Why Does Homosexual People Looks Muscular In Both Gender?

[managing]

There are other highly masculinized societies that openly had sex with other men, and even adolescent boys. It's cultural.

Biologically, it is not caused by lack of masculinization, nor excessive feminization. The problem with this thinking is that you cannot easily define masculinity, and scientific studies are largely inconclusive to my knowledge as what causes homosexuality apart from the genetic disposition.

To reiterate my previous argument. Males are the aesthetic race in humans, and in almost every other species. Only relatively recently have women (in some phenotypes) have started to develop sexually competitive traits.

The only thing one can reliably say about homosexuality is that it is too complex of a phenomenon to go looking for singular "causes".

And to @Kyle M I know your question was for @RedStaR , but I'll answer that I've known many homosexual men and have/had several who are very close friends. And everything @RedStaR has posted in this thread seems on target, other than attributing causality to genetics (not a very peaty perspective anyway).

Its clear that his/her "peacock" reference did not reference physical characteristics, but rather things like "courtly attire" in many cultures. In much of history its a ruling class phenomenon though. Anyway, it was a metaphor. Nothing more.

 

[Kyle M]

Its clear that his/her "peacock" reference did not reference physical characteristics, but rather things like "courtly attire" in many cultures. In much of history its a ruling class phenomenon though. Anyway, it was a metaphor. Nothing more.

That's exactly my point, that he was 100% incorrect in saying that male humans are evolved to be the "pretty" ones, because male humans obviously peacock with external matter, showing off their ability to acquire resources. Female humans, on the other hand, are built almost entirely with an eye towards attracting men. Since they don't have to acquire resources (in evolutionary times) their entire bodies can be devoted to attracting mates and creating children, with the primary assets (breasts, hips) doing double duty.

 

[managing]

Most of what I've seen is they are usually very fat, unhealthy, the type that can't walk up a flight of stairs without losing their breathe. I assume they are often social rejects and resort to homosexuality/lesbianism as a result.
Based on what I've seen when protesting at gay parades too. I have seen the reverse, the muscular types, which probably are on steroids as mentioned.
The lesbians are usually the worst; almost all of them were morbidly obese and had very short hair; very loud-mouthed and hostile to men.
This is coming from Canada at least, probably varies by region.

Probably opening a can of worms here, but . . . why would one protest at a gay parade? What would one be protesting?

 

[BibleBeliever]

Probably opening a can of worms here, but . . . why would one protest at a gay parade? What would one be protesting?

Like this:

Religious opposition.
Society wise it is useful to oppose as well; as they oppose the traditional family and Christian values, changing laws to force Christians to submit.

I havn't done it in years though, as unending threats, get spat on, people threatening to kill you.
Get mobbed and have my banner torn down.
The one year the police cuffed me and just held me in the cruiser.

Most of them are beyond talking to.

 

[managing]

, changing laws to force Christians to submit.

Do you know of any examples of this happening?

 

[x-ray peat]

If you were a member of an ostracized and formerly persecuted minority, the last thing you would do to gain acceptance in society at large is to have a parade where you exaggerate your differences and feed the worst stereotypes by flaunting your sexual fetishes. I suspect that like feminism there is something else going on that is not in the best interests of the gay community.

 

[managing]

If you were a member of an ostracized and formerly persecuted minority, the last thing you would do to gain acceptance in society at large is to have a parade where you exaggerate your differences and feed the worst stereotypes by flaunting your sexual fetishes. I suspect that like feminism there is something else going on that is not in the best interests of the gay community.

But I don't agree. If I were a member of an ostracized and currently (there is no "formerly" to the persecution of homosexuals) group, I think the very thing I would do is celebrate that group. To show that I can. To enjoy openly being (fill in the blank). To celebrate living in a country where one can openly be that.

I don't think it is counter to the best interests of the gay community or anything else to celebrate like this. Openness about "being gay" creates a normal where "being gay" is . . . normal. This is a good and reasonable goal. Queer is queer. Acceptance only can take one form. And that is acceptance. "I'm ok with it as long as I don't have to see it" is not acceptance. Its denial and repression. Until people don't give a damn if its two men, two women, or a man and a woman, acceptance didn't happen.

