Sexual preference..

[Tubey]

Provided something isn't offensive, it's fine.

How about this one - heterosexuality is obviously the normal genetic set-up for humans. Anything other than that is a biological abnormality.

That sounds, on the fact of it, homophobic. But it's obviously not - the "default" setting for humans to procreate is heterosexuality.

The problem is that people will equate that to "morally wrong" rather than "genetical suboptimal". Strangely, I can't actually think of a way to put it in a "science" way that makes it homosexuality sound OK, because if you're looking at it in a coldly scientific light, it's the "wrong" sexuality.

Instead of the question being "Is is nature or nurture?", the bigger question is "Why does anybody give the slightest toss either way?" - if someone is gay, then they're gay. For me, it's no more a factor than someone having dark hair, or long fingers, or they can roll their tongue etc.

Religious nonsense has a lot to answer for in terms of promoting intolerance based on stupid things IMO.

 

[Dithering Dougie]

I prefer it to not having it to be honest..

 

[Kurt.]

How about this one - heterosexuality is obviously the normal genetic set-up for humans. Anything other than that is a biological abnormality.

That sounds, on the fact of it, homophobic. But it's obviously not - the "default" setting for humans to procreate is heterosexuality.

The problem is that people will equate that to "morally wrong" rather than "genetical suboptimal". Strangely, I can't actually think of a way to put it in a "science" way that makes it homosexuality sound OK, because if you're looking at it in a coldly scientific light, it's the "wrong" sexuality.

Instead of the question being "Is is nature or nurture?", the bigger question is "Why does anybody give the slightest toss either way?" - if someone is gay, then they're gay. For me, it's no more a factor than someone having dark hair, or long fingers, or they can roll their tongue etc.

Religious nonsense has a lot to answer for in terms of promoting intolerance based on stupid things IMO.

State on you lad just copying what I said.

 

[Tubey]

State on you lad just copying what I said.

Aren't you Welsh though?

You should be glad a mighty English person said the same thing - now the point has relevance you see.

 

[Kurt.]

Aren't you Welsh though?

You should be glad a mighty English person said the same thing - now the point has relevance you see.

Top 1% of relevance on GOT I believe

 

[Groucho]

I vaguely recall that homosexuality has been observed in species other than humans. There's a whole Wikipedia article on the subject.

If it's observed in the natural world, perhaps some individuals (and animals) are hard wired that way.

What I mean is (and I'm a heterosexual man), is that perhaps it's more 'natural' than we think.

 

[Librarian]

Hardwired into the person obviously, but I think it's to various extents - indeed, instead of concrete definitions, I think sexuality is basically on a sliding scale and no one person is the same as another. I think some people do choose to label themselves as gay when not actually 100% gay, and similarly some label themselves as straight when they're not 100% straight.

Hot potato this one, Jaysus, but I'll have a juggle, I'm with you on the sliding scale but not the hardwired part. I mean, some people like feet FFS and no one suggests that that is hard wired. There are all sorts of sexual preferences, turn-on's that couldn't really be hardwired. Some lads like their arses smacked and likely developed a taste for it outside the womb I reckon. Not that it matters, we all like combinations of dirtiness we wouldn't tell our own mothers about. Maybe some egghead will find the sexual preference gene but I doubt it. I read somewhere that some study showed identical twins didn't have an increased likelihood of sharing sexual preference. I mean, identical twins would both have the same orientation if it were genetic, they'd have to. I didn't conduct that research myself and I did little checking on it's validity but it does sound about right. Even brothers should have increased likelihood and anyway, wouldn't a gay gene be self eradicating, over time like?

I reckon we form a lot of our traits by the age of 7-10 when we start socializing. By the time the brain is fully formed we can't remember why we think the things we do. Some go on to prefer blonds, brunettes, redheads, some want to be led by the collar on all fours with a plastic flute up their pipe. We all take up different positions and it's important that we do because humans are complex social creatures and society wouldn't sustain itself without variety. There's not a whole lot of choice involved but we need a scale of things and that can only take place by comparison, that happens socially - outside of the womb.

For my part, I wish I was 10 again when I didn't give a balls about it either way.

