed in today's modern and ever-changing society (particularly in Western cultures), where it is no longer required for men to go out and hunt wild animals while the women care for the children. There are multiple family set-ups, some involving a man and woman, others just a man or woman or two men and two women, so it's not mandatory for men to be strong and women to be gentle and caring.

    In today's society I fail to see why it is important for men to act strong and manly so therefore why does it matter to you if a man is feminine? My argument is that it causes no harm to anyone (be it physically or mentally) so why do so many people care about how others act/behave if it doesn't involve them or impact them?

    Yes, while I accept that stereotypes do tend to stem from somewhere and have some truth to them, I just think it becomes damaging when stereotypes are continually portrayed in mass media and people are breathing them in all the time, forgetting that not everybody is like that. It can lead to some gay people feeling so uncomfortable about themselves to the point where they feel they have to change who they are in order to be taken seriously. And it also goes the other way, in that the stereotype can hurt straight people; men who are feminine or women who are masculine can be mistaken for something they are not and have a hard time making people believe they are straight. When in reality, as I said before, gender identity and sexuality are not linked, which I think not enough people are aware of which makes it even more difficult for people to explain themselves to others.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.