Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

There have been a lot of discussions about the moral aspects of sexual orientation with marriage and parenting being at the center of attention. I'm a parent and I love my son no matter what but I'd be lying if I said I wanted him to be gay. I want him to be straight, meet a good woman someday, and father kids of his own. Therefore I try to influence him to behave as a gentleman, being respectful to girls and treating them like ladies (no rough play). That's what I believe is good for him morality issues aside. Lets say that a gay father wants his son to be like him as well ( you can't fault people for wanting their kids to be as happy as they are if they're happy) let's say that this father teaches his son to view women as direct competition in the world, and to show them no special respect at all, both boys and girls are potential rivals or partners (as he believes). Both fathers love their son and want the best for him.

My question is does a persons sexuality have ANYTHING to do with what they are taught by their parents?

sexuality? sure

whether they are gay or not? no

I think the jury is still out on whether or not someone is born gay. Every mammal species has members that exhibit homosexual behavior but only humans have members that are exclusively homosexual.

From an evolutionary and reproductive standpoint homosexuality makes no sense.



So I'll be politically incorrect and say that my belief is yes, human sexuality and sexual prefrence can be influenced.

Originally posted by inimalist
sexuality? sure

whether they are gay or not? no Those are the same thing. If they aren't then a woman who tongue kisses her girlfriend in 1970 and happily marries a man in 1980 is a lesbian in 2011.

Originally posted by The MISTER
There have been a lot of discussions about the moral aspects of sexual orientation with marriage and parenting being at the center of attention. I'm a parent and I love my son no matter what but I'd be lying if I said I wanted him to be gay. I want him to be straight, meet a good woman someday, and father kids of his own. Therefore I try to influence him to behave as a gentleman, being respectful to girls and treating them like ladies (no rough play). That's what I believe is good for him morality issues aside. Lets say that a gay father wants his son to be like him as well ( you can't fault people for wanting their kids to be as happy as they are if they're happy) let's say that this father teaches his son to view women as direct competition in the world, and to show them no special respect at all, both boys and girls are potential rivals or partners (as he believes). Both fathers love their son and want the best for him.

My question is does a persons sexuality have ANYTHING to do with what they are taught by their parents?


You are born gay. Many people think that's not the case but I know it's true.

My younger brother is gay. My father is a wealthy business man, loves guns, smokes cigars, cusses, really into military, etc. Our family is just not the type that you'd think would have a gay person in.

But he is, and looking back to when he was little, I can see it then to. There is nothing wrong with being gay.

Teach your children to be kind to others, and to love unconditionally, no matter who it is that they love.

Originally posted by Utsukushii
You are born gay. Many people think that's not the case but I know it's true.

My younger brother is gay. My father is a wealthy business man, loves guns, smokes cigars, cusses, really into military, etc. Our family is just not the type that you'd think would have a gay person in.

But he is, and looking back to when he was little, I can see it then to. There is nothing wrong with being gay.

Teach your children to be kind to others, and to love unconditionally, no matter who it is that they love.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with being whoever you happen to be. The fact remains though that being some things makes life more difficult. If you enjoy eating flesh at the morgue you are hurting nobody yet that would be more frowned upon than being a convicted murderer. Your environment has much to do with making you who you are in many non-sexual aspects, for example your favorite team, or food. Why would sexual preferences be excluded?

When you tell me that your father is a wealthy business man, I can't help but think that he might have been extremely busy, and the first child usually receives a lot of their parents attention(for good or for bad) because the total experience is new.Younger siblings have less novelty appeal, realistically. Your Dad also seems so stereotypically "manly" that child rearing may have been considered your Mom's job. Was your Dad spending a lot of time with the family or was he away a lot on business?

I ask because I see some young boys emulate their mother in homes where they interact with her most of the time rather than their father if he's in the picture at all. It's not uncommon for a comment like "child, please!" to be used by a lot of women. Wouldn't it be normal for a comment from the parent (mother or father) to become what a child is likely to repeat?

The MISTER, it might help if you add some evidence supporting yourself from some credible sources. Right now, you're just offering personal theories and naming connections that may not actually exist.

I don't intend to sound rude; however, I think it'd help discussion. If it stays the course, this thread will probably degenerate quickly.

Originally posted by Utsukushii
You are born gay. Many people think that's not the case but I know it's true.



Can you support that with irrefutable scientific research?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Those are the same thing. If they aren't then a woman who tongue kisses her girlfriend in 1970 and happily marries a man in 1980 is a lesbian in 2011.

HAHAHAHA

I pity anyone you have ever slept with if the depth of your "sexuality" deals with whether the person you are banging has a penis or not.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I agree that there is nothing wrong with being whoever you happen to be. The fact remains though that being some things makes life more difficult. If you enjoy eating flesh at the morgue you are hurting nobody yet that would be more frowned upon than being a convicted murderer. Your environment has much to do with making you who you are in many non-sexual aspects, for example your favorite team, or food. Why would sexual preferences be excluded?

When you tell me that your father is a wealthy business man, I can't help but think that he might have been extremely busy, and the first child usually receives a lot of their parents attention(for good or for bad) because the total experience is new.Younger siblings have less novelty appeal, realistically. Your Dad also seems so stereotypically "manly" that child rearing may have been considered your Mom's job. Was your Dad spending a lot of time with the family or was he away a lot on business?

I ask because I see some young boys emulate their mother in homes where they interact with her most of the time rather than their father if he's in the picture at all. It's not uncommon for a comment like "child, please!" to be used by a lot of women. Wouldn't it be normal for a comment from the parent (mother or father) to become what a child is likely to repeat?

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. My dad owns his business and Always made time for my brother and I. We both worked at the shop as children. We were treated equally

Originally posted by inimalist
HAHAHAHA

I pity anyone you have ever slept with if the depth of your "sexuality" deals with whether the person you are banging has a penis or not.


Inamalist that makes no sense.

Originally posted by The MISTER



Inamalist that makes no sense.

someones sexuality includes things like their favorite positions, how they like it, fetishes, their ideas about what sex is, how it should be done, etc.

It is way bigger than just the gender of the person you want to bang

Originally posted by The MISTER
I agree that there is nothing wrong with being whoever you happen to be. The fact remains though that being some things makes life more difficult. If you enjoy eating flesh at the morgue you are hurting nobody yet that would be more frowned upon than being a convicted murderer. Your environment has much to do with making you who you are in many non-sexual aspects, for example your favorite team, or food. Why would sexual preferences be excluded?

I ask because I see some young boys emulate their mother in homes where they interact with her most of the time rather than their father if he's in the picture at all. It's not uncommon for a comment like "child, please!" to be used by a lot of women. Wouldn't it be normal for a comment from the parent (mother or father) to become what a child is likely to repeat?

Exactly how hard do you try to be forward-thinking and ass backwards at the same time?

Originally posted by StyleTime
The MISTER, it might help if you add some evidence supporting yourself from some credible sources. Right now, you're just offering personal theories and naming connections that may not actually exist.

I don't intend to sound rude; however, I think it'd help discussion. If it stays the course, this thread will probably degenerate quickly. You're right I am suggesting some ideas that may or may not be the case but I want to know what other peoples ideas are. I've learned that many behaviors that are considered socially taboo are instilled by parents. I believe that there has been a definite connection between sexually abusive behavior in adults stemming from them receiving sexual abuse as a child. I'm sure many molested people never molest a child but the ones that do make it seem as though some sexual behaviors can be learned. That being said I'm sure there are some people who go outside of what they are taught. Everybody is different so I'm just looking at the extreme points of view. There are those who feel you are born with a locked sexual preference that cannot be swayed, and there are those that feel that many preferences are due to parental influence, sexual included. Most of the time people are pre-decided without hearing evidence for either side. Avoiding topics like this promotes ignorance, and ignorance creates unnecessary strife. I'd like to try to get to the bottom of this.

Originally posted by skekUng
Exactly how hard do you try to be forward-thinking and ass backwards at the same time? Welcome Skekung, to you and your highly opinionated, pointless insult posts!

Originally posted by inimalist
someones sexuality includes things like their favorite positions, how they like it, fetishes, their ideas about what sex is, how it should be done, etc.

It is way bigger than just the gender of the person you want to bang I figured that you may be talking about each individuals specific interests, but I wondered why when the opening post elaborates. Yes sexual preferences can range from liking girls to liking frogs, I'm sure, but you know you're just being a wise ass! (said the pot to the kettle)

IMO, homosexuality is more akin to a mental abnormality (I don't mean that in a negative way), it's something a person is born with in varying degrees and outside sources can likely influence it one way or another, though to limited lengths.

