homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » sexual experimentation in childhood and it's influence, and yes, also antigens! (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: sexual experimentation in childhood and it's influence, and yes, also antigens!
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
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.

True. Although not for the intersex people among us. But then the vast majority of people probably don't even realize intersex exists, many deny it, and many simply don't know how to fit it into their oversimple schemes, and reject the whole idea.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710

 - Posted      Profile for Caissa     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sex= Biology
Gender = social construct

Posts: 915 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
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.

True. Although not for the intersex people among us. But then the vast majority of people probably don't even realize intersex exists, many deny it, and many simply don't know how to fit it into their oversimple schemes, and reject the whole idea.
Good points.

I have general confidence that we'll sort it out. The unfortunate part us that it looks like it takes decades, like 5-10 for big shifts in general understanding. So we get urgent pushes to shorten the time frames, accompanied by backlash.

Posts: 10831 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
True. Although not for the intersex people among us. But then the vast majority of people probably don't even realize intersex exists, many deny it, and many simply don't know how to fit it into their oversimple schemes, and reject the whole idea.

How the arseing arse can you "deny" that intersex conditions exist?

I can understand that someone might not know about it - it's a relatively rare thing, and not particularly in the public discourse, so it would be easy not to know - but that's not what "deny" means.

What is their response to someone with, for example, external female genitalia and testes in the abdomen? To accuse them of lying about their biology? It makes no sense.

To deny transgenderism at least seems logically possible - there's no objective external sign of a person identifying with a particular gender, so it's always open to people to accuse them of being confused or whatever.

But intersex? That's unambiguous biological fact.

[ 27. July 2017, 20:01: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posts: 4745 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The denial won't be about the existence, but conclusion. They will see mutations, freaks to be pitied and/or proof is "sin" in the world.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16598 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leorning Cniht--

Um, it's not like people who are new to the concept are going to see the plumbing of any intersex person they meet. So yeah, denial could still happen, easily.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17647 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But intersex? That's unambiguous biological fact.

Is it? Have you ever seen one? How can you convince a person who has never seen intersex genitalia that people with same exist? Photos on the internet? They'll say "Photoshop." Scientific journals? They reject those about everything else we've been discussing here.

It's quite easy to deny it.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But intersex? That's unambiguous biological fact.

Is it? Have you ever seen one? How can you convince a person who has never seen intersex genitalia that people with same exist? Photos on the internet? They'll say "Photoshop." Scientific journals? They reject those about everything else we've been discussing here.

It's quite easy to deny it.

It is. I think of Ahmadinejad saying there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Posts: 24368 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aijalon.
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!).
There are genes known as recessive, which do not act if there is another, dominant gene, which overrides them. Thus red haired children can be born to parents without red hair, blue eyed children to dark eyed parents. Also, and more sadly, diseases can be carried by people who do not have any sign of them, and only appear when both parents have that gene. Now that is not a very helpful analogy for homosexuality when dealing with someone who is prepared to see that as closer to a disease than to eye colour.

However, it is quite possible that families carrying a gene for homosexuality had some advantage that outbred those without it, to some extent. Maybe having women who did not risk dying in childbirth and thus more able to pass on the families' funds of knowledge was a positive which made those carrying, but not expressing the gene, fitter than those who had not. Maybe having a bunch of uncles who could support the children of their siblings was a positive which made it worth while those siblings passing on the gene. After all, in wolves and meercats, a lot of the adults engage in family support without having offspring themselves. Homosexuality is an improvement on that pattern, since it allows the non-bearing adults to have close affectionate relationships.

Genes, in short, are not simply passed on down a single line of inheritance, since they are shared with siblings, even if invisibly. And if they confer an advantage on the family group, they will be selected for.

Posts: 5758 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There are genes known as recessive, which do not act if there is another, dominant gene, which overrides them. Thus red haired children can be born to parents without red hair, blue eyed children to dark eyed parents.

Eye colour is a bit more complex than that and includes some genetic and some non-genetic factors.

Your point is good but your example might not be.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9825 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The concept that there is a single gene for any given trait is a problem in this discussion. Multiple genes and how they are expressed can influence traits.
Actually, the problem is the scientific ignorance/outright rejection of science in the homosexuality is a choice or result of trauma group.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16598 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Penny (and others)

Please remember that it is only recently in history that gay men did not usually marry women and have children...especially in any society where land or other property was involved. Being out of the closet was usually not an issue, and if you were in the closet issue was expected of the marriage you had no choice about.

