Fetishes (and attraction, in general)

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

  1. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I am not quibbling anything. I am asking you a simple and direct question. Why do you have such a hard time simply defining sexual orientation? Again, neither you nor Bearman have defined in what way, if any, sexual orientation differs from its sexual and affectional components that do show to have social causal factors.

    Repeatedly relying in that small excerpt is cherry-picking. If you had the intellectual honesty to look further than simply confirming your bias, you would find (in the actual study supposedly cited by that quote you hold so dear):

    In this article, we show that adolescent males
    who are opposite-sex twins are
    twice as likely
    as expected to report
    same-sex attraction; and that the pattern of concordance (similarity
    across pairs) of same-sex preference for sibling pairs does not suggest
    genetic influence independent of social context. Our data falsify the
    hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition that
    eliminates the opposite-sex twin effect we observe—the presence of
    an older same-sex sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative
    evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on
    same-sex orientation. In contrast, our results support the hypothesis
    that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadoles-
    cence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.
    ...

    Oddly,
    despite the popularity of the idea, the evidence for genetic and/orhormonal
    effects on same-sex orientation is inconclusive at best. The most publicized
    genetic findings, for example, the discovery of a marker for homosexuality
    in men (Hamer et al. 1993) has not been replicated, and studies purporting
    to establish a genetic or hormonal foundation to human sexual orientation
    tend to have serious methodological flaws (Stein 1999; Byne 1995;
    McGuire 1995).
    ...

    ...social scientists and geneticists alike stress the obvious point that neither genes,
    nor hormones, nor specific social situations
    determine
    sexual behavior by
    themselves. Rather, the extent to which same-sex
    and
    opposite-sex desires
    are expressed in the individual is seen to be a complex interplay of bio-
    logical, social, and situational factors (McGuire 1995; Parker and de Cecco
    1995; Risman and Schwartz 1988).
    - http://www.soc.duke.edu/~jmoody77/205a/ecp/bearman_bruckner_ajs.pdf

    So again, how do you define sexual orientation? You know, since you are the one making some sort of specific distinction here. And since that quote you love repeating seems to be erroneously attributed to Bearman's paper, your cherry-picking appeal to authority falls on its face.

    Hell, that same paper you keep quoting that supposed attribution to Bearman is the exact same paper cited as contrary evidence to the fraternal birth order effect.

    So it is abundantly clear that you are simply do a tap-dancing evasion. You are evasive about simply defining sexual orientation, much like you have accused theists of evading defining their god. That is clear and biased hypocrisy.

    No, the only pseudoscience is the false attribution on the wiki page you keep quoting. Everything I have been quoting is supported by the actual paper, while it seems some wiki contributor sought to marginalize the actual results of that paper. Perhaps a friend of yours.

    The bolded is are biased lies. I have already shown that the wiki attribution is Bearman's "suggestion" is false, that the Danish same-sex marriages would, if anything, isolate the most ardent homosexuals (which would be a significant study control). And the scientific evidence you tout are correlates, not causes. Causes require isolating actual mechanisms.

    I only admit that there could be biological factors, but that they have not been proven. You act as if they have been proven, no doubt due to being personally vested in the outcome.

    Were has it been supposed that any child was the mother's favorite?! As far as I can see, they only correlated absent/distant father to trivially being closer to the mother. Nowhere did it compare "favorites" among any number of children.

    I already told you your article does not address the issue studied, but no doubt you will continue to throw biased irrelevancies at me. You just keep making demonstrably false correlations of your own.

    Typical activist name-calling in an attempt to demonize any opposition. I have not made any correlation between being gay and reasoning skills. I simply accept the well-proven bias of people who have a vested, personal interest in a subject. This is indicated by phrases such as "from firsthand experience" (the same argument religious people give).

    I do not have a horse in this race. I have had gay and lesbian friends and have even been "hit on" by gays without overreacting in the least. I simply follow the science, without bias or agenda.

    False dilemma, as not all ex-gays are a result of "reparative therapies". Just as there are those who seek out a gender change, there are those who do not feel they had a choice in their sexual orientation and wish to instead seek out a cognitive change. Many ex-gays seek out regular therapy to address their unwanted feelings, just as many other people do for a variety of unwanted feelings.

    It is sad that ex-gays are either brutalized by zealot "therapies" or harassed by homosexuals (more than they were, as openly gay, by "homophobes").

