If a person has no instincts, but has patterns of behavior, does it mean that homosexuality is not innate, but acquired?
- Thread starter Olga
- Start date
Borscht.
Same array of factors that bring about shades of heterosexuality, but just toggled differently (in less frequent configurations). Exposure to quirky biochemical levels (hormones) in the womb, genetics, environmental variables, etc. I recall an article by a man who was a gay activist during the 1960s slash 1970s, who seemed miffed that "kids" nowadays are free to jump around on a spectrum (fluid), whereas back in his day he was politically confined to strict orientation and insisting that everything was 100% inherent, because that was the best POV for fighting persecution and advancing the cause. Now that the battle is arguably won (at least on paper), that sacrificial requirement can be eased up, and additionally there's assistance from social science circles via a postmodern framing of the situation: "Each person has their own unique experience of their sexuality, and each person likes a different label or set of labels for putting their sexuality and sexual orientation into words. (Some people even prefer no label at all)."
_
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I go with sneaky fucker syndrome
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
False desires. False restrictions, which produce compulsions and perversions.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Just a hypothesis Olga, nothing concrete. The general idea is this. In a tribe of early humans you have the alpha male or alpha male types. Then you have a hierarchy based on strength, aggression, speed, hunting and fighting skills, age and experience. Old alpha's get phased young males fight their way to the top.
What of the non alpha males? Not very tough, aggressive and not the best hunters in fact it is hardly worth taking them on hunts, leave them behind to look after the women.
Men recognize these traits in men, even very young children. They act like girls, cry in fights and are rubbish at football, they are excluded, bullied.
The other thing is they are no threat, they are not a competitor regarding females, or are they?
Say a male has more feminine qualities but still would like to pass his genes on?
Is attracted to females maybe to males too perhaps?
Guys go off hunting or something else macho with his pals whilst the feminine weakling waves him off.
Then he goes back to the harem and gets friendly with ladies.
The sneaky fucker.
Last edited:
HonestJoe
Registered Member
Everyone has instincts and homosexuality (or heterosexuality) don't describe patterns of behaviour, they describe thoughts and feelings. If someone is only attracted to people of the opposite sex, they're heterosexual and if they're only attracted to people of the same sex, they're homosexual. Whether they want and are able to act on those attractions or not is irrelevant to their intrinsic sexuality.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Eh! What about mine? This is not casual musings, this is John Maynard Smith!
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Dunno. I have a hard time with tying such complex human aesthetics and behaviors and bonding with specific allelic frequencies in a population. I think we're mostly wired to enjoy fleshy bonding with others and then a lot of particular choices are then socially mediated. Human behavior is extremely malleable. It only looks rigid where the culture has rigid compartments.
Olga:
What do actually mean by "instincts", anyway? Can you give us some examples?
Also, can you identify at least one person who has no instincts?
Where did you get the idea that some people can have no instincts?
What do actually mean by "instincts", anyway? Can you give us some examples?
Also, can you identify at least one person who has no instincts?
Homosexuality is part of the normal range of human range of sexual preferences. It is "caused" in the same way that all sexual preferences are "caused", presumably: genetics, environment, social factors, etc.
Pinball1970:
I don't see what your "sneaky fuckers" hypothesis has to do with homosexuality. It seems to me that there are all kinds of problems with it.
All this stuff about "acting like girls" is also highly problematic, since it presumes a whole bunch of unspoken stereotypes about how girls are "supposed" to act. Also, you know that girls can be gay, too, right?
It doesn't make much sense.
You're not suggesting that homosexual men prey on women while pretending to be heterosexual, in order to sire children, are you?
I don't see what your "sneaky fuckers" hypothesis has to do with homosexuality. It seems to me that there are all kinds of problems with it.
Your assertion seems to be that homosexual men can't be "alpha males". Do you think that's true?
Again, your assertion seems to be that homosexual men are "rubbish at football". But is that true? For cultural reasons, very few footballers come out as gay, even in our modern, supposedly "enlightened" times. But that doesn't mean there are no gay footballers.
All this stuff about "acting like girls" is also highly problematic, since it presumes a whole bunch of unspoken stereotypes about how girls are "supposed" to act. Also, you know that girls can be gay, too, right?
If they are not bisexual and are attracted to women, then men are not homosexual.
Is it your hypothesis that bisexuality preceded homosexuality, then?
Why would a homosexual man want to "get friendly [in the sense of having sexual intercourse] with ladies"?
It doesn't make much sense.
You're not suggesting that homosexual men prey on women while pretending to be heterosexual, in order to sire children, are you?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
It's not mine. Dawkins discussed it (somewhere) but John Maynard Smith coined the term.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
In essence yes. Bisexuality seems to be the driver from what I have read.
It is probably considered fringe by the scientific community.
I'll see if I can get something more concrete as a source.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
No.
It would be difficult to explain all the permutations in the scenario.
Also we would have to explain biologically what makes a gay man gay and I don't think anyone has done that to date.
Джеймс, в учебниках написано, что у людей вообще нет инстинктов. Инстинкт - это жёстко заданная, неизменная программа поведения. У человека есть биологически обусловленные склонности, которые могут проявляться в определённых условиях.
