or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Gaydar
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gaydar - Page 3

post #31 of 180
SF is just like the Catholic Church: there are no gay people here.

Jon.
post #32 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by EL72 View Post
This assumes that men would be excusively homosexual but the trait can be passed on while men produce offspring with women, which happens a lot in some societies of closet homosexuality.

Actually, it is not that uncommon in rather tolerant countries such as the United States.

Despite the ridicule, the research is a good idea. Think of all the prejudice against people that is based on rather unreliable cues, such as slim-fit clothing and bold colors. Goodness, when you consider aversion as prejudice, it probably is done to, or done by, almost everyone.
post #33 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post
not at all - evolution deals with genes, not individuals. if an argument can be made than having a gay family member promotes the genes (for instance, having a gay uncle means that every family has an additional adult male giving support) then it in no way contridicts darwinism.

Well no. If there is a gay gene then you need gay people to reproduce in order for the trait to live on. If gay uncles never have any kids than eventually there will no longer be any gay uncles.
post #34 of 180
There's evidence that the womb environment can affect sexual orientation.
post #35 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensimageconsultant View Post
Despite the ridicule, the research is a good idea. Think of all the prejudice against people that is based on rather unreliable cues, such as slim-fit clothing and bold colors.

Oh, I agree. If I'm going to be prejudiced against someone for being gay, I damn well want to make sure he's gay. I'd be really embarrassed if I acted in a prejudiced manner toward someone under the mistaken impression that he was gay.

I mean, it's easy to be prejudiced against the blacks or the Asians, 'cause you can tell, y'know. The Jews are kind of tricky, so I'd appreciate some more information there. I don't have time to spend my days staking out the local kosher market.
post #36 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensimageconsultant View Post
There's evidence that the womb environment can affect sexual orientation.

All womb environments are pink...how come we're not all gay?

Jon.
post #37 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensimageconsultant View Post
There's evidence that the womb environment can affect sexual orientation.

post #38 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBZ View Post
Oh, I agree. If I'm going to be prejudiced against someone for being gay, I damn well want to make sure he's gay. I'd be really embarrassed if I acted in a prejudiced manner toward someone under the mistaken impression that he was gay.

Prejudice will happen anyway. Besides, for women looking to marry, it's important to quickly filter out those who might be gay.
post #39 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensimageconsultant View Post
There's evidence that the womb environment can affect sexual orientation.

My womb was a gay bathouse.
post #40 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagonesque View Post
My womb was a gay bathouse.

Did Bette Midler and Barry Manilow perform often?
post #41 of 180
[quote=JBZ;587674]Oh, I agree. If I'm going to be prejudiced against someone for being gay, I damn well want to make sure he's gay. I'd be really embarrassed if I acted in a prejudiced manner toward someone under the mistaken impression that he was gay.

I mean, it's easy to be prejudiced against the blacks or the Asians, 'cause you can tell, y'know. The Jews are kind of tricky, so I'd appreciate some more information there. I don't have time to spend my days staking out the local kosher market.[/QUOTE:]

post #42 of 180
I thought this thread was going to be about our respective gaydars. Letdown total.
post #43 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensimageconsultant View Post
Prejudice will happen anyway. Besides, for women looking to marry, it's important to quickly filter out those who might be gay.

If prejudice will happen anyway, then what's the point of the research? It's to give women the ability to spot gay men more easily so they won't marry them?

I see the point of doing the research in order to get a better understanding of the "nature vs. nurture" theories, but I'd like to think that scientists have better things to do then to spend money on helping women marry heterosexuals. Women have been doing this for thousands of years without the help of science.
post #44 of 180
Quote:
I thought this thread was going to be about our respective gaydars. Letdown total.

Seconded. Screw this, I'm going to go look at overpriced shoes at Lord & Taylor.

JB
post #45 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by EL72 View Post
Well no. If there is a gay gene then you need gay people to reproduce in order for the trait to live on. If gay uncles never have any kids than eventually there will no longer be any gay uncles.

I'm not a genetisist, but I don't think it works like that. I think that a gene doesn't just control one thing, it controls several. so there may be a gene that, along with several other things, makes every tenth man that has that gene by gay. if that were the case, and the assumption was that gay men make good uncles, then that gene would self perpetuate well, if the advantage of having a gay uncle raised ones ability to preproduce.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Gaydar