Fetishes (and attraction, in general)

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Thoreau, Oct 22, 2013.

  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The brain has personality firmware which define human nature. These have evolved over long periods of time. These are empty at birth but contain the genetic instructions needed for progression through the stage of life. These advance not only by the beat of their own drum, allowing us to see what is common to all, but also by collecting data from our environments. The ego and will power play a role in the external data collection, since these help to focus consciousness toward particular data.

    Neurosis, for example, is recreated each day. Even if the firmware is attempting to advance back toward the natural genetic template, the ego and will power will often reenforce the same data and same behavior within the neurosis, maintaining the potential. As an analogy, you are attached to guide by a rope and they try to pull you to the right, while you pull to the left. There is tension in the rope, with is often mistaken for justification for the choices being made. But in reality it is due to the choices being made.

    From my experience with the firmware, since we culturally assume all the important stuff comes from outside us, and the sub-conscious is a waste cesspool, the unconscious mind will attempt to reach consciousness through what is called projection. This is where what is inside appears to stem from outside due to an overlay, loosely analogous to a movie overlaying onto reality. We react to the composite. For example, all the doom and gloom predicted by global warming never appeared because it was a projection due to deception. But it looked real and many people were ready to run to higher ground. This induction made use of collective firmware, projection and potential.

    But since the real change has to occur within, reaction to the outside, although getting our attention, maintains separation and potential. One is suppose to separate the movie and deal with it internally. But if this is not done the tension remains. I would guess that homosexuality is based on projection and unconscious potential due to separation from the genetic firmware. I infer this because this behavior is not self sustaining but need medical props not found in nature or else it self eliminates.

    Here is how it works, we do a behavior that needs science and medicine to prop it up, but which deviates from the firmware. This sustains the behavior while maintaining a potential. The potential is mistaken for natural due to projection.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I spoke to that in one of my earlier posts

    There's a spectrum of sexuality, but it's not symmetrical. About 88% of us are in the "uncompromisingly heterosexual" band at one end of the spectrum--let's call it the right-hand end for concision. (My percentages are approximate and in any case even the researchers concede that there's not enough data to get them much more precise than this anyway.) About 8% are in the "uncompromisingly homosexual" band at the left-hand end. But those people in the intervening 4% are bisexual. The ones closer to the left have a slight preference for homosexuality, the ones closer to the right for heterosexuality, and the ones in the middle have little or no preference.

    It's those people in the middle 4% who might choose a partner based on some criteria other than the fact that he/she is male or female. Intelligence, maturity, income potential, health, shared interests... pretty much the same criteria the rest of us go by, with the major exception that we all place gender at the top of the list. The straights among us would never consider a partner of the same gender, and the gays who are reading this feel the same way about one of the opposite gender.

    But the bisexual cohort do not regard gender as a deal-breaker, and some of them (the ones in the middle of that band) don't consider it very important at all--"Different ways on different days," as one explained to me 40 years ago. Many of them are taught by their families and by society that homosexuality is "wrong," so they dutifully choose heterosexual relationships and are quite happy in them. Some day they may wake up and discover that they have an attraction to people of the same gender, but they're hardly going to break up a marriage to someone they love dearly and destroy a loving family just to go off on an adventure... any more than the rest of us would break our partner's heart and abandon our children in order to become a monk or sail around the world on a raft.

    Some of these people manage to grow up and choose a homosexual life, especially those who live in places where gays and lesbians are tolerated or even welcomed, like San Francisco, Hollywood, and even some surprising locales like Houston and Atlanta. For one reason or another, later in life they find themselves among people who not only don't like gays but consider it their mission to "reform" them. Since they have no objection to heterosexuality, in order to make peace with their colleagues (and perhaps as a bit of experimentation), they decide to explore the other side of their sexuality.

    These are the people who are touted by the Religious Right as "successfully converted to being straight." It's a tiny percentage of the not-fully-heterosexual population to begin with, and only a small percentage of those people ever get mixed up with the Christian Asshole Brigade, and only a tiny percentage of them actually succumb to the entreaties to "go straight." But it makes headlines, and without the background information (TMI for the average American anyway, who prefers to get his news from cable TV because even network TV news is too complicated for him and the mere sight of a real newspaper strikes terror into his heart), it makes it seem like--yes Grandma--gay people can be "cured."