You could probably condition a homosexual male child to pursue women, but you won't be able to condition out that he still finds other boys/men sexually attractive. That's there for life and his erection will 'scientifically' prove it.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I figured that you may be talking about each individuals specific interests, but I wondered why when the opening post elaborates. Yes sexual preferences can range from liking girls to liking frogs, I'm sure, but you know you're just being a wise ass! (said the pot to the kettle)

it is a pet peeve of mine that people conflate "sexual orientation" with "sexuality"

Originally posted by inimalist
it is a pet peeve of mine that people conflate "sexual orientation" with "sexuality"

It's the same people who still think Ted Haggard is straight, cos he sleeps with his wife.

Originally posted by Robtard
IMO, homosexuality is more akin to a mental abnormality (I don't mean that in a negative way), it's something a person is born with in varying degrees and outside sources can likely influence it one way or another, though to limited lengths.

You could probably condition a homosexual male child to pursue women, but you won't be able to condition out that he still finds other boys/men sexually attractive. That's there for life and his erection will 'scientifically' prove it.


Though the way you said it sounds a little cold and rude, I do agree.

Think about the men and women who divorce their significant others and start dating someone of their own sex.

Originally posted by Utsukushii
Though the way you said it sounds a little cold and rude, I do agree.

Think about the men and women who divorce their significant others and start dating someone of their own sex.

Abnormal as in "not the norm/standard"; not "you're a sinner and will burn in hell, you disgusting shit-loving f@ggot!" Nothing wrong with not being standard.

I did think about them; it's making be hot and bothered now. See what you did.

I think it depends on the general attitude of the family that's raising.

If you're in a conservative family, you're going to be more private about your sexuality, probably believe in an abstinence-till marriage lifestyle. And then when puberty hits, these kids are going to be a lot more confused when they start "feeling things" that gets even more confusing. Also, being taught abstinence-only may be detrimental, because they probably won't invest in condoms, and girls will feel like they can't talk to their parents about sex or protection, like the Pill. They're probably more apt to get pregnant or get a sexually transmitted illness.

And when people grow up homosexual in this situation - they can be told to repress it, and they may succeed because they grew up believing that it was evil.

On the other hand, famlies more free sexuality, the kind people that believe that you should be in touch with your sexuality, whatever that may mean, these kids are probably going to be well adjusted and, probably less chance of getting pregnant or having unprotected sex because the knowledge that they grew up with sticks with them, and they feel comfortable talking about sexuality with their parents.

I actually grew up in a bit more liberal degree of the first family version, the first time I saw graphic sex was in a BBC mystery film. and I had a realllly uncomfortable conversation with my mom about what I had seen. And then she laughed nervously and said "...and this is why we don't watch these kind of movies." But that was the most educational snippet of information I ever got, and everything began making sense in sex ed.

So I've educated myself and no longer am so "fenced in." Luckily, when I moved away from my parents sI became the second type of person.

can you influence if a person is attracted to one sex or the other: no

can you influence how much guilt and shame a person feels because of their natural inclinations: yes

Originally posted by siriuswriter
I think it depends on the general attitude of the family that's raising.

If you're in a conservative family, you're going to be more private about your sexuality, probably believe in an abstinence-till marriage lifestyle. And then when puberty hits, these kids are going to be a lot more confused when they start "feeling things" that gets even more confusing. Also, being taught abstinence-only may be detrimental, because they probably won't invest in condoms, and girls will feel like they can't talk to their parents about sex or protection, like the Pill. They're probably more apt to get pregnant or get a sexually transmitted illness.

And when people grow up homosexual in this situation - they can be told to repress it, and they may succeed because they grew up believing that it was evil.

On the other hand, famlies more free sexuality, the kind people that believe that you should be in touch with your sexuality, whatever that may mean, these kids are probably going to be well adjusted and, probably less chance of getting pregnant or having unprotected sex because the knowledge that they grew up with sticks with them, and they feel comfortable talking about sexuality with their parents.

I actually grew up in a bit more liberal degree of the first family version, the first time I saw graphic sex was in a BBC mystery film. and I had a realllly uncomfortable conversation with my mom about what I had seen. And then she laughed nervously and said "...and this is why we don't watch these kind of movies." But that was the most educational snippet of information I ever got, and everything began making sense in sex ed.

So I've educated myself and no longer am so "fenced in." Luckily, when I moved away from my parents sI became the second type of person.

True, I grew up with very open parents. And I am very comfortable, not pregnant, and happy.

But their parents were both conserative. And they ended up having a baby when my mom was 16 (ie me).

I'm not sure if we could ever really know.

It seems pretty clear that you cannot "cure" an adult of their sexuality but shaping sexuality from birth has never been looked at scientifically. I mean it's immoral for starters but we also don't know the sexuality of each child to begin with.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not sure if we could ever really know.

It seems pretty clear that you cannot "cure" an adult of their sexuality but shaping sexuality from birth has never been looked at scientifically. I mean it's immoral for starters but we also don't know the sexuality of each child to begin with.

it has never been tried experimentally, sure, but even the threat of death and extreme social stigma against homosexuality, engrained in culture and which would be apparent from an early age, doesn't shape people to not be homosexual.

someone like ted haggard is a great case study in something like this, in that, any way that his cognition could be shaped, it is anti-gay, yet the biological nature of his sexual desire is still unchanged.

I suppose this isn't explicit proof against the idea that there might be some way to influence it, but it certainly speaks volumes to how biologically based it must be

I believe, homosexuals, submissives and sissies etc may have had important roles in primitive forfathers lives. As perhaps teachers to Alpha offspring, obediant workers and maybe even glory holes to a tribes Alpha Male and as protectors to the Alpha female.

Originally posted by inimalist
can you influence if a person is attracted to one sex or the other: no

can you influence how much guilt and shame a person feels because of their natural inclinations: yes Are you sure? Honestly I can imagine that a person can be turned off from sex entirely if you introduce trauma in connection to a sexual experience. If a man molests his daughter repeatedly against her will, isn't it possible that she may be repulsed by sex with a man due to his actions?

I haven't seen convincing evidence to indicate that sexual orientation is genetic. Nor is it a conscious choice. My personal theory follows the works of Gagnon and Simon, sociologists who argued that people are born in a state of polymorphous perversity -- sexually nascent, as it were. Through the socialization process and interactions with others, people pick up on sexual cues and are socialized into being one or the other.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
I believe, homosexuals, submissives and sissies etc may have had important roles in primitive forfathers lives. As perhaps teachers to Alpha offspring, obediant workers and maybe even glory holes to a tribes Alpha Male and as protectors to the Alpha female.

Ah, sometimes I do wish I had been born back in simpler times.

Originally posted by RagingBoner
I haven't seen convincing evidence to indicate that sexual orientation is genetic. Nor is it a conscious choice. My personal theory follows the works of Gagnon and Simon, sociologists who argued that people are born in a state of polymorphous perversity -- sexually nascent, as it were. Through the socialization process and interactions with others, people pick up on sexual cues and are socialized into being one or the other.

"One or the other", well that's retarded.

What about people who are bisexual, pansexual or any of the other something-sexuals that fall somewhere between Homosexual and Heterosexual, yet aren't either?

Originally posted by Robtard
"One or the other", well that's retarded.

Easy, killer. Definitely a poor choice of words, replace "one or the other" with "sexual, one way or another."

Originally posted by RagingBoner
Easy, killer. Definitely a poor choice of words, replace "one or the other" with "sexual, one way or another."

Well, that's better. I was about to lose it.

But I still disagree on the whole. Doubt people are born with a sexual-neutrality and I doubt sexual attraction can be dictated solely from social interaction, though it's likely is a factor.

EG, If you were to raise a male child in a group of homosexual men, where the child grew up only knowing that sex = man-love, I still think if the child was born heterosexual, he'd find women sexually attractive if given the opportunity, even if he'd spent the last 20 years of his late teens/adult life balls deep in man-love. Granted, he may still want to be with men, but the attraction towards women would likely be there.

Originally posted by Robtard
Abnormal as in "not the norm/standard"; not "you're a sinner and will burn in hell, you disgusting shit-loving f@ggot!" Nothing wrong with not being standard.

I did think about them; it's making be hot and bothered now. See what you did. I know this isn't the thread topic, so I'm not seeking to stir a big discussion here, but in regards to this tangent:

Heteronormative stances assume that heterosexuality is 'normal' seem to naturally perceive sexual diversity as being deviant from the norm and ab-normal.