I also don't think, specifically in the example of being gay, that it exaggerates differences. Gay is different from hetero. I don't see how the difference even can be exaggerated? This doesn't feed stereotypes. It feeds understanding.

What is wrong with fetishes? I mean, normal people don't have them right? Or do they?

 

[x-ray peat]

But I don't agree. If I were a member of an ostracized and currently (there is no "formerly" to the persecution of homosexuals) group, I think the very thing I would do is celebrate that group. To show that I can. To enjoy openly being (fill in the blank). To celebrate living in a country where one can openly be that.

I don't think it is counter to the best interests of the gay community or anything else to celebrate like this. Openness about "being gay" creates a normal where "being gay" is . . . normal. This is a good and reasonable goal. Queer is queer. Acceptance only can take one form. And that is acceptance. "I'm ok with it as long as I don't have to see it" is not acceptance. Its denial and repression. Until people don't give a damn if its two men, two women, or a man and a woman, acceptance didn't happen.

I also don't think, specifically in the example of being gay, that it exaggerates differences. Gay is different from hetero. I don't see how the difference even can be exaggerated? This doesn't feed stereotypes. It feeds understanding.

What is wrong with fetishes? I mean, normal people don't have them right? Or do they?

My whole point is that being gay and living a gay lifestyle is not what is portrayed in these parades. Most gay people I know look just like everyone else, not like someone keeping a Gimp tied up in their basement. They are not celebrating being Gay, they are celebrating the most extreme stereotypes of their group and that leads to the violent reaction you see in the video above.

 

[managing]

My whole point is that being gay and living a gay lifestyle is not what is portrayed in these parades. Most gay people I know look just like everyone else, not like someone keeping a Gimp tied up in their basement. They are not celebrating being Gay, they are celebrating the most extreme stereotypes of their group and that leads to the violent reaction you see in the video above.

But they aren't. They may be celebrating the most "gay" they can imagine being. And its exactly about that recognition. I can be "this gay". In public. And not get arrested, beaten, fired, etc. Even if I only do it one day a year. I can. Therefore I am free.

I totally get how this is liberating. One of my best friends is a gay man who grew up in a fundamentalist christian survivalist flannel and NRA kind of family. And that is how he looks 364 days/year. At least. It is who he is. He is also a guy who has lived in the Castro and participated in its gay pride celebrations. I have no idea how he dressed. But I can tell you he is one of the most confident and self-assured people I know. And if he felt like dressing like the Gimp from Pulp Fiction, I am sure he would.

And soo what if it does lead to a violent reaction? I mean at some level its all about being provocative. And if there were some essential element of my identity that was throughly marginalized by a significant portion of society, I'd be provocative as hell about it. In fact, I think my thorough acceptance of homosexuals is pretty unacceptable to a large swath of society. And I feel like being provocative about it.

If I say something like "close your eyes and picture one man ******* another in the ****" and a few people realize they really don't care one way or another, all the better. Because then two men living next door raising their family . . . just doesn't really matter much.

Why not provoke a violent reaction. When there are police officers and a huge public watching? Maybe it means not having to face a violent reaction when all the doors are closed, police are in another area, and its a dark alley. Being gay is scary as ***t even in the most civilized places. In every instance, its the violence that is wrong, not the provocation.

 

[x-ray peat]

But they aren't. They may be celebrating the most "gay" they can imagine being. And its exactly about that recognition. I can be "this gay". In public. And not get arrested, beaten, fired, etc. Even if I only do it one day a year. I can. Therefore I am free.

I totally get how this is liberating. One of my best friends is a gay man who grew up in a fundamentalist christian survivalist flannel and NRA kind of family. And that is how he looks 364 days/year. At least. It is who he is. He is also a guy who has lived in the Castro and participated in its gay pride celebrations. I have no idea how he dressed. But I can tell you he is one of the most confident and self-assured people I know. And if he felt like dressing like the Gimp from Pulp Fiction, I am sure he would.