    So you're saying that as long as you perceive me as being biased, then you won't consider me an asshole? But since I consider myself objective, I have to regard myself as an asshole?

    Or is there a syntax error in your statement?

    In any case, I'm sorry if I offended anyone, with the obvious exception of the people I consider to be assholes. Everywhere but here that would include only actual gay-bashers. I suppose here it might also cover the scientifically illiterate, since it's the job of us moderators to try to make this a place of science and scholarship.

    You don't seem to fall into either category, so if I've offended you I apologize.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,053
    Mod Note

    Arauca has been banned for 7 days for his homophobic abuse and insults towards other members of this site.

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,630
    If one has a hereditary orientation to find the same sex attractive instead of the opposite sex, then it isn't a choice when one lives out that orientation. It is simply being who by nature you really are. There is no sense of anyone choosing between two equally viable alternatives. We have all known effeminate boys since elementary school. Boys who always grow up to be gay. Are you saying these boys chose to act effeminate and to become gay in spite of the overwhelming stigma and bullying over it? That's ridiculous. Even allowing for environmental factors, we are talking an orientation that is etched into the brain and incapable of being changed. People don't choose who to be sexually attracted to. It's hardwired into their very nature.
     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,630
    If you had the religious majority of your culture condemning omnivorism as perverted, disgusting, unmanly, and worthy of eternal damnation then an ominvore would most definitely be subject to depression and suicidal ideations. Considering the amount of bullying that goes on in schools of gay kids, it is little wonder they sometimes commit suicide. Attacking one's ability to love and find a soulmate strikes at the very root of who you are. It is the dehumanization and delegitimization of your very being. Small wonder then that suicide would often be considered the only viable option for such.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTiBv99MYDk
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,716
    Which is one of my problems with the DSM. A vegan might pick up the DSM-73 and say "no, it's listed right here - omnivorism is a DISORDER." Enough of that sort of treatment and the person might _become_ suicidal because society is treating him as a disorder, a person with a problem.
     
  10. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    That is just it, since academia seems to accept the self-reported, subjective, and anecdotal evidence from the LGBT community itself, no studies are being conducted to determine anything which may cast doubt on the LGBT activist position.

    There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether sexual orientation change efforts work to change a person's sexual orientation. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Sexual_orientation_change_efforts

    Like I said, there is no significant evidence that the lack of choice in abnormal (or non-typical if you like) sexual orientations is substantially different from any compulsion (where the lack of choice is equally self-reported). In lieu of empirical evidence, skepticism is warranted, and the default position of the skeptic is the null hypothesis that one atypical compulsion is not significantly different from another.

    What I meant was that if you wanted to call someone whose objectivity is only swayed by actual empirical evidence, instead of just subjective, self-reported anecdote, an asshole, then you may want to examine why you accept the later as evidence.

    I appreciate the apology. I would only hope that words like "homophobic" would be saved for explicit cases of anti-gay sentiment (gay-bashing) rather than just a differing opinion in light of a lack of evidence.
     
  11. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    So you find a study that you admit did not address environmental factors, and you just assume there are no significant environmental factors? Convenient.

    Remember what I posted about the author of that study freely admitting non-biological factors are relevant?

    STANFORD -- Research into the biological basis of sexual orientation "presents a clear double message. Yes, genetics plays a part. No, it is not all genetics," Dora B. Goldstein, professor emeritus of molecular pharmacology, told the audience that attended the first in a series of public lectures sponsored by the Medical Center's Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual Community on March 9.

