Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Discussions about constructed worlds, cultures and any topics related to constructed societies.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6379
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by eldin raigmore » 06 Mar 2014 23:36

Since this thread has so thoroughly been hijacked from my original question, I'm renaming it.
Edit: Original topic title restored by Aszev. This thread might be derailed, but the title is still reasonably valid.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 11 Mar 2014 22:05, edited 1 time in total.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1647
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 18:37

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Salmoneus » 07 Mar 2014 00:49

Obviously different species may have different sexual preferences from humans. Does that need saying? For instance, if your species are giant ants, the overwhelming majority of them may be entirely asexual. I'm really not sure what the point of the post is, since the questions you answer are overwhelmingly obvious: no, alien species need not be identical to humans.
I also don't understand what you're attempting to imply by framing homosexuality in terms of 'efficient or 'inefficient' preferences, or 'effective' or 'ineffective' preferences.

And I think you're probably mistaken, or at the very least incautious, in assuming that sexual preferences have anything to do with the sex of individuals. As I said in the other thread, sex is a cultural phenomenon, which in this case means that it doesn't turn up until the higher mental functions arrive - of course, after that point, it's probably possible for conscious classifications to influence subconscious preference, but I think it makes more sense to start from the point of view of biology being the result primarily of biology. And on an instinctual level, sexual responses cannot be to sex, or any other category, but only to stimuli... which is to say that the underlying preferences are probably for traits, not for identities. Although, yes, later on the mental stuff kicks in, both by adding identities as new traits to be attracted to, and by adding other more complex behaviour traits to be attracted to.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6379
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: People who don't know math argue with Sal

Post by eldin raigmore » 07 Mar 2014 01:47

Since some of what I originally replied to Sal may have sparked the hijacking of this thread, I've decided to remove this post.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 11 Mar 2014 22:07, edited 1 time in total.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1647
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 18:37

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Salmoneus » 07 Mar 2014 03:29

eldin raigmore wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:Obviously different species may have different sexual preferences from humans. Does that need saying? For instance, if your species are giant ants, the overwhelming majority of them may be entirely asexual. I'm really not sure what the point of the post is, since the questions you answer are overwhelmingly obvious: no, alien species need not be identical to humans.
By making my post consist of questions, I may not have expressed what kind of reply I was looking forward to. Also, I hadn't thought of the "giant ants".
I really want to know if anyone has, or has heard of, a conculture consisting of a conspecies having one of those "systems" -- both sexes less strongly hetero than humans, both sexes more strongly hetero than humans, males less strongly but females more strongly, or males more strongly but females less strongly.
Of course people have made species like that. Three examples of my own: my diophel in a state of nature live relatively sex-segregated lives, and use same-sex sexual activity for bonding purposes, so they've presumably evolved to be 'attracted' to one another more than humans (though I don't believe I felt this was important enough to mention in my write-up for them); my ilwehik (described long-ago, don't believe there's an account online atm) have ubiquitous monogamous female-female romantic and sexual pairings (males are non-sapient and access to them is strictly controlled); my falarandru (biology description just posted, although behavioural description yet to come) have ubiquitous male-male sexual activity in order to help establish dominance hierarchies and political alliances, whereas mature females are mostly attracted to males (however, young females are indistinguishable from young males, behaviourally as well as physically, so there is a period of same-sex female attraction, and I imagine that for a minority of individuals this may continue into maturity).
Checking my older notes, I've noted male-male activity as common for the barsillat but not female-female, but I'm not sure whether desire is part of that. And I've noted female-female activity among the ieed (ieed males try to avoid ALL sex). In both cases, though, it's possible this may be revised when I write them up properly.
Or, if no-one has such a conspecies or knows of such a conspecies, does anyone think it would be worthwhile to create such a conspecies, and a culture for them?
Not just to tick off your checkbox, no. But I think a better question would be why you'd intentionally insist on making a species exactly like humans in terms of sexuality.
Salmoneus wrote:I also don't understand what you're attempting to imply by framing homosexuality in terms of 'efficient or 'inefficient' preferences, or 'effective' or 'ineffective' preferences.
It isn't the preferences themselves which I am hypothesizing might be more or less effective; it's the processes which produce those preferences.
That doesn't make sense unless there's a 'right' outcome. If there's no right outcome, no process is more or less effective - the outcome just is what it is, and the process is 100% effective at producing the outcome that is produced.
For most of any species' history -- indeed, for all of most species' history -- whatever preference would lead to procreation would be selected for, and whatever preference wouldn't lead to procreation, would be selected against, if it stood in the way of the other preference.
So, among plenty of candidate-partners of both sexes, a preference for the opposite sex would never be selected against and might be selected for; but, a preference for the same sex, even when among plenty of candidate-partners of both sexes, would never be selected in favor of, and might be selected against.
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense at best, and an outmoded nonsense invented to discredit homosexuals at worst.
What is selected for is a package of traits that leads to the reproduction of the genes - that doesn't mean an individual having lots of children themselves. Again, consider as an extreme case ants: most ants do not personally procreate. Yet that doesn't mean that evolutionary processes have somehow been 95% (or whatever) ineffective for ants. No, it's just that ants are highly social, and in highly social animals it often makes sense for there to be divisions of labour, including of reproduction.

