Theory of Gayativity - Page 10

quatrotritikali · 04-20-08, 06:51 PM

How about this theory: that all humans, at birth, are sexual orientation neutral. It is through parental and social upbringing that sexual orientation begins to assert itself in humans.

Society, for the most part, molds kids into living a heterosexual lifestyle. Boys are taught from early age that boys don't cry (only girls cry), boys don't play "house" or with dolls because only girls do those things, boys don't wear pink and only wear clothing designated as for boys (only girls wear pink and are groomed to wear clothing and such designed for girls. Girls and boys are taught to be so different in many ways...except that both groups are taught to live a heterosexual lifestyle. After all, it is society's accepted way.

As children mature, adolescence begins, with various hormones starting to flow and puberty sets in. Kids who are naturally interested in their own gender either have to hide their feelings, or buck the system and society by being themselves, and not conforming to heterosexual expectations.

Certainly environment comes into play as well. There are many factors that could eventually affect the outcome of who is ultimately gay or straight...but I maintain that sexual orientation is neutral until society steps in to raise kids in a heterosexual society.

Ethereal · 04-20-08, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Homosexuality, like most behaviors, has genetic and environmental components.

Behavior is a bit of a vague term which could imply many things. Also, what other "behaviors" are known to have an origin in genetics?

Quote:

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That provides a decent overview.

I think this says it all about the overall assertion of the article...

Quote:

According to the American Psychiatric Association,

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.... 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.

Or this...

Quote:

A recent large-scale twin study, done by researchers at Yale University and Columbia University, concludes that "there is no evidence for strong genetic influence on same-sex preference in this sample."

You must admit that there is little evidence to support the assertion of genetic homosexuality.

Quote:

Yes. You can find certain of pedophiles who are sexually attracted to children, but understand that having sex with them is wrong. Considering the massive amount of social hatred they receive, it would seem unlikely that they chose than path.

Simply because someone chooses to pursue a lifestyle they know to be immoral or worthy of hatred does not mean such a lifestyle was thrust upon them by a genetic predisposition. If one were to utilize such logic then anything unsavory could be attributed to genetics.

Isn't it more likely that their attraction to children is the result of a warped or confused sexual mentality, and that their pursuit of children is only wrong to them in that it may result in their imprisonment?

Quote:

I don't think anyone has really investigated an attraction to animals, so I can't say either way.

Well, to be fair nobody has really researched the genetic origins of paedophilia yet you've already established a school of thought on the matter. And if one were to apply the Rathi method to bestiality it would certainly pass the litmus test.

Quote:

Am I to understand that you think heterosexuality is NOT genetic and rather a learned attraction?

Indeed. In all species the propensity to perpetuate the species is innately interwoven into their genetic makeup, but although the desire to procreate has a genetic origin it does not engender a preference. The desire is genetic whereas the preference is learned.

Essentially, all humans have an innate desire to have sex, but there exists no innate desire to copulate with anyone or anything specific. Much like the desire to eat food is genetically innate, yet there exists no innate desire to eat anything specific.

Sexual preference results from an array of environmental factors - none of which can be specifically isolated as directly or primarily causative - although some may be more crucial or readily apparent than others.

A perfect example of environment influencing sexual preference is the prevelence of pederasty in ancient Athenian culture.

Quote:

In Athens, as elsewhere, pederastic relationships had their beginnings among the aristocracy, but in time the practice was picked up by other sections of the population. With the advent of democracy, whose role models were the lovers and tyrant slayers Harmodius and Aristogiton, "access to gymnastic and sympotic culture widened, so the concomitant pederastic emotions and relationships may also have become more widely admired and imitated."

Any study of Athenian pederasty definitively demostrates the primacy of environment in determining one's sexual orientation.

Athenian pederasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kali · 04-21-08, 12:00 AM

Honestly I think all people are bisexual.

Kali · 04-21-08, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by partier9

i think it is both, most people who are gay were born gay. But i think in some cases people choose to be gay. Heres what i mean, lets take a woman for example who every time she goes out with a guy somthing bad happens to her. Like he cheats on her at one point in the relationship or he is a ******* and she just gets sick of him. Eventully if this kept happening to someone than she might feel that men are pigs and woman are much better. So she starts to pursue woman instead of woman.

