Guys have nipples for sexual purposes, and some men are able to lactate in extreme cases of need raising a child.
Females are not the human prototype. It just so happens that males and females are very similar.
Quote:
|
I don't think it affects homosexuality. I think there are equal numbers of gay men as there are gay women. But it is the reason why men get a lot of genetic diseases. The Y chromosome is weaker or more recessive than the X so if there is a fault in the X chromosome it probably won't be overided by the Y whereas in women the fault would have to be in both if it is a recessive gene.
|
The genes on Y chromosomes are not more recessive. Y chromosomes are not as long as X chromosomes, so there are certain genes the X has that the Y doesn't. But every gene the Y has, the X has as well. If a gene is on both the X and Y, the allele on the X has no extra advantage than it would on Y. That is, if for a gene that the X and Y share, if the X has one allele and the Y has a different one, if you reverse them, the phenotype would remain the same.
There are gender related genetics phenomena due to the mismatched lenghts of the X and Y, and males only having one gene for certain genotypes, such as only female cats (and XXY males) can be calico and men not being able to inherit color blindness from their father or their mother. That isn't because the Y is "weak," it is just because it doesn't have any encoding certain traits.
I think homosexuality in men has a lot more to do with male culture than male genetics. I'm not saying it doesn't have anything to do with genetics, I just seriously doubt it has anything to do with the Y chromosome. If it was on the X chromosome to be gay, you'd have to assume that it would be passive, or no women would have sex with a man to pass it down if it was dominant. So if it was passive, the only way that a lesbian would be created VIA genetics would be if a gay man had sex with a gay-carrying female and had a baby, and I don't really see that happening all too often to account for the number of lesbians. Also, lesbians that use men to get them pregnant can have straight male children.
Here is a bullshit article :
http://www.times10.org/lorne_1.htm
Basically it is arguing that there is a homosexuality gene and that it is an evolutionary advantage in that homosexuals are more nurturing, and therefore aid in nurturing their nephews and nieces who carry the recessively. They are basing this on gay people being more nurturing and straight men being less because gay men are more effeminate. What about butch gay men?
I think the reason a lot of people point towards a gay gene is because gay still has a very negative connotation. If there is no gay gene, then raising a gay child and being a failed parent might be equated for conservatives and homophobes. If a gay gene was discovered, gays would then be able to say, "Hey Rick Santorum, God gave us this gene, we are meant to be gay, we are different from pedophiles and zoophiles." Like finding a gay gene will suddenly end homophobia. More likely, it would transform or merge homophobia into genetic elitism.
Nobody is really completely straight. At relatively late ages in development sexuality can still be swung either way.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by porkmarras
Most trans i know have got girlfriends and not boyfriends like you would imagine.Go and figure that one out yourselves.
|
I think that has to do with a mix of narcissism, reverence for the female body, and textile-related fetishes.