help me with my project: what if gay were the norm and heterosexuality were taboo?
- Thread starter CrustyOatmeal
- Start date
Are you keeping the Kinsey Scale?
Link:
Now, I am going to agree with post #2, you have greatly changed the question so now my previous answer which I gave some thought on isn't really going to fit. But I'll post it anyways.
The following is going to ramble, be long winded and only rarely make sense. Unfortunately it is also quite possibly sensitive to some, especially those that don't appreciate their ideas being questioned. So I'll hide it under a spoiler.
If you click the spoiler, and don't agree with what said, next time don't click the spoiler.
Hope that helps.
Edit: Because I keep reading the same line over and over again... and unfortunately it has irked me some. This spoiler will be unfortunately a bit snippy and possibly uncouth.
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Scale
Now, I am going to agree with post #2, you have greatly changed the question so now my previous answer which I gave some thought on isn't really going to fit. But I'll post it anyways.
The following is going to ramble, be long winded and only rarely make sense. Unfortunately it is also quite possibly sensitive to some, especially those that don't appreciate their ideas being questioned. So I'll hide it under a spoiler.
If you click the spoiler, and don't agree with what said, next time don't click the spoiler.
If there were some sort of way of procreating... similar to the "Amazons" where procreation was a forced process, or more accurately a process only done to further the generations with no real desire or supposed pleasure of co-mingling of the genders... then I suppose that it would have been interesting to say the least.
Previous discussions about the bisexual nature of Greeks and Romans plays heavily into this, (as well as many other cultures, but I'm not gonna write your paper for you) because in many ways, there seemed to be little difference since it was for the pleasure. And yes, it was done frequently, and with little regard to who the partner was, (read: orgy). And in the cases of rampant birth, the Romans actually had a plant that was used that was a near perfect birth control. So great in fact, that it was harvested to extinction.
Some could argue that it was the rise of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions that same sex relations really became frowned upon. Part of the reason, at least speculated as much, was that anything that could be seen as pleasurable was surely a sin. And if it did not further the growth of the 'flock' it surely was doubly so. Which is why solo-fun time is considered a sin as well.
It was actually due to these three denouncing acts that did not garner further generations, such as homosexuality that it became taboo. Especially, since there were plenty of stories about how God smote those that sinned, such as the story of Sodom and Gomorroh - the cities of vice and homosexuality that God burned to the ground for being so 'vile' and garnering his wrath. Link:
Now, aspects of homosexual behavior can be found in many cultures that did not have strong ties to these religions (such as in parts of Asia and Europe, parts of Africa and the Americas, as well as vast areas of the middle east before the rise of Islam) and only really became taboo once foreign missionaries began to immigrate into their culture, and tell them they are sinners. Look it up if you don't trust me.
Had that not been the case, then I suppose there would be a lot more of the same as back then. But if you are really trying to get into it being a taboo... There are entire books and articles on famous celebs that were ousted out of Hollywood and the public spotlight because of their sexual orientation. Blacklisted so they could not work again, there was the whole 'pinko commie' situation during the cold war, which I know you younger generations don't quite get that statement, but suffice it to say it was 'gay slur, anti-american traitor, communist monster' and used to instantly cause widespread mistrust and being called that could ruin a persons life.
Think about it, to have entire communities turn against you in a heart beat. Friends suddenly not trusting you, people avoiding you, being physically and verbally assaulted.. stolen from, abused, attacked, you name it. Worse, people felt you deserved that treatment, because in their eyes, you were an outsider, someone that challenged everything they held dear, and believed to be right, and because of that... you were considered sub-human.
Though, that doesn't really deserve to be placed only upon 'homosexuals' since it applied to anyone, of any race, creed, religion, group, or nationality that was not really considered the majority. If you were not the status quo back then, wherever you were (even in Europe, Asia, or anywhere else, you were [less than] nothing. You did not hold the same rights to live, to be safe, to be free, to exist as the person beside you. Sadly, it is still true in many parts of the world to this day.
Take that into account when you write your paper. It isn't just 'oh, did you hear, George Washington is wanting to marry a woman, fancy that' it would be more along the lines of 'burn him'.
Previous discussions about the bisexual nature of Greeks and Romans plays heavily into this, (as well as many other cultures, but I'm not gonna write your paper for you) because in many ways, there seemed to be little difference since it was for the pleasure. And yes, it was done frequently, and with little regard to who the partner was, (read: orgy). And in the cases of rampant birth, the Romans actually had a plant that was used that was a near perfect birth control. So great in fact, that it was harvested to extinction.
Some could argue that it was the rise of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions that same sex relations really became frowned upon. Part of the reason, at least speculated as much, was that anything that could be seen as pleasurable was surely a sin. And if it did not further the growth of the 'flock' it surely was doubly so. Which is why solo-fun time is considered a sin as well.