Yeah.. There are a lot of cases where it takes a pig to make a female finally go out and experiment in regards to her own sexuality.

Ethereal · 04-21-08, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Honestly I think all people are bisexual.

Perhaps you should reevaluate your assessment as it is quite absurd.

quatrotritikali · 04-21-08, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethereal

Perhaps you should reevaluate your assessment as it is quite absurd.

So, you think that being born bisexual (or at least asexual) is absurd? Any more absurd than what you've been posting?

Kali · 04-21-08, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethereal

Perhaps you should reevaluate your assessment as it is quite absurd.

How so? Whatever do you mean?

Ethereal · 04-21-08, 02:24 AM

Quote:

So, you think that being born bisexual (or at least asexual) is absurd?

Being born asexual would imply that babies must posses the ability to subjectively deny an interest in having sex, and as babies have no inherent understanding of what sex is they can neither subjectively deny or espouse an interest in it.

However, being born bisexual is decidely ludicrous as there exists no scientific evidence to support such a theory. Is it typical for you to accept something as fact that hasn't met the criterion set forth by the scientific method?

Quote:

Any more absurd than what you've been posting?

What's so absurd about what I've been posting? A specific example would be appreciated.

Quote:

How so? Whatever do you mean?

Take me for example. I am not sexually attracted to people of the same sex, therefore your theory that all people are bisexual does not hold water. Yes-yes?

quatrotritikali · 04-21-08, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethereal

Being born asexual would imply that babies must posses the ability to subjectively deny an interest in having sex, and as babies have no inherent understanding of what sex is they can neither subjectively deny or espouse an interest in it.

However, being born bisexual is decidely ludicrous as there exists no scientific evidence to support such a theory. Is it typical for you to accept something as fact that hasn't met the criterion set forth by the scientific method?

What's so absurd about what I've been posting? A specific example would be appreciated.

Take me for example. I am not sexually attracted to people of the same sex, therefore your theory that all people are bisexual does not hold water. Yes-yes?

Evidently you didnt' read one of my earlier posts. Yes, I believe that everyone can be born bisexual in nature, but upbringing and social and evironmental factors come into play at an early age to help steer us towards one orientation or another. We usually don't remain bisexual, even though many folk claim to be.

And my view is just that...a viewpoint. Just as is yours, ethereal. There is nothing proven in fact that categorically explains homosexual behavior either in humans or other animals. Everything is theory, conjecture, supposition, and wish-ful thinking.

Ethereal · 04-21-08, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Evidently you didnt' read one of my earlier posts. Yes, I believe that everyone can be born bisexual in nature, but upbringing and social and evironmental factors come into play at an early age to help steer us towards one orientation or another. We usually don't remain bisexual, even though many folk claim to be.

Of course I read your post, but your overall thesis...

Quote:

How about this theory: that all humans, at birth, are sexual orientation neutral. It is through parental and social upbringing that sexual orientation begins to assert itself in humans.

Wasn't contradictory to anything I've said. Being born sexually neutral is not, however, the same as being born bisexual. Why the change in terminology?

Quote:

And my view is just that...a viewpoint. Just as is yours, ethereal. There is nothing proven in fact that categorically explains homosexual behavior either in humans or other animals. Everything is theory, conjecture, supposition, and wish-ful thinking.

This is precisely my point. Many people take the genetic origin of homosexuality as gospel despite the fact that there exists no scientifically falsifiable evidence to support such a theory. I, however, am willing to accept the tentative nature of my position, but still find the topic scientifically stimulating.

Having said this, when one looks at the number of studies that have failed to find a genetic basis in sexual orientation it seems that an alternate theory is required to explain the nature of sexual orientation - does it not?

There exists ample evidence that suggests sexual orientation is a product of our environment, but nobody seems willing to discuss the matter. Pending the other posters being busy, nobody has responded specifically to anything I've posted. I've specifically adressed the logic used to espouse the genetic origin of sexual preference, why won't anyone specifically adress the logic I've used to support the primacy of environment in sexual orientation? If I've posted anything scientifically untrue or illogical, please, enlighten me.