Fetishes (and attraction, in general)

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

  1. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    It clearly states that there was no scientific evidence found for a genetic cause and only surmises at the possibility for a genetic influence. And even "if the previous hypothesis were correct", it is not the whole story on sexual orientation, as desire is a precursor/component to orientation. My point is that you are holding that bit of conjecture up as refute of everything else stated in that paper.

    So where in your description is something other than the sexual/affectional attraction that the Bearman study found to be socialized?

    Those who marry tend to reside at the furthest homosexual end of the orientation spectrum. Promiscuity has been found to be determined by gender, regardless of orientation. IOW, men of any orientation are more promiscuous, while women of any orientation are more monogamous. If homosexuality were a legitimate feminization, we would expect promiscuity/monogamy to follow suit. Like I said, marriage is just a stable indicator. And assuming anything other than orientation may be environmentally influenced is a special pleading for orientation.

    Again, you obviously do not understand the scientific method. Correlates have been found, but no causes have been proven.

    No it is not. It is trivial that all children of a distant or absent father will be closer to the mother. Nothing about that situation necessitates favoritism nor any smothering/overbearing behavior.

    Yes. It is trivially true that both you and the religious are less objective about your respective "issues". I never said anything about being able to "weigh in" on an issue, only that your vested interest predisposes you to make a priori assumptions. Gays do have a political agenda, but that is beside the point that all people most personally effected by an issue are the most biased.

    That you do not seem capable of admitting this simple and scientifically verified fact smacks of self-serving justification.

    I have not assumed it "must be environmentally caused or even chosen", only that the science has not ruled it out. Again, just following the science. Like I said earlier, you seem to laboring under a dualist approach where it must be one or the other, either biology or environment. I make no such a priori assumption.

    And? Even by the person's own choice, it is a conversion. Do you doubt that such chosen conversions do happen?

    So are you saying that you dismiss choice in seeking out therapy to overcome homosexual feelings? Would you ridicule, pity, or otherwise marginalize someone who did exercise their own choice? Would you insist they must have been bisexual, regardless of what they said they felt?

    No, again, evidence of biological correlates, not biological causes. These correlates strongly point to epigenetics, which have been shown fairly easily influenced by environment and behavior.

    Seriously? How can I agree when I do not find the fraternal birth order effect a compelling argument for a strictly biological cause? Unlike you, I have not decided, a priori, what the cause may end up being. With sufficient evidence of a clear biological mechanism, I am happy to concede it cause. And if that should happen, the "disparaging" of gays due to biological malfunction is simply a fact of epigenetics, not the doing of some homophobic hate-group. And the choice of whether to correct that malfunction will be the individual's (and perhaps the parent's).

    Since homosexuality serves no evolutionary imperative, it could persist due to social contagion.

    Not one I made, so the ignorance must be a strawman of your own invention.

    If you remember, you were talking about some ideal future. I simply said that all adolescents feel awkward, embarrassed, and unsure of their identity and place in the world. Even if orientation were not a factor.

    PTSD, etc..

    Again, I would have to have intimate knowledge of your history. Everyone's history is unique, and even in the most seemingly equal environments, individuals will have different interactions and reactions.

    A strawman argument is when you invent a claim I never made, i.e. "exercise can change your sexual orientation". I was pointing out the general idea that epigenetics can be changed by behavior.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    I did not say "best indication of gay orientation". I said, "best statistical guarantee of homosexual orientation". You know, data not relying on self-reported feelings or possible selection bias.

    You seem to be making the claim that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with homosexual orientation. That is a bold claim which requires some support. Or perhaps you can explain why the difference in family factors between hetero and homosexual marriages exists? Do you just assume marriage in an "unnatural" state for any homosexual, and that the bad influence of family factors are what lead to that state?

    Or perhaps same-sex marriage should not be legal? You know, to keep gays from getting themselves into a situation influenced by an unstable childhood.

    But feel free to show me any study of "the vast majority of all gay unmarried people com[ing] from stable undivorced parents".
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    Freud was right!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    Say what exactly?

