Sexual Desire. Genetic or ?

steddyeddy

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Jung was even more wrong. Stick with evolutionary psychology.

I think Jung's principles have roots in evolutionary psychology! Thats just my opinion though and an old zoology lecturer I had.

ArtSmart

jill_valentine wrote: »

wat?

I said,

Well Freud briefly slept in a bunk, AFAIK.

other than that, you're talking nonsense.

Still, no harm...its late, yada yada etc


dats wat.

pragmatic1

ArtSmart wrote: »

I said,

Well Freud briefly slept in a bunk, AFAIK.

other than that, you're talking nonsense.

Still, no harm...its late, yada yada etc


dats wat.

Wut?

ArtSmart

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think Jung's principles have roots in evolutionary psychology! Thats just my opinion though and an old zoology lecturer I had.

you mean visa versa.

possibly, as he did postulate 'bout the 'collective unconscious' which might be offered as a description of genetic traces. might.

ArtSmart

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Wut?

wut wut wut?

opinion guy

In summary they were all nuts.

BF Skinner and operant conditioning is where it's at

WhimSock

starbelgrade wrote: »

My niece, who is four doesn't like black people. Her parents aren't racist & there's nowhere really she would have picked it from but she still doesn't like them for some reason.

Young kids pick all kinds of weird things to have beef with. I hated everyone with glasses for example.

ArtSmart

MarkHitide wrote: »

Aren't Jung's ideas essentially Nietszthien (I'm guessing the spelling as much as anything else) with flowery
happensatance included?

No.

opinion guy wrote: »

In summary they were all nuts.

BF Skinner and operant conditioning is where it's at

yeah, big fan of BF, but he was a bit narrow himself.

wud like to see him and Jung chuggin a few, getting funky, with maybe Marx, Ghandi and Chomsky crashing the party

ArtSmart

WhimSock wrote: »

Young kids pick all kinds of weird things to have beef with. I hated everyone with glasses for example.

well that's sounds reasonable tbh...


(wait, does that include the librarian with glasses turned sex goddess?

Rigol

A little bit of 1, a little bit of 2.

For the genetics just look to the likes of Chris Crocker (leave Britney alone) ... the androgenus shape and gestures. The mincing walk, the hand gestures. Not every gay guy is like that but I'd bet if you were to take a bunch of camp guys and do an survey or experiment (maybe put them all in a group shower and minus those who leg it) you'd find a greater number of happy campers are gay than a non camp test group.

Also, I don't know if its hardwired into womens brains but as with other species women tend to make a clean domestic area for raising the kids, they're generally tidy both in their personal hygiene and their living area.....more than men who are generally correctly typecast as smelly and messy bastards.

This same tendency is also a common cliche for the gay guy, they've got a rep for dressing better than straight guys and having interests in all things interior decorating. Fabulous antiques etc.

Given these two things and their preference for the cock, again like women, theres a strong indication that genetics is the deciding factor.

yes cliches ... but those cliches exist for a reason.

(noticeable strong interest in social status, gossip and fame also...but ranted enough already)

WhimSock

ArtSmart wrote: »

well that's sounds reasonable tbh...


(wait, does that include the librarian with glasses turned sex goddess?

Not sure where it stemmed from. Might have been from thinking Clarke Kent was a bumbling idiot or something.

ArtSmart

WhimSock wrote: »

Not sure where it stemmed from. Might have been from thinking Clarke Kent was a bumbling idiot or something.

Meh. Phobias etc, who knows?

but there will never and indeed can never be a resolution of the nature /nurture debate.

coz if that happened we'd understand personality.

and if that happened...


did I mention Eve?

Opps. 2am. gonna get into trouble. nite all

MarkHitide

ArtSmart wrote: »

you mean visa versa.

possibly, as he did postulate 'bout the 'collective unconscious' which might be offered as a description of genetic traces. might.

Can I just check that with you.
I think this is where Jung meets Ayn Rand.
Not disputing statements or theory's, just interested-

Mardy Bum

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think Jung's principles have roots in evolutionary psychology! Thats just my opinion though and an old zoology lecturer I had.

