Sexual Preferences

[s|k]

Nature or Culture? Both? Choice?

I personally think that we're like empty jars and that as time passes those jars are filled up with who we become by our own choices, but mostly by our environment and the things that happens around us. I think it's culture, choice, and nature, but mostly culture.

I think it's choice when a mostly 'heterosexual' person indulges in a gay fantasy, I think it's culture when someone grows up and believes that they just 'are' gay or bisexual or heterosexual. I think it's nature when you're born with non-standard 'equipment'.

My professor used to say that gender and sex are two different things. That they were both seperate continuums with a lot of gray area between the two presumed 'distinct' classes of woman and man (gender) or female and male (sex). What role does gender play in sexual preferences? It does have huge part in it, but I'm sure there are some who are male and man and gay.

[Yahwe]

this is a remarkably unwise thread.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by s|k

Nature or Culture? Both? Choice?
I think it's culture when someone grows up and believes that they just 'are' gay or bisexual or heterosexual.

If you're implying that noone is naturally homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual - what are we?

It seems clear to me that nature created us heterosexual. Whether this means that being homosexual or bisexual is wrong is another matter.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Boogster

If you're implying that noone is naturally homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual - what are we?

sexual

exactly like our closest genetic relative

we just have an unnecessary complex social system which delays (note delays) our nature.

"oh my nature made us all hetrosexual" my ****ing arse.

[Nodrog]

Given that its been shown ducklings and other animals can become sexually attracted to both humans and pingpong balls given the right conditioning, anyone who takes the genetically determined approach to human sexuality is a loon.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Given that its been shown ducklings and other animals can become sexually attracted to both humans and pingpong balls given the right conditioning, anyone who takes the genetically determined approach to human sexuality is a loon.

Considering that I have not yet laid an egg, would it be wrong to assume that the duck and I differ in some ways?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

sexual

exactly like our closest genetic relative

we just have an unnecessary complex social system which delays (note delays) our nature.

"oh my nature made us all hetrosexual" my ****ing arse.

I am referring to the neat way in which my penis slots into the vagina and happens to trigger the creation of life.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I am referring to the neat way in which my penis slots into the vagina and happens to trigger the creation of life.

yes.

your religious beliefs do get in the way of your ability to think, don't they.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

yes.

your religious beliefs do get in the way of your ability to think, don't they.

I do wish you'd explain...

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Boogster

If you're implying that noone is naturally homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual - what are we?

It seems clear to me that nature created us heterosexual. Whether this means that being homosexual or bisexual is wrong is another matter.

I think something is wrong when there's a victim. There may be exceptions, but I can't think of any right now. I don't see victimization in a number of adults enganging in consentual activities of whatever nature. I'm not gay. If I were to have sex outside of my current relationship, straight or gay, I would think my acts were an exotic dive into self-destructive hedonism. If I had never entered into my current relationship, I would be seeking a female partner, probably because of my evangalistic upbringing.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I do wish you'd explain...

our closest genetic relative shags anything

they use sex as a version of our handshake

that is how nature made us

everything else, everything that stops us having sex (and bear in mind now that 99% of GD has had sex with a mellon at some point ) is just:

some irrelevant lie that we have invented

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by s|k

I think something is wrong when there's a victim. There may be exceptions, but I can't think of any right now. I don't see victimization in a number of adults enganging in consentual activities of whatever nature. I'm not gay. If I were to have sex outside of my current relationship, straight or gay, I would think my acts were an exotic dive into self-destructive hedonism. If I had never entered into my current relationship, I would be seeking a female partner, probably because of my evangalistic upbringing.

Surely sex, especially from an evolutionary viewpoint, is about procreation. This suggests that heterosexuality is natural, does it not?

PS YAHWE: By natural, I do not mean (necessarily) that homosexuality etc. is contrary to human nature.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Surely sex, especially from an evolutionary viewpoint, is about procreation. This suggests that heterosexuality is natural, does it not?

evolution does not have a 'perspective' you twat.

using logic to you is just something that happens to 'other people' isn't it

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

our closest genetic relative shags anything

they use sex as a version of our handshake

that is how nature made us

everything else, everything that stops us having sex (and bear in mind now that 99% of GD has had sex with a mellon at some point ) is just:

some irrelevant lie that we have invented

Where does procreation fit in?

