How did the idea of what's attractive or not evolve among gays and lesbians? With straights it's simple and easy to understand how a feature like a big robust jaw could become attractive since having it increased the specimen's chances of survival which would in turn lead to him or her having more offspring and increase the frequency of this gene in a population but what about homos who cannot reproduce? Where did their idea of what constitutes an attractive partner come from?
>>221290980No point in trying to rationalize mental illness
>>221290980You just made me realise I have no fucking clue. Since humans are such a "cultural" species there are many ways people find others attractive, but one can assume the LGBT have other criteria than straight people, even when the straight have different criteria themselves.You know there's an /lgbt/ board, why not make a thread there?
>>221290980It's just the same retard. Babies stare at attractive people longer. Do babies have a sexuality?
>>221290980I think attractive features are recognizable by both sexes. But straight people have a strong bimodal filter which makes them not want to fuck their own gender. So attraction is a more primal layer.
>>221292514>mfw whenever a child looks at me they immediately turn away their heads in disgustIt was over before it even began
>>221292608I remember I was hanging out with my friends once and there was a little girl with her dad and she just stared specifically at me lol.
>>221292642Bros, this guy FUCKS
>>221292752No I'm a virgin lol
>>221290980Androgens are the only source of sexual attraction. And sexual attraction is only towards femininity and feminine traits. Both Heterosexual and homosexual attraction towards masculinity is a socially conditioned paraphilia. Women don't like men. Men don't like men. Nobody likes men. It's all a fetish. Almost no woman actually experiences sexual attraction, except for lesbians with a hormonel imbalance who have above average T. The only innate human sexual attraction is towards femininity.
>>221293946Schizo post
>>221294072Literally what part of it is wrong?
It's tiring being 100 years ahead of everybody. I'm stuck living with literal peasants. Nobody seems to be able to think.
Like women never had an active role in reproduction and they never really had to. They just had to be able to tolerate it. Men would initiate everything. The so called sexual attraction that women have towards men is a coping tool really. Every woman has been groomed and socially conditioned to "like" men but really most of them have probably never even experienced actual sexual attraction in their lives. So there was never yhid symmettrical attraction between men and women. The only attraction we are born with is towards femininity and it's activated with androgens, so men are attracted to women and women are not attracted to anybody. I'm repeating myself a bit but whatever.
>>221294641Okay on second reading I understand your point, I think it's a pretty profound observation. I think it's like Oscar Wilde said that sex is about power and we are attracted to submission
On a sidenote it would also explain why gays are attracted to twinks/femboys since they have more feminine qualities.
>>221294671>>221294695Yay! :D
>Biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are favored by scientists.[1] These factors, which may be related to the development of a sexual orientation, include genes, the early uterine environment (such as prenatal hormones), and brain structure.>The influence of hormones on the developing foetus has been the most influential causal hypothesis of the development of sexual orientation.[5][6] In simple terms, the developing fetal brain begins in a "female" typical state. The presence of the Y-chromosome in males prompts the development of testes, which release testosterone, the primary androgen receptor-activating hormone, to masculinize the fetus and fetal brain. This masculinising effect pushes males towards male typical brain structures, and most of the time, attraction to females. It has been hypothesized that gay men may have been exposed to little testosterone in key regions of the brain, or had different levels of receptivity to its masculinizing effects, or experienced fluctuations at critical times. In women, it is hypothesized that high levels of exposure to testosterone in key regions may increase likelihood of same sex attraction.[5] Supporting this are studies of the finger digit ratio of the right hand, which is a robust marker of prenatal testosterone exposure. Lesbians on average, have significantly more masculine digit ratios, a finding which has been replicated numerous times in studies cross-culturally.[7] While direct effects are hard to measure for ethical reasons, animal experiments where scientists manipulate exposure to sex hormones during gestation can also induce lifelong male-typical behavior and mounting in female animals, and female-typical behavior in male animals.[5][7][6][8]
>>221294767>Maternal immune responses during fetal development are strongly demonstrated as causing male homosexuality and bisexuality.[9] Research since the 1990s has demonstrated that the more male sons a woman has, there is a higher chance of later born sons being gay. During pregnancy, male cells enter a mother's bloodstream, which are foreign to her immune system. In response, she develops antibodies to neutralize them. These antibodies are then released on future male foetuses and may neutralize Y-linked antigens, which play a role in brain masculinization, leaving areas of the brain responsible for sexual attraction in the female-typical position, or attracted to men. The more sons a mother has will increase the levels of these antibodies, thus creating the observed fraternal birth order effect. Biochemical evidence to support this effect was confirmed in a lab study in 2017, finding that mothers with a gay son, particularly those with older brothers, had heightened levels of antibodies to the NLGN4Y Y-protein than mothers with heterosexual sons.[9][10] J. Michael Bailey has described maternal immune responses as "causal" of male homosexuality.[11] This effect is estimated to account for between 15 and 29% of gay men, while other gay and bisexual men are thought to owe sexual orientation to genetic and hormonal interactions.[12][9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation?wprov=sfla1
Like it's not even some big discovery or anything. These are all individual facts that we all know. People seem to refuse to think about it or talk about it, or maybe just nobody gives a shit idk.
>>221290980>With straights it's simple and easy to understand how a feature like a big robust jaw could become attractive since having it increased the specimen's chances of survival which would in turn lead to him or her having more offspring and increase the frequency of this gene in a populationthis hasn't been true for a long time, look at shit foot binding, or like in some times people like fat women then in order times people like very thin women.You can't claim that both thin and fat improve reproduction.Beauty standard is more influenced by culture instead of reproduction instinct