It was actually due to these three denouncing acts that did not garner further generations, such as homosexuality that it became taboo. Especially, since there were plenty of stories about how God smote those that sinned, such as the story of Sodom and Gomorroh - the cities of vice and homosexuality that God burned to the ground for being so 'vile' and garnering his wrath. Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah
Now, aspects of homosexual behavior can be found in many cultures that did not have strong ties to these religions (such as in parts of Asia and Europe, parts of Africa and the Americas, as well as vast areas of the middle east before the rise of Islam) and only really became taboo once foreign missionaries began to immigrate into their culture, and tell them they are sinners. Look it up if you don't trust me.
Had that not been the case, then I suppose there would be a lot more of the same as back then. But if you are really trying to get into it being a taboo... There are entire books and articles on famous celebs that were ousted out of Hollywood and the public spotlight because of their sexual orientation. Blacklisted so they could not work again, there was the whole 'pinko commie' situation during the cold war, which I know you younger generations don't quite get that statement, but suffice it to say it was 'gay slur, anti-american traitor, communist monster' and used to instantly cause widespread mistrust and being called that could ruin a persons life.
Think about it, to have entire communities turn against you in a heart beat. Friends suddenly not trusting you, people avoiding you, being physically and verbally assaulted.. stolen from, abused, attacked, you name it. Worse, people felt you deserved that treatment, because in their eyes, you were an outsider, someone that challenged everything they held dear, and believed to be right, and because of that... you were considered sub-human.
Though, that doesn't really deserve to be placed only upon 'homosexuals' since it applied to anyone, of any race, creed, religion, group, or nationality that was not really considered the majority. If you were not the status quo back then, wherever you were (even in Europe, Asia, or anywhere else, you were [less than] nothing. You did not hold the same rights to live, to be safe, to be free, to exist as the person beside you. Sadly, it is still true in many parts of the world to this day.
Take that into account when you write your paper. It isn't just 'oh, did you hear, George Washington is wanting to marry a woman, fancy that' it would be more along the lines of 'burn him'.
Hope that helps.
Edit: Because I keep reading the same line over and over again... and unfortunately it has irked me some. This spoiler will be unfortunately a bit snippy and possibly uncouth.
Science has tentatively proven that there is a link between brain development within the womb due to hormones released and the likelihood of a child being homosexual, bisexual or 'straight'. The corpus callosum - Link:
the connective tissue between the two halves of the brain, are slightly changed between the various 'orientations' and is not a 'genetic trait' but one that can be acquired by anyone while in the womb.
In women, it is thicker than in a majority of males meaning more connections between the reasoning and emotional sides, while it is thinner in 'straight males' meaning fewer connections between the two sides. Bisexual people of both genders have a similar thickness in the connective tissue, while some 'homosexual' people's connective tissue can look similar in some cases (not all) to the opposing gender's brain.
And as for many people that are 'gay' but have relations with the opposite sex, that does not mean it is a 'choice'. But it does seem to be a choice to conform to societies wishes rather than a person's own biology, especially when 'being yourself' or 'being what they want you to be' can mean the difference between a long, albeit unhappy life, and a short life being tormented and / or killed for being different. Some prefer to be happy, even in the short amount of time they are allowed to be, before the angry pitchfork carrying mobs descend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_collosum
In women, it is thicker than in a majority of males meaning more connections between the reasoning and emotional sides, while it is thinner in 'straight males' meaning fewer connections between the two sides. Bisexual people of both genders have a similar thickness in the connective tissue, while some 'homosexual' people's connective tissue can look similar in some cases (not all) to the opposing gender's brain.
And as for many people that are 'gay' but have relations with the opposite sex, that does not mean it is a 'choice'. But it does seem to be a choice to conform to societies wishes rather than a person's own biology, especially when 'being yourself' or 'being what they want you to be' can mean the difference between a long, albeit unhappy life, and a short life being tormented and / or killed for being different. Some prefer to be happy, even in the short amount of time they are allowed to be, before the angry pitchfork carrying mobs descend.
I remember Ellen Degeneres doing an episode about this, it was really entertaining and quite the eye opener.
In all honesty... I think it would be exactly the same, each side has its extremists.
There are straight people who are totally cool with people being gay, and there are gay people who can't understand why straight people like the opposite sex (call me a liar on this one and I will personally hit you through the internet, I know a guy like this)
Our population "crisis" if you wanna call it that, would severely diminish since far less people would be procreating.
It's a very interesting question and I really can't answer it without a massive wall of text that to be quite honest I can't be bothered to fill out, especially since it will get glazed over by most, so take my short answer for what it's worth, hope I helped, even if only a little.
In all honesty... I think it would be exactly the same, each side has its extremists.
There are straight people who are totally cool with people being gay, and there are gay people who can't understand why straight people like the opposite sex (call me a liar on this one and I will personally hit you through the internet, I know a guy like this)
Our population "crisis" if you wanna call it that, would severely diminish since far less people would be procreating.