    "That a left-handed/blind/albino/dwarf person proposes that being left-handed/blind/albino/dwarf could be a case of "biology run amok" is rather strange ..." -?

    Come to think of it - the whole concept of "biology running amok" depends on taking for granted, as the norm a very specific idea of what "normal" is (that "normal" then being considered the baseline, and everything else an aberration). How justified it is to do, remains an issue to be resolved.

    Statistical averages certainly are not being considered normative; for if they were, then those with less than two eyes would be normal, and all those with two would be abnormal.

    But when a gay person proposes that their being gay could be the result of "biology run amok" - what a subtle and yet thorough self-rejection!
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    No I'm not. I'm a software engineer, and a damn good one. Although for the past few years I've been working as a technical writer.

    But unlike some of our members, I have a university degree so the range of subjects in which I have some knowledge is broader than theirs. And as I pointed out, I lived for ten years in a part of Los Angeles with a high percentage of gays and lesbians in its population. I've probably had more first-hand observation of this subject than the average person.

    I'm not sure that was the point that was intended. I think it was that if you see two people of the same sex married to each other, you can say with virtually 100% certainty that they must be homosexual. The only other indicator that comes close would be to see two people of the same sex having intercourse, but even then some straight people experiment so you'd probably need to see it a few times at fairly long intervals to be sure. Any other activity would not be quite as reliable an indicator as these. And besides, how often are you actually going to observe that activity?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    These days, trash-talking oneself is simply high camp.
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    That explains the global crisis then ...
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    That is not the same, since these do not involve behavioral choices and will power.

    Say Joe begins as a child, and appears above average in all areas of development. Later in adolescence, he reaches a cross-roads into adulthood and gets involved with a group of friends, who like to party. In the process of group adhesion and need for acceptance he develops a drug addiction. This is a new designer drug, so there is no time for a genetic excuse, since the drug is younger than Joe. In spite of this, he now has an almost instinctive behavior for the drug like it is innate to him? It must be genetics. Or is it conditioned behavior that makes use of external reinforcement, inner needs, brain chemicals and repetition, to generate a behavioral sub-routine. It is not something he can quit easy nor does he see anything wrong about it. Others are being judgmental based on an old fashion standard, right?

    Say culture elected a bunch of drug addicts to office; They call themselves the Party Party. And their agenda for votes does not see his addiction as a problem, but rather as a choice of his true nature innate at birth.He was destined for this due to genetics. It look so natural on him and even therapy does not change him. Once in, they decide to use the propaganda machine to fluff this up and attack anyone who says otherwise as a hate munger who is intolerant of diversity. As the propaganda takes hold others who would avoid these drugs due to the addictive nature of this behavior, now accept it as natural and they learn the sub-routine, with mothers preparing then as children. Would this make it more addiction appear or less?

    Say Joe wanted to marry a female addict, and the data says they will create children with lots of medical problems. Isn't it their right to marry and have children no matter what the out dated traditions say? Would the dumbing down of the education system, with propaganda, combined with revisionist history make this eventuality easier to achieve? We can say all the prominent people used drugs and were successful but had to hide it due intolerance which is why it is not in the old history books. Could this strategy work with other forms of addictive behavior to create the illusion of natural to the uncritical herd?
  11. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Maybe there is more than one causal factor. Did that ever occur to you wellwisher? Genetics very well could be one component...

    Both the addict's environment, genetics and biological tendency contribute to their addiction.[19] People with very severe personality disorders are more likely to become addicts.​

    Wiki for starters. There are plenty more references through google...
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Government data shows a higher than average rate of addiction within homosexual populations.

    This is from a liberal publication as linked below:

    Could one infer a logical connection between the two studies?
  13. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Don't know if your information is correct, but my inference would be that horrible people who are obscenely prejuduce may cause self esteem issues in some LBGT people resulting in a higher percentage of drug use.
  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    A fetish attraction could be looked at analogous to a chemical reaction, in that the stronger the potential, the stronger the attraction, with specificity based on the best fit at lowering the most potential. If we react a bunch of chemicals the final products are the most stable due to maximizing the lowering of the starting potential via specificity.