Which is obviously discriminatory, though never really consciously. Western society assumes heteronormative stances in pretty much their every facet, but it all comes across like assuming that it's 'ab-normal' to be left handed, when it's completely normal that in any set of what, 10 people, you'll have somebody that's left handed.

I mean, living in Canada, you would never refer to somebody that's non-white as being of an 'abnormal ethnicity' right? Just a minority. There's nothing inherently abnormal about being say, asian, any more so than there is about sexual diversity in any form.

Originally posted by Robtard
EG, If you were to raise a male child in a group of homosexual men, where the child grew up only knowing that sex = man-love, I still think if the child was born heterosexual, he'd find women sexually attractive if given the opportunity, even if he'd spent the last 20 years of his late teens/adult life balls deep in man-love. Granted, he may still want to be with men, but the attraction towards women would likely be there. Right.

Further, the fact that he'd have been with men sexually while possessing an ulterior attraction to women wouldn't make him bisexual or pansexual or whatever. I mean, he could be those things or anything else, it would simply come down to what he identified as, not the actions he'd taken, including sleeping with dudes.

So no, I guess I don't think that sexuality is really influenced by how a child's raised. Probably mentally makes them more or less accepting of whatever sexuality they do end up identifying with, but certainly doesn't change their identification.

Originally posted by RagingBoner
I haven't seen convincing evidence to indicate that sexual orientation is genetic. Nor is it a conscious choice. My personal theory follows the works of Gagnon and Simon, sociologists who argued that people are born in a state of polymorphous perversity -- sexually nascent, as it were. Through the socialization process and interactions with others, people pick up on sexual cues and are socialized into being one or the other.

Where is the convincing evidence that Gagnon and Simon are accurate?

Originally posted by Robtard
IMO, homosexuality is more akin to a mental abnormality (I don't mean that in a negative way), it's something a person is born with in varying degrees and outside sources can likely influence it one way or another, though to limited lengths.

You could probably condition a homosexual male child to pursue women, but you won't be able to condition out that he still finds other boys/men sexually attractive. That's there for life and his erection will 'scientifically' prove it. I think that your idea makes a lot of sense. One of the things that made me curious about this is the insane law they're trying to pass in Uganda where being homosexual will be punishable by death. The level of ignorance about homosexuality has been understated drastically. People are making rash judgments and the question of exactly how much influence they have where they do have some say is ignored. After a person is an adult it's ridiculous to assume that they would have control over their preferences. However if it is possible to have influence on children then that should be made known. Not so we can manipulate them but so we can know if what we do as parents matters in that area.

Originally posted by Existere
I know this isn't the thread topic, so I'm not seeking to stir a big discussion here, but in regards to this tangent:

Heteronormative stances assume that heterosexuality is 'normal' seem to naturally perceive sexual diversity as being deviant from the norm and ab-normal.

Which is obviously discriminatory, though never really consciously. Western society assumes heteronormative stances in pretty much their every facet, but it all comes across like assuming that it's 'ab-normal' to be left handed, when it's completely normal that in any set of what, 10 people, you'll have somebody that's left handed.

I mean, living in Canada, you would never refer to somebody that's non-white as being of an 'abnormal ethnicity' right? Just a minority. There's nothing inherently abnormal about being say, asian, any more so than there is about sexual diversity in any form.

Lol, easy, fella, easy.

Sexual attraction to the opposite sex would be the "norm", otherwise, we'd have died out as a species. Just accept it; it doesn't mean being homo, bi or anything in between is a negative.

Your two examples of left hand and Canadians is irrelevant to sexuality and do not follow.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, that's better. I was about to lose it.

But I still disagree on the whole. Doubt people are born with a sexual-neutrality and I doubt sexual attraction can be dictated solely from social interaction, though it's likely is a factor.

EG, If you were to raise a male child in a group of homosexual men, where the child grew up only knowing that sex = man-love, I still think if the child was born heterosexual, he'd find women sexually attractive if given the opportunity, even if he'd spent the last 20 years of his late teens/adult life balls deep in man-love. Granted, he may still want to be with men, but the attraction towards women would likely be there.

I'd say it's a little more complex than that. Even if a child is reared in a homosexual home, there's no guarantee that he or she will be gay. Socialization can't be fully or explicitly taught; it's a phenomenon based on countless interactions and experiences. The variables are probably infinite.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Where is the convincing evidence that Gagnon and Simon are accurate?

They did research. I found it convincing, but I never said it was conclusive, though. Hence the term "personal theory."

Originally posted by Robtard
Lol, easy, fella, easy.

Sexual attraction to the opposite sex would be the "norm", otherwise, we'd have died out as a species. Just accept it; it doesn't mean being homo, bi or anything in between is a negative.

You two examples of left hand and Canadians is irrelevant to sexuality and do not follow. No worries, it's all easy. Just talking haha.

I'd argue that society (or the human race or whatever term you'd like to encompass people as a whole) possessing a larger population of individuals identifying as purely heterosexual is normal. Which is why humans carry on as a species with such success.

I wouldn't argue that heterosexual attraction is the 'norm' though. Just that the ratio of hetersexual individuals to those who identify otherwise is fairly normal.

Hence the examples of left handedness, though I recognize that doesn't have the same bearing on a species' survival, but I'm happy to clarify what I meant.

Originally posted by inimalist
it is a pet peeve of mine that people conflate "sexual orientation" with "sexuality" Cut me some slack man, My bad for the confusion.

Originally posted by RagingBoner
They did research. I found it convincing, but I never said it was conclusive, though. Hence the term "personal theory."

an anthro book from 88?

/ffs

Originally posted by The MISTER
I think that your idea makes a lot of sense.

One of the things that made me curious about this is the insane law they're trying to pass in Uganda where being homosexual will be punishable by death. The level of ignorance about homosexuality has been understated drastically. People are making rash judgments and the question of exactly how much influence they have where they do have some say is ignored.

After a person is an adult it's ridiculous to assume that they would have control over their preferences. However if it is possible to have influence on children then that should be made known. Not so we can manipulate them but so we can know if what we do as parents matters in that area.

That makes two of us. One more person; I can publish it as fact.

LoL, Africans.

Sexual preferences are probably inherent. So if your son likes looking at other boys' cocks during gym-class, I doubt there's much you can do to make him not have those feelings. Sure you could blind him, but then he be imaging those yummy cocks.

Originally posted by inimalist
an anthro book from 88?

/ffs

You didn't get the memo? '87 is the cut off year for when research doesn't apply.

Originally posted by RagingBoner
You didn't get the memo? '87 is the cut off year for when research doesn't apply.

oh...

I wouldn't cite something as definitive from before 2000, and that is stretching it at this point...

anything more recent?

Originally posted by Robtard
That makes two of us. One more person; I can publish it as fact.

LoL, Africans.

Sexual preferences are probably inherent. So if your son likes looking at other boys' cocks during gym-class, I doubt there's much you can do to make him not have those feelings. Sure you could blind him, but then he be imaging those yummy cocks. lol

Originally posted by inimalist
oh...

I wouldn't cite something as definitive from before 2000, and that is stretching it at this point...

anything more recent?

Well, there are these submissions from earlier today:





It's not definitive. There's no definitive, universally accepted answer anywhere.

Originally posted by Robtard
Lol, easy, fella, easy.

Sexual attraction to the opposite sex would be the "norm", otherwise, we'd have died out as a species. Just accept it; it doesn't mean being homo, bi or anything in between is a negative.

Your two examples of left hand and Canadians is irrelevant to sexuality and do not follow.

I think there are two different definitions of normal being used here

normal as in, the majority of people do this, then sure, homosexuality is a minority behaviour. normal as in, this is what is expected, then homosexuality is totally normal, as we would expect some people to be gay

Originally posted by RagingBoner
Well, there are these submissions from earlier today:

It's not definitive. There's no definitive, universally accepted answer anywhere.

no, but there is far better evidence supporting the idea that it is biologically determined

and it really doesn't matter if you are presenting it as a personal opinion or as a legitimate theory, it is still likely wrong, though nobody is saying you can't believe incorrect things

Originally posted by The MISTER
You're right I am suggesting some ideas that may or may not be the case but I want to know what other peoples ideas are.
If you just want to hear other people's theories, I can't fault your curiosity I guess.Originally posted by The MISTER
Most of the time people are pre-decided without hearing evidence for either side. Avoiding topics like this promotes ignorance, and ignorance creates unnecessary strife. I'd like to try to get to the bottom of this.
It does seem weird to say this right afterwards though. I doubt we'll get to the bottom of it until someone discovers...... like a gay gene or something.

