..oh god, not this.DRes82 said:
Straight people don't need to be 'outspoken' about their sexuality, it's assumed or actual presence visibly permeates every aspect of our society. Seriously, do straight people just never notice that?
help me with my project: what if gay were the norm and heterosexuality were taboo?
- Thread starter CrustyOatmeal
- Start date
Straight people don't need to be 'outspoken' about their sexuality, it's assumed or actual presence visibly permeates every aspect of our society. Seriously, do straight people just never notice that?
Call me crazy, but I vaguely remember a cartoon that addressed this situation (only it involved scientist discovering life on Mars and that the predominant sexual orientation was homosexuality, while heterosexuality was discriminated against). Don't get me wrong, this was not a stab at homosexuality; it was more of an educational tool to show heterosexuals what it would be like if the shoe was on the other foot of the gay rights issue.
Anyway, my input would be that the population would definitely be much, much lower than it already is and there would be much fewer generations (unless humanity found some way to reproduce asexually.) Kids and future generations would be born out of in vitro fertilization or surrogate mothers. Heterosexuals would be tolerable at first, but soon will be prone to discrimination. Rather than the inaccurate and awful stereotype of gays spreading deadly diseases, heteros would be viewed as immoral for impregnating or bearing children outside of in vitro or surrogacy.
Seriously, this just implies that sexuality is not the issue. Instead, it's the preservation of ideals, traditions, and views that is what always sparks debates. By forcing others to believe a certain way, it is violating the freedoms of people to express themselves and believe what they wish.
Anyway, my input would be that the population would definitely be much, much lower than it already is and there would be much fewer generations (unless humanity found some way to reproduce asexually.) Kids and future generations would be born out of in vitro fertilization or surrogate mothers. Heterosexuals would be tolerable at first, but soon will be prone to discrimination. Rather than the inaccurate and awful stereotype of gays spreading deadly diseases, heteros would be viewed as immoral for impregnating or bearing children outside of in vitro or surrogacy.
Seriously, this just implies that sexuality is not the issue. Instead, it's the preservation of ideals, traditions, and views that is what always sparks debates. By forcing others to believe a certain way, it is violating the freedoms of people to express themselves and believe what they wish.
Yep. It's the same with race. When you are the majority, or the social class in power, you don't have to identify yourself by your sexuality/race whatever. Those IN the dominant social group seem to forget this or simply don't see it. It's pretty common.evilthecat said:
Most of modern society is tailored on the assumption that people are heterosexual, so there is no need for a "straight parade". Heterosexuality is synonymous with normalcy. Homosexuality is the deviant. Intentional or not, American society has been shaped with that assumption for many, many years. It makes it easy to overlook just how "advertised" heterosexuality is.
im sorry for the absurdity of this topic but its a class project that my teacher sort of hijacked and turned into something she wanted me to do. our original project was going to be about LGBT culture within college life and its social and political pressures but my professor has a way of ignoring the fundamental rules of science and logic (which pisses me off) and then trying to force ideals down your throat.
i am sorry for any inconsistencies in my tone or topic but i am just as confused as you are. im trying to get a hold of the topic but it is difficult to wrap my head around what my professor is talking about. sadly, this is a group presentation ad so i have no say over changing the topic back. i was just hoping my fellow escapist could shed some light on the topic and help me BS my way through it by spewing out random facts
i am sorry for any inconsistencies in my tone or topic but i am just as confused as you are. im trying to get a hold of the topic but it is difficult to wrap my head around what my professor is talking about. sadly, this is a group presentation ad so i have no say over changing the topic back. i was just hoping my fellow escapist could shed some light on the topic and help me BS my way through it by spewing out random facts
Aside from the astoundingly smaller population? No, there would be very few, major changes.CrustyOatmeal said:
The one of the only *real* issues I can think of off the top of my head is Genghis Khan, who murdered and raped his way to being the genetic ancestor of some arbitrarily large percentage of the world's population, if his victims were predominately male, as opposed to female, I can see a drastic reduction in the world's population, as well as some (Possibly important?) people never having been born.