Homosexuality is not just a 'mistake' (or at least there's no evidence that it is just a mistake). Homosexual activity can serve many evolutionary purposes. Even exclusive homosexual activity in some individuals can help their genes (via non-homosexual relatives) prosper in some cases. This is presumably why homosexual activity is so universal among higher animals. It's entirely wrongheaded to ascribe it simply to people turning out wrong because ineffective processes have failed to make the evolutionarily ideal person.[Of course, biological 'mistakes' may be 'the reason' in some cases, or even all of them, but it's silly and offensive to assume that.]

This all also assumes, of course, that attraction is purely a matter of genes and biology, which so far as I'm aware there's no reason to think is the case (there have been genetic and biological correlates of sexuality found, iirc, but nothing conclusive).
Maybe I shouldn't have used the terms "efficient" and "inefficient". I think "more or less effective" is still fine, though.
But the process, whatever it is, that causes males to prefer females and vice-versa, is obviously not perfect; and supposedly there might be a species where it was even less perfect, perhaps because of lighter selective pressure; and/or, a species where it is much closer to perfect, perhaps because of much stronger selective pressure.
If anything, I'd expect species facing 'stronger selective pressures' to have MORE homosexuality, as the luxury of your own children becomes less important than the necessity of there being SOME offspring to your family. [A society where 9/10 adults are absolutely homosexual is a society with ten times more parents for every child... which may not be great for explosive growth in a rich environment, but is great for survival of the species]
Salmoneus wrote:And I think you're probably mistaken, or at the very least incautious, in assuming that sexual preferences have anything to do with the sex of individuals. As I said in the other thread, sex is a cultural phenomenon, which in this case means that it doesn't turn up until the higher mental functions arrive - of course, after that point, it's probably possible for conscious classifications to influence subconscious preference, but I think it makes more sense to start from the point of view of biology being the result primarily of biology. And on an instinctual level, sexual responses cannot be to sex, or any other category, but only to stimuli... which is to say that the underlying preferences are probably for traits, not for identities. Although, yes, later on the mental stuff kicks in, both by adding identities as new traits to be attracted to, and by adding other more complex behaviour traits to be attracted to.
I think it is easy to establish and has been firmly established that an individual's biological sex is the main influence on their sexual preference. I do not see any need for caution in saying so.
That's not what I meant. [Though I do refer you to my earlier comments on the problems of the idea of 'biological sex' as a discrete thing]. I meant the sex of the one you're attracted to.
What I meant was that you're talking about individuals being attracted to one sex or another - but working out what sex someone is takes place on a higher level of thought than sexual attraction does (insects with barely any brain at all can be attracted to things, with very little reflection on social categorisations. Hell, you don't even have to go that far - look at what male dogs will try to have sex with! The traits a male dog finds attractive are often very broad, and are frequently possessed not only by female dogs but by female cats, sheep, humans, male dogs, cats, sheep, humans, and indeed sometimes inanimate objects). The body is not attracted to identities, it's attracted to traits. This is why sometimes, for instance, straight men will find themselves strangely turned on by a man who is very effeminate, and, contrariwise, why they are turned off by women who appear very masculine: what attracts or repels them physically isn't the person's identity as a man or as a woman but their stereotypically 'male' or 'female' traits.
Of course, human minds are very powerful. So in societies with strong heteronormative expectations, like ours, someone's identity can itself become a trait that attracts or repels us. [And traits can be combined into metatraits that can attract or repel - for instance, some bisexual people might like feminine women and masculine men, whereas other may, say, like masculine women and feminine men - in each case, what is an attractive trait is one becomes unattractive with another thanks to the interaction with a second trait]

