 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: sexual experimentation in childhood and it's influence, and yes, also antigens!
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
after This inflamed post I chose to start a new topic (perhaps against my better judgement, I never did have tact or self control). I picked Dead Horses because I felt it obvious that this is a natural continuation of a dead horse thread.
Having been invited, I considered a Hell topic, where all manner of crude possibilities and accusations and the natural reaction to them can be discussed including visceral reactions to what is perceived about my opinions as outdated, hateful, and *shock* Biblical. For the time being I will assume the best of the shippies at large and start here as I'm informed Hell really isn't for "discussion". If due to the brief history here, a clean conversation cannot go forward, by all means, send it to Hell and I'll join - entertaining my vice for vulgarity as needed.
I will start off with two articles from a site recently found (https://stream.org/ten-principles/) and ask for comments on these things as far as we as people can possibly -hopefully- talk about them as well as how their own experiences add up (after all "anecdotal" is where it all leads anyway) and why or why not our early social experiences are viewed as formative to our sexuality.
I will describe my own sexuality and experiences in a second post.
As I can see from the news today, sociologists are out to prove that all forms of social control are bad, and they may violate our inborn sexuality, which in theory, was decided by our DNA alone.
It is my belief that inborn sexuality is a blank biological urge to fornicate, that, when combined with social normalization, control, temperance, discipline, teaching, will lead to healthy and beneficial and compatible sexual relationships at every level. In other words, in an orderly society, my urges to fornicate are controlled by society and the self control of others such that when it comes to me and my wife, my first experiences with her are truly that, FIRST exploration experiences, and so that as my life progresses with her, our experience expands at the same rate. This way our sexual creativity is limited and pleasurable between us equally and never out of balance, bland, or in need of outside exploration (no don't get the impression we have the perfect sex life, no one is perfect ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ).
Sadly, moral code and rules are often perceived as arbitrary and without purpose, they are an artificial barrier to be broken down, because they limit our fun.
Of course, being comfortable together as any couple is facilitated by each of us starting out comfortable in our own skin, but sadly, kids are often being encouraged to stop and think real hard about whether they even should want to be comfortable in their own skin. This leads to parents putting down what I describe as their sovereignty in teaching their children about how to be a biological unit in this world, and just letting the kid "ride the bike" with no help.
Here is an example of this agenda at work. Warning - this is is likely to be offensive to certain LGBT, I wont label which ones.
Article 1:
https://stream.org/researchers-want-kindergarten-teachers/
notable quote:
Gansen says her “findings demonstrate the importance of teachers actively working to disrupt heteronormativity, which is already ingrained in children by ages 3 to 5
This is the result of what can only be a Godless mentality that rejects the heternomative pattern laid down through oral tradition from God from the beginning of time. The result will be more medication to modify our bio units to suit our new perceptions. New perceptions? No problem! New prescriptions!
So you have this push to remove social framework from role play and experimentation, just go wild is basically the advice, and well that is fine and well, just as long as we have the right DEVICE. Such as with birth control. Responsibility? What's that? Just cap the tubes and shoot blanks, no one can be hurt!
Okay okay, I'm getting carried away, right right.
So experimentation and role play cannot form our sexual orientation eh? Well of course it does, or else Ms Hansen would not be trying to disrupt heternormative socialization. Suppose that experimentation does then affect identity, that then makes the real danger sexual abuse.
Warning/Disclamer, there are no jokes about Satan as with the first article, but still might be offensive to LGBT
Article 2:
https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/
notable quote:
Dr. Robert Epstein, the pro-gay editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, noted that gay readers who were upset with an ad that ran in his publication in 2002 sent him letters asserting “that gays have a right to be rude or abusive because they themselves have been abused” (this obviously included being sexually abused).
Not to totally dismiss biological disposition, we are all wired differently. Nature and nurture are each valid at some level. Here is at least one nifty piece of science that we can also explore, though as the article says, it doesn't explain everything.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/gay-brothers/480117/
Clearly in families with siblings, the issue can be studied, but with siblings you have increase social aspects of birth order and the role playing of older and younger. Never the less antigens can do crazy things, and in times of societal stress, or if you will "success", nature might have ways of shifting the gender landscape.