So does Freud. Lacan even has roots in early neuroscience. However both men lacked empirical evidence and despite promising beginnings leaned off towards esoteric crap that was simply wrong. Its still popular today because its open to so much interpretation.

ArtSmart

MarkHitide wrote: »

Can I just check that with you.
I think this is where Jung meets Ayn Rand.
Not disputing statements or theory's, just interested-

Ugh. a less likely convergence I could not imagine.

yes, Jung was anti state, but it was anti-fascism in reality.

other than that, good god, they're miles apart.

Odysseus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well according to Frued every girl secretly wants her daddy :S (Frued was a cocaine addict though so how much we can trust is academic!).

I would be a big fan of Freud and Lacan, I have also work in the addiction feild for over a decade. Now I have done a lot of reading around Freud and cocaine, of course he took it. However, if you research the topic it is clear that he was not a coke addict.

Have a read of the papers Freud worte on cocaine they are still very interesting today. I don't really want to get caught up in the sexuality debate, but I had to respond to that. I have never come across anything that backs that up and I have been reading Freud since 95.

floggg

Rigol wrote: »

A little bit of 1, a little bit of 2.

For the genetics just look to the likes of Chris Crocker (leave Britney alone) ... the androgenus shape and gestures. The mincing walk, the hand gestures. Not every gay guy is like that but I'd bet if you were to take a bunch of camp guys and do an survey or experiment (maybe put them all in a group shower and minus those who leg it) you'd find a greater number of happy campers are gay than a non camp test group.

Also, I don't know if its hardwired into womens brains but as with other species women tend to make a clean domestic area for raising the kids, they're generally tidy both in their personal hygiene and their living area.....more than men who are generally correctly typecast as smelly and messy bastards.

This same tendency is also a common cliche for the gay guy, they've got a rep for dressing better than straight guys and having interests in all things interior decorating. Fabulous antiques etc.

Given these two things and their preference for the cock, again like women, theres a strong indication that genetics is the deciding factor.

yes cliches ... but those cliches exist for a reason.

(noticeable strong interest in social status, gossip and fame also...but ranted enough already)

Bless.

Too many cliches too debunk here.

1. Does it matter why somebody is gay? Would you treat them any differently depending on the cause?

2. Smarter people than us have attempted to figure it out and haven't come up with anything conclusive (it seems there may be a wide range of factors),

Do you really think the uneducated guesses of a bunch of bored dossers will advance the case much?

Odysseus

floggg wrote: »

Bless.

Too many cliches too debunk here.

1. Does it matter why somebody is gay? Would you treat them any differently depending on the cause?

2. Smarter people than us have attempted to figure it out and haven't come up with anything conclusive (it seems there may be a wide range of factors),

Do you really think the uneducated guesses of a bunch of bored dossers will advance the case much?

TBF people are allowed opinions; but with certain topics here everybody is a psychologist or a psychiatrist. It doesn't matter what experience or training a person has poster with no training know better. Say topic like addiction or criminality, all training and experience is washed away by calling the other poster a PC liberal.

However, you still have to allow people to have opinions.

BlueSmoker

I have to say I love these Nature verus Nuture debates, I jump on to them and it a happy merry go round.

As someone else posted, many people, some with alot more intelligent than me have tried to come up with the answer.

I'm guessing it's both, at birth, we are a blank canvas, but with predefined dimensions. As we grow older, that is where are picture is painted, during this process we refine (not define) are sexual likes and dislikes, like alot of other things in are lives.

An example of this is if everyone thinks how they sexual defined themselves 10 years ago. how define yourself to day, be honest and you will see you have just refined your sexual desires. Most would have redefined themselves on the bases of a definition they had from a very young age. (I am assuming here that no one posting or reading this is below 14.)

By the way to the OP the answer is 42

Rigol

floggg wrote: »

Bless.

Too many cliches too debunk here.

1. Does it matter why somebody is gay? Would you treat them any differently depending on the cause?

2. Smarter people than us have attempted to figure it out and haven't come up with anything conclusive (it seems there may be a wide range of factors),

Do you really think the uneducated guesses of a bunch of bored dossers will advance the case much?