Stories about guys turning gay from getting haircuts with blue clippers on Wednesdays won't shed light on anything.


......Well, it might shed light on something.

Originally posted by RagingBoner
They did research.

Looks more like they data mined their own assertions.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, but there is far better evidence supporting the idea that it is biologically determined

I must have missed your post, brimming with the mountain of data and research on the issue. Would you mind directing me to it?



It does when peopleyou seem to be under the impression I'm saying Gagnon and Simon's research is definitive.



I didn't realize you were a credentialed authority on the matter. Kudos.



Well, given the rather substantial bulk of evidence you've provided, it's hard not to reconsider.

I dunno. What IS homosexuality anyway? If it's nothing more than someone's personal likes then sure, it can be influenced.

I don't know if we really understand what makes someone gay or not gay. Nothing I've seen at least. Granted, I haven't researched the subject...

Maybe it's just randomly generated for each child by God's game of The Sims.

I remember reading (I think in my psych textbook of all places) that there was data to support the idea that being non-heterosexual became more likely with each older brother that a boy possessed (I don't remember if the studies were limited to males, but it was a while ago). The biological explanation had something to do with a mother outputting less of a certain biochemical with each new child that she had, which apparently correlated strongly with sexual diversity in the developing boys.

Wish I still had that textbook. Hmmm.

Still, plenty of gay dudes with no brothers or who are the oldest child.

I actually remember learning about that same thing somewhere.

Supposedly, no similar correlation exists for female sexual orientation.

That fact that we both heard of it means it's true though. We can safely close the thread.

Originally posted by RagingBoner
I must have missed your post, brimming with the mountain of data and research on the issue. Would you mind directing me to it?

well, the best evidence is the twin data, have you seen some of the larger meta analyses, or should I link you to some abstracts

idk, considering your first post said you had seen nothing convincing, I took that to mean you had already seen the evidence... if you haven't, its hardly surprising you are unconvinced....



though, as I posted before, someone like Ted Haggard seems to fly in the face of the idea that socialization causes gender preference.

Originally posted by RagingBoner
It does when peopleyou seem to be under the impression I'm saying Gagnon and Simon's research is definitive.

no, it need no be definitive for me to say it is in error

Originally posted by RagingBoner
I didn't realize you were a credentialed authority on the matter. Kudos.

you probably don't want to get into a penis measuring contest on this matter

Originally posted by RagingBoner
Well, given the rather substantial bulk of evidence you've provided, it's hard not to reconsider.

the evidence you claimed to already be familiar with? sorry for assuming you weren't talking from a position of ignorance

next time I'll assume you are just making it up as you go

Originally posted by Existere
Maybe it's just randomly generated for each child by God's game of The Sims.

I remember reading (I think in my psych textbook of all places) that there was data to support the idea that being non-heterosexual became more likely with each older brother that a boy possessed (I don't remember if the studies were limited to males, but it was a while ago). The biological explanation had something to do with a mother outputting less of a certain biochemical with each new child that she had, which apparently correlated strongly with sexual diversity in the developing boys.

Wish I still had that textbook. Hmmm.

Still, plenty of gay dudes with no brothers or who are the oldest child.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I actually remember learning about that same thing somewhere.

Supposedly, no similar correlation exists for female sexual orientation.

That fact that we both heard of it means it's true though. We can safely close the thread.

the idea is that a mother's female body considers the male fetus as a foreign intruder, and produces hormones in response.

This hormonal response would become more and more pronounced with increasing pregnancy.

The correlation is there, which is really interesting, I'm not sure if they have gotten a better idea of the mechanism, but I think someone like Adam PoE has followed this closer than I

Originally posted by inimalist
well, the best evidence is the twin data, have you seen some of the larger meta analyses, or should I link you to some abstracts

It might help for you to actually provide some evidence before you go around saying NO UR WRONG HAHAHA!!1!oneone!!1

Translation: That would be most welcome.



That's what happens when you assume. If you have convincing evidence, please share it. If I was opposed to the idea of a biological factor or determinant in sexual preference, I would have said "It definitely ain't biology lulz" or something other than the very well crafted phrase I provided. "I haven't seen any convincing evidence" and, curiously enough, you haven't offered any yet.







You would need to be able prove why the theory is in error.



With someone who's offerings on the subject seem to be limited to "NO UR WRONG"? Yes, I'm definitely intimidated by what you're er... "packing," which is why I would never ask you to "whip it out."

Oh, wait:



I did. But apparently you can't be bothered.



Where did I make the claim?



Yep, because "I haven't seen convincing evidence" means "I've seen all the evidence and it's absolutely wrong! mwahaha!"



We've already seen the inherent dangers of your assumptions. So how about this: I stop acting like a prick, you stop twisting/deliberately misreading/assuming things, and we have great convo on an interesting topic? If there's convincing scientific data to be found, I'd like to see it. I'm definitely not opposed to the idea that sexual orientation has a biological factor or the idea that it is solely determined by it. Sorry for my bluntness, but I hate it when people put words in my mouth or make assumptions and run with them.

Originally posted by Existere
Right.

Further, the fact that he'd have been with men sexually while possessing an ulterior attraction to women wouldn't make him bisexual or pansexual or whatever. I mean, he could be those things or anything else, it would simply come down to what he identified as, not the actions he'd taken, including sleeping with dudes.

So no, I guess I don't think that sexuality is really influenced by how a child's raised. Probably mentally makes them more or less accepting of whatever sexuality they do end up identifying with, but certainly doesn't change their identification.

Whatever floats your boat man, I like your posts so i'm cool with whatever you're into. From a distance you know sexually, but I won't judge you.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Whatever floats your boat man, I like your posts so i'm cool with whatever you're into. From a distance you know sexually, but I won't judge you. ...what?

Originally posted by Existere
...what?

I'm completely cool with you man.

Originally posted by Existere
...what?

He likes your attitude and opinions, he just doesn't want to indulge in the apparent heterosexual man-love you're into.

ie "I'm not gay, I just prefer having sex with men." Which is fine with me too, I'm not judging; to each his own, so on and so forth.

Daemon Seed, you're such a tease.

Originally posted by Robtard
He likes your attitude and opinions, he just doesn't want to indulge in the apparent heterosexual man-love you're into.

ie "I'm not gay, I just prefer having sex with men." Which is fine with me too, I'm not judging; to each his own, so on and so forth. Huh. I'm not sure where I elaborated on my sex life.

But I'm accepted, so... sweet. I think?

Originally posted by Existere
Huh. I'm not sure where I elaborated on my sex life.

But I'm accepted, so... sweet. I think?

Fairly telling in your posts.

You are.

Originally posted by Existere
Huh. I'm not sure where I elaborated on my sex life.

But I'm accepted, so... sweet. I think?

Existere, I checked your profile and man, you've got a 'spunky' thing for short blue dudes. As I say man, whatever you're into gay dwarf sex and spunky smurfs, it's all cool with me from a distance. I watched 'Bruno'.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fairly telling in your posts.

You are. Haha, no worries. I think it's a little funny that it's assumed that you have to be queer to talk queer theory (I mean, I'd love to talk computer psychology though I'm not a robot), but then again, I look around my gender studies classes and there seems to be some truth to the idea.

I remember my first tutorial for this class on sexual and gender diversity. People are put to answer why they're in the class and the first guy to answer goes "well, I'm queer." full stop. Funny world.

I found this photo of a young girl at an event that had a large amount of gay people having an easter event. I'd find it hard to believe that a child of this age can't be influenced by 1000 people celebrating a sexual orientation. At the least she is shown that the event is good clean fun (in a child's mind). Whether the event is or isn't good clean fun is not the question. The question is whether she can be influenced to look towards the same sex more than she would have.

There are more photos but they're in the canceled San Francisco thread. I have to believe that people are likely predisposed to a sexual orientation but it seems that outside influences like parents personal likes and dislikes may play a big part as well.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Existere, I checked your profile and man, you've got a 'spunky' thing for short blue dudes. As I say man, whatever you're into gay dwarf sex and spunky smurfs, it's all cool with me from a distance. I watched 'Bruno'. Gotta love the internet.

Originally posted by Existere
Haha, no worries. I think it's a little funny that it's assumed that you have to be queer to talk queer theory (I mean, I'd love to talk computer psychology though I'm not a robot), but then again, I look around my gender studies classes and there seems to be some truth to the idea.

I remember my first tutorial for this class on sexual and gender diversity. People are put to answer why they're in the class and the first guy to answer goes "well, I'm queer." full stop. Funny world.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, no one called you "queer". No need to get defensive, bro. It's cool.