"Some researchers believe birth order is as important as gender and almost as important as genetics." Link - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gail-gross/how-birth-order-affects-personality_b_4494385.html
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
This OP should be in Hell for its chaotic mess.
Mother of all that is holy, can you distill what you are attempting to say in a short paragraph?
Your OP jumps, twists and is far from clear.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Stream.org? Really? Its self-description at the bottom of the page says it all.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
The first two links are terrible; the third completely contradicts your thesis, and I don't see the relevance of the fourth.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Sure hope you don't make love like you do posts.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
I rather think friend Aijalon needs to get out more.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This OP should be in Hell for its chaotic mess.
Mother of all that is holy, can you distill what you are attempting to say in a short paragraph?
Your OP jumps, twists and is far from clear.
your accusations are bland and hold no water.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Article 1:
https://stream.org/researchers-want-kindergarten-teachers/
This is not research.
quote:
https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/
And neither is this.
These are opinion pieces from a right-wing Christian health-and-wealth libertarian website. They are not articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals. All your sources prove is there are people out there who think like you do. We know that.
Come back when you have something to actually discuss.
yet, there are so many posting responses to opinion based on personal stories.... and somehow the personal statements and stories in the article have no value. Sure, sure.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This OP should be in Hell for its chaotic mess.
Mother of all that is holy, can you distill what you are attempting to say in a short paragraph?
Your OP jumps, twists and is far from clear.
your accusations are bland and hold no water.
The accusation (singular) is poor writing and the posts following mine bolster my case.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Article 1:
https://stream.org/researchers-want-kindergarten-teachers/
This is not research.
quote:
https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/
And neither is this.
These are opinion pieces from a right-wing Christian health-and-wealth libertarian website. They are not articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals. All your sources prove is there are people out there who think like you do. We know that.
Come back when you have something to actually discuss.
yet, there are so many posting responses to opinion based on personal stories.... and somehow the personal statements and stories in the article have no value. Sure, sure.
I appreciate you don't understand the difference between someone taking the time and trouble to explain to you the hows, whys and whens of them coming out, and a pile of ill-natured snark that didn't happen to either you or the writer of the opinion piece, but you could at least pretend.
You're trying to foist false equivalence on us, and it's a logical fallacy. Please listen to the experience of gay people, not straight people denigrating gay people.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Aijalon, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
In keeping with the OP, I will briefly explain my experience, clearly different than most of those responding in disgust so far.
- raised in a Pentecostal background
- private school, we had uniforms
- parents stayed married
- little to no sex ed
- mom is overbearing, dad was submissive
- sex was something to be embarrassed about (thanks mom)
- introduced to porn at about 11/12yr by a pal
- very sexually awkward from then on
- joined the army, grew up a little
- first sexual experience - with wife.
- have children, all girls.
Knowing what I now know at middle age I feel had I been raised in a different social context, I feel I could equally have oriented as a homosexual, based on how I was loved and accepted and taught about sex at an early age - I was an open book.
Homophobic, and generally sex phobic would have described me as an 18 yr old. Sexually repressed would have been a good word for it. Not near as many LGBT were "out" in that time.
The group influence, gossip, flirting, and porn I experienced at an early age had a profound effect on my sexual desires. Events in my life "flipped" on certain switches. I'm honestly not that desirable in a physical sense, but had I been I am sure I would have indulged the girls seeking me out, what can I say, I'm a people person. There was actually a hazy memory from being a little kid about 8 yrs old where a girl requested an exchange of sightings about our packages, I honestly don't know if she made good on her end to show hers.... can't remember.
I dont have any LGBT friends, or at least not any that are out. I am not phobic around LGBT and can work with them just fine, have had great conversations about what gaydar is, which, I think is a skill you would need to know if partner possibilities are in short supply where you live or work.