OoOoOOh get 'er

Well why don't you just have a little go at debunking those fabulous cliches darling, the ones I referred to as cliches in the first place.
As for not figuring it out, why ask any question on boards. What should I do about my noisy neighbor - don't know, will the economy go up or down - don't know, do hairy mollys still exist - don't know.
Calling the gentle folks of AH a bunch of bored dossers is a cliche too you know sweetheart....although again it exists for a good reason....turns out most are.
Now be nice. xxx

BlueSmoker

Oh dear, normally this debate isn't a hornettes nest.

**Bluey withdraw her hand very quickly**

floggg

Feel free to debate away (not that anybody would pay me any heed if I said otherwise).

I just think its kinda pointless.

Like how can I say what influences another's sexual orientation? It's not like I was around to watch them growing up to see if abybody or anything turned them.

At best you can speculate on the upbringing of a few close friends and relatives but without actually doing a fairly wide ranging study and comparing them to other people of differing orientations and controls, at best its an educated guess (but more likely just baseless speculation).

It's not as if many people are referring to studies on the issue to support their views.

So yea, speculate away if you want. Without any evidence or research to back these ideas up, peoples opinions are about as meaningful as me speculating on rhe results of a dice throw.

P.S. I doubt genetics have anything to do with somebody dressing well or having nice furniture. It's got far more to do with having an appreciation of the male form and how you would like to see it look and having more disposable income and no kids.

Also, it's Friday and during office hours. If you have time to be posting here you probably are bored and dossing.

I know I am!

Rigol

I think google search gives a little clue.

Auto suggest will suggest 'non-camp gay men' yet won't suggest 'non-camp straight men'.

So 'Non-camp gay men' is something people have curiosity about.
Yet 'non-camp straight men' is something unsurprising or assumed.

Look, you can spot a gay guy by physical appearance (genetics). Granted not always, but I'll happily take multiple bets to go into town and point out a gay guy. I'll be relying on physical traits alone. Sure Ill lose once or twice but over the course of the day I'll win. And I don't even have very strong gaydar.

Thats not to say theres not gay people who aren't camp or vice versa. Just that theres a tendency for gay guys to have more feminine mannerisms (oh you!), features and build. (crocker)

BlueSmoker

Everyone will have an Opinion, sure that is what makes up human, if we understood ourselves, it would spoil the fun of being alife. Hence as some one stated, we probably never get to the bottom of nature ver nuture debate. But we will always have opinions about it

Now back to this throwing dice idea, give me your theory on that.

floggg

Rigol wrote: »

I think google search gives a little clue.

Auto suggest will suggest 'non-camp gay men' yet won't suggest 'non-camp straight men'.

So 'Non-camp gay men' is something people have curiosity about.
Yet 'non-camp straight men' is something unsurprising or assumed.

Look, you can spot a gay guy by physical appearance (genetics). Granted not always, but I'll happily take multiple bets to go into town and point out a gay guy. I'll be relying on physical traits alone. Sure Ill lose once or twice but over the course of the day I'll win. And I don't even have very strong gaydar.

Thats not to say theres not gay people who aren't camp or vice versa. Just that theres a tendency for gay guys to have more feminine mannerisms (oh you!), features and build. (crocker)

Dude, you wont win! You'll spot a few obvious guys maybe.

But most of the guys in skinny jeans with stupid hair cuts are actually straight hipsters who try to hard.

And most gay guys are like ninjas - we blend into the background and remain hidden, unseen, but ready to strike at any minute.

Trust me on this, I'm fairly confident that I know a more about gay men than you!*

* going out on a limb and assuming your straight here!

floggg

BlueSmoker wrote: »

Now back to this throwing dice idea, give me your theory on that.

7.

BlueSmoker

Rigol wrote: »

I think google search gives a little clue.

Auto suggest will suggest 'non-camp gay men' yet won't suggest 'non-camp straight men'.

So 'Non-camp gay men' is something people have curiosity about.
Yet 'non-camp straight men' is something unsurprising or assumed.