I believe only a tiny minority of gay men are so gay that they cannot have intercourse with a woman, and so cannot have children -- the vast majority closed their eyes and thought about ...whoever...rather than the woman actually with them at the time.

There's therefore, IMO, little point in speculating about the possible benefits of a gay gene (whose existence, so far as U can see is doubtful at best) in terms of the past. Perhaps in 3-4 centuries, if there are no other changes in the structures of families -- as there have been none in the last 3-4 centuries ? -- there may be some evidence of the benefits of a small additional number of childless men.


John

Posts: 5905 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

There's therefore, IMO, little point in speculating about the possible benefits of a gay gene (whose existence, so far as U can see is doubtful at best) in terms of the past.

Whereas, if you're an evolutionary biologist, there's every reason to speculate about the previous 100,000 years of history, when being gay may not have mattered in the slightest in terms of close-knit tribal life.

I don't know whether human society was always homophobic, or it became so with the transition to owning property and/or land, whether settled communities were more homophobic than nomadic ones... it's an entirely right and proper subject for research.

--------------------
Get your arse to Mars

Posts: 8695 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Re genetics. Nothing complex in human behaviour and life is due to one gene or even a handful, say of 20 genes. Hair and eye colour, while more complex than some of the sinister disease genetics are no model for the complexity. Genes get turned on and off by experiences in life as well.
Posts: 10831 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was actually thinking about very early societies, before nation states, groups like the Hazdah (sp) for example.
Oh, good, Doc Tor said it better. I got interrupted by a visit from a nurse and didn't check what else had been posted before sending.
Clearly once there are societies with attitudes, and gay men marry, passing on the genes directly becomes less of a problem, as with Oscar Wilde, for example.

OK, eye colour may be more complex (Information stopped at O Level for that), but the only other thing I could think of was Mendel's peas.

[ 28. July 2017, 16:08: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5758 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Alex Cockell

Ship’s penguin
# 7487

 - Posted      Profile for Alex Cockell     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 [Razz] ).

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.
I know i piled on TONS of weight due to tamping down my sex drive completely...
Posts: 2129 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here are links on the study I had earlier meant to past, FWIW --
http://www.nature.com/news/epigenetic-tags-linked-to-homosexuality-in-men-1.18530

https://www.ashg.org/press/201510-sexual-orientation.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/no-scientists-have-not-found-the-gay-gene/410059/


quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
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?
In my point of view, the example of the nuclear family that I was raised in, as well as the normative gender roles that were prevalent, created the environment that nudged me to heterosexuality. I also don't assume that I cannot be "turned". In other words, I wonder if because I find kink to be weird and arousing to look at, it might to sway me toward experimenting with kink myself - if I were lonely. I don't assume that my wife would not oblige me if I "needed" it, or that if I was afforded the chance, I would try it without her knowing. So I don't assume in this wild world, I could not have a different sexual identity, because I view my sexual identity, just like any LGBT, as the sum of my current sexual needs and desires. (Am I a suppressed bisexual? I don't think so, but by your definition it's possible!

My love of my wife and children and my respect for God and my body as not just mine, but me and my wife's, motivates me to continue to act in accordance with heterosexuality. My parents might have been classified as prudish, but I also know some of that is sourced in the pain of some of their own sexual experiences.

To me it flies in the face of reason to take a 30 yr old's present sexual desires as substantial proof of their inborn sexuality. It further defies reason how subjective evaluation of "uncomfortableness" with recent feelings and situations is only further evidence of the inborn trait. Rather I see the uncomfortableness reported at all stages of life as something that should be assessed for the social factors and yes, stress, that were applicable to each of those times in life. Did that lonely time in your life trigger something? Did that angry time in your life trigger something? Did that first year of your life trigger anything? See, even breast feeding can be considered a social factor in early life, hence, hospitals recognize that babies need to be immediately placed on mom's body for skin to skin contact. Nursing should be considered a powerful epigenetic factor to be studied, just for nutrients alone, but I cannot find it being studied for this. (need to hammer Google harder, maybe someone has) How does a baby think and perceive its world and its mother and father when given a year of life getting all its nutrition from it's mother? Psychologically that's hard to say, but statistically, how hard is this? Yet no one has researched breast feeding vs LGBT outcomes? (if they did they would probably find that breastfeeders are too closely linked to normalization and toss it as a useful factor because they already know how harmful normalization is)

