ThunderPeel2001

The things I've mentioned were supposed to make you feel uneasy. That was the point of me bringing them up. By suggesting that someone can have their sexuality changed by force, you're opening the doors to the types of statements I made. For example, Mormon communities sometimes use electroconvulsive therapy to try and "fix" gay teenagers. And no, I don't agree that "cultural conditioning" has lead to stereotypical promisicuous gay behaviour, as it's seen all over the world, as I already said. I'm fully aware of culture trying to turn me into something I'm not (culture says a man who sleeps with many women is something to aspire to). I feel that pressure, but I don't succumb to it, and neither do any of my friends. Culture also says that men should be "tough" and "macho". Again, nobody I know falls into that trap.

Er, I'm straight. I have never been sexually or romantically attracted to any man, I've never masturbated to gay porn (although I've tried in moments of boredom and curiosity -- it just doesn't do anything for me). In fact, there are times in my life when I've wished I was bi, to double the chances of finding the "right" person for me. So I feel I can say, with a fair amount of certainty, that I cannot choose to be gay. It is outside of my control. I could choose to become celebate, however. This is what you're talking about when you mention a bi-sexual person choosing not to act on the impluses towards a given sex. They are NOT choosing to be "straight" or "gay" (they are already bi-sexual), but they can choose to be celebate towards a given sex. The difference is that sexuality is inherent, whereas behaviour is not. Behaviour does not change what's inherent.

That's not quite the same as a straight person choosing to be gay, though.

Aye, I believe Kinsey first made the assertion that sexuality can change as you grow. Just because you're straight now, doesn't mean you will be in 10 year's time!

But surely you're treading a very fine line? What you (and brkl) seem to be implying is that someone can be "turned" gay, which also means that someone can be "turned" straight. If the influence is purely external, or even partially external, then society could control how many gay people there are. That leads straight into the argument that gays can be "de-programmed". It also leads into the argument that children need to be shielded from gay influences, lest they turn gay, too. Like I say, this seems like a pretty controversial postion to take. Here's a good explanation of "nurture": http://www.simplypsy...rg/bandura.html

I've tried to only post things here that come from recognized science (or rather, my layman understanding from articles I've read). Any opinions I've posted I've tried to label as clearly as being just that. What you've posted here is quite fringe, and very bold. I assume it's your opinion, rather than you claiming that this is accepted science. FYI: There are such things as gay animals, there's been many studies about them. Also, regarding the human gay gene, the article I posted earlier may be of interest to you. (Hopefully) needless to say, mainstream science does not hold with your idea that people "choose" to be gay. In fact, a lot of people find that argument very offensive, even with your caveat that biology might have played some part. Someone may choose to engage in homosexual activities, but that doesn't mean they're gay (an example of this would be reported behaviour of otherwise straight men in prison -- with no access to the opposite sex). Science doesn't invent, it discovers. Sexuality has been discovered, not invented. Here's the link again: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html

Could you go into more detail?

You'll have to go into more detail, because I still don't get what you're saying. If there is a common human behaviour across cultures that are completely separate, why is it impossible to tell what degree they are cultural or biological? Are you suggesting that some cultural traits could be traced by to "Adam and Eve" (so to speak)? Also, how is what you're saying not the same as suggesting that gay people are made gay by their culture?

But every given example of a "social factor" is an extreme or rare case, not seen in most countries, or in most people. When there are trends which cross cultural and geographic boundaries, surely they indicate deeper truths about human behaviour? Please explain what I'm missing here.

Ah, I see. We're talking at crossed purposes. I'm talking about using human behaviour to trace biological trends. Picking out rare exceptions doesn't do anything for this argument, especially those that are not passed by genes (such as choosing to not eat meat). Another example of humans resisting their genes is the use of contraception. That doesn't change anything I've said, as far as I'm aware. (Although I'm really tired right now and probably shouldn't be posting. Sorry!)

Someone who is naturally attracted to someone of the same sex. Seriously.