-nuf for now
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Knowing what I now know at middle age I feel had I been raised in a different social context, I feel I could equally have oriented as a homosexual, based on how I was loved and accepted and taught about sex at an early age - I was an open book.
Sigh. No.
You can't look back on your life and think "oh well if things had been a bit different I might have turned out gay," because that's daft.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Socialization does not determine sexual orientation.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Knowing what I now know at middle age I feel had I been raised in a different social context, I feel I could equally have oriented as a homosexual, based on how I was loved and accepted and taught about sex at an early age - I was an open book.
If you didn't have any sexual feelings towards men during puberty, I very much doubt that you were ever going to turn out to homosexual.
I mean, yes, it's possible. It might be possible that you're actually bisexual. But if you don't find men sexually attractive, then that's kind of one of the prerequisites.
So why do you tell yourself this story? Is it to prove to yourself you've had a 'lucky escape' from being gay, or is it to show others that you successfully fought off (non-existent) urges and grew into a God-fearing straight man?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Socialization does not determine sexual orientation.
Not alone, no, but there is no one cause, the science is actually not clear as to the single cause of orientation. It's complex, and socialization is involved.
problems exist for example why in identical twins only one is usually ever gay. Or how the gay gene was passed on if homosexuals could not procreate in the past, how that gene survived. (theory is it's a muti-use gene, but its a THEORY!).
One thing is for sure, the sociologist featured in the article is studying socialization as an avenue to change sexual orientation. In other words, she believes that socialization is too powerful in shaping the expression of sexuality, and based on her bias, she wants to control how socialization takes place and rewind "normality".
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
An example of our experiences (not my own):
--------------------------
1. I am gay.
2. I came out when I was 33.
3. The first time I ever had any kind of sexualised encounter with another man was when I was 32. We could have all sorts of debate about what exactly constitutes "sex" and therefore when I might technically have lost my virginity, but before the age of 32 I had never kissed, cuddled, necked, fondled etc. etc. etc. a man.
Sexuality simply isn't correlated with actually having sex. Straight guys are still straight when they're teenage guys who've never actually done anything with a girl but get excited at the prospect of it.
There is research from America showing this fundamental disconnect, because when homosexual people talk about homosexuality it's framed in terms of who they desire, whereas when conservative Christians talk about homosexuality they think in terms of actual sexual intercourse (and usually anal intercourse, which in fact about a 1/3 of homosexual men don't like and don't participate in).
And so you end up with conservative Christians imagining homosexuals as engaging in lots of sex because to them, having sex is what homosexuality IS. Which just bears no connection to the real life experience of many homosexuals, such as myself, who had the attraction long before they ever acted on it.
----------------------------------------
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Actually, that's not what she said at all. What she was talking about was gender roles, and how reinforcing gender roles at a very early age is part of the reason we have comparatively few men in the caring professions, and few women in STEM jobs.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Knowing what I now know at middle age I feel had I been raised in a different social context, I feel I could equally have oriented as a homosexual, based on how I was loved and accepted and taught about sex at an early age - I was an open book.
If you didn't have any sexual feelings towards men during puberty, I very much doubt that you were ever going to turn out to homosexual.
I mean, yes, it's possible. It might be possible that you're actually bisexual. But if you don't find men sexually attractive, then that's kind of one of the prerequisites.
So why do you tell yourself this story? Is it to prove to yourself you've had a 'lucky escape' from being gay, or is it to show others that you successfully fought off (non-existent) urges and grew into a God-fearing straight man?
Now if I feel sexual promiscuity, fornication, or other Biblical deviant behavior is a sin and wrong (which I do) of course I would have to agree that I'm "lucky" to have escaped those habits. The Christianese word would be "blessed".