**Begin full tldr ........ >> (Skip to end if you like, sorry, I just have time for one big post today and weekend looms!)**

quote:
You're still arguing that sexuality is a learned behaviour.
Yep! Don't get carried away with this analogy, but I'm saying we're a ball on the top of a hill, sexuality is gravity. You could go any direction. I'm saying social forces push that ball ever so slightly right from the start, and this is the most powerful indicator of what shapes your sexuality - directions. Ball go "that way". The landscape around you are events in your life, and the shape of your ball (maybe it's egg shaped) are like your genetic makeup or inborn sex drive. The ground is bumpy, things happen, sexuality shifts with your emotional needs (it is an emotional need satisfied in electrochemical stimulation - endorphins!)

in a simple sense I'm saying that if we're born with sexuality - I agree we are - but that sexuality has no target sex at first, where do we learn to set our target, and how would we know at an early age we are acquiring that target (first the sexual identity of these large bio units, parents, next, my sexual identity, boy/girl, next, my sexual orientation. It's psychosomatic, it develops. I find it scientifically dishonest to extricate our orientation from our nurturing. Nurturing is responsible parenting.


quote:
That really doesn't explain the data.
First off, what data do you mean? If data shows most people "cannot explain" why we are a certain sexual orientation? This proves nothing and conclusions based on that can only by a "null hypothesis". How can we take this "data" and rule out subconscious/psychosomatic effects? just about everything we learn in our first 3 years remains obscure, it is laced into our subconscious. If targeted sexuality is part of that subconscious, we would not be able to analyze that information objectively (present reality out of the picture). The null hypothesis, as it seems to be expressed here, is that LGBT are in our present reality - end.

[side note and chance for a tangent, don't you think if God designed men to have beards, he did so for a reason, perhaps that reason is for sexual identity. It's just a thought... the Hebrews were forbidden from shaving their beards as one example. I see the prevalence of clean shaven men as one of the issues that presents to very young children a chance to sexually identify men and women. Tone of voice is another thing....]

Because I cannot explain why -exactly- that I became a heterosexual, that doesn't mean 30 yrs ago I was locked into being this way from my first breath. That's just not a proven biological fact at all. The burden of proof would be on the biologists to show that. On what basis did we decide that if sexuality has its roots in our our early social experience, that this MUST be indicated by evidence in our conscious mind down the road at say 25 years old, or 35 years old after a half lifetime of sex?

I think I'm noticing that all this 'proof' is really a messy merger between social, political, and psychological sciences (and others) all borrowing from each other, but there is not an actual test that is known to work. Honest scientists dissent, yes and have their beliefs, true, but they can still be good scientists. For example: Last year this study refuting the born that way theory, and countered by politically driven studies like this onewhich use books such asThis one as if to be scientific evidence of birth orientation.

quote:
It would be closer to correct to say that conforming to societal expectations for sexuality is a learned behavior.
I think you mean it would be closer to politically correct. While true that we must reconcile our desires with social expectations, you know that I don't believe that our desires are so simple to be a product of genetics. We have souls. There are some troubled souls out there as you know. I believe the pattern of troubled LGBT souls to be an apparent problem, and a politically, this issue is blamed on wrongful and forceful normative customs. But if social signals are the cause, then a mixed signal of course produces mixed results (mixed up orientation).

quote:
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.
In these examples, especially when they are recent, I feel that no one is looking hard enough at these situations, because the consensus is already out that these stories indicate that those people were "born that way". Out of hand these guys are congratulated for what I expect would result in 99% of them dumping their wife and hurting and confusing their kids. The erosion in worldview already being mentioned, the needs of the wife and kids are dismissed with a patronizing hand wave. Worse still, the sorrow is blamed on some abstract sense of society's latent oppression of LGBT, and parents who weren't educated enough to know that their son was gay.

But I question this, if those friends cannot explain precisely when or how, why would we assume that their desire for other men was inborn day 1? If they had ever been happily married for a period of time, this would certainly be said to be the result of successfully "conforming" rather than any compatibility with an inborn heterosexuality. But they don't get attention at that stage, they get attention for coming out.

I feel such situations are studied so closely for only what the most recent report reveals, it overlooks all the history of that person's life. Science (sometimes another word for popular consensus even without proof) is throwing it out. It's saying we don't need to look at your past, we just need to study genetic effects. Yes, genetics is a hard science, it may find correlations, it will not find proof of a gay gene because the social factor is too powerful. The effect of a mom and dad being hetero normative is just too powerful. It's the chicken or the egg.