Животное не выбирает, хочет ли оно размножаться, или нет. Им руководит инстинкт. Посмотрите хотя бы на своих домашних животных - может ли ваша кошка не орать во время течки, и не бежать искать кота? Может ли ваш кобель равнодушно пройти мимо течной суки? Нет, они не могут этого сделать, ими руководят инстинкты. Может ли человек отказаться от секса и стать монахом? Да, может. Может ли человек не хотеть иметь детей, и стать чайлдфри? Да, может. Может ли человек не хотеть секса с определённым человеком? Да, может. Т.е., инстинктов, как у других животных, у человека нет.
Исходя из всего этого, у человека нет врождённой гомосексуальности, и как вы сами сказали, его сексуальные склонности формируются средой.
Но я понимаю, что на Западе эта тема сейчас табуирована. Если вы начнёте говорить, что гомосексуализм - это личные предпочтения, а не врождённое свойство, вас камнями закидают. Это и не удивительно, учитывая, что западным миром сейчас правят друзья Эпштейна. Хотя, я не склонна что-либо запрещать людям, и как то ограничивать их свободу самовыражаться, если это не вредит другим. Но всё же лучше помнить слова одного из апостолов: "всё мне можно, но не всё полезно".
Не знаю как на Западе, а у нас в колониях, где сидят заключённые, есть такая категория, как так называемые "петухи". Это заключённые, которых принудили стать пассивными гомосексуалистами. Чаще всего ими становятся педофилы, насильники, и продавцы наркотиков. Педофилы и насильники - практически всегда. И вот вопрос: мужчины, которые на воле были гетеросексуальными, в колонии пользуются услугами этих "петухов". Они кто в этом случае: бисексуалы, или активные гомосексуалисты?
This issue of nature versus nurture arguably applies to much of LGBT+ territory (not just gay/lesbian). Venturing into that expansion...
The case of David Reimer was eventually touted as an example of a boy who "clearly" had an innate orientation to be a boy, even after a circumcision mishap led to surgery and hormone therapy that transformed him physically into a girl. Thereby seemingly debunking the theory that psychologist John Money advocated, that gender identity rested almost entirely in the territory of social learning (David's brother served as a control).
However, it took decades for the medical community to realize that Money had lied or exaggerated about the "successful" results of David's sexual transition, and during that time his fabrications had shaped the policy of sexual reassignment of infants (which apparently accepted that gender identity preference was indeed caused by environmental factors).
Adding further confusion is biographer John Colapinto's later claim that John Money coerced David and his brother into performing sexual positions during appointment sessions. Thus, this could cast a degree of doubt on even the conclusion that Money's theory was incorrect or at least suspect. Which is to say, some of David's intense feelings of depression from being a girl could have arisen from those disturbing encounters in Money's clinical office. In addition to being bullied by classmates for having tomboy characteristics.
Bottom line is that the binary battle over nature versus nurture (absolutely one or the other) is never going to be resolved in that context. The responsible position for a human research community to take is that it is an erratic combination of both, with the statistical "average person" potentially sported in such circles contingently deviating from an idealistically depicted balance when it comes to the anomalies of distinct individuals in the real world.
Not as politically taboo as it may have once been. Which is to say, decades ago there was arguably moral pressure to assert that gay/lesbian orientation was 100% biological in origin[1] and to obscure the occurrence of sexual fluidity among those who identified strictly as homosexual. This was to enhance the success of agenda or reform. But now that much legislation has been won on paper, there's a more relaxed attitude about admitting multiple "causes". And the postmodern-like refinements (flexibility) being added to the LGBT+ gradient is mind-boggling. Even asexuality has acquired more sub-categories and varying hues than I could ever keep track of or remember. Doubtless, one could encounter old-timers still locked into past agitprop ("It's all pre-ordained, and I'm an iron-clad, never deviating ___!"), but that ship has sailed for the more liberal and creatively innovative youth.
- - - footnote - - -
[1] That excludes experimental behaviors and those born in desperate circumstances, as illustrated by unique situations like prisons, seeking new sexual or hedonistic thrills, etc.
_
Last edited:
HonestJoe
Registered Member
Olga
You are wrong about humans not having instincts. We are capable of making intelligent decisions to (try to) ignore our instincts but we still have them. Plenty of things we do are the direct result of instinct, such as jumping at a loud noise, fear of certain animals (snakes, insects, dogs etc.), eating too much tasty but unhealthy food, or physical responses in the presence of someone we're sexually attracted to (regardless of whether we can or should act on them).
Other animals with a reasonable level of intelligence can also be trained to ignore their instincts to an extent, like dogs or horses. They still have those instincts, they're just convinced to resist them.
You are wrong about humans not having instincts. We are capable of making intelligent decisions to (try to) ignore our instincts but we still have them. Plenty of things we do are the direct result of instinct, such as jumping at a loud noise, fear of certain animals (snakes, insects, dogs etc.), eating too much tasty but unhealthy food, or physical responses in the presence of someone we're sexually attracted to (regardless of whether we can or should act on them).
Other animals with a reasonable level of intelligence can also be trained to ignore their instincts to an extent, like dogs or horses. They still have those instincts, they're just convinced to resist them.