That guy kicks ass, despite being a homo.

Originally posted by Existere
Gotta love the internet.

Yes you have and I wasn't kidding I enjoy your posts so, whatever chan spunky smurfs are on.. I'm down with you, from a distance.

Originally posted by Robtard
Whoa, whoa, whoa, no one called you "queer". No need to get defensive, bro. It's cool.

That guy kicks ass, despite being a homo. I lol'd.

Nah, besides that comment, he pretty much sucks (not just penis, but as a person).Originally posted by The MISTER
I found this photo of a young girl at an event that had a large amount of gay people having an easter event. I'd find it hard to believe that a child of this age can't be influenced by 1000 people celebrating a sexual orientation. At the least she is shown that the event is good clean fun (in a child's mind). Whether the event is or isn't good clean fun is not the question. The question is whether she can be influenced to look towards the same sex more than she would have. So... what change are you suggesting is occurring in this girl by attending this event? Just for clarification.

I don't think we can really know as of yet. There are convincing arguments and research for both sides as well as ironically a distinct lack of evidence.

It might be better if we don't know though. Finding some sort of 'gay gene' could easily spiral into a search for a 'cure' ala X-Men 3. However, finding out its conditioned can lead to very iffy conditioning programs. We're better off not knowing imo.

Originally posted by Existere
I lol'd.

Nah, besides that comment, he pretty much sucks (not just penis, but as a person). So... what change are you suggesting is occurring in this girl by attending this event? Just for clarification.

That's the thing i'm completely tolerant of homosexuality, i just find the stereotype types of mincing poofta and dungaree wearing bull dyke; unfortunately, both true to life and very annoying.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I found this photo of a young girl at an event that had a large amount of gay people having an easter event. I'd find it hard to believe that a child of this age can't be influenced by 1000 people celebrating a sexual orientation. At the least she is shown that the event is good clean fun (in a child's mind). Whether the event is or isn't good clean fun is not the question. The question is whether she can be influenced to look towards the same sex more than she would have.

There are more photos but they're in the canceled San Francisco thread. I have to believe that people are likely predisposed to a sexual orientation but it seems that outside influences like parents personal likes and dislikes may play a big part as well.

Not likely. If anything, she won't grow up to judge people negatively because they prefer to suck a dick or eat pussy.

So what do you suggest, gay parents produce gay offspring?

Originally posted by Robtard


So what do you suggest, gay parents produce gay offspring?

Hmm it will be interesting to see if in 40 years this is the case.... Oh, that's what the threads about....!!!

Originally posted by RagingBoner
blather

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10842723

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11058483

or a critique of the biological hypothesis, that simply points to limitations in the ability to measure these things perfectly, but does not comment about the wrongness of the hypothesis:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12836730

this is from searching "homosexual twin" into pub med. feel free to continue looking up modern research there

oh, and I didn't include the most important studies on twins because they are from before 2000 and are easily findable on Google if you are interested, however, almost every abstract I linked you talks about them, and they are essentially incontrovertible

this took me 20 seconds.

Originally posted by RagingBoner
I haven't seen convincing evidence to indicate that sexual orientation is genetic.

you must have looked exhaustively

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
That's the thing i'm completely tolerant of homosexuality, i just find the stereotype types of mincing poofta and dungaree wearing bull dyke; unfortunately, both true to life and very annoying. Yeah, me too to an extent. I try and fight that reaction in myself though, because I guess I think the key is to be more than tolerant- I mean, if you tolerate someone, it amounts to agreeing that they can exist in your perimeter.

Still, I don't think anybody can claim that they aren't put off by a certain style, mannerism or whatever, even if it should logically be harmless.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Hmm it will be interesting to see if in 40 years this is the case.... Oh, that's what the threads about....!!! We don't really need to wait to see already that that isn't the case.

Originally posted by Existere
Yeah, me too to an extent. I try and fight that reaction in myself though, because I guess I think the key is to be more than tolerant- I mean, if you tolerate someone, it amounts to agreeing that they can exist in your perimeter.

Still, I don't think anybody can claim that they aren't put off by a certain style, mannerism or whatever, even if it should logically be harmless.


Hmmm, I am intolerant sometimes; however, I have no issues with gayness per se, I just find all the gay pride stuff.. A bit wrong.


Originally posted by Existere
We don't really need to wait to see already that that isn't the case.

Only time will tell, if we need to wait or not.

Originally posted by Existere
So... what change are you suggesting is occurring in this girl by attending this event? Just for clarification. Perhaps she could be led to believe that a same sex lifestyle is far superior to a opposite sex one. Heterosexuals don't celebrate heterosexuality as the point of their gathering. Compared to a gay pride event a circus might be less flashy and colorful. Flashy outfits and colorful spectacles appeal to all children more than drab, boring gatherings. She could learn to resent people who challenge the appropriateness of anything that the crowd deems ok. Is that inconceivable?

We probably wont get a definitive answer in our lifetime, if ever. At least not until we start to learn more about the Mind itself.

Not strictly related to sexuality, but I do believe that the relationships we witness while growing up, particularly between parents (our own or otherwise), can have a strong influence on our relationships. Our expectations, mindset/character of partners and the types of people we are attracted to, can be influenced by what goes on around us growing up (or at least, how we interpret what goes on around us), regardless of sexual preference.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Perhaps she could be led to believe that a same sex lifestyle is far superior to a opposite sex one. Heterosexuals don't celebrate heterosexuality as the point of their gathering. Compared to a gay pride event a circus might be less flashy and colorful. Flashy outfits and colorful spectacles appeal to all children more than drab, boring gatherings. She could learn to resent people who challenge the appropriateness of anything that the crowd deems ok. Is that inconceivable?

There are "straight pride" events occurring constantly around us, unless you haven't noticed, homosexuality is still a stigma in most cultures.

So that child in an essence is receiving daily doses of "don't be gay. don't be gay. don't be gay."

Originally posted by The MISTER
Perhaps she could be led to believe that a same sex lifestyle is far superior to a opposite sex one. Heterosexuals don't celebrate heterosexuality as the point of their gathering. Compared to a gay pride event a circus might be less flashy and colorful. Flashy outfits and colorful spectacles appeal to all children more than drab, boring gatherings. She could learn to resent people who challenge the appropriateness of anything that the crowd deems ok. Is that inconceivable?

this is why you can't confuse sexuality with gender preference

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10842723

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11058483

or a critique of the biological hypothesis, that simply points to limitations in the ability to measure these things perfectly, but does not comment about the wrongness of the hypothesis:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12836730

this is from searching "homosexual twin" into pub med. feel free to continue looking up modern research there

oh, and I didn't include the most important studies on twins because they are from before 2000 and are easily findable on Google if you are interested, however, almost every abstract I linked you talks about them, and they are essentially incontrovertible

this took me 20 seconds.



you must have looked exhaustively Thanks for the informative post!
This evidence gives more credibility to the idea that people are born predisposed to an orientation.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Hmmm, I am intolerant sometimes; however, I have no issues with gayness per se, I just find all the gay pride stuff.. A bit wrong.
Right, I'm in the same boat, in that I can't do pride parades. 'Flamboyant' behavior irks the shit out of me, but I use the quotation marks because I don't really think that it is necessarily flamboyant or that it's a fault of any of the paraders.

I'm just less tolerant and accepting on some level than I like to believe I am, which is something I need to realize and fight. I mean, being put off by behavior that seems to differ strongly from what you normally perceive and understand is only human. That doesn't make those people 'wrong' because they're behaving in a manner that puts me off, it just means I have to reevaluate why it bothers me so much.

Originally posted by Existere
That doesn't make those people 'wrong' because they're behaving in a manner that puts me off, it just means I have to reevaluate why it bothers me so much.

Probably because you're gay. Not judging.

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably because you're gay. Not judging. Holy shit... you might be right.

Brb, off to have a life crisis.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Thanks for the informative post!
This evidence gives more credibility to the idea that people are born predisposed to an orientation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

Originally posted by Dr Mystery
We probably wont get a definitive answer in our lifetime, if ever. At least not until we start to learn more about the Mind itself.

Not strictly related to sexuality, but I do believe that the relationships we witness while growing up, particularly between parents (our own or otherwise), can have a strong influence on our relationships. Our expectations, mindset/character of partners and the types of people we are attracted to, can be influenced by what goes on around us growing up (or at least, how we interpret what goes on around us), regardless of sexual preference. I think you're right on the money! Likely it's a combination of rearing and pre-disposition. If it is pre-disposition it would be good to find some conclusive evidence so that non-heterosexuals can stop being vilified. One thing I'm positive about is that heterosexuals are equal to homosexuals in their capacity for good or evil.