Do we act and teach hetero-normative behavior only because DNA says to be 90% heterosexual? Are we just conforming to chance? Or are we hetero-normative because mom and dad gave is that example subconsciously from day 1?

It goes straight back to a Creator God and Adam and Eve. Allegory or not, it's a powerful story! If that narrative is true and God wants the best for human life, I am morally bound to go that direction.

quote:
These are gay men who learned straight behaviour.
But not test can show that they were gay as kids.... that's the big picture here. Yet, psychologists and doctors are seeking to validate by some objective measure what causes your friends and others want and feel right here and now. "I feel this, I want this, it makes me happy" .... that's all there is to it.

As such, subjectivity of the patient, is now professionally passed off as objectivity in science.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I do wish that people who had a small understanding of science didn't try building cases on half understood bits and pieces. Particularly when it is trying to fit a previous agenda.

Epigenetics is to do with which genes of the possible genes are switched on or off, and it is what accounts for differences between identical twins. The well known occurrence is in Nordic famine victims which switched various genes to survival mode, and that version has been inherited.

DNA comes as two chains of deoxyribonucleic acid paired and twisted in a helix. Each section of that DNA on both chains has the potential to code for different characteristics. Now if there are different codes on each chain, there have to be different mechanisms to choose which bit is switched on or off - technically which gene is expressed.

The increase in homosexuality in youngest brothers as the number of brothers increase has been observed for a long time and that is thought to be caused by in utero changes in hormones. I mentioned that earlier and it's also covered in the Nature article.

The things are known to have caused different genes to be expressed are far more dramatic than the social engineering you are suggesting, particularly when most of those affected by social engineering do not report changes in sexual identity. These days we try to stop people committing suicide or going to war as a state licensed form of suicide, which may have far more bearing on why there is more known about transexuality and homosexuality.

However there are some documented cases of women transexuals in the 17th and 18th centuries women pirates and soldiers, women who married other women while dressed as men.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13479 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anecdote here, and I don't know what appeared in adulthood.

Twin boys, aged 8 when I knew them, not, apparently, identical in appearance, for reasons to be explained, very very different in interests and behaviour, yet brought up in the same environment.

Boy one, tough, sinewy and muscular build, keen and expert footballer, useful member of the team, winning awards for it, played with the boys exclusively in the playground.

Boy two, soft build, brilliant disco dancer (for which he won awards, too, all kitted out in sequins), played with the girls in the playground, and, despite there being no model for this behaviour in sight anywhere, as camp as a combination of Kenneth Williams and Charles Hawtrey. He was more girly than the girls. Both lovely boys and good friends to each other.

Now the explanation for these differences is hard to unravel, but clearly developed earlier than I knew them,and clearly had something to do with the physiology of the individuals, so is not rooted in the adolescent environment, and the availability or otherwise of sexual partners.

Because their bodies were so very different, it was not possible to tell if they had initially been identical in genotype, but I think probably not. They were obviously brothers, but not even as close in appearance as a boy/girl pair I taught, who could have easily done the Viola/Sebastian trick from Twelfth Night. Before puberty, anyway.

And, incidentally, for demographic reasons, and all girl schools and college, I had very little opportunity to find even one male partner, and so remain single. I have absolutely no leanings to be a lesbian. Anecdote again.

Incidentally, and tangentially, while looking up the expression "as camp as" and deciding not to use it, I came across this, which addresses two DH themes, and had me spluttering. Blog from Douglas Wilson on the failing of the CofE

Posts: 5758 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aijalon - you really need to learn to evaluate sources. The New Atlantis is not a peer-reviewed journal; it's the organ of a Conservative think-tank - look it up on Wikipedia (URL had brackets so can't post here)

It doesn't publish scientific studies so much as opinion pieces.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17443 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... To me it flies in the face of reason to take a 30 yr old's present sexual desires as substantial proof of their inborn sexuality. ...