But I'm not the man in the temple saying "thank you God for not making me like that Guy..." in fact, I recognize now that I'm no better.
bisexual... sure it's possible, I don't know how much "attraction" is required to qualify me. I am more than comfortable pointing out handsome men when I see them, and I tend to think that I do this maybe more than other guys. My thought there is that physically I have been the target of verbal abuse throughout my life, for being very very thin. It seems to be of no consequence for the normative built person to remark about how thin I am. My body has always been a target of other's comments, and to my face.
part of that is the perception that I don't care or that being thin is what everyone wants. I really feel that I am just off putting and once people find me a talkative person they say "wow! Been losing weight have we!" (I put on some weight in my 20's but now am back down to high school weight again at 6'2" 139 lb (63 kg) I laugh as much as it hurts, but as this has gone on into adult hood I accept that people just tend to say what's on their mind.
So as to commenting on how good looking other men are, I think it is simply too much self awareness and jealousy, to be quite frank. I do not imagine myself in sexual situations with men, though at times I sort of wish I was in their body. Not sure what that says about me.
Supposing I was prone to bisexuality and only found myself as heterosexual because of social repression? Suppose that we're all bisexual, and only through socialization are we conditioned for one or the other. I agree with sexually conditioning and focusing and limiting society - in the context of a nuclear family.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Not alone, no, but there is no one cause, the science is actually not clear as to the single cause of orientation. It's complex, and socialization is involved.
From the American Acaedmy of Pediatrics
quote:
There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.
quote:
problems exist for example why in identical twins only one is usually ever gay.
The consensus is that the differentiation occurs in the womb.
quote:
Or how the gay gene was passed on if homosexuals could not procreate in the past, how that gene survived. (theory is it's a muti-use gene, but its a THEORY!).
OMG! You don't know what theory means, OMG. Theory doesn't mean guess. The word for that is hyphothesis. Theory is explanation based on observation, experimentation and testing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Well, I'm not convinced on your last point. Yes, certainly, gays and bisexuals have certainly been forced by social mores to enter heterosexual relationships - but I'd argue that this is in fact a terrible thing, not just for them, but also the people that they've married.
It would have been terrible for you too, and that's why I'm having difficulty seeing the problem you have in accepting that gays just 'are'. No one's forcing you to be gay. No one's telling you to live with someone you're not attracted to. No one's making you not have a relationship with the person you love. Which is the world that gay and bisexual people often face.
Let's keep the other stuff for the other thread, but it's a common trope that single-sex education can lead to sexual situations with other pupils (and same sex crushes on teachers). I don't know of any particular research in this area, but it's usually described as a 'phase' that has no lasting effect on post-puberty sexuality.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
Dear lil' you're really working much too hard to discredit me. You are fine, they accept you here. I am not out to harm you, you will survive this day. Get a beverage, sit back in your chair. Relax.
I understand the technical difference.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Dear lil' you're really working much too hard to discredit me.
Your own postings do that, so not much effort on my part.
quote:
I understand the technical difference.
Your posts do not reflect this.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
problems exist for example why in identical twins only one is usually ever gay.
I have never heard this. Can you point me to some research showing this?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Though I'm not sure the percentage "only one is usually ever" represents, it does happen.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
47 pairs, in 10 both twins were gay. Almost always only one, Aijalon? Indeed 10/47 is rather more than chance alone would predict, strongly pointing to a genetic component.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
Right right, it does happen, but the statistical analysis of identical twins is expected to show a matching rate of homosexuality in line with being identical, so, a high rate.
The rate discovered in the study a few years ago suggested a lower rate than expected and it was reported that there may be a strong link between homosexuality and environmental factors that affect DNA expression.
This is an area of research called epigenetics....
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
In any case, this kind of stuff really throws off scientists because epigenetics is a live fire excercise, the ground is moving, DNA is changing rapidly in terms of generations in very delicate ways (and sexuality is kind of a delicate intricate thing)
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
problems exist for example why in identical twins only one is usually ever gay.
I have never heard this. Can you point me to some research showing this?
I think it's early on in the process, more work going on. I will look more at it, but this isn't the only statistical study that correlates sexuality with the environment.
Research such as this is so "controversial" for breaking with the consensus because at its core, the consensus of "born this way" is actually built on a giant pile of stories from gay people that stated "I was born this way". In the absence of a gay gene being known, if so many people said that, it must be true, right? There HAS TO be a gene for it.