    So your focus on "reparative therapies" is a red herring, at best.

    All current biological evidence points decidedly toward epigenetics, and you only weaken your own argument to assert otherwise. Try following the actual science instead of your feelings.

    Genius? Evolution has good reason to select for intelligence. Just because something is more rare does not make it "biology run amok". We also know that being a genius, a twin, or a little person is definitely genetic, so why would we disparage any of those. Another false dilemma, comparing the empirically verified against what is still scientifically questionable.

    And more ad hominem epithets. Science does not care about your feelings, only about facts that can be empirically verified. The scientist (or anyone else) simply questioning what has not yet been proven is not homophobic.

    Adolescents, of any orientation, have and will always find reason to feel awkward, embarrassed, and unsure of their identity and place in the world. That has nothing to do with society making them feel shame. Your self-serving optimism aside, freedom of choice (which you claim you do not have as a gay) is something people have always strove to achieve.

    I said trauma, not brain trauma. You know, the sort of trauma that is well-documented for causing a wide variety of behavioral disorders.

    I do not know your personal history intimately. It is trivially true that the social environments for any two people are never identical in every respect.

    Strawman arguments in an appeal to ridicule only illustrate the weakness of your position.

    Again, all you have are correlates, unproven as causes.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    That a gay person proposes that being gay could be a case of "biology run amok" is rather strange ...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    But probably the scientist (or anyone else) simply questioning what has not yet been proven should care about the feelings of those in question; because paying attention to those feelings may help to reveal what the actual problem is in all this.

    Possibly, the actual problem is that people in general (whether they engage in sex with men, women, animals, corpses, oneself or things) tend to view sex as a matter of objectifying other people (or oneself) or other beings into mere means to satify lust. And for most people, this would be too repugnant to acknowledge openly.

    In heterosexual relations, this objectification may not be so obvious because there is the accompanying feature of potential procreation. But in non-heterosexual relations this feature is de facto not present, and the awareness of objectification is more stark. And for people unwilling/unable to address issues of lust and objectification, this means more motivation to pathologize all non-heterosexual sex (both by heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals themselves).
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Same-sex marriage is the only statistically reliable way to isolate sexual orientation from merely same-sex attraction or same-sex affection (which you have argued, individually, do not account for orientation).
     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,635
    If you are bisexual, then that IS your orientation. So you are not choosing between different orientations like heterosexual or homosexual when you go from women to men. If you chose to be exclusively attracted to women or to men, then THAT would be choosing a different orientation. But you can't do that any more than I can choose to be attracted to women. Hence orientation is not a choice. It is a..well...orientation!
     
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,635
    So the fact that I'm not married and have no intention of ever marrying means I lack a homosexual sexual orientation? That's obviously fallacious. Many gay people don't want to marry for whatever reason. Yet they are still gay and experience same-sex attraction.
     
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,635
    LOL! And here's that quote from the actual study:

    "Whether a strong pathway between adolescent same-sex romantic attraction
    and self-identified homosexual identity exists, or whether it is the
    product of narrative demands for coherent life-stories, is unclear. There
    is clearly a strong association in our data between attraction and behavior,
    but the number of adolescents involved in homosexual relationships is
    too small in our sample to assess genetic influence statistically with any
    confidence. However, if the previous hypothesis were correct, it would
    suggest that socialization experiences might shape desire, but not subsequent
    adult sexual orientation. It is possible that genetic influence could
    operate on the pathway from attraction to behavior."


    No it is not falsely attributed. You should at least scan thru the articles you quote before asserting what they include or don't include.

    I know what sexual orientation is. I have one and have identified myself with it for most my life. Sexual orientation is simply which gender you find sexual stimulating. It may or may not include desire or romantic attraction in its elements. One can be sexual stimulated towards a certain gender without desiring the person at all. Voyeuristic masturbation fantasies and porn are examples of that. There was a time in my teens I had romantic inclinations for a girl I'd go out with. I don't doubt those romantic longings were real. Did it mean I found her sexually stimulating though. No. IOW, romantic inclination was distinct from erotic stimulation at that stage for me.

    Wrong as I already showed. See above quote by Bearman himself.