Look, you can spot a gay guy by physical appearance (genetics). Granted not always, but I'll happily take multiple bets to go into town and point out a gay guy. I'll be relying on physical traits alone. Sure Ill lose once or twice but over the course of the day I'll win. And I don't even have very strong gaydar.

Thats not to say theres not gay people who aren't camp or vice versa. Just that theres a tendency for gay guys to have more feminine mannerisms (oh you!), features and build. (crocker)

Actually there isn't, it is just assumed that you know their sexuality.

If I put 100 gay men in a room with 100 hetrosexual men, most people would guess the sexuality right 25% of the time, if I was to put 100 gay men in a room, with 1,000 hetrosexual men, most would guess sexual orientation correct 5% of the time. It because we are thought to see campness, as a sexual orientation, which it isn't.

CrazyRabbit

Sexual desire is genetic. It's the key driving force in the propogation of our species.

Sexual preference though is perhaps a mix of genetics and environmental factors.

--Kaiser--

I would say sexual orientation is mostly genetic. Gay men have brains similar to straight women (link). I imagine lesbian women have brains similar to straight men

Rigol

If you were in Dublin on a Fri/Sat night and you were challenged to find the greatest number of people possible in a given time who mince along / are camp in manner which pub would you go to?
Be honest.


(ibf,the one where the priests or scout leaders hang out)

--Kaiser--

Rigol wrote: »

If you were in Dublin on a Fri/Sat night and you were challenged to find the greatest number of people possible in a given time who mince along / are camp which pub would you go to?
Be honest.


(ibf,the one where the priests or scout leaders hang out)

Ah now, there's a difference between being gay and dressing gay. I had a colege friend who went over to live in London. He said he nearly got attacked a few times because he kept coming on to gay looking guys. Turns out they were metro-sexuals

floggg

Rigol wrote: »

If you were in Dublin on a Fri/Sat night and you were challenged to find the greatest number of people possible in a given time who mince along / are camp which pub would you go to?
Be honest.


(ibf,the one where the priests or scout leaders hang out)

I'm not saying that some gay people aren't camp.

But I'm saying the perception that gay people are generally camp is bull****.

The majority of gay men aren't. How do you think the hid in the closet so well up until the last 20 years. Alan Carr would never have fooled anybody, would he.

Go to the LGBT Forum and look at all the threads from guys coming out complaining how they feel the won't fit into the gay scene as they don't fit the cliche.

So if being camp is a sign of a gay gene, lots of gay men don't have it.

floggg

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

[

Ah now, there's a difference between being gay and dressing gay. I had a colege friend who went over to live in London. He said he nearly got attacked a few times because he kept coming on to gay looking guys. Turns out they were metro-sexuals

The most confusing night of my life was when I happened to be in the Workman's club with a gay mate a while back.

The place was full of guys who looked like the might fit a gay cliche. Everytime either of us saw somebody good looking, he'd start eating into his girlfriend before we could even give him the glad eye.

Fecking hipsters!

Rigol

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Ah now, there's a difference between being gay and dressing gay. I had a colege friend who went over to live in London. He said he nearly got attacked a few times because he kept coming on to gay looking guys. Turns out they were metro-sexuals

Take fashion out of it.

The sole challenge is to find the most men in a given time within the immediate area of a single pub in Dublin on a Fri/Sat night, who display camp/ostentatious/effeminate mannerisms and/or mincing walks.

You win a million if you get the greatest number, you have first pick of pubs.

So, honestly, which pub would you pick.

(ibf the one you're in/ the one yer da's in)

BlueSmoker

Rigol wrote: »

If you were in Dublin on a Fri/Sat night and you were challenged to find the greatest number of people possible in a given time who mince along / are camp in manner which pub would you go to?
Be honest.


(ibf,the one where the priests or scout leaders hang out)

Burxelles possibly, again as I pointed out we base our logic apon assumption. I have gone to a gay meet up in Burxelles, it was really cool on both occasions;)

Rigol

BlueSmoker wrote: »

Burxelles possibly, again as I pointed out we base our logic apon assumption. I have gone to a gay meet up in Burxelles, it was really cool on both occasions;)

Ah, so if expecting to find camp men you'd refer back to the location of a gay meet up.

floggg

Again, nobody is saying that there aren't camp gay men. Just that they are actually a minority of gay men.