The other major cultural change I can see is that heterosexuals would, in fact, be treated differently than homosexuals are today. If there is only one, tiny fragment of the population that breeds, than that tiny fragment is going to be protected fervently. I can see hate crimes against the "breeders" amounting more usually to rape than assault ("Oh, you think you're so special because you don't like the same sex? I'm going to force you to have a taste.") Perhaps "Breeder Rights" would be different, owing to the nesscity of the heterosexual population for growth and genetic diversity, they could be kept as anything from chained, helpless animals, eternally fornicating to produce new stock of humans, to lauded and placed on pedestals, as the only viable saviours of the race.
It's impossible to look at this change whilst ignoring the anatomical/reproduction factor. If we ignore that, than we have a frankly, largely insulting thought experiment (and I'm straight) that probably should lead to summary and disciplinary action against the professor involved.
The project really is absurd. Though just switching most homosexual and heterosexual things provides for some kinda humorous changes. No longer did Helen of Troy launch 1000 ships into war, but Hector of Troy! Prom dates have to make sure they don't wear the same thing, or perhaps that they DO wear outfits that complement each other without being too similar! There definitely wouldn't be any anti-sodomy laws. Actually, there'd be anti-vaginal intercourse laws. Seriously though, silly project.CrustyOatmeal said:
I'll ATTEMPT to give you a serious answer right here, though: Femininity and masculinity are VERY important distinctions in modern society. While it is possible for a man to be feminine and a woman to be masculine, it's considered strange, and they're mostly divided upon sex lines due to physical differences. A lot of this is due to their classical roles in society.
Would this change if heterosexuality was not widespread? Particularly throughout history, where the expectation was for men to be providers, rulers, and protectors, whereas women were associated being weaker, delicate, and mostly for rearing children?
I'd say such a stark divide between masculinity and femininity might not exist at all if families were assumed to have two men or two women. Granted, I believe people would socially construct other ways to divide each other up for purposes of self-justification, but what I've just mentioned is probably the most interesting possibility of this situation for me.
Come to think, people thought about world splitted between sexes...EventHorizon said:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/genderwars/index.html
http://awesomescreenshot.com/0cfmk5p42
(scrap that - subtitles are void of any humor...).
look I don't mean to be dismissive of your first post but you can't ignore the biology of this.
it leaves you 2 options
1. Evolution will follow its course the groups that reproduce will share the traits that they have in reproduction, since gay's can't reproduce it would leave them with only the option of heterosexuals putting forth there gene's meaning in very few generations that heterosexuals would become the norm.
2. You develop a society like Amazons/Gargareans where most likely homosexuality was rampant, but they understood the need to procreate to continue the species. This would keep any genetic material that caused homosexuality to be reasonably abundant. (this does not require them to live in different areas)
Lets take option 2 for arguments sake (as it is the only way that the species could continue to exist with a high homosexual population)
this would cause heterosexuality, to be accepted as a necessary evil so people that were heterosexual would be more accepted in that society then homosexuals are in our society. There would be other complications that would occur biologically speaking the reason human females experience estrus on a monthly basis is because of evolution, people started having sex for social reasons, women that were able to get pregnant more often got pregnant more often allowing for higher concentration of those genes in the population, we still have some genetic throw backs of women that only have estrus 3 or 4 times a year, but this would not occur in the example given because the Amazon/Gargareans only met up once a year (presumably when they were all the women were in estrus) The overall result of this would be vastly reduced population.
Now social expectation may be for them to be homosexual, and there may be a stigma against those not showing any interest in the same gender. This would likely cause them to be made fun of, and for it to be considered an aberration however it would still be considered more acceptable than in our society because of the necessary evil. There would also be a group of wacko's that refused to participate in that once a year heterosexuality, however they would be a low percentage of the population, but they as fanatics may cause hate crimes against the heterosexuals.
Most of the major religions would not exist, but would likely have similar ones take there place.