And soo what if it does lead to a violent reaction? I mean at some level its all about being provocative. And if there were some essential element of my identity that was throughly marginalized by a significant portion of society, I'd be provocative as hell about it. In fact, I think my thorough acceptance of homosexuals is pretty unacceptable to a large swath of society. And I feel like being provocative about it.

If I say something like "close your eyes and picture one man ******* another in the ****" and a few people realize they really don't care one way or another, all the better. Because then two men living next door raising their family . . . just doesn't really matter much.

Why not provoke a violent reaction. When there are police officers and a huge public watching? Maybe it means not having to face a violent reaction when all the doors are closed, police are in another area, and its a dark alley. Being gay is scary as ***t even in the most civilized places. In every instance, its the violence that is wrong, not the provocation.

Because provoking violent reactions from the rest of society does not help the gay community as much as seeking understanding and acceptance would. It only creates division between segments in society which is what I think is the real goal. These wedge issues are carefully and unceasingly inflamed so that the people will never unite and really try to figure out how to better their collective lives. Just look at how divided our country has become. That degree of self-destruction takes planning and effort.

 

[BibleBeliever]

Do you know of any examples of this happening?

This one is old but has many examples just from Canada, many are gay examples, some are unrelated:

Hate Crimes Laws Used Against Christians in Canada


"In 2001 in Toronto, Ontario, printer SCOTT BROCKIE was fined $5,000 for refusing to print homosexual-themed stationery for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives. The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton."

"In 2005 a British Columbia KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS council was ordered to pay $2,000 to two lesbians, plus their legal costs, for refusing to allow its facility to be used for their “wedding.” The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton. "

"In July 2007 a homosexual man won a job discrimination claim against the Church of England. After John Reaney was turned down for a youth worker’s post in Cardiff, Wales, he complained to the government that he was being unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation. The employment tribunal agreed. Homosexual activists rejoiced at the ruling. One said that the “church must learn that denying people jobs on the ground of their sexuality is no longer acceptable” (“Gay Christian Wins Job Tribunal against Church of England,” Daily Mail, July 18, 2007). "

"In April 2008 the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fined a Christian photography studio $6,600 for discriminating against homosexuals. Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, co-owners of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, politely refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s “commitment ceremony.”"

Endless others in the article alone.
Then there is the Christian cake baker one that I'm sure you have heard of in the US.
There are endless others that aren't on popular media, because it doesn't suit the narrative.

Recently: This New Law in Canada Could Remove Kids From Parents Who Reject Transgender Ideology

"Canada’s most populous province, Ontario, just passed a law that could allow the government to remove kids from their home if their parents oppose the new transgender ideology."

The slippery slope is real. It will slowly get worse and worse.

They try and say oh your discriminating blah blah, but it is the historical Christian belief that homosexuality is condemned; especially their concept of "marriage." So to appease gays they end up with religious discrimination against Christians.

 

[managing]

Because provoking violent reactions from the rest of society does not help the gay community as much as seeking understanding and acceptance would. It further creates division between segments in society which is what I think is the real goal. These wedge issues are carefully and unceasingly inflamed so that the people will never unite and really try to figure out how to better their collective lives. Just look at how divided our country has become. That degree of self-destruction takes planning and effort.

I get your point. There is definitely a place for it.

But let me come at it from a personal angle. I grew up with all of the prejudices "given" to me. Gays, blacks, hispanics, chinese, japanese, you name it. And at some point in my development, I realized these things just don't matter. I encountered these "others" as real live human beings. With fears and aspirations and feelings, and pride. They could achieve, they could drink too much, be intolerant. Just like me. And it included images of gay pride in San Francisco. It included knowing a few individuals in grad school who would be described by gays and heteros alike as "flamers". And getting my **** grabbed by one of them in a very-not-gay-bar in Chicago. And being annoyed. Not that a man grabbed my ****. But that somebody grabbed **** when it was clearly unwelcome. And I told him so. And he apologized. And we were friends. ANd I understood better how women felt in analogous situations. And how confused a gay man could be about a hetero who was openly friendly and accepting of him.