Originally posted by The MISTER


See what I'm saying?

Originally posted by inimalist
this is why you can't confuse sexuality with gender preference

Enlightened

Originally posted by skekUng
See what I'm saying? Yeah.

Highly unlikely.

If you were bought up to know that being gay is wrong then it will be hard to tell your parents that you are or think you are.So I think it does depends on how you were bought up.
I know however that my parents told me that no matter what I do they will always love me. But not the lifestyle.(PS I am not gay so everyone knows)

The fear of "coming out" to your parents isn't quite the same as them influencing your sexual orientation.

Also, I love how you put a "no homo" disclaimer at the end your post.

I fully believe that sexual orientation, and in rare cases, sexual deviance such as pedophelia or asexuality occur from birth. However, preferences, fetishes, paraphelias, and other stuff comes from puberty, trauma, and sexual exploration with yourself and a partner.
I think the most important issues of social policy in this regard should be making sure that kids grow up in a good, non-abusive, non-misogynistic, non-misandrist environment and that they be educated properly in sexuality and personal hygiene, preferably by a doctor. It's especially important now that circumcision is going out of fashion since using the wrong soap or improper masturbation technique is one of the leading causes of phimosis.

As for influencing actual sexuality, I really do think the number one influence is sex partners. I've found for example, that a woman's opinions on anal sex are less based on physiology and more based on who she had her first experience with. Same with oral or sometimes even kissing.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
using the wrong soap or improper masturbation technique is one of the leading causes of phimosis. I lol'd because I never grew up.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I lol'd because I never grew up.

We need urbanized PSAs. With like, a sunglasses wearing poochied bear going "Stretch out yo ridged bands and yo banjo string, fool!"

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I fully believe that .... in rare cases, sexual deviance such as pedophelia or asexuality occur from birth.

Why?

Originally posted by skekUng
Why? same reason that most people with antisocial personality spectrum develop it in early childhood but some people are just born psychopaths.

Sexuality is influenced all of the time and it shows as it changes throughout time and throughout culture. People choose ultimately but certain factors do influence it.

Sexuality is influenced by God. Jesus makes us straight and people who have forsaken Jesus become gay.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Sexuality is influenced by God. Jesus makes us straight and people who have forsaken Jesus become gay.

I bet you that a new person to KMC would think you were the biggest, ultra-conservative, idiot to ever grace the internet. Rarely are your posts not full of sarcasm or parody.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I bet you that a new person to KMC would think you were the biggest, ultra-conservative, idiot to ever grace the internet. Rarely are your posts not full of sarcasm or parody.

Poe's law!

Originally posted by Darth Jello
same reason that most people with antisocial personality spectrum develop it in early childhood but some people are just born psychopaths.

...

I think you underestimate genetics my friend

Originally posted by dadudemon
I bet you that a new person to KMC would think you were the biggest, ultra-conservative, idiot to ever grace the internet. Rarely are your posts not full of sarcasm or parody. The post you quoted being a rare exception.


...





^That smiley's the closest thing you God-hating queers will ever see of a real angel.

Can Sexuality Be Influenced?

I can think of 2 real-life scenarios that give the basis for a "yes" & "no" answer.

Scenario 1: I knew of a person, now in his mid-30's, openly gay & works as a professional, full-time gay escort. As a child, he was abused & molested by several priests at his boarding school. He ran away from home (as his parents didn't believe his accusations) & turned to drugs & living on the streets as a rent-boy.
Suffice to say, in his own words, he never developed a heterosexual relationship (& hardly had sex with women). He went further to say, that the irony of being a rent-boy was that most of his clients were the same priests that abused/influenced his sexuality & that now they had to pay him for the act.
So, that's a yes that sexuality can be influenced.

Scenario 2: I p@ssed myself laughing when I heard this.
Middle-aged guy, grew up straight, married for over 20 years with several children. Anyway he found out his wife was having an affair & they divorced.
One night he decided to drown his sorrows with his best friend who was also divorced....
Suffice to say, they both woke up the next morning in each others' arms & have been happily in a gay relationship for the past 8 years.
So "no" to sexuality can be influenced.

So is there a consensus that Sexuality can't be influenced but aspects of sexuality can? Need I point out the possible evidence that there are physiological differences theorized between straight and gay people in the olfactory of all places?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Need I point out the possible evidence that there are physiological differences theorized between straight and gay people in the olfactory of all places? I lol'd again for some reason.

Cut it out. I'll be drinking milk next time.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I lol'd again for some reason.

Cut it out. I'll be drinking milk next time. pee pee milk?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

Scenario 1: I knew of a person, now in his mid-30's, openly gay & works as a professional, full-time gay escort. As a child, he was abused & molested by several priests at his boarding school. He ran away from home (as his parents didn't believe his accusations) & turned to drugs & living on the streets as a rent-boy.
Suffice to say, in his own words, he never developed a heterosexual relationship (& hardly had sex with women). He went further to say, that the irony of being a rent-boy was that most of his clients were the same priests that abused/influenced his sexuality & that now they had to pay him for the act.
So, that's a yes that sexuality can be influenced.


What if that guy was gay and attracted to males all along?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Can Sexuality Be Influenced?

I can think of 2 real-life scenarios that give the basis for a "yes" & "no" answer.

Scenario 1: I knew of a person, now in his mid-30's, openly gay & works as a professional, full-time gay escort. As a child, he was abused & molested by several priests at his boarding school. He ran away from home (as his parents didn't believe his accusations) & turned to drugs & living on the streets as a rent-boy.
Suffice to say, in his own words, he never developed a heterosexual relationship (& hardly had sex with women). He went further to say, that the irony of being a rent-boy was that most of his clients were the same priests that abused/influenced his sexuality & that now they had to pay him for the act.
So, that's a yes that sexuality can be influenced.

Scenario 2: I p@ssed myself laughing when I heard this.
Middle-aged guy, grew up straight, married for over 20 years with several children. Anyway he found out his wife was having an affair & they divorced.
One night he decided to drown his sorrows with his best friend who was also divorced....
Suffice to say, they both woke up the next morning in each others' arms & have been happily in a gay relationship for the past 8 years.
So "no" to sexuality can be influenced.

I don't follow how those examples prove your point...

also, with scenario 2, you have fallen into the trap of thinking sexuality is static or non-contextual.

Originally posted by StyleTime
The fear of "coming out" to your parents isn't quite the same as them influencing your sexual orientation.

Also, I love how you put a "no homo" disclaimer at the end your post.

Well whatever I was just answearing the thread.and if I did that so what?Does it really matter?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
So is there a consensus that Sexuality can't be influenced but aspects of sexuality can? Need I point out the possible evidence that there are physiological differences theorized between straight and gay people in the olfactory of all places?

there are actually a huge number of really unexpected correlations regarding the physiological differences between gays and straights (finger length, for instance).

it is fascinating, but they might represent a bit of a type I error (meaning that, in our search to find any sort of biological predisposition for homosexuality, any possible statistical difference in the "gay" and "straight" groups will be reported as possibly being related to being gay/straight, even though it might only represent a difference in the groups that would be due to chance). However, some, like the olfactory one you mention, deal primarily with systems that are known to play a role in sexual attraction in both humans and non-humans.

I'm not saying the correlations are wrong, just tempering it a bit. As far as your initial question though, there is what could be called a scientific consensus that sexual attraction is biological in nature, and that any changes, while environment probably does play some role, are related to normal biological development.

The problem is, a lot of the research on sexuality shows that it varies over time and context, especially in women, though even in 100% straight men. Certain aspects of sexuality, like a foot fetish or something, might be developmental, but those developments are going to be based on specific genetic expressions that come from experiences, not on a cognitive "reevaluation" of what people think about sexually or changing what they are attracted to.

The best argument for some type of non-biological difference would be essentially saying you could use classical conditioning to make someone sexually attracted to something. So, if every time you masturbated, you looked at a pen, it is possible future experiences where you see a pen would access that conditioned response, such that you now are aroused by the pen, but that would not be the same as being sexually attracted to the pen.

Think of it like this. If you watched a lot of porn, you would probably start to have a conditioned response to male genitalia, because you are used to seeing it in the context of straight pornography, and your experience with it causes the associated arousal. It would be inappropriate to say it is the penis itself that you are attracted to, much like you wouldn't say Pavlov's dog wanted to eat the bell. to take this a step further, think about how many people masturbate in front of a computer, yet get no sexual arousal from keyboards or mice.

sexuality is a hugely complicated topic, way more broad that the thread here wants to make it, but considering some of the responses, we are lucky people aren't just yelling "CHOICE, durrrr!!!!"

