Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dustin Bowen on December 26, 2011 at 2:34pm

Here is the definition of preference excerpted from wikipedia: In psychology, preferences could be conceived of as an individual’s attitude towards a set of objects, typically reflected in an explicit decision-making process (Lichtenstein & Slovic, 2006). This is not the sole definition of the term. I think you have assigned a personal connotation to the word and have chosen to base your entire interpretation of my response around this. Unfortunately, I think you have missed the point of that sentence entirely. When I made the claim that environmental stimuli may cause "indefinite shifts in sexual preference and behavior" I was referring to the fact that a persons own experiences may push them towards OR away from homosexuality. I am, however, very sorry that you had negative experiences with illogical and apparently nonscientific therapeutic processes.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Araina on July 9, 2011 at 4:55pm

It's both, as it always is.  But nurture aka environment tend to have a greater influence than genes on human behavior by far. I notice that many, not all, of  gays were abused as children.  This might set different sets of norms or sexual preference in the abused child.  Gender behavioral roles are for the most part learned. If a child is abused it really affects that child sexuality in the future.  It expresses itself in many ways.  I hate to refer to behavior as anything but biological because behavior=brain and the brain is what creates behavior.  The brain is a physical organ and subjected to the same influences as the body.  Prenatal environment can also influence a child's development.  Differences of the hormonal prenatal in environment can lead to physical changes in the body and in the brain. 

 

In reality we learn most of our behavior from the world around us. If there are stigmas and norms then you will get people behaving in a certain way being seen as different.  They might be different from the norm but the norm is subjective to the society.  In ancient Rome homosexuality, pedophilia, Polygamy, group sex, etc. were all acceptable.  People need to understand that evolution just is, it unfolds and there is always cause and there affect.  DNA is the foundation for making a organism.  The variations and expressions of the genes can be so amazing and diverse.  That is beautiful to me.  I think human sexuality is awesome and should be celebrated.  It is a way for people to connect with each other on an intimate situation.  Imagine a utopian world, and we'd all be having guilt free sex with everyone.  Pansexuality.  I think we are all born panasexuals but are pulled out of the womb and told to pick a side, girl or boy, then you are labeled with a gender role and to be with the opposite sex than you by society.  

 

We have developed the ability to enjoy sex because of the sensations it brings to us.  Physical pleasure that releases dopamine blah blah blah.  Anyway, we have sex because it feels good.  Now it's more about pleasure than procreation.  Who has sex just to procreate anymore other than Catholics?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on July 9, 2011 at 4:57pm

I think that it is both as well but I think for the vast majority of the homosexual population - it is primarily biological. But - there is a subset which involved sexual abuse when younger - but these are not the majority of the cases.

In fact, we have evidence from the genetic and biological components - i.e. amounts of the different neurotransmitters inside of the body.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Phil Byers on July 9, 2011 at 5:10pm

Sassan,

Have you any evidence to back up your assertion about there being a subset of people who were homosexual because of sexual abuse? I haven't found anything to suggest this and it appears to one of those unfounded myths that modern society could do without.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Phil Byers on July 9, 2011 at 5:25pm

"And note: I stated for the vast majority of cases it is almost purely biological."

Indeed you did and there is evidence to back up such statements, however the one about sexual abuse has no credible evidence that I can see.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on July 10, 2011 at 10:39am

As someone who practised for many years as a licensed specialist psychologist I would be extremely surprised to learn that the university you attended actually taught this nonsense unless it had a psychology department with an extremely poor record of educating competent psychology professionals.  I would not be in the least bit surprised to learn that you had misunderstood what your read or heard or that the program you took was not a program that is accredited for professional psychology licensing purposes.
OTOH, it is known that extreme stress can switch on genes or change how they are expressed (in both mothers and their progeny) so I suppose that what you contend is at least possible.  Even if it were, however, it does not seem to occur in the vast majority of cases.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on July 11, 2011 at 3:55am

As you said in the latter part of your statement, extreme stress can turn on genes in how they are expressed - but away from this fact - it has been demonstrated that through genetics - the brains of gay males tend to be more like the brains of females and the brain of lesbians tend to be more like the brains of males in what I believe was the size of the hypothalamus on the left side of the brain - I will now have to go find the exact notation in my text book - but again, this wasn't a major emphasis of the text or emphasized that this is fact - but rather that it is postulated through brain imaging studies and genetic comparisons - that the vast majority of the gay population it is more "automatic" through genes and in the very minority of the cases in which there was child molestation from the very young - these differences in the brain were not very apparent - there is nothing contradictory as postulations are always discussed in text.

Therefore, please do not try to put down my education or my text by calling it "nonsense", thanks. And it was in I believe my psychology human sexuality class rather than the aforementioned class - I will try to find the exact passages in my text shortly.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on July 10, 2011 at 10:20am

The scientific evidence does not support your conclusion that the post womb environment plays the biggest part in creating gay people, especially the male version. Statements from most major branches of mental health professionals state that there is no valid evidence that upbringing or aberrant parenting creates homosexuality.  The environmental argument is greater for females, but still a minor player in the overall scheme of things. 

Arguments that assert that homosexuality cannot be the result of genetics because it fails to result in adults who pass on their genes is arguing from ignorance of how genetics and evolution work.  Woman who produce homosexual boys are generally more fertile than average.  Societies that do not punish homosexuals are able to have more children when homosexual men are involved in caring for the children of others.  And so on.

The twin arguments that environment plays the only or largest part in creating homosexuality, and that there is nothing evolutionary or communally advantageous about the production of homosexuals,  are now almost exclusively sprouted by those with an emotional and/or religious reason for wishing this to be the case. 

We should go with the evidence, not with the self-serving assertions and twisted interpretations produced by prejudice and dogma.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on July 10, 2011 at 10:56am

One question if I may, how would biology explain situational sexual behavior and heteroflexibility?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kairan Nierde on July 10, 2011 at 11:29pm

Would you really say that a person who adopts homosexual behavior in a given situation has developed a homosexual orientation?  

 

What is heteroflexibility? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on July 11, 2011 at 2:17am

Probably not, but when genders are separated over a certain length of time, the sexual drive seem to "overpower" the original sexual orientation.

Heteroflexibility is the people who drift between sexual orientations, the prime example being girls who "go lesbian" in college (LUG=Lesbian until graduation) but are strictly straight before and after. A bit different example, I recall a gay captain in the military which had no problem in finding willing volunteers for the position of "field mattresses". 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin on July 10, 2011 at 9:31pm

Rosemary touching on the second paragraph itself;  would that be due to the comforting support a homosexual being would have on the female form as per say a dominating male?

Also are you stating in the third paragraph you would argue against the influence of a homosexual group as it preys on society as a whole, both lonely and or insecure males in a variety of age groups...I ask this as I know by talking with homosexuals some have admitted to this deviance.  As a man I would believe when we are going through our puberty for an example that the desire for sex could be directed for the sake of the pleasure.  This is why I believed this to be the reason this action may exist, although other reasons would apply.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 16
• Next ›
• Page