Would you ask a 30-year-old, "I see you're right-handed - were you right-handed in kindergarten?" You have failed to produce one scintilla of actual scientific evidence for your hypothesis. You have not acknowledged that your hypothesis cannot be actually be tested scientifically at all. That seems scientifically dishonest.

quote:
... The burden of proof would be on the biologists to show that. ...
No, it's your hypothesis; you prove it. Real biologists aren't going to waste their time on something that cannot be proven scientifically anyway. Sorry, but nobody else is going to do your homework for you.

quote:
... We have souls. ...
Find me one scientific paper about the soul.


quote:
... It goes straight back to a Creator God and Adam and Eve. Allegory or not, it's a powerful story! If that narrative is true and God wants the best for human life, I am morally bound to go that direction.
Again, find me one scientific paper about Adam and Eve. There is a scientific interpretation of that allegory, however: take any two organisms that ever lived on this planet and you can find their common ancestor if you go back far enough. Humans all have common ancestors with each other and every other living thing. The next time you're out in a natural environment, think about that: you are directly related to the trees, the insects, the birds, the fungi and bacteria .... that's pretty powerful too, isn't it? Could that mean we have a moral duty to look on all living creatures as family? And scientifically speaking, the mud in your story from which humans were made is actually stardust from ancient supernovas! In our beginning, there was light!


quote:
As such, subjectivity of the patient, is now professionally passed off as objectivity in science.
Baloney. Actual observations and data are of more scientific interest and value than untestable hypotheses that bend science to fit mythology.

Look, Aijalon, you have proposed your hypothesis in your OP. Your hypothesis is unscientific in that it cannot be tested. Your hypothesis is not supported by the current data available. Your hypothesis is not rooted in any actual observations. In scientific terms, your hypothesis sucks. It isn't science; it's mental masturbation. It may be fun for you, but please try to remember that you are pleasuring yourself with the most intimate aspects of other people's lives. You might want to show a little respect for their "subjectivity".

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5333 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Curiosity killed ...--

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
However there are some documented cases of women transexuals in the 17th and 18th centuries women pirates and soldiers, women who married other women while dressed as men.

Um, they weren't necessarily transgendered. Many women have disguised themselves as men, in order to get the privileges that women were denied in their cultures, like types of work. There were even female monks, who weren't discovered until after their deaths.

It's kind of like women writers using their initials and last name, or a pen name, so no one knows they're female. Just on a much larger scale.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17647 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Where is the divide between wanting to be a man and wanting the advantages that being a man brings? Many of those women weren't found to be women until wounded or dead, so it wasn't a small change they were enacting.

I couldn't find the references yesterday, but there was a well documented wedding of a woman dressed as a man to another woman in the 1700s, it was one of the vignettes dramatised in Gabriel a play based around the life of Purcell, which when I checked it was historically accurate.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13479 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I honestly do not know what this thread is trying to prove.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18031 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Victorian British "public" schools saw a good deal of what was then called "buggery" between older students and newer arrivals. And yet the vast majority of these people went on to be heterosexuals -- Oscar Wilde et al. notwithstanding. So I'd say this tells against the theory that early experimentation leads to later sexuality identification.

[ 30. July 2017, 14:09: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I honestly do not know what this thread is trying to prove.

I honestly don't know what your post is attempting to communicate.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16598 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Aijalon - you really need to learn to evaluate sources. The New Atlantis is not a peer-reviewed journal; it's the organ of a Conservative think-tank - look it up on Wikipedia (URL had brackets so can't post here)

It doesn't publish scientific studies so much as opinion pieces.

This really should go without saying, but when a study produces a correlation that is not in line with the peer reviewed circle, it becomes a popularity and money problem to endorse anything in the outsiders' work.

The peer reviewing system is corrupted by government money and the consensus is based on a lot of bullshit glad handing.

There is critique of the method, and then there is critique of the result.

When a study produces a result that is explicitly contrary to other previous results, it is dismissed without a true look at the content.

There is a bias on both sides, and you are proving that in your comment. It simply amounts to your bias having more people. "That many people could not be wrong". Actually, they are.

Are there indicators that genes are linked to being LGBT, I have no problems at all accepting that. But there is certainly dishonesty in throwing out the socialization as a causal factor.

emotions release hormones, hormones release other hormones, eventually DNA expression is changed.

If early life emotions are a result in directing sexuality (they really obviously are) then the science is wrong (it is and there are scientists -honest ones- working to show 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      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Aijalon - you really need to learn to evaluate sources. The New Atlantis is not a peer-reviewed journal; it's the organ of a Conservative think-tank - look it up on Wikipedia (URL had brackets so can't post here)

It doesn't publish scientific studies so much as opinion pieces.

This really should go without saying, but when a study produces a correlation that is not in line with the peer reviewed circle, it becomes a popularity and money problem to endorse anything in the outsiders' work.