Going along with the consensus, the environment of kids today are not being studied for what that might really tell us about forming their sexuality, statistically speaking. Why. because we "already know" they were born this way. I think that's an appeasement set out to suit a political objective. We don't really "know".
Studies are done selectively, and unfavorable information is often discredited by carefully choosing to see only correlations that are desired.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Research such as this is so "controversial" for breaking with the consensus because at its core, the consensus of "born this way" is actually built on a giant pile of stories from gay people that stated "I was born this way". In the absence of a gay gene being known, if so many people said that, it must be true, right? There HAS TO be a gene for it.
The giant pile of gay people will tell you that they were "born this way" meaning that it wasn't something that they chose. That haven't taken up homosexuality as a hobby because they had a little spare time on Friday nights.
That doesn't mean there "has to be a gene for it" - that would be a misunderstanding of biology. It's a pretty common misunderstanding to identify every inborn trait as genetic, but it's still a misunderstanding. As you point out, epigenetics is a young science. We don't understand how it works.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If you are going to link to creationist, pseudo-science how do you expect us to take your arguments seriously?
[ 26. July 2017, 22:49: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I dunno, I'll throw this in - I once worked in fields related to hearing science, and while leafing through our highest-profile international journal (on paper! - it was a while ago) I was surprised and amused when this jumped out at me.
Funny corners of science point towards the 'decided before birth' nature of sexual orientation reported by many homosexual people. This one must be one of the weirdest!
(Incidentally, anyone's baby who has been checked for normal hearing soon after birth - common for the last 10+ years in the UK - will have undergone testing based on the measurement of otoacousic emissions - it's now a standard technique in audiology where subjects are unable to respond manually to an evoked auditory stimulus).
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
If you link to discredited pseudoscientific (and in reality, anti-scientific) websites for your proof, no one is going to engage with you.
A minimum level of credibility is required: a reputable journal or news source, preferably something which can be verified independently or peer-reviewed.
This is not it. You have the whole of the internet to search. If the only pages that appear to agree with you are the batshit crazy ones, then you should take that as a big hint.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
problems exist for example why in identical twins only one is usually ever gay.
I have never heard this. Can you point me to some research showing this?
I think it's early on in the process, more work going on.
Ah, in other words, there is none. Thank you.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The giant pile of gay people will tell you that they were "born this way" meaning that it wasn't something that they chose. That haven't taken up homosexuality as a hobby because they had a little spare time on Friday nights.
That doesn't mean there "has to be a gene for it" - that would be a misunderstanding of biology. It's a pretty common misunderstanding to identify every inborn trait as genetic, but it's still a misunderstanding. As you point out, epigenetics is a young science. We don't understand how it works.
Indeed. And there are also things that are neither genetic nor epigenetic but rather the result of conditions inside the womb during gestation, as I mentioned above. IIRC some intersex and non-binary conditions are a result of more than usual or less than usual amounts of hormones present in either the amniotic fluid or the umbilical fluid.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Though I'm not sure the percentage "only one is usually ever" represents, it does happen.
Of course "only one usually ever" is so self-contradictory it's hard to say what it even means.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It is my belief that inborn sexuality is a blank biological urge to fornicate, that, when combined with social normalization, control, temperance, discipline, teaching, will lead to healthy and beneficial and compatible sexual relationships at every level. In other words, in an orderly society, my urges to fornicate are controlled by society and the self control of others such that when it comes to me and my wife, my first experiences with her are truly that, FIRST exploration experiences, and so that as my life progresses with her, our experience expands at the same rate. This way our sexual creativity is limited and pleasurable between us equally and never out of balance, bland, or in need of outside exploration (no don't get the impression we have the perfect sex life, no one is perfect ).
This doesn't work out all that well even for straight people -- the so-called "purity movement" in the US in the 90s showed that. Loads of people ended up in abusive relationships or experienced painful sexual dysfunction as a result of this kind of control.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Why do you use the word 'fornicate'?
This assumes judgement from the start imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course "only one usually ever" is so self-contradictory it's hard to say what it even means.