Are offspring merely the product of an over-friendly greeting?

The continuance of our race is determined by somewhat misplaced handshakes?

Damn.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

evolution does not have a 'perspective' you twat.

using logic to you is just something that happens to 'other people' isn't it

Survival of the friendliest.

I see.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Where does procreation fit in?

Are offspring merely the product of an over-friendly greeting?

The continuance of our race is determined by somewhat misplaced handshakes?

Damn.

what else did you think it was determined by?

[Nodrog]

Boogster - having sex with women does not constitute 'heterosexuality'. Theres a difference between performing sexual acts which get classed as hetero/homosexual, and identifing yourself with one of these terms. Its a noun/verb thing.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Surely sex, especially from an evolutionary viewpoint, is about procreation. This suggests that heterosexuality is natural, does it not?

PS YAHWE: By natural, I do not mean (necessarily) that homosexuality etc. is contrary to human nature.

At this point if humans are to continue to exist there must be offsprings. Heterosexual sex is for the moment the most popular method to do this, although there are other, more expensive ways. Evolution is just a process, the occurence of it is neither natural nor anything else, it just is. When I ask is sexual preference determined by nature, I meant is it biologically preprogrammed into a person.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

our closest genetic relative shags anything

they use sex as a version of our handshake

that is how nature made us

Just because they are out closest genetic relative does not meant that we share this trait with them. such traits could have developed after diversification of the Australopithenes, and may well not be an inherent trait of our own. Alternatively this trait could be due to social conditioning within the bonobos, rendering nature to be the same thing as the social environment, in which case it is not the way nature made us. I wish that people would stop saying that what humans do is not natural, it is after all human nature.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Given that its been shown ducklings and other animals can become sexually attracted to both humans and pingpong balls given the right conditioning, anyone who takes the genetically determined approach to human sexuality is a loon.

ducklings are a bit of a weak reference to be honest, given the way that birds imprint - and especially since duckings are particularly precocious imprinters. a better example would be a mammal at the very least.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

identifying yourself with one of these terms.

i KNOW what you mean by this because we've had this argument before so i will explain it again: GAY PEOPLE ARE HONESTLY SERIOUSLY AROUSED BY ATTRACTIVE PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER BUT NOT OF THE OPPOSING ONE.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by s|k

When I ask is sexual preference determined by nature, I meant is it biologically preprogrammed into a person.

The answer will be a rather irritating yes and no. If you mean genetically preprogrammed, you have to look at what genes do. ignoring all the non-coding DNA for the moment, the job of genes is to produce proteins, which are biological catalysts, that react to whatever is around in whatever way they do by the basic rules of chemistry. there is nothing more to it than that, although the number of catalysts and chemical combinations meant that the possible outcomes are extremely varied. Ultimately everything you do is the result of the interaction of your genes and the environment, and one simply cannot divorce the two.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Surely sex, especially from an evolutionary viewpoint, is about procreation. This suggests that heterosexuality is natural, does it not?

No, it doesn't. All things done by all organisms are perfectly natural. It is inherently impossible to do something unnatural. As yahwe has already pointed out, evolution does not have a "viewpoint" or a "perspective" it is simply like gravity, it just does what it does, and in the case of evolution the result is the proliferation or removal of genes and alleles from the population as a result of the differential reproductive success of the organism which is itself a function of the effects of the genotype on the phenotype. If that is too much of a mouthful for you, then I suggest learning about evolution before making claims about it.

[demiGOD]

This was an old argument here on GD that will never be settled.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

This was an old argument here on GD that will never be settled.

it was settled along time ago, but some people are just stubborn.

[Prawn]

Don't post here too often but this thread is interesting...