Originally posted by inimalist
there are actually a huge number of really unexpected correlations regarding the physiological differences between gays and straights (finger length, for instance).

That one is a joke isn't it?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That one is a joke isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Physiological



its been on livescience too. I haven't read the research, so I can't comment beyond this

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Sexuality is influenced by God. Jesus makes us straight and people who have forsaken Jesus become gay.

According to many biblical scholars, this is exactly what Paul taught.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Sexuality is influenced all of the time and it shows as it changes throughout time and throughout culture. People choose ultimately but certain factors do influence it.

How has your sexuality changed over time and what factors influenced it?

Originally posted by skekUng
How has your sexuality changed over time and what factors influenced it? I like good looking women, not a lot has changed except that I like them better and better looking in regards to attractiveness.

I meant in general.♠

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I like good looking women, not a lot has changed except that I like them better and better looking in regards to attractiveness.

I meant in general.♠

So you went from likely less than good looking women to liking good looking women. Okay...

Originally posted by Robtard
So you went from likely less than good looking women to liking good looking women. Okay... Nope I went from gorgeous to beyond.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Nope I went from gorgeous to beyond.

That doesn't really support this:

Originally posted by Tha C-Master Sexuality is influenced all of the time and it shows as it changes throughout time and throughout culture. People choose ultimately but certain factors do influence it.

Being attracted to women(their level of beauty aside, as it's largely subjective), was this ever a choice for you?

Originally posted by Robtard
That doesn't really support this:



Being attracted to women(their level of beauty aside, as it's largely subjective), was this ever a choice for you?

Beauty is subjective on some levels. Not entirely. There are proportions and features that are hardwired into attraction.

Being more attracted to better looking women makes perfect sense.

Also both sexes recognize features that are determined "attractive" on both genders. While a person may not date a member of the same sex, they can recognize their attractiveness. In our society, it is considered "unmanly" for a man to recognize that another man is attractive. This has started to change though.

Things that have changed in society have been relations with family members, people under or over a certain age, animals etc. These things did take place frequently in other societies, but in our current structure it is not the norm. Which has contributed somewhat to the lifestyle people lead.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Beauty is subjective on some levels. Not entirely. There are proportions and features that are hardwired into attraction.

Being more attracted to better looking women makes perfect sense.

Also both sexes recognize features that are determined "attractive" on both genders. While a person may not date a member of the same sex, they can recognize their attractiveness. In our society, it is considered "unmanly" for a man to recognize that another man is attractive. This has started to change though.

Things that have changed in society have been relations with family members, people under or over a certain age, animals etc. These things did take place frequently in other societies, but in our current structure it is not the norm. Which has contributed somewhat to the lifestyle people lead.

Which proportions and features would these be? Cos I've seen guys completely infatuated with ugly women.

Not in regards to your earlier statement of ever changing sexuality.

Okay.

And this has what to do with the immediate topic?

Also, you didn't answer the question, being attracted to women, was this ever a choice?

Originally posted by Robtard
Which proportions and features would these be? Cos I've seen guys completely infatuated with ugly women.

Not in regards to your earlier statement of ever changing sexuality.

Okay.

And this has what to do with the topic?

Also, you didn't answer the question, being attracted to women, was this ever a choice?

Infatuated with and physically attracted to aren't the same thing. Someone may not be your "type" but you could still recognize their attractiveness.

Lets sum everything up. Sexuality as a whole has changed in regards to what is acceptable and what is not in our culture. It also influences actions. Most people would never think of doing their sister no matter how good they look, but in the past it was the norm.

My point was that a man could view another man as an attractive man and not want to have relations with him. But he still recognized cues and proportions that would be deemed attractive.

Eyes, symmetry, lips. facial structure. Healthy body. etc.

For women much of the same thing.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Beauty is subjective on some levels. Not entirely. There are proportions and features that are hardwired into attraction.

you can describe statistical norms, sure. There is by no means any sense of a universal "attractiveness" though.

what research are you referencing here?

Originally posted by inimalist
you can describe statistical norms, sure. There is by no means any sense of a universal "attractiveness" though.

what research are you referencing here? No one person is going to have the exact same standards as everyone else, but there are features a person looks for.

Symmertry to a person means health. It's all very subconscious. It is also biological, influenced by culture, and influenced by society.

While I'm sure not everyone would think... Jessica Alba was their type, I'm sure they'd all agree she is better looking than a person with one eye and a face that is deformed with next to no teeth.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
No one person is going to have the exact same standards, but there are features a person looks for.

Symmertry to a person means health. It's all very subconscious. Is biological, influenced by culture, and influenced by society.

sure, a person is more likely to say a person with a symmetrical face is more attractive than someone without, but only at a statistically significant majority. It is the same with facial composites. A face that averages between the features of many faces is seen to be more attractive, but again, only at a statistically significant portion of the time.

as biologically driven as it might be, it by no means describes any universal nature to "what is attractive"

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
While I'm sure not everyone would think... Jessica Alba was their type. I'm sure they'd all agree she is better looking than a person with one eye and a face that is deformed with next to no teeth.

based on what?

Originally posted by Robtard
Which proportions and features would these be? Cos I've seen guys completely infatuated with ugly women.


Been there mate :-)

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, a person is more likely to say a person with a symmetrical face is more attractive than someone without, but only at a statistically significant majority. It is the same with facial composites. A face that averages between the features of many faces is seen to be more attractive, but again, only at a statistically significant portion of the time.

as biologically driven as it might be, it by no means describes any universal nature to "what is attractive"



based on what?

However the more symmetrical face and proportionate the body is compared to the other, the more the votes increase in that favor. On the extreme end, you'd have supermodels and people with no eyes or are hideously deformed, it would be unanimous.

There was actually studies with infants that reacted better to more symmetrical and appealing faces of both genders the same way the adults and teenagers did who were influenced by society. So, while no two people have the same tastes, they can recognize physical beauty in another person.

Attractiveness comes from more than looks, it is a set of traits that a person finds attractive. Charisma, confidence, success, height, fame, etc.

People in our society place people into convenient categories to distinguish them and go through the process of elimination. Which is why you see people who join particular groups or go by particular fads, it is easily recognizable and accepted by a large chunk of society.

Some very brief and quick links I found really quickly for anybody who wants to look at this. I actually made a thread about this before in more detail:

http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume6/issue6/features/feng.html

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/science-of-sex-appeal-the-beauty-of-symmetry.html

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Infatuated with and physically attracted to aren't the same thing. Someone may not be your "type" but you could still recognize their attractiveness.

Lets sum everything up. Sexuality as a whole has changed in regards to what is acceptable and what is not in our culture. It also influences actions. Most people would never think of doing their sister no matter how good they look, but in the past it was the norm.

My point was that a man could view another man as an attractive man and not want to have relations with him. But he still recognized cues and proportions that would be deemed attractive.

Eyes, symmetry, lips. facial structure. Healthy body. etc.

For women much of the same thing.

Again, I've seen guys who are clearly physically attracted to women who aren't attractive. Least to me. So where's the "standard"?

Sister ****ing is a bad example, as it's few cultures and it was more of a power-play/politics than actual "damn, my sister is hot, I'm going to get up in that." Not so much a social norm. eg The Pharoahs married their own sisters, but the general populace of Egypt didn't.

Yes, I can recognize a handsome man and not want to **** him; because I'm not sexually attracted to men. To be on topic, I don't think this will change due to outside factors, this aspect of me just is.

You're throwing of generalizations. Which features exactly are universally attractive/hard-wired into us? Blue eyes, small breast, tall, short etc.

Guess I won't get an answer whether you chose to be attracted to women.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Been there mate :-)

Being drunk doesn't count, you're excused.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
However the more symmetrical face and proportionate the body is compared to the other, the more the votes increase in that favor

yes

this doesn't mean that, to a particular individual, a person with a symmetric face will be perceived as more attractive. biologically motivated or not, it isn't an absolute or universal quality that people see as attractive

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
On the extreme end, you'd have supermodels and people with no eyes or are hideously deformed, it would be unanimous.

you have this data? have you ever heard of the nation Mauritania?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
There was actually studies with infants that reacted better to more symmetrical and appealing faces of both genders the same way the adults and teenagers did who were influenced by society. So, while no two people have the same tastes, they can recognize physical beauty in another person.

do you understand what the statement "statistically significant majority" means?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Attractiveness comes from more than looks, it is a set of traits that a person finds attractive. Charisma, confidence, success, height, fame, etc.

whose point do you think this supports?