    "This shouldn't be too surprising because that is what all kinds of behavioral studies indicate. Genes determine everything. The environment affects everything. Then there is this big area where the two interact," she added.
    - http://news.stanford.edu/pr/95/950310Arc5328.html
     
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Really? So why do we not find all people labeled with any of a wide variety of disorders equally at risk for suicide? Eating, mood, dependence, etc. disorders are not equally likely to be suicidal.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,716
    Because not everyone reads the DSM. Indeed, it is a very small part of the overall problem with the "disorder-ifying" of everything, and in fact is more a reflection of the problem than a source. Homosexuality put people at serious risk of mental (and physical) health problems because they were a very persecuted minority. In many cases they were thrown in jail, and throwing anyone in jail will generally increase their risk for suicide (and for other mental health problems.) Indeed, in some cases they were badly beaten, and physically abused people are at higher risk for suicide. In some cases they were just plain murdered, thus skipping the whole "abuse - depression - suicide" cycle and moving along more quickly to the result.

    ANYONE in society who is targeted for abuse will tend to see a higher incidence of mental health issues.

    Right. Some people go their whole lives just being overweight, never being told they have a serious disorder. That's not ideal - they might well die early - but it puts them at less risk of abuse and the subsequent mental health issues than, say, a gay person who grew up in the 1970's.
     
  14. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Correlation does not imply causation. Even while society is becoming more tolerant (gay marriage, EEO protection, etc.), homosexual suicide is still on the rise. But even lesbians being at higher risk is mirrored in heterosexual women, so a gay man being more effeminate would seem to simply weight his risk more toward that of women in general. So maybe being gay only exacerbates the gender disparity in suicide risk. Either way, it does not seem to be wholly environmental.
     
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,630
    You seem to know all about the environmental factors causing homosexuality. So go ahead and cite some scientific studies identifying them. We're all ears.
     
  16. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,364
    Homosexuality is neither a disorder nor a ‘fetish.’ Why is it being debated as such?
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,630
    Homophobes have been trying to attach homosexuality to mental illness since the beginning of psychology. Fortunately this was all disproven by one Dr. Evelyn Hooker in the 1950's, ultimately resulting in the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in the early 1970's.

    http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/02/myth-buster.aspx

    "In 1953, Evelyn Hooker, PhD, applied for a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) grant to conduct research on “normal homosexuals.” During this period of American history, Sen. Joseph McCarthy was seeking out communists wherever he suspected they might be lurking; homosexual acts were a crime; bomb shelters were springing up in backyards; and the term “normal” homosexual was thought to be an oxymoron. A variety of medical and psychological treatments to “cure” homosexuality were employed, including ice pick lobotomies, electroshock, chemical castration with hormonal treatment or aversive conditioning. Gay parties were raided by the police, particularly in election years when a crackdown on “sexual perversion” was seen as a positive step in the fight on crime.

    Hooker’s proposal to study gay men began as a result of a close friendship she developed with a former University of California, Los Angeles, student, Sam From, who introduced her to the gay subculture. She became one of the heterosexuals “in the know.” It was From who told her it was her “scientific duty” to study homosexuals and promised her access to all the subjects she needed. Initially she demurred but eventually, with the encouragement of From and her colleague Bruno Klopfer, Hooker began an investigation that would ultimately result in the removal of homosexuality as a form of psychopathology from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual III of the American Psychiatric Association. This research was the culmination of Hooker’s lifelong interest in social justice."
     
  18. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,364
    I know. Such offensive nonsense shouldn't be permitted here.
     
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,630
    As society becomes more accepting of gay orientation, more and more young people are coming out and encountering bullying and homophobia as a result. It's this new openness of young gay people that is making them easier targets of hatred and bigotry. That explains any alleged increase in the suicide rate.

    Then again, since correlation doesn't entail causation, one cannot really say that being gay in and of itself CAUSES suicidal tendencies. You'd have to raise a gay kid in a completely non-homophobic world to find that out. And such a world does not exist.
     
  20. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    In psychology, self-reporting is often the best evidence we can gather.

    Frankly, as the Head Linguist here, I would like to see the word "homophobia" used for the condition its components indicate: fear of homosexuality, rather than hatred of homosexual people.

    Most straight men (and many gay men, if not most) are terrified by the possibility of an unwelcome sexual advance from a man. This is exactly how most women feel about an unwelcome sexual advance from a man. On the contrary, most women are, at worst, annoyed by an unwelcome sexual advance from a woman--they might respond angrily, but they'll seldom scream and call the police, and in many cases they'll just laugh it off. This is--well not exactly--how most men feel about an unexpected sexual advance from a woman: I had to replace "unwelcome" with "unexpected" because for most of us it is always welcome even if we reject it due to morality or bad timing. Our first thought is "I wonder if I can find an empty conference room with a sofa?" Our second thought is, "Oh crap, I'm married."