    A gay person who marries may not be anymore "ardent" a homosexual than a gay person who remains single and promiscuous. There's nothing about sexual orientation that says you need to be monogamous and acquire social affirmation of your orientation thru the ritual of marriage. In fact I would rather classify the gay guys that sleep around alot and go from relationship to relationship as more homosexually driven than gay guys that settle down with one person. In any case, since most gays simply do not choose to marry, this study represents a highly skewed sampling of only a particular subset of gay people being determined by their raising to marry. But then no one has ever debated the environmental influence of one's raising and one's parents in determining whether you choose to marry or not.

    Studies have proven biological causes in twin studies, birth order studies, maternal Y chromosome studies, hormonal exposure studies, brain structure studies, and epigenetic studies. I don't know what else you require for proof.

    Parental favoritism is assumed in families where one parent is closer to a child that the other is. Hence the mama's boy pattern and it's attribution as a causal factor in homosexuality.

    So because I am gay I am too biased to objectively consider the issue of sexual orientation? Does that mean a religious person is also too biased to objectively consider the issue of whether God exists? Or a black person is too biased to objectively consider the issue of race? Your assumption that having a vested interest in an issue disqualifies me somehow from being able to rationally weigh in on it is clearly ungrounded. In other areas it is precisely the personal experience one has had in an area that qualifies a person to talk about it with credibility and authority. Why in the case of homosexuality this suddenly becomes "bias" smells of homophobic demonization again. Gays are now disingenuous pushy activists who only have a political agenda.

    So why does it matter to YOU so much that gay orientation must be environmentally caused or even chosen? Do you just have a general problem with biological determinism? Seems I remember a thread a while back where you were arguing mental illness wasn't biologically caused either. Do we see an agenda here? A stoic attempt to defend the doctrine of freewill against all threats of physicalist causality?


    You said "convert" not me. The kind of conversion to heterosexuality you are talking about by and large is alleged to occur thru reparative therapies that condition the subject, often against his own will, to be forced or brainwashed to find women attractive. This is not choice. It is the precise opposite of choice. If sexual orientation were so easily modified by mere choice, why the stringent and often harmful recourse to unpleasant conditioning methods to change it? Shades of A Clockwork Orange.

    It's sad that there still exist powerful hategroups out there who tout ex-gay therapy as some sort of legitimate therapy for a sexual orientation they predefine as mental illness. How many lives have they wrecked by instilling shame and guilt over something that was largely predetermined before birth? Quite a few I imagine.

    Oh so now you are conceding biological causation of homosexual orientation thru epigenetics? Finally an honest admission from you!

    You're the one quoting the article saying the fraternal birth order effect disparages gay people by positing homosexuality as due to some biological malfunction. Why were you quoting that unless you agreed with it?

    Where was I attacking science? In fact I said if science uncovers homosexual orientation as being due to biological malfunctioning, we'd just have to live with it. But that's certainly no reason to be ashamed of it either. The "malfunctioning" occurs at enough frequency and distribution (roughly 5% of all humans) that it certainly appears to be evolutionarily hardwired into our dna. Why else has it persisted for so long?


    Homophobic attitudes and bullying has nothing to do with making gay kids feel shame? What kind of ignorant statement is that? Even just intuitively that doesn't ring true. As that study I quoted showed earlier, the self-esteem of gay kids is directly related to the support they get from their peers and social environment. This is so obvious it shouldn't even have to said!


    So what do you mean by trauma causing homosexuality? What kind of traumas are you referring to? And do you have any studies backing this claim up?

    Yet you said a unique environment is required to turn a person gay. What was unique about my environment that it made me gay? Surely you have some logic or evidence to support this adhoc hypothesis of yours.

    When you make ridiculous claims, expect to be ridiculed.

    Where's YOUR causes at? I have yet to hear of even just one that has been replicated by numerous peer-reviewed studies.

    Further confirmation of the biological causes for homosexuality:

    Scientists ‘turned mice gay’ through hormone immunity

    "Researchers in China bred mice with brains unreceptive to serotonin, and found that they lost the impulse to mate with females.

    SCIENTISTS IN CHINA say they had found that a group of mice, bred with brains which are unreceptive to a common hormone, have lost the impulse to mate with females – and turned them homosexual.

    The research, published in the journal ‘Nature’, claims that the mice – which were specially bred not to produce serotonin, known as the ‘happy hormone’ – lose the preference for mating with females displayed by the unmodified mice.

    When presented with a choice of either male or female, the mice showed no preference for either gender – but when only a male was introduced to the cage, the modified breed were far more likely to issue the so-called “mating call” and attempt to mate with the new male introduced.

