Discussion Forums - LGBTQ LGBTQ

Topic: Interesting article in Psychology Today Magazine

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
  Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
Subject: Interesting article in Psychology Today Magazine
Date Posted: 5/7/2008 10:58 AM ET
Member Since: 11/10/2006
Posts: 2,983
Back To Top

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20080420-000003.xml

 

Link is only a portion of the article. Much longer in the magazine.

Date Posted: 5/7/2008 11:56 AM ET
Member Since: 4/20/2006
Posts: 5,703
Back To Top

I love this magazine....it always has a wide variety of ideas and viewpoints from a psychological and societal standpoint.  I haven't read the whole article yet, but I will soon.  While procreation is one of our most basic functions as living things, it's not as though there is any danger of either our species or any other failing.  Asexual beings still procreate, and just like in Jurassic Park, "Nature will find a way" (hahahahaha).  Why do we store fat?  Genetically, it's to help us through periods of starvation, but it also causes us to have problems like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.  I think there are different ways of looking at nature and the things it has provided us.
  Why are some able to procreate and not others?  Why are some unwilling to procreate?  Why are there people with different sexual orientations, some which will lead to more procreation and others less?   Does this provide a better balance in nature by preventing overcrowding?  I don't know.   It is interesting to think about though.

 

Date Posted: 5/8/2008 1:37 AM ET
Member Since: 12/19/2005
Posts: 5,091
Back To Top

I looked at the article but didn't see if it gave the reasoning that I was expecting to see - I don't think.  I saw an explanation of how it could be that an individual may be more likely topass on their genes if they don't have children themselves - which I know sounds like a contradiction.

Basically, as I understand it, it works like this:

Two siblings have very similar DNA.  If the first sibling has children, the second sibling has almost as much dna in common with those children as they would with their own.  For most of human history it has been very unlikely that children will survive to become adults and have children of their own, mostly because of not enough resources - starvation, in particular.  if the second sibling doesn't have children then there will be more resources for the first sibling's children.  By helping those children survive, the second sibling has a better chance of "their" dna surviving than if they had actually had children of their own.

I don't know if that's where the article was heading, but I thought it was a really interesting idea.

Date Posted: 5/8/2008 9:01 AM ET
Member Since: 4/20/2006
Posts: 5,703
Back To Top

Okay, I finally read the whole article.  Lots of different info and theories in there!  I didn't know homosexual men were more likely to be left-handed either!  Anyway, I found it very interesting and while there didn't seem to be anything overwhelmingly concrete in there, I think that science has at least shown that there are enough patterns that are biological and not environmental to show that sexuality is not a learned behavior, but an innate one.  I have never seen nature as black & white, so I think it's doing a good job of balancing us as a species.

Date Posted: 5/8/2008 9:36 AM ET
Member Since: 11/10/2006
Posts: 2,983
Back To Top

Amanda...that's what I found interesting about the article. Many theories, no one being THE answer but, all leading to the same basic conclusion that it is a determination made prenatal.