Women may or may not still be second class citizens(lesbians vs Gays) because there would be a question of equal rights still, or a dual society might spring up where each has there own version of status, which would effect the once a year mating ritual, causing social dissatisfaction of one group that was in high society on one side mated with one in lower class society or middle class society. This dissatisfaction may cause it to become more difficult to raise ones status level from lower class to middle class to high society. Most likely it would be a dual society but in the same city(this has to do with land being limited) there would not be much fighting between men and women because of breading rights/ possibilities of infanticide limiting the male gender
It is unlikely that wars like world war II would be fought over different reasons, this is because "racism" is separate from sexuality, however it is possible that Hitler would have been a wacko extremist that would imprison the strictly heterosexuals.
Culture would be dependent on society, if they split up to the dual system there would be two completely separate cultures allowing for completely different types of art/ music for each society. There would be an obvious change in raising of children, women would most likely have them for the first year or two, where as men would likely get all male children after that time period. This would actually cause problems for heterosexuals as they would be raising children of opposite gender which would likely not be socially acceptable(especially since there are tribes in Africa where they are heterosexual and it is unacceptable for parents of opposite genders to raise the children, causing a split in there society between men and women and thus they have a dual society)
well that's a bit lengthy I hope I helped...
it leaves you 2 options
1. Evolution will follow its course the groups that reproduce will share the traits that they have in reproduction, since gay's can't reproduce it would leave them with only the option of heterosexuals putting forth there gene's meaning in very few generations that heterosexuals would become the norm.
2. You develop a society like Amazons/Gargareans where most likely homosexuality was rampant, but they understood the need to procreate to continue the species. This would keep any genetic material that caused homosexuality to be reasonably abundant. (this does not require them to live in different areas)
Lets take option 2 for arguments sake (as it is the only way that the species could continue to exist with a high homosexual population)
this would cause heterosexuality, to be accepted as a necessary evil so people that were heterosexual would be more accepted in that society then homosexuals are in our society. There would be other complications that would occur biologically speaking the reason human females experience estrus on a monthly basis is because of evolution, people started having sex for social reasons, women that were able to get pregnant more often got pregnant more often allowing for higher concentration of those genes in the population, we still have some genetic throw backs of women that only have estrus 3 or 4 times a year, but this would not occur in the example given because the Amazon/Gargareans only met up once a year (presumably when they were all the women were in estrus) The overall result of this would be vastly reduced population.
Now social expectation may be for them to be homosexual, and there may be a stigma against those not showing any interest in the same gender. This would likely cause them to be made fun of, and for it to be considered an aberration however it would still be considered more acceptable than in our society because of the necessary evil. There would also be a group of wacko's that refused to participate in that once a year heterosexuality, however they would be a low percentage of the population, but they as fanatics may cause hate crimes against the heterosexuals.
Most of the major religions would not exist, but would likely have similar ones take there place.
Women may or may not still be second class citizens(lesbians vs Gays) because there would be a question of equal rights still, or a dual society might spring up where each has there own version of status, which would effect the once a year mating ritual, causing social dissatisfaction of one group that was in high society on one side mated with one in lower class society or middle class society. This dissatisfaction may cause it to become more difficult to raise ones status level from lower class to middle class to high society. Most likely it would be a dual society but in the same city(this has to do with land being limited) there would not be much fighting between men and women because of breading rights/ possibilities of infanticide limiting the male gender
It is unlikely that wars like world war II would be fought over different reasons, this is because "racism" is separate from sexuality, however it is possible that Hitler would have been a wacko extremist that would imprison the strictly heterosexuals.
Culture would be dependent on society, if they split up to the dual system there would be two completely separate cultures allowing for completely different types of art/ music for each society. There would be an obvious change in raising of children, women would most likely have them for the first year or two, where as men would likely get all male children after that time period. This would actually cause problems for heterosexuals as they would be raising children of opposite gender which would likely not be socially acceptable(especially since there are tribes in Africa where they are heterosexual and it is unacceptable for parents of opposite genders to raise the children, causing a split in there society between men and women and thus they have a dual society)
well that's a bit lengthy I hope I helped...
