Sexual Desire. Genetic or ?

BlueSmoker

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).

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.

Completely agree, take a look at my post history, I'm more feminine than masculine, but it dosn't mean you can make an assumption based on what you believe, I just pointed out you where wrong. Sorry I shattered your ideal

christmas2012

A lot of it can be genetic but for behavioural influences it depends on your early sexual experiences and that age from childhood to puberty when you first become exposed to sexuality..

floggg

I love how some people take any form of disagreement with them as a hissy fit.

Its a discussion forum. If you post something I disagree with I state why. I hissy fit is getting salty because people don't agree with you.

"Camp mincers" general don't like to get big and buff though do they. Squats **** up your ability to wear skinny jeans.

And when was the last time you saw a camp body builder.

PS - I don't ever recall seeing a Somalian win a major athletics event bar Mo Farah.

BlueSmoker

christmas2012 wrote: »

A lot of it can be genetic but for behavioural influences it depends on your early sexual experiences and that age from childhood to puberty when you first become exposed to sexuality..

Can you post proof of this, eg links or anything??

Rigol

28064212 wrote: »

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

Just a weeeeeeee bit more specific. You'll find parts of the brain associated with sexuality and body movement, maternal instinct and gait. As per the national geo link theres a similarity between female and homosexual brains. The brain is involved with walking. A more female structured brain could cause a more female walk ...'mince'.

No sign of the pre-moustachal cortex yet.

28064212

Rigol wrote: »

Just a weeeeeeee bit more specific. You'll find parts of the brain associated with sexuality and body movement, maternal instinct and gait. As per the national geo link theres a similarity between female and homosexual brains. The brain is involved with walking. A more female structured brain could cause a more female walk ...'mince'.

No sign of the pre-moustachal cortex yet.

And the gym jocks?

Rigol

What about the gym jocks?

28064212

Rigol wrote: »

What about the gym jocks?

Sigh

Your claim was that 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". How do you reconcile that with the fact that you'll also find a higher level of macho activity in the "gay category"?

Rigol

28064212 wrote: »

Sigh

Your claim was that 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". How do you reconcile that with the fact that you'll also find a higher level of macho activity in the "gay category"?

Who said you'll find a higher level of macho activity in the "gay category"?

oldfart

yip

BlueSmoker

Ok so we are keeping this thread on topic, some posters are suggesting that sexuality is your born that way, and some are saying you learn to be that way.

Hmmm nature vs nuture merry go around I love it

I just sad with my first post in this thread, I thought I was clever

28064212

Rigol wrote: »

Who said you'll find a higher level of macho activity in the "gay category"?

The stereotype of the gay guy who spends all his time in the gym is just as prevalent as the camp one

christmas2012

blue smoker you will find it is a bit of both,its not all one way,for example you are born gay,you cannot just wake up suddenly and think right thats it im gonna be gay and try men on men,women on women etc..it just doesnt happen that way,(look up any psycho sexual book in the bookshop or library and its there..),you can be born with a sexual preference,such as men/women etc,but for certain sexual kinks can be learned behavior..

Tony EH

Rigol wrote: »

Just a weeeeeeee bit more specific. You'll find parts of the brain associated with sexuality and body movement, maternal instinct and gait. As per the national geo link theres a similarity between female and homosexual brains. The brain is involved with walking. A more female structured brain could cause a more female walk ...'mince'.

No sign of the pre-moustachal cortex yet.

This is absolute cobblers.

The limp wristed mincing caricature that some homosexual men engage in is learned, or adopted behavior. There's nothing natural about it, in any way shape or form and it's not behavior that's generated by any genetic predisposition.

christmas2012

okay so why are some penguins found to be gay and some bisexual?that alone shows that gayness is genetic and that sexual desire/preferences are genetic,most are born homosexual,some are born bi sexual and others homosexual its even in a lot of animal kindgoms there have even been gay otters one study had shown i read that in the national geographic and there were good sources there..

Rigol

Tony EH wrote: »

This is absolute cobblers.

The limp wristed mincing caricature that some homosexual men engage in is learned, or adopted behavior. There's nothing natural about it, in any way shape or form and it's not behavior that's generated by any genetic predisposition.

I saw it in the mannerisms of my gay cousin when I was a kid...he never lost it, also seen in the camp kid who sat next to me and also turned out to be gay.

Tony EH

okay so why are some penguins found to be gay

They're not.

The "famous" cases in a German and a Toronto zoo about the so called "gay" penguins fell flat on it's face when one of the "gay" penguins...er...buggered off with a female, in both cases.