Gay is gay. Those over the top expressions of gay are real. They are provocative. Not combative. Do some take it too far? Yes. But its the combativeness that goes too far. Not the expressions of leather and drag and whatever gayness they want. That ***t is gay. Period. Gay is what gay says it is. I stopped giving a ***t a long time ago. "Too gay" doesn't exist.

Anybody who can't accept that, should expect to be provoked. Gaining acceptance doesn't require "acting less gay". Meeting in the middle doesn't mean not holding hands or kissing in public. It means, quite literally, being indifferent to expressions of gayness. The tendency to provoke, especially en masse, in one big celebration is, if absolutely nothing else, an opportunity to desensitize.

 

[x-ray peat]

I get your point. There is definitely a place for it.

But let me come at it from a personal angle. I grew up with all of the prejudices "given" to me. Gays, blacks, hispanics, chinese, japanese, you name it. And at some point in my development, I realized these things just don't matter. I encountered these "others" as real live human beings. With fears and aspirations and feelings, and pride. They could achieve, they could drink too much, be intolerant. Just like me. And it included images of gay pride in San Francisco. It included knowing a few individuals in grad school who would be described by gays and heteros alike as "flamers". And getting my **** grabbed by one of them in a very-not-gay-bar in Chicago. And being annoyed. Not that a man grabbed my ****. But that somebody grabbed **** when it was clearly unwelcome. And I told him so. And he apologized. And we were friends. ANd I understood better how women felt in analogous situations. And how confused a gay man could be about a hetero who was openly friendly and accepting of him.

Gay is gay. Those over the top expressions of gay are real. They are provocative. Not combative. Do some take it too far? Yes. But its the combativeness that goes too far. Not the expressions of leather and drag and whatever gayness they want. That ***t is gay. Period. Gay is what gay says it is. I stopped giving a ***t a long time ago. "Too gay" doesn't exist.

Anybody who can't accept that, should expect to be provoked. Gaining acceptance doesn't require "acting less gay". Meeting in the middle doesn't mean not holding hands or kissing in public. It means, quite literally, being indifferent to expressions of gayness. The tendency to provoke, especially en masse, in one big celebration is, if absolutely nothing else, an opportunity to desensitize.

I completely understand the rationale given for having an over the top flamboyant "flaming" parade. I'm just not buying it and as I said before I think it is counter-productive. Yes it might make gay people feel better that they are free to be as flaming or out there as they want once a year but that is not who they are. It is more like Halloween for them than a true pride parade in which they are being proud of who they really are, not who the gay magazines has them thinking gay people should be. I guess my main objection is that it is not authentic, and anything built on a lie is not as powerful as something built on the truth.

Interesting that you should say that Gay is what Gay says it is. Jordan Peterson has made a career out of debating this so I wont get too deep into it, except to say that you cant force others to think the way you want and speak the words you want them to speak. Gay means what the dictionary definition (i.e. collective usage) says; a group of people who like the same sex. Everything else has a different name and those groups should not be considered the same as being gay. Didn't Kevin Spacey get into trouble for conflating pedophilia with being Gay? Should we accept his definition of what it means to be Gay?

 

[Ideonaut]

That's exactly my point, that he was 100% incorrect in saying that male humans are evolved to be the "pretty" ones, because male humans obviously peacock with external matter, showing off their ability to acquire resources. Female humans, on the other hand, are built almost entirely with an eye towards attracting men. Since they don't have to acquire resources (in evolutionary times) their entire bodies can be devoted to attracting mates and creating children, with the primary assets (breasts, hips) doing double duty.

Well put. Say, I wonder if there are any studies on the hormonal effects of smearing feces on your penis?

 

[x-ray peat]

Well put. Say, I wonder if there are any studies on the hormonal effects of smearing feces on your penis?

