|
|
 |
Atom |
+ |
Sunday, September 4, 2005 at 2:08 AM Drew likes to say that many gay men call Loveline and that based on his experience with the show he has deduced that molestation has created homosexuality in boys that would have otherwise been heterosexual, but he has never cited any data to back that up. And Adam seems to feel that because he finds certain gay men to be very obnoxious that must mean that they are unhealthy and therefore abused, and he's convinced that his emotions are a great indicator for this kind of abuse. Many callers are gay men but so far this year only 2 or 3 have said that they were abused as children, and not many more have even been asked about it. I think this is one of those areas that Adam and Drew just have very little idea of what they're talking about, but nobody ever calls them on it so they continue to put it out there because to them it feels right. I think that Adam puts way too much faith in his intuition when comes to gay men in general, and I think Drews knows that if he admits that he's wrong about this, after having espoused it for so long without any data, then he looks pretty goddamn unprofessional. Now if the numbers did back them up, if a significantly greater number homosexuals were molested as children than were heterosexuals, I think a better theory would be that perhaps they were biologically predisposed to give off signs of weakness as children which put targets on their backs, much the same way that some teenage girls, who were previously abused, are environmentally predisposed to give off signs of weakness to would be rapists. If there is data about this, I'd like to know about it and I'd like Drew to cite it. All they're doing now is giving those worthless fundamentalists more ammo. —Atom |
|
|
|
|
catloaf |
+ |
Sunday, September 4, 2005 at 2:15 AM
Edited Sunday, September 4, 2005 at 2:16 AM I think a better theory would be that perhaps they were biologically predisposed to give off signs of weakness as children which put targets on their backs
—Atom Interesting theory. You should call and pose that to Dr. Drew, I'd like to hear his take on it. —catloaf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stass |
+ |
Sunday, September 4, 2005 at 7:50 AM "you're gay" —stass |
|
|
|
|
Putsy ThePrick |
+ |
Sunday, September 4, 2005 at 2:46 PM Nobody will ever do this research for two reasons. 1. The establishment doesn't want to HEAR anything that makes homosexuality look anything OTHER than wonderful, healthy, normal etc etc. 2. Researchers know that if they do unpopular research like this, that if their results contradict #1 above, their research will be ignored because it's not politically correct. Some things that make it appear that nature uses homosexuality to keep a population's numbers managable: 1. Nature clearly has no desire, all through human history, during times of prosperity, to rid human populations of homosexuality, so nature must see a benefit. 2. Nature DOES though have lists of methods to keep a population from growing too large. Human populations that have experienced recent deprivation are prone to destroy any homosexuals, probably because survival mode kicks in, and any threat to survival of the species must be destroyed. 3. Once relative prosperity has been established, the survival panic calms down and homosexuality becomes just another method of population control from nature's perspective. Nature is highly tolerant of many perversions as long as it doesn't threaten survival of the species. It really looks like nature is VERY aware that molestation will create a certain number of homosexuals. After all, I think nature is aware of itself and cause and effect. It knows how to procreate (duh) and thus, would EASILY know how to short circuit that if it became necessary to stabilize a population's numbers. Thus, homosexuality is nature's short circuit of procreation to slow growth. Those that call it a perversion are obviously correct, and those that call it natural are obviously correct, the problem is that neither group seems to know the basic context (they're too damn busy arguing with each other). No one will ever have the courage to do this research either, but I wonder if nature turnes off some of the genes in the "y" chromosome to create a certain number of homosexual males. Drew has mentioned that genes get activated/deactivated for reasons we still don't understand at all. It's not a stretch to assume that nature senses prosperity and orders some "y" chromosome genes shut down in a certain % of males that are predisposed to take that cue from nature. That could explain why male homosexuals are frequently so feminie: their "X" chromosome fills the void left by the deactivated parts of the "y" chromosome. Some may ask, what about lesbos? Nature probably doesn't have to do anything to create them in times of prosperity OR famine, because those two crazy "x" chromosomes stuck together is a READY MADE pot of diversity stew. There's REALLY no evidence of molestation creating lesbonics. In fact, we all know how molestation leads girls to do even MORE procreating (through risky behavior or having a bulls eye painted on them for every horny guy and/or victimizer within 5 miles). —Putsy ThePrick |
|
|
|
|
cmg2571 |
+ |
Sunday, September 4, 2005 at 3:10 PM I could be wrong but i always got the impression that Adam and Drew thought they most gay guys were created instead of being straight up born that way. Created meaning overbearing mother or whatever enviromental situation would make them gay and not just molestation. —cmg2571 |
|
|
|
|
Hashmeer Shashmeer |
+ |
Sunday, September 4, 2005 at 3:14 PM I don't think they think all gays and lesbians were molested, just that those who would call a national radio show for advice are more likely to have had a sordid past. —Hashmeer Shashmeer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Sunday, September 4, 2005 at 3:30 PM That made me laugh. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Sunday, September 4, 2005 at 6:11 PM Childhood doesn't affect or effect sexuality.
However childhood shapes personality which governs the manifestation of sexual behaviour.
That is what confuses people. You all love cock and you all love vadge. Everyone is afraid of pain and death. Some people are brave and some are cowardly, but this can change from moment to day and back again.
There are no gay or straight or bisexual people. Everyone got that? Good. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr.Drew_boogie |
+ |
Sunday, September 4, 2005 at 8:24 PM That is what confuses people.
It confuses people because your two sentences condradict themselves. Are you high? I hope you're high. —Dr.Drew_boogie |
|