Can sexuality be influenced?

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.

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"

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.

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:

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

RagingBoner
My personal theory follows the works of Gagnon and Simon

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.

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.

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?

inimalist
and it really doesn't matter if you are presenting it as a personal opinion or as a legitimate theory,

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

inimalist
it is still likely wrong,

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

inimalist
though nobody is saying you can't believe incorrect things

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

Spoiler:
Translation: That would be most welcome.

inimalist
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....

😄

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.

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

RB, page 2
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.

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

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

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

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:

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

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

inimalist
the evidence you claimed to already be familiar with?

Where did I make the claim?

inimalist
sorry for assuming you weren't talking from a position of ignorance

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

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

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.