It's a very interesting question and I really can't answer it without a massive wall of text that to be quite honest I can't be bothered to fill out, especially since it will get glazed over by most, so take my short answer for what it's worth, hope I helped, even if only a little.
In keeping with the tone of your idea, it would be pretty sweet, bro, because the chicks would always be lezzing it up. But it'd be a total bummer if pussy was banned.
I'd like to point out here, while certain preachers with a heavy anti-homosexual agenda have occasionally painted it that way, Sodom and Gomorrha didn't burn because of homosexuality. The main passage that is used to back up that argument involved a mob that wanted to have sex with an angel -- a being that, technically speaking, doesn't even have a gender.Jwyrd said:
Also, I don't have any deeper than usual knowledge of ancient Greek sexuality, but Rome had a very interesting conception of it, and "bisexuality" wasn't really the right word. Basically, the romans had a concept of virtus, which literally means "virtue," and was different for men and women. In the case of men, a word with a closer connotation in English would actually be "manliness," not "virtue." Anyway, the way they conceived of sexual relations in general, to give was manly, to receive was womanly. As a result, nobody batted an eye if, say, a patrician fucked his slave in the ass, but if he were the one getting screwed, his virtus would take a hit. It was considered shameful for a man to be on the receiving end of a sex act, and as a result, it was usually a man in a position of power who would have relations with his slaves, always giving, never receiving. Not that powerful men didn't occasionally receive; it's just that if they got caught, it looked really bad for them. Like, a man in 1950's America coming out as gay bad. And it was mostly politicians who this applied to, so you can imagine some of the issues it would cause.
i dont want to insult anyone, so please take what i have to say with a grain of salt.CrustyOatmeal said:
first, think about the biological reasons homosexuality exists, it is rather helpfull for a parent in a social species to have a homosexual sister/brother, you get an additional adult that can protect your children while having no offspring themself which reduces social pressure.
second, you say we should disregard biology in this discussion, well, you cant, the implication are to important, either humans in this world reproduce like shrooms wich would make sexuality superfluos, or people of one gender can reproduce with the same gender, which essentially means you get, after a few generations, two distinct species, the homo sapiens sapiens feminam and the homo sapiens sapiens marem, which would lead to a similar situation like we had 20k years in the past between the homo sapiens neandertalis and the homo sapiens sapiens.
so essentiely, you first have to answer the question which of the 2 kinds of humans survived the stone ages, and then go from there, so the whole question how heterosexual people would behave in such a society is null and void since there wouldnt be any of them left.
edit: i am also kinda disturbed how you seperate "homosexual" and "lesbian", like it isnt one and the same
Lets say this, Biesexuality was the norm, while being Gay was much more popular then being straight, that would solve the issue of everyone dying in the first generation. Anyways, what I suspect happening would be, very much, that people who are gay would be more favorable, and would be more frequent and open. From what I know from Gay people I've met, their nice, that would not change, the world would be happier. But thats not the point, no, the downside would be our population would be lower, and we would have hate flying towards straight guys. Personally, you better think hard.
Groundhog Day was a film about one day lived repeatedly. There was no explanation offered during the film as to how. I think when most people watch it, it never occurs to anyone to ask, because it's irrelevant to the story.Blunderboy said:
You're on a gaming forum, surely you can think of devices in stories that aren't rationalised.
Honestly being homosexual is a practice in futility. It cannot reproduce, hence why many doctors say it is a 'mutation' of sorts. It spreads disease much faster than heterosexual relations and up until recently it was a target for ridicule and isolation.
it might have been said numerous times before, but i can't be arsed right now to check the entire threat.CrustyOatmeal said:
in ancient sparte, the way was thus. hot, sweaty manly homo-love was the norm. women were for making babies, not for pleasure. women were considered dirty, barely almost-humans. doing your duty to the human race to create little mini spartans was considered an unpleasant buisenes that had to be done, preferably in as much secrecy as possible.
the spartans went so far that as part of the wedding ritual women had to shave their heads and put on mens clothes & shoes to be more atractive to her husband. who would dump her butched up ass back to her house after impregnating her, to go back to his army buddies, with whom he lived, for some of the REAL stuff.
that's right, the tough dudes from 300 are all the most dedicated butt pirates you have ever seen.
so, you might want to take a closer look into that society if you want to know how a current one would look if homosexuality was the norm. you might be able to draw some parralels, or come to some conclusions. after all, if one of the most dedicated warrior societies in mankind was so gay that it would cause elton john to go pale and steady himself on the furniture, maybe you could argue that it wouldn't change all that much at all..
thank you for helping me find a reason to collapse to the floor laughing xDA3sir said:
OT: if that was the case... then being gay would be our instinct and hence we never would reproduce enough not to die out...
Also... if i spent the last 15 minutes watching your avi pic over and over... is it wrong of me..?
I'd rather you'd read my words, but that works as wellWaffleCopters said:Also... if i spent the last 15 minutes watching your avi pic over and over... is it wrong of me..?