What does it mean?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It is my belief that inborn sexuality is a blank biological urge to fornicate, that, when combined with social normalization, control, temperance, discipline, teaching, will lead to healthy and beneficial and compatible sexual relationships at every level. In other words, in an orderly society, my urges to fornicate are controlled by society and the self control of others such that when it comes to me and my wife, my first experiences with her are truly that, FIRST exploration experiences, and so that as my life progresses with her, our experience expands at the same rate. This way our sexual creativity is limited and pleasurable between us equally and never out of balance, bland, or in need of outside exploration (no don't get the impression we have the perfect sex life, no one is perfect ).
This doesn't work out all that well even for straight people -- the so-called "purity movement" in the US in the 90s showed that. Loads of people ended up in abusive relationships or experienced painful sexual dysfunction as a result of this kind of control.
Yes. It's also pure assertion. Much as I enjoy seeing the Assertatron in action, well-oiled, and maintained, it's absurd since I can replace it with an equal and opposite assertion. Thus: lots of fucking in adolescence improved my personality, gave me bags of energy, and helped me become a brilliant husband.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
(Incidentally, anyone's baby who has been checked for normal hearing soon after birth - common for the last 10+ years in the UK - will have undergone testing based on the measurement of otoacousic emissions - it's now a standard technique in audiology where subjects are unable to respond manually to an evoked auditory stimulus).
Cool - I was wondering how they did that. I learned something - thanks, Mark.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Dear lil' you're really working much too hard to discredit me.
Your own postings do that, so not much effort on my part.
quote:
I understand the technical difference.
Your posts do not reflect this.
Too true.
Aijalon, could you let us know what scientific education, training or work you have done beyond searching the web for stuff that fits your preferences?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Last time we had this discussion I found the references to this, but it's going to be too painful on a phone. There are so far a number of hypotheses suggesting why some people are homosexual:
- * the gay gene - twin and familial studies seem to indicate a genetic component as there are families with higher than expected incidences of both female and male homosexuals;
* one of the correlations is that younger sons of larger families are more likely to be gay. A suggested mechanism here is in utero removal of testosterone which changes the foetal development (epigenetics). This mechanism can only explain a proportion of men identifying as gay;
* other as yet unexplained changes / mutations / epigenetic mechanisms
Funnily enough socialisation isn't mentioned in the reputable science papers. That would come under sociology and/or psychology, and psychology doesn't have the best credentials in the past attempts to explain physical illnesses as psychological - MS was described as a somatic disorder for years before the deterioration in the myelin sheath was identified, stomach ulcers were all to do with stress until the bacterial cause was proved by the investigating scientist swallowing H. pylori and which caused his own ulcer. (These are checkable stories)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
"...fits your preferences" ?? Really, I'd suggest the accurate word here would be prejudices.
Dear Aijalon
Some of us experiment sexually in childhood, some don't; for some it is with people of the same gender, for others not; some are influenced by childhood fumblings and games of you-show-me-yours-and-I'll-show-you-mine towards the opposite gender, some not; and some don't decide anything at all because they're attracted to people of same and opposite gender.
Fascinating stuff, but frankly there are better things to do on a humid July afternoon than speculate on this for someone who has given more than ample evidence that they aren't interested in peer-reviewed research or in giving a hearing, at least, to things that don't conform to their own prejudices.
No, I don't want to know about your sex life, or lack of - thanks but no thanks.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
If you link to discredited pseudoscientific (and in reality, anti-scientific) websites for your proof, no one is going to engage with you.
A minimum level of credibility is required: a reputable journal or news source, preferably something which can be verified independently or peer-reviewed.
This is not it. You have the whole of the internet to search. If the only pages that appear to agree with you are the batshit crazy ones, then you should take that as a big hint.
That's not the link I intended, i pasted that in another thread somewhere. It might have been the CTRL "C" didn't take properly and I didn't realize.
I will look at finding the right link....
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Research such as this is so "controversial" for breaking with the consensus because at its core, the consensus of "born this way" is actually built on a giant pile of stories from gay people that stated "I was born this way". In the absence of a gay gene being known, if so many people said that, it must be true, right? There HAS TO be a gene for it.