I might disagree with Dr. Feng's conclusions, however, as I'd be interested to test the "attractiveness" hypothesis with some type of appeal to how atypical things are to cognitive schemas (which for faces would be very biological, as we have areas of our brain which are thought to be hard wired for facial perception). The infant evidence is easily explained by more symmetric and composite faces being more typical of what they would expect to see, and thus, more perceptible as faces, something which our attentional systems are more prone to.... wait... you know what, nevermind...

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, I've seen guys who are clearly physically attracted to women who aren't attractive. Least to me. So where's the "standard"?

Sister ****ing is a bad example, as it's few cultures and it was more of a power-play/politics than actual "damn, my sister is hot, I'm going to get up in that." Not so much a social norm, the Pharoahs married their own sisters, but the general populace of Egypt didn't.

Yes, I can recognize a handsome man and not want to **** him; because I'm not sexually attracted to men. To be on topic, I don't think this will change due to outside factors, this aspect of me just is.

You're throwing of generalizations. Which features exactly are universally attractive/hard-wired into us? Blue eyes, small breast, tall, short etc.

Guess I won't get an answer whether you chose to be attracted to women.
Not really, it is about attractiveness and also culture and also how you were raised with someone. You could be totally unrelated to someone and grow up with them and it would be seen as a cultural "nono".

Exactly, you recognize he is "good looking" without being attracted to him, which is the perfect example. You don't have any sexual interest in men but you see the visual cues, the same one that women do. That's not to say that every person will want to be with that person, but they can at least say to some extent that they have more favorable features.

Well I am speaking in general.

It's not so much hair color, eye color, skin color, etc, as that has changed with culture to some extent. Women of lighter skin (but tanned) and lighter hair that are thinner are preferred more nowadays than in the past. Then it was heavier women, paler, women, women with curly hair, etc.

I'm talking about symmetry, fuller eyes, spacing in the face, lack of deformity, being in decent shape, as those things portray health, which is what people look for in offspring.

All very subconscious.

Originally posted by inimalist
this doesn't mean that, to a particular individual, a person with a symmetric face will be perceived as more attractive. biologically motivated or not, it isn't an absolute or universal quality that people see as attractive
That is throwing too many variables in. A person may have a more symmetrical face in there, but be lacking in another feature.

What it means is that a person who has what is considered a "more attractive face" will have more of the aforementioned features, consistently.


Originally posted by inimalist
you have this data? have you ever heard of the nation Mauritania?

People who are fatter? People were fatter in our history not long ago. As being fat was a sign of wealth, and tanned skin was a sign of poverty because people who were out in the sun worked physically hard and were poor.

Very different than now. That is a cultural difference. As I said.

Originally posted by inimalist
do you understand what the statement "statistically significant majority" means?

Actually the point of that was to point out nature vs nuture, that cultural bias only affects certain features of attractiveness, and not others. Humans have a rather consistent appearance due to them being more willing to mate with people who have certain features.

Originally posted by inimalist
whose point do you think this supports?

Originally posted by inimalist
I might disagree with Dr. Feng's conclusions, however, as I'd be interested to test the "attractiveness" hypothesis with some type of appeal to how atypical things are to cognitive schemas (which for faces would be very biological, as we have areas of our brain which are thought to be hard wired for facial perception). The infant evidence is easily explained by more symmetric and composite faces being more typical of what they would expect to see, and thus, more perceptible as faces, something which our attentional systems are more prone to.... wait... you know what, nevermind...

However even with people who are considered good looking the features aren't that vastly different in terms of proportion. The closer it is to "average" the better. They have done "tests" where the best "features" were sampled together based on perception and it came up with a face of a celebrity.

It was Halle Berry most recently, can't remember what it was before.

I don't think Halle Berry is attractive at all...

like really, I'd say a 4 or 5 maybe

EDIT: aside from that, you are all over the place, most of your points are inconsistent with the idea that there is some universal "attractiveness", and I've learned in the past that I have little patience to try and explain statistical concepts to people looking to just argue...

Originally posted by Tha C-Master


However even with people who are considered good looking the features aren't that vastly different in terms of proportion. The closer it is to "average" the better. They have done "tests" where the best "features" were sampled together based on perception and it came up with a face of a celebrity.

It was Halle Berry most recently, can't remember what it was before.

Do you have a link to this data?

Because if it's what I am thinking of, it was some online thing. Hardly "scientific".

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Scenario 1: I knew of a person, now in his mid-30's, openly gay & works as a professional, full-time gay escort. As a child, he was abused & molested by several priests at his boarding school. He ran away from home (as his parents didn't believe his accusations) & turned to drugs & living on the streets as a rent-boy.
Suffice to say, in his own words, he never developed a heterosexual relationship (& hardly had sex with women). He went further to say, that the irony of being a rent-boy was that most of his clients were the same priests that abused/influenced his sexuality & that now they had to pay him for the act.
So, that's a yes that sexuality can be influenced.

What about the women (I don't think I know of any I must point out) who have a similar childhood, abused by uncles, etc, who don't turn to prostitution and have relationships with women? Both scenarios are the same, in that you could assume that their past experiences have influenced their sexual preference, but what would send one person to continue to have sex with people of the same gender as their abuser and one to turn away from that gender and into the arms of the opposite gender?

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think Halle Berry is attractive at all...

like really, I'd say a 4 or 5 maybe

EDIT: aside from that, you are all over the place, most of your points are inconsistent with the idea that there is some universal "attractiveness", and I've learned in the past that I have little patience to try and explain statistical concepts to people looking to just argue...
Close to averages, which was the point. Many people do see her as very beautiful, but not many would argue her, or someone like Jessica Alba as being uglier than someone who was hideously deformed. Unless they were taking the piss.



I'm not all over the place., and I'm not the one looking to argue. You responded to me first. I feel like I'm being antagonized by you to some extent. I have seen no statistics provided. You are of course welcome to disagree with me. I'm fine with that.

In conclusion my point was there are certain features that are seen as more "attractive" consistently, these features are sought after and passed down. Symmetry being one of them. Not that everybody has the same preference in a person, or that they all want the same person. Just that people subconsciously pick traits that are consistently attractive, it doesn't just wildly vary in those areas. Did you ever read about the golden ratio?

There are other areas that are influenced, like culture and society, that people pick convenient cues from. So like I said it is a mixture of many factors.
.Originally posted by Robtard
Do you have a link to this data?

Because if it's what I am thinking of, it was some online thing. Hardly "scientific". Discovery Channel had a long show about it.

Let me see if I can find at least a portion of the video for you.

discovery channel also has shows about aliens building the pyramids

Originally posted by inimalist
discovery channel also has shows about aliens building the pyramids
Wait are you saying that didn't happen? That through huge amounts of slave power and human ingenuity the Pyramids were constructed over human lifetimes?

Madness, good sir.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Wait are you saying that didn't happen? That through huge amounts of slave power and human ingenuity the Pyramids were constructed over human lifetimes?

Madness, good sir.

jeez, now that I read it aloud, I see how dumb that sounds

Originally posted by inimalist
discovery channel also has shows about aliens building the pyramids There have been other studies on the golden ratio.

I'm trying to think of who the other celeb is from years previous.

Here is my old thread. Which is more on this side topic:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=388963&highlight=aesthetic+beauty+forumid%3A11

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Beauty is subjective on some levels. Not entirely. There are proportions and features that are hardwired into attraction

This is a contradiction. Had you referenced your earlier point about culture it might have worked. However, you did not.

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, a person is more likely to say a person with a symmetrical face is more attractive than someone without...

He does not realize a fat person can still be symetrical.

Originally posted by Dr Mystery
What about the women (I don't think I know of any I must point out) who have a similar childhood, abused by uncles, etc, who don't turn to prostitution and have relationships with women? Both scenarios are the same, in that you could assume that their past experiences have influenced their sexual preference, but what would send one person to continue to have sex with people of the same gender as their abuser and one to turn away from that gender and into the arms of the opposite gender? You're comparing a gay guy that was abused by priests at an early age to straight females abused by uncles at early ages. I'm confused as to who is 'turning away from the gender of their abuser and into the arms of the opposite gender.'

I've never been clear on what "choice" is supposed to mean in the context of sexuality. I can say for certain that I've never deliberated on which sex I want to be attracted to. Obviously I'm not a statistically significant sample of the population, though. Do other people do that?