    The question is where does the potential come from for fetish attraction? Typically, a conscious potential is connected to a deficit. For example, the longer we go without food, the hungrier we get. Once you eat, the attraction for food will lessen.

    Fetish and its attraction has a connection to particular deficit potential. Something is creating a potential and the fetish attraction reflects the potential needed to fill in the hole. But since the fetish returns, each day, it does not do fill the need, properly.

    It would be like needing to eat due to increasing hunger. I finally eat some saw dust to fill my stomach. The bulk material in my stomach will help, but since there is no food value in the saw dust, the hunger returns, stronger, in a short time. What was really needed was caloric value not just chewing and swallowing useless bulk.

    A drug addict feels like crap in the morning and needs to do the drug again to fill in the hole in mood and body. Now he feels full. But the drug does not seal the hole, but is like sawdust, and only buys time until the hole appears again. Fetish is sawdust for a need, with the repetitive potential, due to sawdust in the stomach, the associated excitement.

    One may have a powerful executive who likes to be dominated by a mistress in bed. This is opposite to his life in business. The hole would appear to be due to lack of give and take balance in his life. She fills in the hole, but since he does not change his lifestyle in business, she is sawdust with the potential returning. The satisfaction of hunger, even with sawdust, does give a release.
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    I was going to circumvent this argument but I thought I would let it appear naturally for discussion.

    If you look at history, the homosexuals of today have more freedom and acceptance now than at any time. Who would have figure Gay marriage twenty years ago, but the social climate has gotten so much looser. This improvement has become possible due to the change within the mainstream acceptance and the force of government.

    This improvement in acceptance means the rate of addiction should have gone down from 50 years ago. If what you says is true the rates of addiction should have gone down of we compare. If not, that entire argument can be factored out. This is a disturbance in the person which is causing both states of mind. It can't even see the reality of social improvement.
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Actually quite analogous.

    A bigot might tell a left handed child "you cannot be left handed. You MUST be right handed or you will be punished/persecuted/failed/beaten." And they might be able to beat the child if he uses his left hand. They might be able to create so much fear within the child that he can suppress his natural instinct to use his left hand, and instead force himself to use his right hand. He would not, of course, do as well as he would have had he used his left hand, but he might be able to "fake it."

    Similarly, a conservative might tell someone "you cannot be gay. You MUST be straight or you will be punished/persecuted/jailed/killed." And if enough people say that, the person might ignore their natural instincts and express an unnatural love for someone they do not love; a false love, done out of fear of being harmed if they acted on their true love.

    In both cases they are living a lie. In both cases that lie might make bigots feel better. Personally, I feel no obligation to make bigots feel better.

    Yes. People who drink alcohol (arguably the most dangerous drug in the US) have a right to marry. Even people who smoke have a right to marry. Bigots who try to impose their values on others have tried (and failed) to ban such behaviors. They act out of fear; a fear that they themselves might be tempted to use alcohol (or tobacco.) Stronger-willed people simply accept that other people drink - then decide themselves what they wish to do.
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Any sexual attraction (for fetishes, for heterosexual women, for missionary-style-under-the-covers-in-the-dark sex) is only one part of a sexual relationship. The question is - is it part of a healthy overall relationship? If a top and a bottom have a fulfilling relationship that works for both of them, then it works for them - and to use your terminology, they are eating a healthy diet. If a straight man and a straight women have vanilla sex and cheat on each other and lie to each other, then it's not working. To use your analogy they are both eating sawdust. If either one of them found a better/more honest/more faithful partner within a more fetishy relationship, their life would be greatly improved by pursing that "healthy diet."
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Indeed. Before the 1960s (in the USA) all but the bravest few homosexuals did not reveal their sexuality to anyone outside a small circle of homosexual friends and perhaps one or two tolerant straight people. Not even to their parents and siblings.