The giant pile of gay people will tell you that they were "born this way" meaning that it wasn't something that they chose. That haven't taken up homosexuality as a hobby because they had a little spare time on Friday nights.
That doesn't mean there "has to be a gene for it" - that would be a misunderstanding of biology. It's a pretty common misunderstanding to identify every inborn trait as genetic, but it's still a misunderstanding. As you point out, epigenetics is a young science. We don't understand how it works.
Hi LC,
Yes, that's kind of my point as well. We just don't know how it works. We know from social science or psychology that people cannot explain when and exactly how they became LGBT for the most part, they just say "I am this way".
In effort not to blame anyone or any group for a cause (knowing it's not wrong no matter what else we find!) we may be covering up the social reasons that they are that way. Just as the sociologist points out, gender normalization occurs between 3-5 yrs.
If the correlation to homosexuality is occurring from social factors from the age of 3-5, why are we not studying that? Why was this thrown out? There hasn't been a gay gene discovered yet. Yet we do know kids are drawing conclusions in their minds at early ages about what they see in their world. How can we rule out that both normative and LGBT are identifying their sexuality based on events and information they picked up in life that they just cannot remember, because they were so young?
I just don't see, scientifically, how we throw that out (unless it is unethical to probe children for this information) yet, we have.
[ 27. July 2017, 16:21: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Science doesn't have a perfect explanation so you will ignore that the preponderance of what is known points to sexuality and gender being innate?
Nice.
BTW, I do remember things from between 3 and 5 years old. The only trauma I had during that time was older children trying to scare me with a fake spider. How did that affect my sexuality?
Wait, spiders have 10 appendages,* a couple is 2 people, divide 10 by 2 and you get 5. Men have a fifth appendage...Eureka... therefore I am scared of penis.
*8 legs, two pedipalps.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Just as the sociologist points out, gender normalization occurs between 3-5 yrs.
If the correlation to homosexuality is occurring from social factors from the age of 3-5, why are we not studying that?
Because 30 seconds with the internet would tell you that this is not what gender normalisation means.
It means that by the age of 5, boys and girls will have some sense of what society expects boys and girls to be/do. This causes boys as many problems as it causes girls. It's girly if you like pretend cooking/dressing up/playing with dolls, and if a girl prefers to kick a football around and play with cars, she's a tomboy. Teachers consciously and unconsciously reinforce stereotypes.
This has nothing to do with 'making' a kid gay.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Yes, that's kind of my point as well. We just don't know how it works. We know from social science or psychology that people cannot explain when and exactly how they became LGBT for the most part, they just say "I am this way".
And we know that people can't explain when and how they became straight. What are the events in your childhood that caused you to be attracted to women?
You're still arguing that sexuality is a learned behaviour. That really doesn't explain the data. It would be closer to correct to say that conforming to societal expectations for sexuality is a learned behaviour. This describes a couple of my friends, who married as young men, had successful marriages, raised kids, and did all the things that society expects of them. And now, in late middle age, they realized that they are gay.
These are gay men who learned straight behaviour.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Wait, spiders have 10 appendages,* a couple is 2 people, divide 10 by 2 and you get 5. Men have a fifth appendage...Eureka... therefore I am scared of penis.
*8 legs, two pedipalps.
This is beautiful. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Avoidance of conflating gender identity with sexual orientation is wise.
As far as I can see, we've understood orientation as something indwelling, probably based genetically. Of course it has social expression within relationships. This is old news.
Gender as separate from biological sex is a newer concept for most people. We don't even agree on the language used to describe it.
Re sexual experimentation in childhood, we have hands, they reach to our genitals. They can reach to others' too. I have copies of Kinsey's 1950s surveys of sexuality. Some 20% of people back then admitted to some non-normative (it doesn't mean normal) sexual activity. Some no doubt denied. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with later adjustment. People back then didn't even have internet porn to guide their experiments, not that I think porno is helpful or a good idea.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