    Men really are afraid of male homosexuality and gay men because they fear that one of them will hit on them.

    This does happen, but curiously (in my own experience anyway) most commonly in places that don't have a gay community. In a place like Hollywood where the gays have their own community, they observe and listen to each other and they learn to distinguish one of them from one of us. In ten years I was never hit on by a gay man in Hollywood, but I was twice in less cosmopolitan neighborhoods--those guys honestly couldn't tell if I was one of them.

    The way to make true "homophobia" go away is to let the gays out of the closet so they can learn the ropes from each other. Once they can tell who's gay and who's not, they'll never hit on us and we won't have to be afraid of them.

    The title of the thread includes "and attraction, in general." I think this qualifies.

    The only rules we have here relate to activities that are illegal (such as stalking, or pornography in a place that invites children), personal insults (and we have to err on the side of tolerance or we wouldn't have any members), trolling (steering a discussion off topic and/or posting an unacceptable amount of meaningless content), hate speech (ethnicity, gender, nationality, political affiliation--the only demographic we're free to bash is religious people, especially evolution denialists), etc.

    There's no rule against offensive nonsense. If it's presented as science, we move it to the Crackpottery ghetto, and people are welcome to discuss their perpetual motion machines, their all-water diets, and their UFO sightings over there.

    Please remember that the majority of our members are immature chronologically, emotionally, or both. (A few years ago the average age was 17.) If we start cracking down on foolishness (offensive or charming) there won't be enough people here to bother keeping the site up.
     
  21. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    If you were not biased by a forgone conclusion, you could easily find this for yourself:

    Peter Bearman showed that males with a female twin are twice as likely to report same-sex attractions, unless there was an older brother. He says that his findings support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences. He suggests that parents of opposite-sex twins are more likely to give them unisex treatment, but that an older brother establishes gendersocializing mechanisms for the younger brother to follow. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation#Childhood_gender_non-conformity

    Researchers have provided evidence that gay men report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers, and closer relationships with their mothers, than non-gay men. Some researchers think this may indicate that childhood family experiences are important determinants to homosexuality...

    A 2006 Danish study compared people who had a heterosexual marriage versus people who had a same-sex marriage. Heterosexual marriage was significantly linked to having young parents, small age differences between parents, stable parental relationships, large numbers of siblings, and late birth order. Children who experience parental divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually than those growing up in intact families. For men, same-sex marriage was associated with having older mothers, divorced parents, absent fathers, and being the youngest child. For women, maternal death during adolescence and being the only or youngest child or the only girl in the family increased the likelihood of same-sex marriage.
    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation#Family_influences

    According to several studies, each older brother increases a man's odds of developing a homosexual orientation by 28%–48%. Most researchers attribute this to prenatal environmental factors, such as prenatal hormones. McConaghy (2006) found no relationship between the strength of the effect and degree of homosexual feelings, suggesting the influence of fraternal birth order was not due to a biological, but a social process - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation#Fraternal_birth_order
     
  22. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    You seem to know all about the suicide risk for homosexuals. So go ahead and cite some scientific studies identifying the increased risk factors. We're all ears.
     
  23. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Granted, but that does not increase its reliability, especially when concerted activism exists.

    That too would be acceptable. Anything except demonizing anyone who questions the activist position that it is mostly or wholly genetic (as Magical Realist seems to). That is nothing more than ad hominem to poison the well.

    I must not conform to the group of "most men" then. I have been "hit on" by gay men, mostly while living in Florida. Even in those instances including unwelcome physical contact, I did not overreact. I simply told them that they were barking up the wrong tree. So it is not necessarily warranted to just assume any given straight man is homophobic, simply because he does not believe that homosexuality if mostly or wholly genetic.

    And I think you would have to admit that "scream and call the police" is hyperbolic.
     

Share This Page