The peer reviewing system is corrupted by government money and the consensus is based on a lot of bullshit glad handing.

There is critique of the method, and then there is critique of the result.

When a study produces a result that is explicitly contrary to other previous results, it is dismissed without a true look at the content.

There is a bias on both sides, and you are proving that in your comment. It simply amounts to your bias having more people. "That many people could not be wrong". Actually, they are.

Are there indicators that genes are linked to being LGBT, I have no problems at all accepting that. But there is certainly dishonesty in throwing out the socialization as a causal factor.

emotions release hormones, hormones release other hormones, eventually DNA expression is changed.

If early life emotions are a result in directing sexuality (they really obviously are) then the science is wrong (it is and there are scientists -honest ones- working to show it).

You're sounding exactly like a conspiracy theorist who has no empirical evidence, just a few youtube videos and some articles from crank websites.

No matter how hard you wish, it don't make it so. You'd be better to examine why you want it so, and only you can do that.

There are people out there who genuinely think the Sandy Hook school massacre never happened, that it was all actors and fake news - despite the obvious and real grief of the parents of those children who died. I'm sorry, but what you're doing is not dissimilar. You're hanging on to your (often demonstrably false) theories and doing actual damage to actual people.

Please stop.

--------------------
Get your arse to Mars

Posts: 8695 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

If early life emotions are a result in directing sexuality (they really obviously are)

No, the fuck, they are not.

quote:

then the science is wrong (it is and there are scientists -honest ones- working to show it).

Honest = agree with your preconceptions, apparently.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16598 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Scientists who work to show a particular outcome aren't honest scientists. You go where the data leads; you don't drag the data in the direction you want it to go.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Aijalon - you really need to learn to evaluate sources. The New Atlantis is not a peer-reviewed journal; it's the organ of a Conservative think-tank - look it up on Wikipedia (URL had brackets so can't post here)

It doesn't publish scientific studies so much as opinion pieces.

This really should go without saying, but when a study produces a correlation that is not in line with the peer reviewed circle, it becomes a popularity and money problem to endorse anything in the outsiders' work.

The peer reviewing system is corrupted by government money and the consensus is based on a lot of bullshit glad handing.

There is critique of the method, and then there is critique of the result.

When a study produces a result that is explicitly contrary to other previous results, it is dismissed without a true look at the content.

There is a bias on both sides, and you are proving that in your comment. It simply amounts to your bias having more people. "That many people could not be wrong". Actually, they are.

Are there indicators that genes are linked to being LGBT, I have no problems at all accepting that. But there is certainly dishonesty in throwing out the socialization as a causal factor.

emotions release hormones, hormones release other hormones, eventually DNA expression is changed.

If early life emotions are a result in directing sexuality (they really obviously are) then the science is wrong (it is and there are scientists -honest ones- working to show it).

Wow. Straight out of the Creationist and Climate Change Denialist handbooks.

[ 30. July 2017, 16:46: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17443 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Egeria
Shipmate
# 4517

 - Posted      Profile for Egeria     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Peer review process is corrupted by government money? [Projectile]
Where oh where did you get that idea? Where's the evidence? Oh, right, you don't need to cite evidence, because corruption will just sneak in there somewhere?

No peer review, no evidence...sounds like some of the self-published crap that turns up on academia.edu, written by poseurs without any qualifications. Sounds like the stuff promoted by celebrity pseudo-scholars (I name no names, but archaeology buffs will be able to think of a few), who don't understand the concept of independent verification and just want to go for the big headlines.

--------------------
"Sound bodies lined / with a sound mind / do here pursue with might / grace, honor, praise, delight."--Rabelais

Posts: 311 | From: Berkeley, CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I honestly do not know what this thread is trying to prove.

I honestly don't know what your post is attempting to communicate.
Mostly that this thread seems no different to the one that it sprang from (at least, where that one had headed). It's not a tangent, and most of the content doesn't obviously relate to the particular heading.

Although I do suppose we have now openly and nakedly moved from "I think the Bible says" to "the science must be wrong if it conflicts with what I think the Bible says".

The possibility that "what I think the Bible says might be wrong if it conflicts with the science" will not, of course, come up.

[ 30. July 2017, 23:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18031 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Curiosity killed...--

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Where is the divide between wanting to be a man and wanting the advantages that being a man brings?

