Ventus Fall wrote:
@Ryall:
I don't necessarily think just gays would have more libido. I think that the media, which covers the most eccentric people including homosexuals (at least in the few countries I have lived in so far), tend to 'set a standard' for the gay population. While there is no denying there are a lot of gays which are rather outgoing and have high libido, I also think this is with regards to heterosexuals and any other sexualities and genders.
Also, from what I read you would state that it's because of the females that people are gay?
As far as genetics goes, how often has it been that women have been 'blamed' for carrying certain genetics on, whereas it was later disproved? Quite many. Either it was both parties (which is most of the case), or it was actually the male, due to certain dominating factors (for some odd reason).
Basically, I'm saying that if it's genetics, it is because of a combination of genes coming together and forming a person. It's two people who are involved. Whether one of them already has the 'gay gene' (or some other gene) shouldn't matter, as a person is a combination of two people and thus two gene pools, whether or not the chances are increased due to have one or both parents being gay (or any other orientation) or not.
And that comic was hilarious ;D
Hi Ventus, thanks for your consideration. I just wanted to clarify my position.
I was careful to state that I was generalizing and talking about averages here. I acknowledge that many gays have less libido than the average straight person: some have very little libido at all. Conversely, most of the self-proclaimed "sex addicts" we see on the news are straight. And I would agree with you that the most visible gays out there are the flamboyant, outgoing eccentric types. For many, being gay is a very small aspect of one's identity and those types of people tend to go unnoticed. As a result I definitely agree with you that gays are unfairly stereotyped by the media and society in general as being promiscuous, mainly because the promiscuous ones are more 'visible.'
However, very few things in life are equal and I think it would be naive to believe that it is impossible that if you were somehow able to accurately measure libido across the entire straight population, and the entire gay population, that it would be dead equal with that of the straight population. It might be equal, but then again it might not be: we just don't know, but I feel it's important not to get defensive and see this as some kind of dehumanizing attack on gays. It's easy to get defensive and say, "well what you're saying doesn't apply to me or my friends," and defend gays from an idealistic standpoint, but I am just postulating based on that theory that there's a, "love men," set of genes, and that women with these genes tend to be more sexually active. If that is true then we might guess that the men would be more sexually active too, and that would suggest that there might be a slight difference on average, but that difference might only be 1 or 3% across the entire population. It doesn't say anything about you as an individual, and it certainly doesn't suggest we should discriminate against gays in some way.
Also, this isn't about playing some sexist blame-game with women. I am gay, and there's nothing wrong with that. What would I blame women for? I certainly don't resent my mom for me being gay, and I am not saying that these genes are even related to the X or Y chromosomes. Even though my father is straight, the genes still could have come from my father's side of the family, after all, a cousin of mine on his side of the family is gay. That second point just answers the question, "if there are a set of gay genes, why haven't they died out?" The reason is that even though men with those genes are less likely to have children, women with those genes are more likely to have children, and so it evens out and the gene continues.