    When the experiment was then repeated with a different set of mice – who were bred without a gene needed to produce serotonin – the same results were observed, BBC News reported.

    But when serotonin was then artificially introduced back into the brains of the specially bred mice, their preference for mating with a female was “restored”.

    “This is the first time, to our knowledge, that a neurotransmitter in the brain has been demonstrated to be important in mammalian sexual preference,” the report declared.

    Its authors said, however, that it would be dangerous to draw similar conclusions about the nature of human sexuality from the results."
    ---http://www.thejournal.ie/scientists-turned-mice-gay-through-hormone-immunity-109199-Mar2011/

    What's turning straight mice gay?

    Scientists have discovered that they can turn straight female mice gay by deleting a single gene. What does this mean for human sexuality?

    By The Week Staff | July 22, 2010


    "Scientists say they can turn straight female mice gay.

    Researchers at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, released some interesting findings last week. By tweaking a single gene in female mouse embryos, the scientists were able to alter the animals' sexual preference as mature mice. Here's a quick guide to the findings, and what they mean:

    What exactly did the scientists discover?
    The geneticists who conducted the study found that by deleting one gene — the one that controls the release of an enzyme called fucose mutarotase — in female mouse embryos, they could produce adult females that behaved like males. Female mice lacking the gene avoided male mice — they wouldn't let them mount, and stopped sniffing their urine. Instead they tried to mate with other females.

    Were the mutant female mice still able to get pregnant?
    Yes.

    Why did the behavior of the mice change so dramatically?
    Fucose mutarotase, or FucM, apparently causes developmental changes in the brain regions that control reproductive behavior. The scientists believe that without the enzyme the female brain can't filter out estrogen, so it's exposed to extra levels of the hormone, which determines masculinity in mice. "The mutant female mouse underwent a slightly altered developmental program in the brain to resemble the male brain in terms of sexual preference," says lead researcher Chankyu Park.

    Does this mean that there's a genetic link to homosexuality in humans?
    No, not necessarily. Researchers didn't find a "gay gene," and there's no direct corollary between mouse brains and human brains. Estrogen "masculinizes" the brains of mice, but in humans it's testosterone that has that effect. Still, the study is intriguing to scientists seeking a genetic link to homosexuality.

    Where do the researchers go from here?
    Park says he would like to use gene-screening studies to determine if fucose mutarotase has any influence on human sexuality, but he concedes that finding test subjects may pose a challenge."---
    http://theweek.com/article/index/204971/whats-turning-straight-mice-gay

    Homosexuality may start in the womb
    http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb

    Prenatal stress and homosexuality

    "Early experiments led by G. Dörner, conducted on rats revealed that homosexual tendencies, sexual arousal by partners of the same sex, was exhibited by male rats who had been exposed to an androgen deficiency during perinatal sexual differentiation of the brain, even though normal to high levels of androgen were present in adult stages. If androgen deficiency is not induced, it can often be found in male rat fetuses and newborns of stressed mothers (Dörner 1983).

    These findings led Dörner to question whether extreme stress experienced by pregnant humans would also lead to homosexuality in their male offspring. So, he studied the frequency of homosexuality in males born in Germany before, during and after World War II. Out of 865 homosexual males studied, significantly more were of them were born between the critical period of the war (“between 1941 and 1947- with a maximum in 1944-1945”) than in the years before or after the “critical period” (Dörner 1983). These findings spurred a second study by Dörner, which yielded similar results. In this second study, Dörner used a sample of 100 bi- or homosexual men and 100 heterosexual men. In turn, each was asked about possible stressful life events that took place in his mother’s life during her pregnancy with him. The findings were as follows:

    1. “Out of 100 heterosexual males only 6 heterosexuals reported on moderate stressful events that have occurred in their prenatal life, while none of them described severe stressful events in prenatal life, even after consulting their parents.

    2. Out of 40 bisexual men 10 bisexuals (=25%) described moderate and 6 bisexuals (=15%) even severe stressful events that have occurred in prenatal life.

    3. Out of 60 homosexual men 20 homosexuals (=33.3%) reported on moderate and 21 homosexuals (=35%) even on severe stressful events that have occurred during their prenatal life. (Dörner 1983)”

    These findings indicate that there is a correlation between prenatal stress and bi- or homosexuality in males. Dörner acknowledges that errors can be attributed to a restrospective study, such as this one, and prospective studies should be conducted in the future to further supplement his findings.