Serena
sinic
sinic
Posts: 275
Joined: 26 Sep 2013 14:58

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Serena » 07 Mar 2014 14:40

eldin raigmore wrote:Most people in our species (I've heard 98% to 99% --- I don't know the true figure) prefer the opposite sex, when both sexes are available [...] I think it is easy to establish and has been firmly established that an individual's biological sex is the main influence on their sexual preference. I do not see any need for caution in saying so.
This is just ridiculous. Our biological sex doesn't influence in any way our preference.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1647
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 18:37

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Salmoneus » 07 Mar 2014 15:37

Serena wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:Most people in our species (I've heard 98% to 99% --- I don't know the true figure) prefer the opposite sex, when both sexes are available [...] I think it is easy to establish and has been firmly established that an individual's biological sex is the main influence on their sexual preference. I do not see any need for caution in saying so.
This is just ridiculous. Our biological sex doesn't influence in any way our preference.
This seems very unlikely to be true, I'm afraid. The overwhelming tendency toward heterosexuality really doesn't look like just being a coincidence, or a product solely of social conventions. I've heard that apparently there's some evidence that sexuality among women is more fluid and more subject to social and environmental factors (with female arousal being more linked to contextual cues and cognitive processes), but I don't know to what extent that's true; in any case, I don't think anyone's seriously suggested that there isn't a strong relationships between being male and being attracted to women, and this seems almost certainly to be at least in large part due to direct pre-social factors. Supporting this view, almost all species of any degree of complexity at all show predominantly heterosexual behaviour, even those with very little in the way of social conventions.

So yes, I'm afraid evidence suggests that what sex you are does influence what you're attracted to.

User avatar
Thakowsaizmu
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3821
Joined: 13 Aug 2010 17:57
Contact:

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Thakowsaizmu » 07 Mar 2014 17:22

Serena wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:Most people in our species (I've heard 98% to 99% --- I don't know the true figure) prefer the opposite sex, when both sexes are available [...] I think it is easy to establish and has been firmly established that an individual's biological sex is the main influence on their sexual preference. I do not see any need for caution in saying so.
This is just ridiculous. Our biological sex doesn't influence in any way our preference.
This is definitely not the thread to even attempt to explain this.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1647
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 18:37

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Salmoneus » 07 Mar 2014 18:02

Apologies - did I break some sort of forum rule?

Serena
sinic
sinic
Posts: 275
Joined: 26 Sep 2013 14:58

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Serena » 07 Mar 2014 18:33

Salmoneus wrote:This seems very unlikely to be true, I'm afraid. The overwhelming tendency toward heterosexuality really doesn't look like just being a coincidence, or a product solely of social conventions. I've heard that apparently there's some evidence that sexuality among women is more fluid and more subject to social and environmental factors (with female arousal being more linked to contextual cues and cognitive processes), but I don't know to what extent that's true; in any case, I don't think anyone's seriously suggested that there isn't a strong relationships between being male and being attracted to women, and this seems almost certainly to be at least in large part due to direct pre-social factors. Supporting this view, almost all species of any degree of complexity at all show predominantly heterosexual behaviour, even those with very little in the way of social conventions.

So yes, I'm afraid evidence suggests that what sex you are does influence what you're attracted to.
Now ask yourself: is there really an overwhelming tendency toward heterosexuality? Kids between 3 and 9 years tend to bond "romantically" with girls and boys exactly the same way, but as soon as the get in contact with our heteronormative entertaining content (books, movies, internet) they immediately start heading towards the so-called tendency towards heterosexuality.

I grew up in an italian family with a devoutly christian father and a jewish mother and I am sure I don't need to describe you how "homosexuality" wasn't even a word in my childhood.

I remember that a kid in my class once called me a 'lesbian' (You know, male kids nowadays know stuff about sex - and know sex-based jokes - way before they should, and we girls are so unaware...). I asked him what he meant and he briefly explained me that a lesbian is a girl who kisses another girl.

I, who didn't absolutely know what he meant with 'kissing', immediately linked the idea of 'kiss' with kissing cheeks or stuff like that, which kids obviously tend to do with their own sex. I was like "what? am I not supposed to kiss girls...? If a lesbian is a girl who kisses girls then I must be a lesbian"

If you treat all the primary schools of the world as a small society and kids as individuals - according to the Law of large numbers - you will get that (roughly) 50% of the kids mainly bonds with females and 50% of them mainly bonds with males, regardless of their biological sex.