Um... {boggle}

If food is only being given to men, and a women disguises herself as a man to get food, does she want to be a man? Or does she want to eat?


quote:
Many of those women weren't found to be women until wounded or dead, so it wasn't a small change they were enacting.
Um, I did say as much, on both counts. They were *that* determined to get what they were seeking.

ISTM that disguising yourself is to get what you want and hide from trouble. (E.g., disguising yourself as a man, so you can be a soldier and defend your country. Read Terry Pratchett's "Monstrous Regiment".) For a trans person to dress as their real gender is to reveal who they truly are.


quote:
I couldn't find the references yesterday, but there was a well documented wedding of a woman dressed as a man to another woman in the 1700s, it was one of the vignettes dramatised in Gabriel a play based around the life of Purcell, which when I checked it was historically accurate.
Interesting. Don't think I've heard of that one.

Some other stories:

"Awesome Women Who Disguised Themselves as Men to Follow their Dreams" ( A Room of Our Own").

From "Women In Piracy" (Wikipedia):

quote:
Women sometimes became pirates themselves, though they tended to have to disguise themselves as men in order to do so. Pirates did not allow women onto their ships very often. Many women (and men) of the time were unable to perform the physically demanding tasks required of the crew. Additionally, women were often regarded as bad luck among pirates. It was feared that the male members of the crew would argue and fight over the women. On many ships, women (as well as young boys) were prohibited by the ship's contract, which all crew members were required to sign.[2] :303

Because of the resistance to allowing women on board, many female pirates did not identify themselves as such. Anne Bonny, for example, dressed and acted as a man while on Captain Calico Jack's ship.[2]:285 She and Mary Read, another female pirate, are often identified as being unique in this regard. However, many women dressed as men during the Golden Age of Piracy, in an effort to take advantage of the many rights, privileges, and freedoms that were exclusive to men.



--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17647 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No test can show that they were gay as kids - true. But plenty of gay people know they were gay as kids. So just ask them [Smile]

As I said upthread, I knew I was heterosexual due to experimenting with both as a teenager. I've never had reason to think otherwise since.

I think I experimented because I was such a tomboy, had no 'girly' toys at all and always wanted to be a boy. So I decided I may be gay. My reasons, looking back, were that I had two brothers and soon discovered life was far easier for boys/men than girls/women.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12541 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106

 - Posted      Profile for Jemima the 9th     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have my reservations about adding to this discussion, since these are the teenagers' stories to tell, not mine.

But given the points made by Pomona and CK on the adjacent thread about the threats to the health, and sometimes the life of young LGBT+ people, after their interactions with "traditional" Christian teaching, eg here:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It is also assuming that no child growing up in a Christian family is growing up gay. Gay or transexual children from Christian families result in one of the highest suicide rates.

I'll add my 2 pennorth. You really, really, can be brought up in an "ordinary", 2 straight parent household, and be non-straight. And know that, before you have had sexual experimentation of any sort, because the people you have crushes on, the pop stars you love are both male and female. That's it. I know some of these kids (teenagers).

They are variously in and out of churches - one has left, and it's been a good thing for her. Not that the church itself is homophobic, but I don't trust the youth group.

I also wonder whether aijalon should quite so cheerfully fling about links accusing the parents of LGBT+ teenagers of being child abusers, as he does here. https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/

When it comes to sexual abuse of the young and vulnerable, I'd say the conservatives could do a decent job of putting their own damn house in order.

Posts: 745 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yup. When I was six I was really attracted to Katy Brown and Deborah Griffiths. You'll be relieved to know that they also were six and nothing came of it.

Point is, I knew I was straight then. Had I been attracted in the same way to Gary Mudge and Patrick Wilby I daresay I'd have known I was gay. I mean, I wouldn't have had words for it, just as I didn't have words for being straight then, but I'd have known what I felt.

Is this really so hard?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17443 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Missed edit window, but it's a brilliant song: Here

[ 31. July 2017, 14:25: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17443 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In answer to Karl's succinct post, no, it isn't.

At least, not for some people. I dread to think how much time and effort Aijalon (and others of that ilk) spend, or have spent, on crusading against gays.

There are better things to do, like eating bacon sandwiches, or drinking GIN.

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8686 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Unfortunately, the Stream comes under the heading of purveyors of opinion pieces.
quote:
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED



--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13479 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You astound me Curiosity. I'd never have guessed. More lying liars who lie.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17443 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:


The increase in homosexuality in youngest brothers as the number of brothers increase has been observed for a long time and that is thought to be caused by in utero changes in hormones. I mentioned that earlier and it's also covered in the Nature article.