 

[Tubey]

Hot potato this one, Jaysus, but I'll have a juggle, I'm with you on the sliding scale but not the hardwired part. I mean, some people like feet FFS and no one suggests that that is hard wired. There are all sorts of sexual preferences, turn-on's that couldn't really be hardwired. Some lads like their arses smacked and likely developed a taste for it outside the womb I reckon. Not that it matters, we all like combinations of dirtiness we wouldn't tell our own mothers about. Maybe some egghead will find the sexual preference gene but I doubt it. I read somewhere that some study showed identical twins didn't have an increased likelihood of sharing sexual preference. I mean, identical twins would both have the same orientation if it were genetic, they'd have to. I didn't conduct that research myself and I did little checking on it's validity but it does sound about right. Even brothers should have increased likelihood and anyway, wouldn't a gay gene be self eradicating, over time like?

I reckon we form a lot of our traits by the age of 7-10 when we start socializing. By the time the brain is fully formed we can't remember why we think the things we do. Some go on to prefer blonds, brunettes, redheads, some want to be led by the collar on all fours with a plastic flute up their pipe. We all take up different positions and it's important that we do because humans are complex social creatures and society wouldn't sustain itself without variety. There's not a whole lot of choice involved but we need a scale of things and that can only take place by comparison, that happens socially - outside of the womb.

For my part, I wish I was 10 again when I didn't give a balls about it either way.

I think sexuality is different to sexual preferences such as BDSM and so on, which obviously are choices and, for many, are things they develop an interest in gradually. There isn't much difference between being into BDSM and being into football, for example, in terms of how the interest is formed. BDSM probably hurts less like.

I didn't think that was what this thread was about though. It's the core sexual attraction/compulsion towards a certain gender, and in terms of science that is simply male or female - everything after that, whether bisexual, ambisexual, polysexual, asexual, roflsexual and so on, are built on top of that core.

For me, that isn't a choice; it's innate. Every bit as much as what hand you write with or what foot you kick with.

 

[Librarian]

I vaguely recall that homosexuality has been observed in species other than humans. There's a whole Wikipedia article on the subject.

If it's observed in the natural world, perhaps some individuals (and animals) are hard wired that way.

What I mean is (and I'm a heterosexual man), is that perhaps it's more 'natural' than we think.

Lots of other animals are social too, so I don't see why that supports a genetic theory. I think we are more comfortable with a genetic or hard-wired answer because it avoids 'blame'. but yeah I agree it's all perfectly natural either way and there is little choice involved, certainly very little choice in my own behavior anyway when I think of some of the shameful shyte I have carried on with in pursuit of 'IT'.

 

[Tubey]

P.S. I don't think it's a "gay gene" as such; it won't be something that's passed on. It'll be a cognitive thing that has a chance of happening in the development of the brain in utero.

 

[DualityNSNO]

Take yer pick....

 

[chicoazul]

I think you have to put it in simple terms.

After Saturday's game say you were out and there was John Stones and you bought him a drink and got on well and then you ended up back at his for a night cap as you were getting on so well and he came down stairs in a silk robe and it slipped open to reveal a fine penis can any man stand before me and honestly say they would not at least engage in a session of heavy petting?

Mods: \thread.

 

[Librarian]

I think sexuality is different to sexual preferences such as BDSM and so on, which obviously are choices and, for many, are things they develop an interest in gradually. There isn't much difference between being into BDSM and being into football, for example, in terms of how the interest is formed. BDSM probably hurts less like.

I didn't think that was what this thread was about though. It's the core sexual attraction/compulsion towards a certain gender, and in terms of science that is simply male or female - everything after that, whether bisexual, ambisexual, polysexual, asexual, roflsexual and so on, are built on top of that core.

For me, that isn't a choice; it's innate. Every bit as much as what hand you write with or what foot you kick with.

It should be easy to prove if it's genetic though, identical twins have the exact same genes and therefore by definition would have to share the same orientation. There would be an increased likelihood in families and so on. I don't reckon there is much choice going on and maybe some pre-disposal.

I'm just supposing and I know little about it so it's obviously more complex that that.

 

[DualityNSNO]

I think you have to put it in simple terms.

After Saturday's game say you were out and there was John Stones and you bought him a drink and got on well and then you ended up back at his for a night cap as you were getting on so well and he came down stairs in a silk robe and it slipped open to reveal a fine penis can any man stand before me and honestly say they would not at least engage in a session of heavy petting?

Mods: \thread.

I won't.

He's not my type.

Besic though...

 

[Librarian]

P.S. I don't think it's a "gay gene" as such; it won't be something that's passed on. It'll be a cognitive thing that has a chance of happening in the development of the brain in utero.

Yeah, that's my fairly uninformed guess.