You may suggest that I am just a biased individual who says this because she belongs to the 2% who doesn't overwhelmingly tend to the opposite sex - to use your words...
You may even suggest that 10 years ago I spoke like I did because I was already fated to be the way I am.
You may also suggest that what I told the kid back then wouldn't have applied to a girl who now belongs to the 98%.

Nope.

10 years later and two girlfriends later I can assure you that I absolutely do not act the same way I used to do. When I turned 10 I started getting influenced by pop culture, watching Disney Channel, reading love novels, playing sexist violent videogames and listening to kpop... I started getting influenced by heteronormative content (Well, listening to kpop isn't exactly heteronormative, but... that's another matter). I started acting just like a teenager and, except for the issue of liking girls, I was perfectly normal.

If during my entire adolescency I hadn't been exposed to heteronormative content - which usually consists of half-naked sexy women - I wouldn't have been the way I am. I have become like this because of it.

Let's pretend that the same (Exactly the same) 7-years-old me left Italy and lived without Disney Channel idols who wiggle their asses on TV. Would I be the way I am? No, I would probably be a sedulous housewife with a devoutely christian husband.

Homosexuality is not an exception to an overwhelming tendency, but rather one of the two options that this society gives you.

A different society would offer different options and the data that eldin raigmore suggested (98% vs 2%) would be different as well. It's just ridiculous to even think that humans could have a fixed percentage of tendency to heterosexuality that doesn't relate with our social rules.
Last edited by Serena on 07 Mar 2014 20:55, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7201
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 18:48
Contact:

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Micamo » 07 Mar 2014 20:32

Serena wrote:Let's pretend that the same (Exactly the same) 7-years-old me left Italy and lived without Disney idols who wiggle their asses on TV. Would I be the way I am? No, I would probably be a sedulous housewife with a devoutely christian husband.
Whuh?
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter

User avatar
Chagen
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3995
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 04:14
Location: Texas

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Chagen » 07 Mar 2014 21:27

Serena wrote:
Now ask yourself: is there really an overwhelming tendency toward heterosexuality? Kids between 3 and 9 years tend to bond "romantically" with girls and boys exactly the same way, but as soon as the get in contact with our heteronormative entertaining content (books, movies, internet) they immediately start heading towards the so-called tendency towards heterosexuality.
Uh, no. There is a high tendency towards heterosexuality because it keeps the species going. We humans are, in the end, animals, and thus our sole true purpose in life is to fuck, breed, and die. Everything else we value or see as a purpose is artificial and imposed by society, not that that's a bad thing. No need to bring overwrought SJW Tumblr bullshit into the equation.

I'm an LGBT male before you start screaming about heteronormativity.

Let's pretend that the same (Exactly the same) 7-years-old me left Italy and lived without Disney Channel idols who wiggle their asses on TV. Would I be the way I am? No, I would probably be a sedulous housewife with a devoutely christian husband.
I must echo Micamo in my response to this.

You are not a lesbian because of the culture you grew up in. You were born lesbian and nothing could've changed that, much like how I was born a bisexual male and nothing will ever change that. Do you realize what you are saying? Under your premise of "your circumstances change your sexuality", those horrifying and disgusting "gay reeducation" camps would actually work. But they don't given that they cause huge stress to their clients and almost all of them relapse anyway. I was born into a mildly homophobic family, the idea of non-heterosexuality was not even conceived of, then one day as a burgeoning teenager, I started to fantasize about penises at an abnormally large rate. In spite of the heteronormative society we get, with sexy chicks gratuitously stuffed everywhere (and as a guy I get even more of it crammed into my face), I emerged a man who fantasized about men loving each other.

Actually according to your tortured logic gay men shouldn't even exist:

>Society has a profound effect on your sexuality
>Because you as a woman, were surrounded by heternormative imagery with sexy women you ended up gynophilic
>Men, in the same culture as you, would also see this heteronormative imagery
>Ergo, almost all men should be gynophilic

Actually, according to you straight women AND gay men shouldn't exist. What.
A different society would offer different options and the data that eldin raigmore suggested (98% vs 2%) would be different as well. It's just ridiculous to even think that humans could have a fixed percentage of tendency to heterosexuality that doesn't relate with our social rules.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5311
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 17:46

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Xing » 07 Mar 2014 21:36

Serena wrote:If you treat all the primary schools of the world as a small society and kids as individuals - according to the Law of large numbers - you will get that (roughly) 50% of the kids mainly bonds with females and 50% of them mainly bonds with males, regardless of their biological sex.
Do you have any source for this? Now the nature-vs-nurture issue can easily become rather infected, so I would be very careful in making definite statement here in either direction without firm evidence.