    While the correlation seems like a good indicator of causation, there are many problems with this study. Dörner did not supply the method with which he chose his subjects, how he rated the “stressfulness” of their situations, and retrospective studies are entirely based upon memory, which can not be regarded as 100% fact.

    Oh, Rats! (Or mice…)

    Though Dörner’s experiments did not prove the theory, the effect of prenatal stress on the sexuality of offspring continued to be tested repeatedly through experiments with pregnant rats. In 1994, Ward et al. published findings to support Dörner’s original studies on the effects of prenatal stress on sexual behaviors in rats. The female rats were mated with males, and separated into several groups (only 2 of which will be discussed here, because the effect of alcohol was also being tested, but is not being discussed in this paper). The two groups in question received identical treatment, with the exception of the experimental group had stress induced. The apparatus used to induce stress on the pregnant females was a Plexiglas animal holder with two floodlights attached over the surface. Between days 14-21 of pregnancy, the female rats received the stress treatment three times per day, for 45 minutes per session. After birth, the male progeny were tested for displays of female and male copulatory patterns. The findings revealed that 73% of males with prenatal exposure to stress led to the development of female sexual behavior, but did not affect the ability of ejaculation. However, when presented with an estrous female, 54% of males still ejaculated, implying bisexual behavior. The results were attributed to the fact that stress “is known to block the testosterone surge that normally occurs on Days 18 and 19 of gestation in male fetuses. This surge has been linked to the normal development of sexually dimorphic behaviors” (Ward 1994). Stress causes a lack of testosterone that is needed to fully masculinize the male brain and lead to normal male copulatory behavior."---
    http://healthpsych.psy.vanderbilt.edu/2008/PrenatalStress.htm

    60 Minutes segment on the Biological Basis of Homosexuality:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS6J_gg89ms
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2013
  11. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    My dog goes by my neighbors bitch and pisses all around her and he housing the attempts to fuck the bitch . Is that is what you want to discuss if human do the same way to get sexually aroused ?
     
  12. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    No, a complete total stranger. My point is that with the genders reversed, the vast majority of men will not be alarmed, quite a few will feel flattered (possibly most; I sure would), and a significant number will give serious consideration to an invitation from a female total stranger.
     
  13. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    That puts you squarely in that tiny demographic, the 2-4% of the population (there isn't enough data to be any more precise) who are bisexual, attracted to people of both genders. Many bisexual people choose to live a heterosexual life because they enjoy it, and it allows them to have a family life with children that their family, friends, colleagues and neighbors will react positively to. Others choose to have relations with people of both genders. And I'm sure there are others who settle into a homosexual life with a committed partner just because that happens to be the one they love the most and they want to stay monogamous with him/her forever as a family, perhaps even (in today's rapidly evolving political/social climate) with children.

    And that's just the people who want to be monogamous and committed. There have always been polygamous people and I don't see why some of them would not be bisexual.
     
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Would you say the same thing to a person who was born left-handed or blind or albino or three feet tall and blames it on biology run amok?

    As I already pointed out, about 88% of the population is heterosexual, a much smaller percentage (something like 8%) is homosexual, and the 4% between are bisexual. Only the people in that 4% are capable of choosing a partner of either sex. This is not choosing an orientation. It's simply choosing a partner. Their orientation is bisexual.

    (And the scale is actually more continuous, some people can be comfortable with either gender but are more attracted to one.)

    The same can be said for many straight people.

    Arauca, have you ever in your life said something that was not utterly preposterous and offensive? You've become this community's little pet troll, leaving us wondering what crazy bullshit is going to come out of you next.

    You are so utterly ignorant of the sciences, in this case biology. The sexuality of humans and dogs is so different that there's not really enough commonality to compare them.

    All female mammals have an estrus cycle; for a few days they're fertile and the rest of the time they're not. Dogs are typical: when the female is in estrus (or "in heat") her body exudes pheromones which the males smell. It arouses them sexually and makes them want to mate with her. The rest of the time the female is physically incapable of copulation, she transmits no pheromones, and the males are not aroused.