Vegans and vegetarians still eat around 2000 calories a day. Siestas are an agreed reaction to weather, not societal pressures. And those people still sleep roughly the same amount we all do. People who live in places with six months of night are not nocturnal. Are you saying that the young Etoro boys who are forced to ingest their elder's semen turn gay? Their beliefs stem from the idea that semen is their life force. They're not actually gay. A better point is the fact that, if they ARE all gay, and they only sleep with women because they have to, it still means they're a product of their genes, not their society. What about San Francisco? Are you suggesting that people are turned gay by where they live? If so, could you turn gay people straight by moving them somewhere else? Another example you missed would be a cannibalistic society. Here's an interesting article on a possible reason why gay genes haven't died out, when Darwinism says they should have: http://www.huffingto..._n_1590501.html

Yep, you're right. Back when "gay" was used to describe the act, not the person, there doesn't seem to have been the societal stigma. But I guess if there wasn't a lot of heterosexual activity going on, that culture would have died out. Another random thought: I think everyone knows what parts of them feel pressure from society, and which parts of them are "really" them, no?

I hope it's obvious that I'm actually suggesting that such people are already shunned by society, and so aren't likely to feel as pressurized by a society that has rejected them.

How we eat, sleep, and copulate are NOT mediated by culture, and CANNOT be changed by culture. How do I know? Because there's no human society on earth where humans are nocturnal. Or where they sleep for 30 minutes a day. Or where the predominant sexuality isn't hetero. Or where people don't eat around 2000 calories a day. Also, you can determine natural biologically determined behaviour through logic. That's the whole crux of Darwinism. Behaviour that would lead to your genes dying out will not become the dominant behaviour.

Hey brkl, Sal. Sal, put simply, Darwinism states that those who have a way of bringing up a baby will have their genes survive. The explanation for how a baby may NOT resemble the father for three days, but then resemble the father more after that, doesn't do anything to change the fact that a baby with two devoted parents is more likely to survive. And both explanations point to the same idea of woman having to be more choosy than men when it comes to sex. How? Well, the article explains a baby not looking like its father as a backup plan so that a mother might still get support for their offspring. That infers that it's preferable for the mother to have the father around, rather than just hoping she can convince some dude to help out. Secondly, a cavewoman who was more prudent when it came to picking her partner would be more likely to have her genes survive. I don't see how you can argue with that. Surely waiting until she felt their was a strong emotional bond with a guy who wasn't about to split would increase the chances of him sticking around. By him sticking around, her genes would be more likely to survive. If her genes survive then that's what becomes an inherited trait. Those who don't have support stand more chance of having their genes die out. Darwinism states that we are merely vessels for our genes -- and our genes want to be immortal. That they want to survive. There's no biological explanation for why people would want to raise other people's kids. That's more to do with them being good people, or having really strong paternal or maternal instincts. Even if there were people who preferred to raise other people's kids over their own, their genes would quickly die out. Right? One reproducible experiment which shows this is the fact that, generally speaking, a man's eyes don't dilate when they see babies the way a woman's do... Until they've had a child of their own. The connection they have with (what they believe) are their own genes, changes them in a way that is scientifically measurable. They show no emotional connection to other people's babies. Also, the fact that other species don't have visually inheritable traits of the father is completely irrelevant. Humans are odd creatures because our babies are born completely helpless and ill equipped to deal with the world. This is one important reason why parenting is so important, especially in the early years.

Change EVERY game's thread to "toblix's ... ". He denies creating anything! (Who knew we had such a super-star amongst us?)

I'd totally believe you if it wasn't for your signature. Clearly toblix DID create this game. And all games he denies creating!

Absolutely, I totally agree. Ok, that's fine, but Scientific American, and scientists in general, disagree with you. That situation involves a lot of trust, which is another way of saying security. I, of course, know women in that situation, too. That's a lot different than a guy sticking his dick through a stranger's letterbox and getting a blow job (oh the stories I've heard from my gay friends!). That's incredible! Really? There's actually a clit-licking line? I stand totally corrected. World view: Adjusted. Of course there are swingers, doggers, and BSDM clubs that are frequented by both men and women, but that tends to be quite fringe. Another story from a gay friend: An exclusive sex party he went to at a mansion in LA. He said the things he saw were even too much for his open-mind. The evening culminated with one of the guests performing her particular kink in front of everyone: Sewing shut her own vagina. Yikes. There's always going to be fringe extremes, I think it's best to stay with more "typical" behaviour for conversations like this.

Same here!