 

[ExD]

Well put. Say, I wonder if there are any studies on the hormonal effects of smearing feces on your penis?

i've heard that men who are opposed to anal sex are also more likely to be socially submissive, passive aggressive and sexually repressed. it certainly holds true if we look at homosexuals, who are pioneers of the anal canal and tend to be very socially assertive and dominant, but who can say for certain

 

[kayumochi]

Gay men more often have "lordosis" of the lower back, which is what women have for mating so if they bend over the **** sticks up and the back curves downwards; it's seen in all female animals but is absent in universally all hetero men.

My wife and I were discussing the "gay man's ****" recently: she said it had a different look than a straight man's **** and after considering it I had to agree.

 

[managing]

I completely understand the rationale given for having an over the top flamboyant "flaming" parade. I'm just not buying it and as I said before I think it is counter-productive. Yes it might make gay people feel better that they are free to be as flaming or out there as they want once a year but that is not who they are. It is more like Halloween for them than a true pride parade in which they are being proud of who they really are, not who the gay magazines has them thinking gay people should be. I guess my main objection is that it is not authentic, and anything built on a lie is not as powerful as something built on the truth.

Interesting that you should say that Gay is what Gay says it is. Jordan Peterson has made a career out of debating this so I wont get too deep into it, except to say that you cant force others to think the way you want and speak the words you want them to speak. Gay means what the dictionary definition (i.e. collective usage) says; a group of people who like the same sex. Everything else has a different name and those groups should not be considered the same as being gay. Didn't Kevin Spacey get into trouble for conflating pedophilia with being Gay? Should we accept his definition of what it means to be Gay?

I am not sure how we got from point A to point B here, but I'll work backwards. I didn't see him conflating pedophilia with being gay, although you aren't the first to claim that. I did see him try to deflect attention from (his own apparent) pedophilia by officially coming out as gay. Either way, that sounds like a Kevin Spacey problem, not a gay problem.

As far as pride parades and apparent open "gayness" in public, let's cut to the chase. Reading between the lines, I am getting the sense you just don't want to witness "being gay" in your day to day life. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll pause to ask if this is right.

 

[x-ray peat]

I am not sure how we got from point A to point B here, but I'll work backwards. I didn't see him conflating pedophilia with being gay, although you aren't the first to claim that. I did see him try to deflect attention from (his own apparent) pedophilia by officially coming out as gay. Either way, that sounds like a Kevin Spacey problem, not a gay problem.

That's not the way I heard it or the majority of people who commented on it.How Kevin Spacey’s ‘Coming Out’ Grossly Conflates Pedophilia and Homosexuality

But with that said my point is that you don't get to define your own words. Gay is not what Gay says it is. Who elected the Gay leaders to have that power over the millions of Gay people. Being into S&M is not the same as being Gay and my only point is that it doesn't help the gay community to have these two different lifestyles mixed together. There are plenty of Masochistic or Sexually adventurous Irish but you don't see Leprechauns in leather marching during the St Patrick Days parade. (Though that may soon change with recent developments.) The Irish are truly are celebrating who they are and not some made up version of themselves.

As far as pride parades and apparent open "gayness" in public, let's cut to the chase. Reading between the lines, I am getting the sense you just don't want to witness "being gay" in your day to day life. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll pause to ask if this is right.

No, but thank you for asking. As I keep saying "being Gay" is not the same as being into S&M and it hurts the Gay cause to have vast numbers of Americans, who don't have any direct connection with Gay people, think all Gays are into what they consider a deviant activity.

You have said before that one benefit of the pride parades is that they provoke a reaction from everyone else. Provoking people is not usually considered a way to bring people together and foster better relations.

 

[kayumochi]

That's exactly my point, that he was 100% incorrect in saying that male humans are evolved to be the "pretty" ones, because male humans obviously peacock with external matter, showing off their ability to acquire resources. Female humans, on the other hand, are built almost entirely with an eye towards attracting men. Since they don't have to acquire resources (in evolutionary times) their entire bodies can be devoted to attracting mates and creating children, with the primary assets (breasts, hips) doing double duty.

Warriors adorned with feathers, bone and spears are "peacocking," as is the modern soldier with an automatic rifle. These are called "display rituals" and are acted out by men in all cultures in every age.