Serena
sinic
sinic
Posts: 275
Joined: 26 Sep 2013 14:58

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Serena » 07 Mar 2014 22:02

While I will try not to reply the aggressive rude nonsense about we-are-born-that-way pseudotheories and stuff, I should comment the bits that actually made sense.
Chagen wrote:Actually according to your tortured logic gay men shouldn't even exist:
>Society has a profound effect on your sexuality
>Because you as a woman, were surrounded by heternormative imagery with sexy women you ended up gynophilic
>Men, in the same culture as you, would also see this heteronormative imagery
>Ergo, almost all men should be gynophilic
Actually, according to you straight women AND gay men shouldn't exist. What.
Given a standard subject of beauty (not always a female), you don't have to like it. You may want to be it or have it, and it's entirely your choice which one you go for. That's why gay men exist.

Yes, our pop culture is way more gynophilic than androphilic. I don't mean to say that women are better than men. It's just that our standard concept and symbology of beauty involves women more than men. Once upon a time there was an image that explains neatly what I mean...

User avatar
Chagen
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3995
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 04:14
Location: Texas

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Chagen » 07 Mar 2014 22:08

While I will try not to reply the aggressive rude nonsense about we-are-born-that-way pseudotheories and stuff
Truly, your ideas make tons of sense themselves.

I was born LGBT and I will stay that way, and I find your ridiculous Tumblr theories of "society just makes us that way, man" honestly somewhat offensive.
Yes, our pop culture is way more gynophilic than androphilic. I don't mean to say that women are better than men.
I...never said you did?
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S

Serena
sinic
sinic
Posts: 275
Joined: 26 Sep 2013 14:58

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Serena » 07 Mar 2014 22:21

Why Tumblr? Have I ever stated that I somehow get my ideas from Tumblr?

These are my ideas.

If you want to believe you can be born gay, you have the right to, but please don't treat this belief like it's universally true.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1647
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 18:37

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Salmoneus » 07 Mar 2014 22:45

... so, you think gay men are trying to be women?
Because I know some gay men who a) are not at all feminine, and b) are not attracted to feminine men.


Before we go further, I should probably hark back to what I already said: there's some evidence, I gather, that sexuality works differently in men and in women, and that in women it may well be more socially influenced than in men. I gather you're a lot more likely to find women who believe their sexuality is a choice than men who do, for instance. [One piece of evidence from the UK: 8% of women report having had sex with other women, up from only 2% 20 years ago. This means they've overtaken men, who rose from 4% to 5%. It's true that society is more anti-gay than anti-lesbian, but then that was even more the case in the past, so this may suggest that male homosexuality may be more invariate than female, but that's just one piece of evidence so who knows]


I think it's also important to go back to the question itself, and point out that even social influence does not invalidate the idea that your biological sex influences your preferences. If men are trained to be attracted to women and women are trained to be attracted to men - they're still receiving different training, and hence developing different preferences, on the basis of their sex. And that's even if preference is 100% non-biological. Which, it should be reiterated, there's no evidence of.

The theory that lesbianism is 100% the result of exposure to the Disney Channel is... unusual, to say the least. On the one hand, I'd point out that most (98% or however many) women in our, as you put it, gynephilic society, are not lesbians. So are they different in some way from those who do end up lesbians, or do they just watch more of the Disney Channel? I'm really not sure that that's true. For instance, I once knew a bisexual girl who came from a very socially conservative upbringing who had had relatively little exposure to sexualised media, yet who was really very keen on girls; on the other hand, I know women who have been extensively and enthusiastically exposed to images of wiggling female posteriors, and yet who have no interest in women sexually. I'm not seeing the evidence for this theory.