There were also no actual sex acts witnessed in either case.

There has never been an absolute proven case of homosexuality within the animal kingdom, excluding human beings.

Tony EH

Rigol wrote: »

I saw it in the mannerisms of my gay cousin when I was a kid...he never lost it, also seen in the camp kid who sat next to me and also turned out to be gay.

It's still what's called learned behavior.

christmas2012

They're not.

The "famous" cases in a German and a Toronto zoo about the so called "gay" penguins fell flat on it's face when one of the "gay" penguins...er...buggered off with a female, in both cases

that penguin was later found out to be bisexual they firstly thought it was gay like the other penguin the gay penguin got cheated on by the bisexual one..

Rigol

Tony EH wrote: »

It's still what's called learned behavior.

yes, learned in the womb.

Tony EH

"that penguin was later found out to be bisexual they firstly thought it was gay like the other penguin the gay penguin got cheated on by the bisexual one.. "


No it wasn't. They didn't try to engage in sex.

More than likely they "bonded" to provide stability for an egg they were given to hatch.

But when females were introduced the relationship disintegrated.

It doesn't qualify as a homosexual relationship, or a bisexual one either. Homosexuality has simply never been proven in the animal kingdom, other than in Humans, as I said.

Tony EH

Rigol wrote: »

yes, learned in the womb.

You don't "learn" mannerisms in the womb.

christmas2012

according to this link http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx there are over 1,500 different species in the animal kindgom that are gay..

Mardy Bum

Tony EH wrote: »

There has never been an absolute proven case of homosexuality within the animal kingdom, excluding human beings.

A famous sociobiologist whose name escapes me now said that the human race is unique in the very low ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals in comparison with other species.

David Buss's "The Evolution of Desire" is an excellent exploration of sexuality from an evolutionary perspective. Its the only perspective worth acknowledging as well. The social constructive theory and psychoanalytic theories are by and large blarney.

Tony EH

Again, there has been absolutely nothing proven without a doubt re: homosexuality within animals. That's why the "gay" penguins was such a perceived coup...until it fell apart.

A lot of animals can appear to engage in homosexual behaviour, but there are usually different reasons for this behaviour. For instance male wolves will often mount other male wolves in a "sexual" fashion. However, this is a dominance trait, not a sexual one.

Other animals will often seem to bond, in the absence of suitable females and that's been misconstrued as homosexual behaviour too.

But the case for actual homosexual activity has never been proven.

Rigol

Tony EH wrote: »

You don't "learn" mannerisms in the womb.

no they get programmed into you genetically.
when did you "learn" to breath or poop.

Tony EH

christmas2012 wrote: »

according to this link http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx there are over 1,500 different species in the animal kindgom that are gay..

The key sentence here is "Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex..."

That's not homosexuality. That a dominant/submissive action as pointed out in the wolves example above.

There are many animals that may appear to be have homosexual sex dominant/submissive aggression tactic, but that is not an indication of actual homosexuality.

You'll often see male dogs try to mount other male dogs, or even a mans leg.

That's not homosexuality. It's just confusion that the poor animal can't comprehend.

Tony EH

Rigol wrote: »

no they get programmed into you genetically.
when did you "learn" to breath or poop.

I don't you're being serious here.

bnt

Let me see ... more sexual desire => more sex => more babies => more adults with more sexual desire => repeat ad cupiditum.

Looks logical to me. Of course it's genetic, what else would it be? Cultural? People were f**king before there was culture, before they were people, before they became homo sapiens.

Rigol

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't you're being serious here.

Touche.

Colmustard

If you intellectually place yourself above it and just look at the act. 2 people sticking or receiving a body part in a pisser with a pisser while exchanging globs of spittle from dirty gobs full of microscopic bacteria and food particles.

It can only be genetic, its not cultural or intellectual.

Giz a ride.

DexyDrain

Tony EH, have you considered that people with genetically determined sexual preferences are far more likely to pick up mannerisms that mimic and exaggerate their identification with the preferences with the opposite sex, while people with heterosexual brains filter out these influences. So while the specific mannerisms are learned, the brain is already primed to adopt them.

Frankly, I would be a bit concerned that Freud, Lacan and the like are still taught as serious perspectives on analysing human behaviour, socialisation and personality. Surely they should be mostly confined to a historical background? Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience that became almost a cult and has little to offer serious study of the mind.