"Summary

All animals exhibit innate behaviors that are specified during their development. Drosophila melanogaster males (but not females) perform an elaborate and innate courtship ritual directed toward females (but not males). Male courtship requires products of the fruitless (fru) gene, which is spliced differently in males and females. We have generated alleles of fru that are constitutively spliced in either the male or the female mode. We show that male splicing is essential for male courtship behavior and sexual orientation. More importantly, male splicing is also sufficient to generate male behavior in otherwise normal females. These females direct their courtship toward other females (or males engineered to produce female pheromones). The splicing of a single neuronal gene thus specifies essentially all aspects of a complex innate behavior." Demir E., Dickson B. J., et al. Cell, 121. 785 - 794 (2005).

What this effectively means is that in this particular species of drosophila, sexual behaviour seems to be determined by a single gene. Of course this cannot be taken as proof that homosexuality is entirely caused by an individuals genotype in more complex organisms (such as humans) - a fly cannot think and therefore can only behave in the way that it is essentially 'programmed'. It certainly does, however, open up the possibility of a similar "gay gene" in other organisms.

My own personal opinion is that if such a gene does exist in us, it is unlikely to have such profound effects as it does on drosophila, due to the increased complexity of our interaction with our environment causing a much more varied selection of phenotypes, but it certainly could be a factor

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0505...0531-9.html#B1

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Phang

i KNOW what you mean by this because we've had this argument before so i will explain it again: GAY PEOPLE ARE HONESTLY SERIOUSLY AROUSED BY ATTRACTIVE PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER BUT NOT OF THE OPPOSING ONE.

Noone is denying this.

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

this is a remarkably unwise thread.

I agree, lets not do this one.

or if we have to can we just say that it's probably a bit of both and the amounts of each portion are ideosyncratic?

All in favour say "aye"

[madi]

there are so many of us crawling about on this planet now that it doesnt matter if some boys bonk other boys and some girls bonk other girls.
nature has allowed this genetic fluctuation in preference to flurish as an experiment with a bit of further diversity in the species.

i reckon.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Noone is denying this.

then at least this thread marks progress of some kind.

[dda]

There is certainly a genetic component to all human behavior. Hormones, body types, various other physical traits are all determined to an extent by genetics. However, there is also an environmental component as well. The amount of nourishment you get makes a difference in how the genetic component flourishes or doesn't. Choice has a part because human beings are remarkably adaptive creatures and can decide to like or not like certain things.

We cannot at this point in history know all of the factors or exactly how they interact although our knowledge is growing all the time.

As to sexual preference, what difference does it make?

I have gay friends and I have staight friends. Whether they chose to be gay, whether they were geneticly programmed to be gay or whether they were nudged in one direction or the other by their environment is really immaterial unless we want to engeneer people to all be a certain way. That would be very boring.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by dda

I have gay friends and I have staight friends. Whether they chose to be gay, whether they were geneticly programmed to be gay or whether they were nudged in one direction or the other by their environment is really immaterial unless we want to engeneer people to all be a certain way. That would be very boring.

Why not just engineer yourself to be a certain way? 99% of people, gay and straight alike, uncritically accept the sexual preferences they have grown up with, often justifying them by saying that this is 'just how they are', and perhaps mumbling something about genetics. The nature vs nurture debate here concerns the ability for people to change themselves if they desire and try hard enough - I doubt most people have sat down and a had a serious think about whether they are happy with their sexual preferences and might prefer a different set, and this is at least partly because of the 'fixed' status they have in our culture.

[Dante Hicks]

I'd imagine it's quite difficult (through introspection alone) to conceive liking something else. This goes for anything. I like the music I like, and find it difficult to imagine liking something completely different (e.g. harbd house / d'n'b). Undoubtedly I could make myself like it by listening to it for long enough, but I'm not sure why anyone would do that - unless there was some sort of practical advantage (say every club in your town played different music, or all of your friends like it, etc).

With sex, unless you were chronically dissatisfied with your own sex life / the perceived behaviour of your chosen target gender I can't see why you'd even think about "changing". Obviously these sorts of changes are probably easiest to undertake early on, or prior to sexual relationships and such. A friend of mine who is gay just sort of assumed / tried to be straight, went out with a woman and it went horribly, which kind of reinforced the (perhaps previously repressed idea) that he was gay. Tried that, much preferred it, the end.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by madi

nature has allowed this genetic fluctuation in preference to flurish as an experiment with a bit of further diversity in the species.

I really wish people wouldn't personify nature in this way.