    Humans are not like that. Our females are physically capable of copulation all the time, even when pregnant and nursing. Our males don't react to pheromones (we don't have the strong sense of smell dogs have, so it wouldn't be an efficient method for us) so instead our courtship ritual is managed by behavior and conversation. Furthermore, our females are capable of enjoying copulation, even when they are incapable of becoming pregnant. In a species whose young require parental guidance for a decade and a half (whales mature in two years, elephants in five, but most mammals reach adulthood in one year or less), this is a good way to keep the father in the home where he can do his share of the work.

    And surely someone will mention seeing dogs humping each other, but that is not sexual. Their bodies are not very well articulated so they don't have a lot of range of motion. Fighting face-to-face and humping face-to-butt are just about all they can do for social activities. The humping is just a way of asserting dominance within the pack. There is no penetration, unless it's a female in heat.

    Female dogs in estrus generally go out of their way to copulate with every male in the pack. This way they all think the puppies are theirs, so they will protect them from predators. And from other females: in our experience with domestic breeding, they can be very cruel to each other's pups because they want their bloodline to rule the pack.
     
  15. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Why do you have to come with your bull of irrelevant garbling . The post was about ( (((( Fetishes (and attraction, in general)


    What causes a person to have a fetish? Can a fetish be distinguished as separate from a physical preference (race, height, build, etc)?

    For example, (and I'll try to keep it as PG as possible here), here are people who get sexually aroused by being urinated or defecated on. Why? Can this be considered a mental illness?))))))(

    SEXUALLY AROUSED BY BEING URINATED OR DEFECATED ON.
    You have a chip on your shoulder . Please don't pretend to be something , you are just a book keeper
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,721
    Hey, if that gets you aroused, go for it. For other people it's high heels, or heavy makeup, or submissive or dominant partners, or obedience, or having other people watch you. As long as it's done with a consenting adult, it's your choice.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,721
    If it causes sexual attraction it IS a fetish. You can have a redhead fetish, for example.

    Provided it is with another consenting adult, and they don't have other mental problems - then no. You seem to like women to be obedient and docile; you have talked about that quite a bit on this forum. Sounds like that's your fetish. That's fine too as long as the woman is OK with that.
     
  18. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    I just responded to the opening post , My dog does what the opening mentioned , but the insulting MODERATOR , WANTS YO INSULT ME , EVERY CHANCE HE HAVE . .
    As for your comment I am not saying to any body don't doe it, I just say my dog does the same way , and subconsciously I think we should be a little more refined
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,721
    Your dog poops on other dogs before having sex with them? Never seen a dog do that but I imagine there's one out there.

    Right. And some people are offended by your desire to force women into docile and obedient roles. But living in a society means tolerating other people if they are not doing any harm.
     
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,635
    No..MOST people do not view sex with the same dysfunctional disgust and shame that you obviously view it with. MOST people view sex as a beautiful and healthy expression of desire and even love when conducted consensually and with maximum sensitivity to the pleasure of the partner. So what screwed you up so bad that you hate your own sexuality like the plague? Stood up at the prom by Billy Bob the team quarterback? A germophobic repulsion by all things bodily and physical? Body dismorphic disorder? Just curious..
     
  21. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Do not be so obtuse. The point is that same-sex marriage is the best statistical guarantee of homosexual orientation. Your orientation is simply not a matter of public record available for study. Simple as that. Not being married having anything to do with your orientation is a strawman purely of your own invention. Same-sex marriage is an indicator of orientation, not a determinant.

    I really did not expect to have to explain this shockingly simple stuff to you. But I will no longer wonder why you have such trouble understanding the scientific method.
     
  22. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I assume you are making some sort of point, but I fail to see it. Your description is trivially true, possibly because advances from men (toward men or women) is inherently more dangerous, as men are typically stronger and more prone to sexual assault.
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,635
    Uh..No..Gay marriage is obviously not the best indication of gay orientation if so many gays don't even marry. It would exclude the majority of people with gay orientation. How can it possibly be representative of anything besides the number of gay people who want to marry? The best indication of gay orientation is simply asking someone what their orientation is. Any sampling based on that would by far more accurately represent the number of people of gay orientation in a given demographic.

    The study itself doesn't even make any claims about divorced parents causing gay orientation. All it's claiming is that there is a large percentage of danish gay people coming from divorced parents who marry. For all they know the vast majority of all gay unmarried people could come from stable undivorced parents. And who knows what an examination of the families of all unmarried heterosexuals would show? So obviously this can't be taken to be an indication of anything more than what it states: the choice to marry, NOT sexual orientation.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2013

Share This Page