BlueSmoker

Rigol wrote: »

Ah, so if expecting to find camp men you'd refer back to the location of a gay meet up.

No not really, I thought someone made an assumption that you only can meet gay men, in a gay bar. I used the fact that I have meet a group of gay people in Bruxelles ( mainly a heavy mental bar, or a music bar) twice.

Are you making an assumption that gay people can't actually like heavy metal music or rock, and that they should act camp so you know who they are, inside your head, really.

Out of curiosity how many people in a bar you have a drink in questions you, about who you are going to sleep with on a night out???

Rigol

Yeah but im saying if represented in numbers, straight column vs gay column you'll find a higher level of camp behavior, effeminate/androgynous physical features, feminine posture and body language and general similarities with women in the gay category.

28064212

Rigol wrote: »

Yeah but im saying if represented in numbers, straight column vs gay column you'll find a higher level of camp behavior, effeminate/androgynous physical features, feminine posture and body language and general similarities with women in the gay category.

You would also find a much higher level of gym jocks with extremely macho bodies

floggg

Rigol wrote: »

Yeah but im saying if represented in numbers, straight column vs gay column you'll find a higher level of camp behavior, effeminate/androgynous physical features, feminine posture and body language and general similarities with women in the gay category.

"General similarities with women."

Nice use of language. You could have just left it at camp.

Yea, you will but while there might be more "camp gays" than "camp straights" there are more "masculine gays" than "camp gays."

As this started out by you asserting campness was evidence of a genetic basis. given a lot of gay men aren't camp it can't be a gay gene that causes camp.

Gays come in all shapes, sizes and mannerisms and are as diverse a bunch as straight people (more so maybe in that many are forced to embrace the fact that they are "different" and make self expression and non conformity part of their identity).

So people you can speculate on why they are they way they are but there are too many differences and variables in the gay community and gay peoples experiences to be able to pinpoint any one thing.

floggg

28064212 wrote: »

You would also find a much higher level of gym jocks with extremely macho bodies

And that's not even mentioning the bears!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

What's your opinion on the matter OP?

BlueSmoker

floggg wrote: »

And that's not even mentioning the bears!

I actually did LOL at that nice one

BlueSmoker

Rigol wrote: »

Yeah but im saying if represented in numbers, straight column vs gay column you'll find a higher level of camp behavior, effeminate/androgynous physical features, feminine posture and body language and general similarities with women in the gay category.

You really need to hang out with some gay guys, what you just said is an assumption based on what your told (nuture), I have to say most gay men are more masculine than I am (I know not hard). Sorry to point this out to you

"androgynous physical features" are more to do with being intersexed (which is genetic) , rather than a sexuality.

BlueSmoker

Also I would a little worried about someone who is concerned, with who a stranger actually sleeps with. I know I don't worry about it

Rigol

Just 1 quick thing on the macho gym jock bodies - these bodies would involve voluntary training, not genetics alone. (Same case with moustaches btw).

Certain people in here seem to be having a bit of a female type hissy fit...I wonder how that would look in the statistics.

Its about numerical tendency. I'm aware that humans of all shapes sizes and persuasions exist.

(The national geographic link is interesting btw)

Im off to measure mincenicity levels of walks at the george vs a general public test group.


You know, eugenics, much as it is associated with some nasty people does have a certain truth to it, whens the last time a Somali didn't place well in a running event. I digress.

28064212

Rigol wrote: »

Just 1 quick thing on the macho gym jock bodies - these bodies would involve voluntary training, not genetics alone. (Same case with moustaches btw).

But the drive to actually train (or grow a moustache) is driven by genetics which are considered masculine. You just happened to pick the feminine ones and ignore the masculine ones

Rigol

LOL the drive to grow a moustache is genetic. love it.


(here we see the branch cell 'handlebaris genetisis'. This young chap is destined to follow in the footsteps of Freddie Mercury)

28064212

Rigol wrote: »

LOL the drive to grow a moustache is genetic. love it.

As opposed to hand gestures and "mincing"? Right, of course