    In the U.K. it was even worse. They prosecuted the "crime" of homosexuality. (I'm sure the British have one of their bizarre euphemisms for it.) In extreme cases they "cured" gay men by overwhelming their metabolism with hormones.

    But even in the U.S. today, a large percentage of the gay population are reluctant to "come out" unless they have an extremely supportive family or live in one of several cities with prominent gay neighborhoods. Being gay is still quite stressful, and people with high levels of stress are often desperate to try anything that will make them feel better, if only temporarily.

    There aren't very many gay people in the USA who feel exactly as safe, secure and serene as you and I do. Homophobia may be out of vogue but it's still rampant.

    I would estimate that the "progress" in the gay community has reached about the same level as the "progress" in the Afro-American community. Well not really: can you imagine a gay man running for President?

    Besides, it's not valid to compare rates of illegal drug use in 2013 with rates in 1963. The "counterculture" with their knee-jerk iconoclastic rejection of all their parents' values and beliefs was just forming. Way more than half of the Baby Boomers (b.1946-1964) were not even adolescents yet, and quite a few of them hadn't even been born. I was twenty and I only knew one person who smoked pot--excuse me, "reefers." Nobody used cocaine and most people had never heard of LSD or magic mushrooms. You had to know some musicians before you could be initiated into that segment of society. Or truck drivers, if you wanted amphetamine.

    The rate of illegal drug use among heterosexuals is enormously higher than it was fifty years ago, so it's hardly amazing that the rate among homosexuals is also higher. Regardless of the other variables in their lives.

    A very strong case can be made for the assertion that tobacco, alcohol and caffeine are the drugs that cause the most harm. Tobacco kills more of its users than any other widely popular drug. Alcohol comes in second because of drunk driving, but in addition it also fucks up many people's lives because their addiction is almost as difficult to break as tobacco. And don't get me started on caffeine, I've been a recovering junkie for my entire life, and the mood changes it caused have ruined my life at least three times.

    Yet we pander soft drinks containing caffeine to our children! What are these poor kids going to do when they get older and begin to genuinely run out of energy? Hard drugs, of course.

    Alcohol, tobacco and caffeine all have the unusual characteristic that each of them affects almost all people in almost the same way. Some may react more strongly than others, but except for degree, most of us feel the same way on an alcohol buzz, and the same is true of a nicotine or caffeine buzz. You can look at your drunk friends or your hyper-caffeinated friends and say with reasonable certainty, "Except for degree, that's exactly how I'll behave if I take that drug." The effects of tobacco are not so easy to observe because unlike the other two drugs it's a mood-leveler and smokers appear to be exceptionally normal after a fix.

    But the other drugs, no way. I've known people who felt absolutely nothing after diligently trying to get high on pot, acid, coke and/or shrooms. After taking enough to float a battleship they were still standing there saying, "When is this going to kick in?" I've also known people who ended up in the hospital after a merely normal, conservative dose.

    So those stronger-willed people had better be wise enough to understand that the recreational drugs of the late 1960s and onward work in different ways on different people.
  19. arauca Banned Banned

    Yea babe let it all hang out .
    Because of the so called self expression allowed in school and not enforcing discipline or norm , that is why the American student are about in 23 place
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2013
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    I'd say that because of conservative society's demonization of education (how many times have you heard the term "ivory tower intellectuals" being used as an insult?) children no longer see education as a desirable endeavor. They want to be like the tough gun-toting loners portrayed on TV. When is the last time you saw a valedictorian portrayed as the protagonist in a cop movie?

    If people were accepted as they were - gay, nerdy, quiet, bookworms, whatever - there would be a lot less pressure to drop out and fulfill societal stereotypes.
  21. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    When was the last time you saw a valedictorian cop, in real life?

    A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city. - http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

    In 2000 the New London, CT police department turned away a recruit for having an IQ above 125, under the argument that those with overly-high IQs will become bored and exhibit high turnover in the job. This policy has been challenged as discriminatory, but was upheld by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Job_performance
  22. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Funny this coming from you!
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    And why would you think that?

Share This Page