I'd just like to point out that the Amazons at least (I don't know about Gargareans so I won't comment on that) were a mythological nation mostly conjured up by Herodotus and his ilk, not a real antiquity era civilization. I'm not sure if you're actually implying they really did exist, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any respectable source actually supporting that.swoop2004 said:
More than likely the Amazons were an embellished amalgamation of various female warrior tales, which would have seemed incredibly exotic, exciting and baffling to the Greeks, considering it went against everything of their worldview and what they considered a proper society. In short, a titillating tall tale meant to excite and make people wonder about all the weird things in the world. More or less like some of our own explorers coming back with tales of how the "savages of the dark continent" or what have you had no heads or walked backwards and suchlike. People are wont to making stuff up if it makes for a good story.
Heh, just considering the tales of how they totally needed to cut off their breasts to shoot a bow, when in actuality women can very well and without a problem shoot a bow without mangling their mammaries, kinda speaks for itself.
Hey, I'm all for equality and stuff; but when schools start trying to cram this stuff down students throats that's when I get angry. I've got gay friends; they're good guys and girls. My boss is a lesbian, etc etc. I'm fine with that whole thing; since I believe it is genetic; a mere population control system built into our DNA that activates when global conciousness levels show that the population of the planet is slowly starting to outpace it's resources.
But when schools grab it, wave it in students faces and say "YOU MUST LOOK AT IT, IT MUST BE ALRIGHT TO YOU, YOU MUST PRACTICE IT AND JOIN HYPOTHETICAL DISCUSSIONS THAT REVERSE ROLES!" That's where I draw the line. Yeah, you're gay, so what? Want a bloody cookie for it? How about my paycheck? Seems everyone wants that from me these days. I have to pay for people's stuff all the time through socialist programs.
Anywhere from lawsuits that the government pays out cuz the idiot whom decided to key someone's car out of spite couldn't afford it to people buying soda and chips and junk food on their bloody food stamps.
I went off topic there for a bit; all I am saying is; teach equality, not embracement. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and when you start jamming thoughts into someone else's head you're removing their own opinion and replacing it with your own.
But when schools grab it, wave it in students faces and say "YOU MUST LOOK AT IT, IT MUST BE ALRIGHT TO YOU, YOU MUST PRACTICE IT AND JOIN HYPOTHETICAL DISCUSSIONS THAT REVERSE ROLES!" That's where I draw the line. Yeah, you're gay, so what? Want a bloody cookie for it? How about my paycheck? Seems everyone wants that from me these days. I have to pay for people's stuff all the time through socialist programs.
Anywhere from lawsuits that the government pays out cuz the idiot whom decided to key someone's car out of spite couldn't afford it to people buying soda and chips and junk food on their bloody food stamps.
I went off topic there for a bit; all I am saying is; teach equality, not embracement. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and when you start jamming thoughts into someone else's head you're removing their own opinion and replacing it with your own.
For some reason, everyone seems to think that just because someone is homosexual, they can't engage in heterosexual sex for the purposes of reproduction. A gay man is perfectly capable of impregnating a lesbian woman. There's merit to the assumption that the EARLIEST breed of humans, if inclined towards homosexuality, would not have survived, but homosexuality as a taboo is a rather modern development. If, at this time, heterosexuality had become taboo instead, people would STILL reproduce, they'd know better.
Think of it as heterosexual relationships being taboo, not heterosexual sex being permanently banned forever.
Imagine, if heterosexuality was TRULY considered an abomination, which is what the point of this theoretical situation is, but was required to keep the race going, it would need to be practiced, but would likely be done in very limited and controlled means. Possibly regulated by the government. Those found practicing it outside of that would suffer from the same social stigma that homosexuals do. Actually, in more medieval times, they might be lynched, executed, and sterilized.
People seem to assume that simply by breeding non-stop, the heterosexuals would be able to take power. But from a societal standpoint, they'd be oppressed and any efforts down that route would be stymied. Furthermore, they'd likely be worse off economically due to maintaining a larger family. The stigma attached with being a hetero would prevent them from obtaining any level of political power, at least in a representative government. Imagine religion promoting homosexuality because it is approved in the Bible. Christianity had a MASSIVE hold on the world back then.