That's fascinating. Is it coincidence that youngest sons of many brothers would historically be the least "marriageable" in economic terms - at least in our culture?

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2809 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The recognised correlation between more older brothers and higher probability of being a homosexual male has been well-researched. Researchers have looked at other possibilities, such as more older sisters leading to a higher probability of being a homosexual woman, and other thoughts, but this correlation is the only one that is consistently found.

It is thought that it may link to the mother getting better at mopping up male androgens in utero as she gestates more sons.

This particular mechanism works because it occurs during the brain development of the foetus, when it is thought sexuality develops. There's other research showing that sexuality can be changed by exposure to different chemicals prenatally in rats and that in large litters, position in the womb can affect sexual characteristics.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13479 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:


The increase in homosexuality in youngest brothers as the number of brothers increase has been observed for a long time and that is thought to be caused by in utero changes in hormones. I mentioned that earlier and it's also covered in the Nature article.


That's fascinating. Is it coincidence that youngest sons of many brothers would historically be the least "marriageable" in economic terms - at least in our culture?
Yes, I think it is coincidence. In our culture birth order determines inheritance. Unless you do a study that finds male homosexuality rates are lower in cultures that share equally or randomly pick the inheritor.
IIRC, homosexuality rates are fairly evenly distributed across cultures.

[ 01. August 2017, 15:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16598 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gotta vote on LB. In polygamous cultures it would also be handy -- fewer males in competition for the females. But I suspect those are just happy accidents for what is essentially an evolutionary byproduct.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To the degree that homosexuality is a social construct, is it that people like companionship, love and affection, and the labelling of certain conduct and relationships as homo, hetero or whatever a byproduct? --being aware of the conduct of boys in boarding schools, the historical and contemporary contextual same-sex sexual and romantic attachments in sail-powered navies, in armies of antiquity, prisons. One can only imagine that the eldest has marriageable prospects and the younger are left with finding whatever happiness they might. Whether this is genetic or this other.

--------------------
Maybe I should stop to consider that I'm not worthy of an epiphany and just take what life has to offer
(formerly was just "no prophet") \_(ツ)_/

Posts: 10831 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's very likely impossible to research, but in the past, some areas had different inheritance patterns from primogeniture. Kent was one such area. There were borough English and gavelkind, for example. I don't know which was which, but one was inheritance of the family estate by the youngest, and the other the equal division between all the sons. If such areas had different ratios of sexuality, that might be interesting. But I doubt it.

[ 01. August 2017, 20:04: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5758 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
To the degree that homosexuality is a social construct, is it that people like companionship, love and affection, and the labelling of certain conduct and relationships as homo, hetero or whatever a byproduct?

To what degree is homosexuality a social construct, though? And what exactly does that mean? People who fancy people of their own sex/gender/whatevs aren't really what we call homosexual unless their society has developed a category for that?

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm interested in some of our First Nations, the cultures and languages of which are as different from each other as European is Chinese or Papua New Guinea. In some such cultures, no one cared if a person from one biological sex took on the role of the other, who loved who, and who had sex with whom. Thus not defining sexual orientation as homo/hetero/bi/other, or in fact not defining orientation at all*. Children being more communally raised, and a cousin is called a brother or sister, adults called mother or father, aunty, uncle, grandma etc based on social role.

Which all makes me again wonder if the motivation for humans is to love and enjoy sex, with orientation an epiphenomenon in the context of a social and cultural definition. There may be a duty to reproduce, but this may be communal versus individual in some societies. And same sex/other sex sexual activity being part of social bonding, pleasure, support etc.


*(acknowledging that others did as rigidly as western societies have)

Posts: 10831 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
To the degree that homosexuality is a social construct, is it that people like companionship, love and affection, and the labelling of certain conduct and relationships as homo, hetero or whatever a byproduct?

To what degree is homosexuality a social construct, though? And what exactly does that mean? People who fancy people of their own sex/gender/whatevs aren't really what we call homosexual unless their society has developed a category for that?
Perhaps. I'm not a sociologist, but have enough exposure to some diverse indigenous cultures within the boundaries of Canada to wonder.

--------------------
Maybe I should stop to consider that I'm not worthy of an epiphany and just take what life has to offer
(formerly was just "no prophet") \_(ツ)_/

Posts: 10831 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools