 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: sexual experimentation in childhood and it's influence, and yes, also antigens!
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
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)
Defining, or not defining, gender roles is not the same as who one is attracted to.
In order for your hypothesis to be accurate, attractions would have to significantly vary across cultures and, as far as I am aware, they do not.
ETA:Edited to add context to reply because Stupid pages
[ 01. August 2017, 21:29: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Thus not defining sexual orientation as homo/hetero/bi/other, or in fact not defining orientation at all*.
Not defining sexual orientation, or not caring about it, is not the same as sexual orientation not existing.
If you're a man, and all the people you're attracted to are men, you're gay. It doesn't matter whether your culture has a word for gay, and it doesn't matter whether your culture cares about who someone is attracted to.
I'm prepared to believe that if you have a culture where you're attracted to whoever you're attracted to, and nobody cares who that is, then perhaps you might not see sexual orientation as such a fundamental part of your identity as typical western people do. Perhaps the fact that you fancy guys, or girls, becomes as central to your sense of self as whether you like carrots.
But that's different from it not existing.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
LC - helpful.
I found this Link which discusses some of this at the beginning of the paper. The New Guinea practice as described particularly.
Down the page on this link is a description of Cree terminology, though I've heard it discussed a bit differently. The blogger is from Montreal and has a different Cree dialect to work with than we have in the west. Link. Cree is 20% of the population in Saskatchewan (keesiskaciwanysipiy in Cree).
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
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.
I think what you mean by "work" is that dishonest scientists artificially create results, cheat, or over or under report results to favor a specific outcome, and achieve a desired result.
let's clarify that. Truly honest scientists can still form and test a hypothesis they think might be true, and are no less honest if their tests bear it out. As long as they conduct the tests fairly. Those doctors are smart people from John's Hopkins, and they created a study with a set of criteria... so you tell me it's dishonest after you look at the study.
But I don't think you even sense one shred of validity in their results because you believe in a separate set of scientists also working to achieve a different result.
Scientifically the question really isn't settled, even if the popularity question has been.
The point here is that the sum total of the "data" you and others here say science is pointing to, is the very thing you are whining against. It's a data set that has always been and always will be preconceived as to the outcome. It's a bunch of stories about feelings and experiences. None of it has anything to do with genetics.
Science is now actively WORKING to prove a genetic theory. Is this honest?
but the science says, essentially only THIS:
The relationship between biology and sexual orientation is a subject of research. A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated; various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, but scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal, and social factors determine sexual orientation. - Wikipedia
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Science is now actively WORKING to prove a genetic theory. Is this honest?
Yes, of course.
In scientific research, you posit a hypothesis, design an experiment to test that hypothesis, run the experiment and analyse the results.
If the results are what your hypothesis predicts, you can have more confidence in your hypothesis. If the results are different, then depending on the scale of failure, you either have to modify your hypothesis or kick it entirely into touch.
In this case, "sexual preference is genetically determined" is the hypothesis. Geneticists will design an experiment and predict that the results will be X. If X=true, then they can have more confidence that their hypothesis is correct.
--------------------
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:
But I don't think you even sense one shred of validity in their results because you believe in a separate set of scientists also working to achieve a different result.
You need to stop telling me what I think. NOW.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... It's a bunch of stories about feelings and experiences. None of it has anything to do with genetics. ...
Aijalon, it looks like your understanding of genetics ended with Mendel. Fundamentally, a gene is a simply code for assembling a sequence of amino acids into a protein. Yes, there are a some genes that code for very specific visible traits, but that's actually a really small part of our genetic makeup.
You say that feelings and experiences have nothing to do with genetics. Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Feelings come from neurotransmitters, which are manufactured, detected, and eliminated by proteins encoded by your genes. Experiences come to you via receptors made from proteins in your sensory organs encoded by your genes.
Don't think of the genome as a map or a blueprint. Think of it more as planning and cooking a meal from a cookbook. The cookbook has some recipes you use all the time, others are just for special occasions, some you never use. Your menu is a set of dishes that go together, so your choice of main dish will determine what other dishes you will serve. You choose dishes based on what ingredients you have on hand, so if you happen to be out of rice, you'll serve noodles or mashed potatoes. It's summertime, so let's have gelato instead of plum pudding for dessert. And so on.
The fact that there is no "gay gene" does not exclude the possibility that multiple genes are involved in the development of an individual's sexual orientation.
quote:
Truly honest scientists can still form and test a hypothesis they think might be true, and are no less honest if their tests bear it out. As long as they conduct the tests fairly.
So how would an honest scientist devise an experiment to see if sexual experimentation in childhood determines sexual orientation? Your OP is not a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be tested scientifically. It is unethical to recruit children and pedophiles to experiment sexually in the lab for a longitudinal study. It's outrageous to imply that scientists that won't do experiments with pedophiles and kids are being unfair or dishonest. You can believe whatever you want about how sexual orientation is created. What you cannot do is claim your idea is a scientific hypothesis.
--------------------
"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: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
But I don't think you even sense one shred of validity in their results because you believe in a separate set of scientists also working to achieve a different result.
You need to stop telling me what I think. NOW.
Since you did not actually list any specific reasons why the research was bad or it's method's wrong, I must presume that you disregarded it based on the author of the research. ad hominem.
If you care to explain what was wrong with their research, that's fine. I'm no scientist myself, but I think we can discuss some specifics regardless.
Or if you wish you can dismiss it as dishonest science simply because you do not like their conclusions.
I can only make of you what your posts reveal about you.
--------------------
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 Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... It's a bunch of stories about feelings and experiences. None of it has anything to do with genetics. ...
Aijalon, it looks like your understanding of genetics ended with Mendel. Fundamentally, a gene is a simply code for assembling a sequence of amino acids into a protein. Yes, there are a some genes that code for very specific visible traits, but that's actually a really small part of our genetic makeup.
You say that feelings and experiences have nothing to do with genetics. Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Feelings come from neurotransmitters, which are manufactured, detected, and eliminated by proteins encoded by your genes. Experiences come to you via receptors made from proteins in your sensory organs encoded by your genes.
Don't think of the genome as a map or a blueprint. Think of it more as planning and cooking a meal from a cookbook. The cookbook has some recipes you use all the time, others are just for special occasions, some you never use. Your menu is a set of dishes that go together, so your choice of main dish will determine what other dishes you will serve. You choose dishes based on what ingredients you have on hand, so if you happen to be out of rice, you'll serve noodles or mashed potatoes. It's summertime, so let's have gelato instead of plum pudding for dessert. And so on.
The fact that there is no "gay gene" does not exclude the possibility that multiple genes are involved in the development of an individual's sexual orientation.
quote:
Truly honest scientists can still form and test a hypothesis they think might be true, and are no less honest if their tests bear it out. As long as they conduct the tests fairly.
So how would an honest scientist devise an experiment to see if sexual experimentation in childhood determines sexual orientation? Your OP is not a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be tested scientifically. It is unethical to recruit children and pedophiles to experiment sexually in the lab for a longitudinal study. It's outrageous to imply that scientists that won't do experiments with pedophiles and kids are being unfair or dishonest. You can believe whatever you want about how sexual orientation is created. What you cannot do is claim your idea is a scientific hypothesis.
Arguing that our memories are merely chemicals is pedantic. While true that feelings are generated by chemicals and memories are accessed through chemicals, and DNA is formed by chemicals...... boiling down human experiences to merely chemicals is putting blinders on to the fact that it is intentional social interaction with people that generates our first feelings.
The issue is memories and events and how that forms a personality. You really believe our memories and personality are merely explained by chemicals? How can you not see the social angle? A neurotransmitter is a reaction to a stimulus, which is from an outside source. It's not all explained by chemicals simply because gene is a chemical.
(It may be that you are injecting a view of strict naturalism here, not sure, but a merely chemical existence is not a high minded view of humanity. I would rather believe in the worth of a human soul, the afterlife, and honor and dignity... which are not defined by chemicals)
and as to experimentation, of course that isn't ethical to put children in sexual situations to see what happens.
The experimentation needed is an analysis of the quality and quantity of time spent with all family members, siblings, peers.... put that together with analysis of the events and experiences in the life of a person, as explained by the people that remember. It would need to be more than merely an interview with a 20 year old that is trying to access 20 years worth of memories without help.
--------------------
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
Alaijon, your hypothesis has been discounted some time ago:
American Psychiatric Institute on Sexual Orientation says:
quote:
Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.
And the submission from the Royal College of Psychology to the Church of England on the causes of sexuality says:
quote:
Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences have any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation (Bell and Weinberg, 1978).
It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.
What you are positing is something that was thought to be true a century ago and a number of psychiatrists have attempted to prove to be so, and failed.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| 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