Evidence from pre-pubescent children has nothing to do with the case. Even if it were true that they bonded without regard to sex (which I doubt - certainly it's not my experience at all (at my primary school, we all had crushes on girls and the girls all had crushes on boys, or claimed to, barring a couple of years in the middle when we decided the other sex was icky and we shouldn't talk to them)), that has nothing to do with sexual preferences. Friendship and getting a hardon are two totally different things. I'm a straight male, but most of my friends are male, and I tend to get on better with men than with women, at least within my own class and age group - but I'm attracted to women (whether or not I have any 'romantic bonding' with them). The non-sexual behaviour of (in most cases) non-sexual children tells us nothing about the sexual behaviour of sexual adults.
[Although, again, I've heard that romance and attraction may be more closely related among women; again, I don't know whether that's true]

Is there an overwhelming tendency toward heterosexuality? Yes. This is pretty much unarguable. Take a straw poll of heterosexuals vs non-heterosexuals, and the former will massively outnumber the latter. The reasons for this may be debateable, but the fact is pretty incontrovertible.


[Chagen: the 'sexuality is 100% biologically determined' stance seems just as implausible and unsupported by evidence as the contrary, to be honest. You've got the variable level of homosexual behaviour in different cultures to explain, plus the first-hand testimony from many people that it's not, plus the lack of any clear genetic explanation, plus evidence from studies (eg iirc the birth-order effect on sexuality is much less if the children are adopted, indicating that birth-order plays a role through social factors not just biological ones), plus the prima facie implausibility of thinking that ANY human behaviour is free from social interference.]



Thak: were you saying Serena shouldn't try to explain (something you agree with) or that we shouldn't try to explain to Serena (something you disagree with)? If the former, and you agree with her, your contribution would be welcome - maybe two people trying to explain the position might have better luck making us understand?



EDIT: what is actually probably the case (and I say this both because the evidence seem to fit it best and because I think it's a safe theory in the absence of sufficient evidence) is that there's a fourfold process:
a) people have genetic and foetal-development differences which give predispositions
b) people then have a variety of formative influences, psychological and maybe physical as well, which add an additional level of predisposition
c) people then have their own meta-thoughts on the issue adding a third level of predisposition
d) the above are then manifested through behaviour, which occurs within a semi-random setting that may itself to some degree influence the behaviour

The relative significance of the factors presumably varies with the individual.

User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7201
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 18:48
Contact:

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Micamo » 07 Mar 2014 23:25

Serena wrote:Why Tumblr? Have I ever stated that I somehow get my ideas from Tumblr?
It's because "Tumblr" in the collective internet conscious has become synonymous with "hypersensitive morons of the type who use the phase 'check your privilege' seriously." He's basically just trying to ad hominem you.
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter

Serena
sinic
sinic
Posts: 275
Joined: 26 Sep 2013 14:58

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Serena » 08 Mar 2014 14:43

@Salmoneus: I think you slightly mistook what was supposed to be a broad example as the general concept. I wasn't even a huge fan of disney channel movies, I just used it as an effective example of easily available content that depicts sexualized females which teenagers are exposed to :)

I am afraid I alwasy tend to use too much symbolism, metaphors and examples and this has led to misunderstandings, so why don't we step backwards?
Salmoneus wrote:Is there an overwhelming tendency toward heterosexuality? Yes. This is pretty much unarguable. Take a straw poll of heterosexuals vs non-heterosexuals, and the former will massively outnumber the latter. The reasons for this may be debateable, but the fact is pretty incontrovertible.
This is not a tendency. This is a state of things. Can you see difference? This outnumbering is not given by our DNA, there could be a society in which there's an overwhelming tendency towards homosexuality as well.
there's some evidence, I gather, that sexuality works differently in men and in women, and that in women it may well be more socially influenced than in men. I gather you're a lot more likely to find women who believe their sexuality is a choice than men who do, for instance. [One piece of evidence from the UK: 8% of women report having had sex with other women, up from only 2% 20 years ago. This means they've overtaken men, who rose from 4% to 5%.
Interesting :)
However, just like you pointed out, we are not attracted by sexes but rather by traits. IMHO this could lead to the conclusions that women's traits changed in a different way than men's.

@chagen, I would appreciate if you stopped arguing the existence of the psyche. It's kinda anachronistic.

User avatar
Ear of the Sphinx
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1987
Joined: 23 Aug 2010 00:41
Location: Nose of the Sun

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Ear of the Sphinx » 08 Mar 2014 21:47

I'm an LGBT male before you start screaming about heteronormativity.
So, you are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual male at once. Wow!

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2781
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

Re: Sexual preference, its basis, and our conpeoples

Post by Dormouse559 » 09 Mar 2014 00:20

Ear of the Sphinx wrote:
I'm an LGBT male before you start screaming about heteronormativity.
So, you are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual male at once. Wow!
And being LGBT means you aren't heteronormative? Wow!

Post Reply