But... What's wrong with singling her out? He can have an opinion on her, as much as he can have an opinion on anybody. That's what I mean about saying he's sexist could actually be a little... sexist. It seems to be saying that you can't criticize or put her under scrutinity because she's a woman. Also, calling her a "glorified booth babe" is ignorant and insulting, but there ARE such things as "booth babes" (to use that term), and there are women who would fall into the category of being a "glorified booth babe" -- like the stream of models who played Lara Croft at trade shows, for example. I'm also not entirely sure Perez was saying "you must be a gorlified booth babe" just because you don't add anything creative, but I could be wrong.

I'm going to throw another hat of mine into the ring here and say that I'm not entirely convinced his Tweets were the product of a deeper misogyny. I think they were rude, obnoxious, insulting, ignorant, horrible, and anger-inducing (Felicia Day is a personal hero of mine), but I'm not sure if I could say the worst thing about them was sexism. If anything, saying they were sexist is surely... sexist? I'm sure plenty of male gaming personalities get the same sort of Tweets from similar abhorrent assholes, so was she really being singled out for her sex? If you can't see the superb contributions made by Day, not just to gaming culture, but to culture in general, then I'm flabbergasted. But I'm not sure I'd call you sexist.

I guess I've done a poor job of explaining my position. I never meant to argue that women don't like sex for sex! (That's a pretty silly argument, if you ask me. Anyone who's had a girlfriend would surely attest to the opposite. Right?) The only argument I've made is that women desire security, too, whereas men don't. And yes, I think that's biological for all the arguments (both scientific and anecdotal) that I've mentioned. Do you really believe that the gay man experience I mentioned (people lining up for blow jobs) is common in lesbian bars? No gay woman has EVER related a story to me like that, but I've heard plenty of similar ones from gay men. In my own limited experience, it appears to me (and this is just my opinion now -- so I could be very wrong), that women want sex for sex's sake, but that they tend to want to feel secure with who they're with, too. There are exceptions (of course), like one night stands with strangers, but I think women generally have to ignore their internal warnings when they do that, having to convince themselves that they're not really is as much danger as part of them wants them to believe they are. And here's the sad thing: The women I've seen who regularly engage in one night stands with strangers (important distinction!) are usually doing it for reasons of low self-esteem. They want to feel attractive and desirable. Again, this is just my own personal experience from seeing friends and watching their behaviour. To be honest, the same might well be true for men who complusively womanize, too, I don't know.

This is (yet another) example of a journalist taking studies and (deliberately?) distorting them to make an exciting news story. Most studies referenced in that article conclude that babies DO look like their father, they also just resemble their mother equally. (I never said that babies resemble their father more.) I also pointed out that parents of the child are programmed to make statements regarding the similarity of the baby to the father. I got that slightly wrong, because (according to that article) the MOTHER is programmed (or conditioned) to say things like that... even if it's not true. Even the studies that had contradictory findings (saying that the baby looked more like the mother than the father for the first three days) offer the following evolutionary explanation: "Evolutionary pressures may have actually reduced the amount of paternal resemblance in newborns, thus ensuring that a putative father will care for a child even if the father has been cuckolded." Which means they still put the same pressure on the woman to raise a child that I did when I first brought this up... I.e. Our ancestors were much more likely to have survived if they had a father to help out, which takes us back to square one: Mothers who were pickier about who they had a child with, would have had more chance of having their genes survive.

Yufster, I said that 'NSA' sex SOUNDS appealing. The REALITY is that there isn't such a thing as 'no strings attached' sex (at least in my meagre experience - someone generally gets too involved), or at least it's not very common, but I wasn't talking about that. If you read the article I linked to, you'll see that both men and women want the same number of ideal partners: One. General tangent: But I still think that men DO want meaningless sex, if they could really have it. (If only there were more men on this forum who could express an opinion on the matter.) I feel compelled to just point out: I've never used a woman for sex (although I have been used BY women for sex), and I've never gone back to an ex just to sleep with her (I've seen the damage that can do). But I still believe that men want meaningless sex more than women (generally speaking). I can't imagine a lesbian bar where one woman sat at one end of a room while other women lined up to have their clits licked until they reached an orgasm, one after the other. Yet that sort of thing isn't difficult for a gay man to find (or so my gay friends tell me, I haven't witnessed it first hand). Is there a female version of the phone app that shows you where other women are who want meaningless sex right now? These women already live outside of society's idea of the "norm", so I don't think societal constraints can be blamed. To say there's no difference between men and women when it comes to sex, generally speaking, just seems to fly in the face of every bit of anecdotal evidence I can think of.