Seriously, try not just taking the easy route and going "lulz gays can't reproduce they'd die". That makes it sound like you think that homosexuals as a social group in power would be too stupid to know that they need heterosexual sex to reproduce. If you think homosexuality is a "genetic" thing, then two homosexuals could reproduce another homosexual child easily. If you think it's a "social" thing, well that's even easier if society were screaming it was the norm and decrying heterosexuality.
I'm not all that fervent about this, but I'm interested in seeing what people really think might happen, rather than just taking the "I'm so snide and clever" way out.
Think of it as heterosexual relationships being taboo, not heterosexual sex being permanently banned forever.
Imagine, if heterosexuality was TRULY considered an abomination, which is what the point of this theoretical situation is, but was required to keep the race going, it would need to be practiced, but would likely be done in very limited and controlled means. Possibly regulated by the government. Those found practicing it outside of that would suffer from the same social stigma that homosexuals do. Actually, in more medieval times, they might be lynched, executed, and sterilized.
People seem to assume that simply by breeding non-stop, the heterosexuals would be able to take power. But from a societal standpoint, they'd be oppressed and any efforts down that route would be stymied. Furthermore, they'd likely be worse off economically due to maintaining a larger family. The stigma attached with being a hetero would prevent them from obtaining any level of political power, at least in a representative government. Imagine religion promoting homosexuality because it is approved in the Bible. Christianity had a MASSIVE hold on the world back then.
Seriously, try not just taking the easy route and going "lulz gays can't reproduce they'd die". That makes it sound like you think that homosexuals as a social group in power would be too stupid to know that they need heterosexual sex to reproduce. If you think homosexuality is a "genetic" thing, then two homosexuals could reproduce another homosexual child easily. If you think it's a "social" thing, well that's even easier if society were screaming it was the norm and decrying heterosexuality.
I'm not all that fervent about this, but I'm interested in seeing what people really think might happen, rather than just taking the "I'm so snide and clever" way out.
Procreation would be seen as a socially unacceptable form of sex, since it contributes to overpopulation...
Males would say something along the lines of, "You're not manly enough to be man if you don't want a strong burly man to take you in the ass."
...I'm not sure what else, though.
Males would say something along the lines of, "You're not manly enough to be man if you don't want a strong burly man to take you in the ass."
...I'm not sure what else, though.
Thar be too many biologists in this 'ere thread.
Well, for one thing, Oscar Wilde would never have written the Ballad of Reading Gaol.
Well, for one thing, Oscar Wilde would never have written the Ballad of Reading Gaol.
I don't want to be a pest, but the point about that is that when you're gay, women pretty much turn you off. Yes, fertility clinics exist, but can you honestly imagine an alternate universe where the majority of us occasionally do our civic duty and stand in line for our five minutes of fapping inside a little bottle with a collection of Hustler mags on hand and some T.P.?nukethetuna said:
Technology's given us a solution to that problem, yes, but the fact is that this social model would reduce actual heterosexual sex to an absolute minimum. I just can't see how not having that contact, that basic bonding, can be good for a species on a long-term basis. That would completely destroy the concept of fatherhood, to be honest, or come to redefine it in ways I'm not too thrilled to consider - seeing as the majority of us would therefore have been adopted.
Again, maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems sane, healthy and kinda necessary in some sort of percentage for a society to have a couple normal, heterosexual families around. In fact, I'd say it's downright necessary, if only for genetic purposes.
Jeeze, man. Do you absolutely need the credits, or can you bail out? If you can, do so. I wouldn't stick around with someone who deliberately ignores Reason if only to push some batshit insane theories down your throat.CrustyOatmeal said:
That is, if you're being honest about this. I'm sorry, but the idea that a *college professor*, someone who's therefore racked up at least one or two diplomas in his or her own right, could be such a bigot as to twist Social Sciences around to suit his or her agenda, is more than a little hard for me to swallow.
Unless you happen to live in the Bible Belt or in some similar locale known for its intolerance. Or unless your teacher shows signs of having been born, raised and educated there.