It also leads to particularly unfortunate perspectives that can do real harm, like the abusive treatment of autism in France and the kind of bunkum pushed by people like Tony Humphreys that blames neurological conditions on the quality of parenting. Twin studies and fostering studies show the shared environment (the family and home) has little to no influence on personality development while genetic factors and the surrounding culture and peer group have very large effects.
Likewise, Kagans work has shown that children are born with a particular temperament that persists from birth to adulthood, what attachment theorists are measuring are correlations between parents and children that are not causal. Children shape parents behaviour almost as much, if not more than the other way around.

Recent work in humans and animals shows that androgens in the womb have organising effects on the developing brain that can produce fairly predictable traits in the child/teen/adult.

Wibbs

Tony EH wrote: »

This is absolute cobblers.

The limp wristed mincing caricature that some homosexual men engage in is learned, or adopted behavior. There's nothing natural about it, in any way shape or form and it's not behavior that's generated by any genetic predisposition.

Oh certainly the extreme pantomime behaviour is learned/adopted behaviour. I'd throw in a social behaviour to more fit with the group they self identify with. I've noted with mates who became more "gay" after they came out to one degree or other.

As for it all being learned? I dunno. One good indicator of future sexual orientation in men is how feminine they behave as children(it seems less a factor in women). Here's an article discussing same.

Extract;
"Bailey and Zucker, who conducted a retrospective study in which adults answered questions about their past, revealed that 89 percent of randomly sampled gay men recalled cross-sex-typed childhood behaviors exceeding the heterosexual median.

Critics have argued that participants' memories may be distorted to fit with societal expectations and stereotypes. But in a clever study published in 2008 in Developmental Psychology, evidence from childhood home videos validated this retrospective method. People blindly coded child targets on the latter's sex-typical behaviors, as shown on the screen. The authors found that “those targets who, as adults, identified themselves as homosexual were judged to be gender nonconforming as children.”

This would make some sense. If a male has a leaning towards a more feminised brain structure then this will show in outward atypical male behaviour. Of course it it's going to be a sliding scale all the way up to transgender folks who feel born into the wrong body. It may also not involve the sexual attraction part of the brain.

The other thing I've noticed is that gay men anyway seem to know they're somehow "different" very early on in their lives. Not in a sexual way at that stage, just not like the other boys. Straight men don't seem to notice either way, though will pick out and often pick on the "sissy" in their group.

Women's sexuality seems to be more complex again. Read an interesting study into sexual response a while back. They wired up men and women, gay and straight(though sadly no bisexuals, which would have been interesting) to sensors that measured sexual arousal. With the men it was pretty straightforward and expected. Straight men responded to straight porn and didn't respond to gay porn and gay men responded to gay porn and didn't respond to straight. Then the women were studied. While they responded more according to their self identified orientation, they also responded to "the other side", even though they reported no conscious response. They responded to sexual images full stop.

Tony EH wrote: »

They're not.

The "famous" cases in a German and a Toronto zoo about the so called "gay" penguins fell flat on it's face when one of the "gay" penguins...er...buggered off with a female, in both cases.

There were also no actual sex acts witnessed in either case.

There has never been an absolute proven case of homosexuality within the animal kingdom, excluding human beings.

Yea I always thought the Gay penguins thing was a bit "Daily Mail" alright. Looking for examples were they didn't exist or could be interpreted in a completely different way. You mentioned dominance and that could easily be misconstrued as sexual behaviour. EG cows in a field will often mount other cows, but it ain't lesbian, it's a dominance display. You could argue Bonobo chimps do show homosexual behaviour. They're the only vaguely concrete examples outside of humans I can think of.

Colmustard

DexyDrain wrote: »

Tony EH, have you considered that people with genetically determined sexual preferences are far more likely to pick up mannerisms that mimic and exaggerate their identification with the preferences with the opposite sex, while people with heterosexual brains filter out these influences. So while the specific mannerisms are learned, the brain is already primed to adopt them.

Frankly, I would be a bit concerned that Freud, Lacan and the like are still taught as serious perspectives on analysing human behaviour, socialisation and personality. Surely they should be mostly confined to a historical background? Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience that became almost a cult and has little to offer serious study of the mind.

It also leads to particularly unfortunate perspectives that can do real harm, like the abusive treatment of autism in France and the kind of bunkum pushed by people like Tony Humphreys that blames neurological conditions on the quality of parenting. Twin studies and fostering studies show the shared environment (the family and home) has little to no influence on personality development while genetic factors and the surrounding culture and peer group have very large effects.
Likewise, Kagans work has shown that children are born with a particular temperament that persists from birth to adulthood, what attachment theorists are measuring are correlations between parents and children that are not causal. Children shape parents behaviour almost as much, if not more than the other way around.

