Rather than digging dead threads. AKA The Picture Thread

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:58 pm

chit, 1 person out of 7 is gay

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:00 pm

Well, PiP, identical twins don't have identical finger prints either

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:22 pm

As most of you have probably noticed, there are other giveaways of someone being gay than just having sex with a person of same gender. I have no scientific evidence to back me up, but I think it's a male/female hormone balance thingy. Genetics probably is a factor in this.

Most gay men have more feminine behaviour patterns than the average heterosexual man. I believe this is why they are more attracted to persons of non-feminine appearance. Kinda like having a womans limbic system. I think this applies to lesbians too(being the opposite, of course).

What I'm really confused about is why the muscular macho-man steelworker with leather cap and moustache image can be connected to being gay? I mean, seriously, how many gay men are like that?

Lynxer · Post by **Lynxer** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:04 pm

VasikkA wrote:Most gay men have more feminine behaviour patterns than the average heterosexual man. I believe this is why they are more attracted to persons of non-feminine appearance. Kinda like having a womans limbic system. I think this applies to lesbians too(being the opposite, of course).

You seem to be overlooking a glaring contradiction in your postulate. If gay men are mostly feminine in their behavior and are mostly attracted to men of the more masculine variety, this would imply that there mostly is no mutual attraction between gay men. How can this be?

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:36 pm

I doubt there's any valuable corelation established between homosexuality and having a feminie behaviour. You're led to think most gays are feminine, because the other gays you can't notice them until they tell you themselves.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:37 pm

Lynxer wrote:You seem to be overlooking a glaring contradiction in your postulate. If gay men are mostly feminine in their behavior and are mostly attracted to men of the more masculine variety, this would imply that there mostly is no mutual attraction between gay men. How can this be?

I wrote that gay men are attracted to masculine appearance, not behavior. Physical attraction, that is. In a relationship, similar behavior/mindset/values can be beneficial contra male and female relationship.

PiP · Post by **PiP** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:29 pm

there's something to the female - resembalnce.

There's a part of brain called "INAH 3". Simon LeVay in the early 90s published in 'Science' interesting results of his research: he compared brains (through autopsy) of 35 men, 19 of which were gay. He found that the average size of "gay" INAH 3 was approximately 1/3 of the average size of the "hetero" one, and approximately the same as the female INAH 3 (I don't know how many female brains he had for autopsy). Hence the idea of "gay brain" similar to "female brain."

Unfortunatelly, some of the brains he examined had features contrary to this proposition. Namely, some gay brains had bigger INAH 3 than some hetero brains, and vice versa. Furthermore, the number of analysed brains was deemed insufficient by some researchers.

Then again, this "gay brain" theory was supported by a more recent research conducted on male sheep (the guys responsible found more or less the same pattern). So maybe the theory is right after all, however not specific enough (evidently, it's not enough to have a small INAH 3 to be gay, though statistically you've got a good chance

)

The problem is that the brain develops and changes all the time, and we don't know if the small-INAH3 is more of brain-influences-lifestyle situation or more of life-influences brain.

Most researchers agree that we still fail to recognize the complexity of factors that decide if someone is homo or hetero. Genes constitute a good part of this, but it's not just one gene, rather a complex configuration of them.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:24 am

That is interesting. Do you know what function this "INAH 3" has? I tried to search it on the interweb, but didn't find an answer. If I understood correctly, it is located near the hypothalamus so I assume it has something to do with adjusting the hormone levels through neurohormones, as that's what hypothalamus basically does. Having a smaller brain part doesn't make you 'think gay' just like that.

Off topic(if there ever was one); This kind of mixing science with theology disgusts me.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:58 am

ASTOUNDING! New research shows that the area of the brain involved in the study of biology past mandatory courses on your way to something that's not crap are the same areas of the brain that control being a complete fucking douchebag. Monocles around the world are popping off, but the world's physics, chemistry, mathematics and engineering community is saying "No shit!" while biologists all over the world paint their fingernails and do each other's hair.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:22 am

Spazmo wrote:ASTOUNDING! New research shows that the area of the brain involved in the study of biology past mandatory courses on your way to something that's not crap are the same areas of the brain that control being a complete fucking douchebag. Monocles around the world are popping off, but the world's physics, chemistry, mathematics and engineering community is saying "No shit!" while biologists all over the world paint their fingernails and do each other's hair.

But, what do you have to say about humanities students like me?

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:33 am

If I had more than 6 credits of complementaries, I'd be grateful to the humanities for providing pathetically easy courses to boost my GPA. Unfortunately I don't, so I'm going to firebomb the Arts Building.

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:44 am

Paint thinner courtesy of yours truly

PiP · Post by **PiP** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:34 am

VasikkA wrote:Do you know what function this "INAH 3" has?

no

This kind of mixing science with theology disgusts me.

guess it's just a site for people who want to defend homosexuality in a discussion, it's for them to find any relevant arguments of any nature. At least it's a collection of separate texts; to have these combined into one text would be disgusting.
Oh, and funnily enough, you can find more or less everthing I recently posted in this thread on that page

Lynxer · Post by **Lynxer** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:08 pm

I wonder if the effect of this aberration is analogous for men and women. That is, if the proposed correlation actually exists. The concept of ascribing 'abnormal' behaviour -like homosexuality- to a disorder of the body sounds quite plausible. I wouldn't go as far as stigmatising it by calling it a disease, even though technically it probably is.

Naked_Lunch · Post by **Naked_Lunch** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:23 am

Rare photo of the elusive Aptyp

EDIT: What happened to the image?

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:33 am

This is going to haunt me until the retirement, isn't it?

Details are important.

I took the photo because i thought me being half-naked would be amusing.
Yes, I am comfortable with my penis size.
Yes, I don't shave my pubic hair.

Look, guys, gals, I am who I am. If you have hots for a guy/girl who is hotter than me, this is fine. I'm just an american idiot. I thought th photo would be hilarious. I blurred it so that it wouldnt be restricted.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:04 am

I think you're hot

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:38 pm

nice weapon you got there.

You may interpret that as you please.

Nicolai · Post by **Nicolai** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:18 pm

Won't load for me.

Naked_Lunch · Post by **Naked_Lunch** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:50 pm

You're missing out mang

The question is, though, who took the photo?