Recent work in humans and animals shows that androgens in the womb have organising effects on the developing brain that can produce fairly predictable traits in the child/teen/adult.

Testosterone in the prenatal environment has also shown to have some influence on a persons sexuality, but like many theories put forward in studies on sexuality it is not the complete picture. You can have twins that obviously shared the same womb but have different sexualities.

Perhaps human sexuality is a lot more elastic then the polarities suggest. There is a Kinsey scale of sexuality and the absolute Gay and absolute straight are relatively rare. Most us exist somewhere in the middle. We know of Navy Gay, Prison Gay, LUG (Lesbian until graduation) when sexuality seems to be a choice or a compromise. .Humans are a poly-sexual specie some will even have sex with animals or even plastic dolls or anything else available.

Perhaps the labelling is partly to blame for all this confusion. It shouldn't be as important as it is. (if only( Perhaps Poly sexual really means having sex with parrots, which I am sure someone somehow somewhere has.

Mardy Bum

DexyDrain wrote: »

Frankly, I would be a bit concerned that Freud, Lacan and the like are still taught as serious perspectives on analysing human behaviour, socialisation and personality. Surely they should be mostly confined to a historical background? Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience that became almost a cult and has little to offer serious study of the mind.

.

Lacan is only majorly popular in France and Argentina in a clinical setting with small associations across other countries including Ireland. Freud is still fairly popular worldwide, especially America. I agree entirely that their theories are outdated and generally any success is achieved at a much slower rate than other forms of therapy. However, I would say the "talking cure" can work, although many of the theories are fundamentally wrong, it can be used in such a way that people will see some success from long periods of therapy as they talk the issues away so to speak.

Wibbs

Colmustard wrote: »

Perhaps human sexuality is a lot more elastic then the polarities suggest. There is a Kinsey scale of sexuality and the absolute Gay and absolute straight are relatively rare. Most us exist somewhere in the middle. We know of Navy Gay, Prison Gay, LUG (Lesbian until graduation) when sexuality seems to be a choice or a compromise. .Humans are a poly-sexual specie some will even have sex with animals or even plastic dolls or anything else available.

When anything related to this and other sexual subjects come up with the Kinsey name attached I tend go "ehhhh maybe"(With Shere Hite I'd go further and add GFTO. Her name is the addition of an S away from a description of most of her output). Kinsey's methodoligies were all over the place. His sample subjects were narrow and he attached an awful lot importance to self reporting "studies". We know how daft they are, or maybe not and all males on the internet have ten inch willies.

For my money while sexuality can be culturally and socially adaptive, I don't believe in either the "we all exist in a grey area". Most of humanity is pretty defined. Either straight or gay, with a minority of bisexuality and of course the asexual folks which tend to be left out of such debates.

Humans are unusual in sexual/mating behavior even on the straight side of the fence. Very adaptive and adaptable compared to other apes. We can be monogamous like gibbons or have harems like gorillas, or even low level free for alls like chimps. We fit the mating strategy to the environment. Actually on that score I wonder is there any correlation between population density and homosexual percentages? IE overpopulation leading to a response in the womb/genetics/environment that produces more kids that will not reproduce? Though set against that was one study that showed sisters of gay men had slightly more children than sisters of straight. Something proffered an advantage there. It can be fascinating stuff.

Tony EH

DexyDrain wrote: »

Tony EH, have you considered that people with genetically determined sexual preferences are far more likely to pick up mannerisms that mimic and exaggerate their identification with the preferences with the opposite sex, while people with heterosexual brains filter out these influences. So while the specific mannerisms are learned, the brain is already primed to adopt them.

I agree.

Actual sexual orientation is pre-determined. But the camp "cooey" "ooooh, get her lovey" is adopted.

Of course, homosexual men will be more disposed to adopting such behaviour.

Colmustard

Wibbs wrote: »

When anything related to this and other sexual subjects come up with the Kinsey name attached I tend go "ehhhh maybe"(With Shere Hite I'd go further and add GFTO. Her name is the addition of an S away from a description of most of her output). Kinsey's methodoligies were all over the place. His sample subjects were narrow and he attached an awful lot importance to self reporting "studies". We know how daft they are, or maybe not and all males on the internet have ten inch willies.

For my money while sexuality can be culturally and socially adaptive, I don't believe in either the "we all exist in a grey area". Most of humanity is pretty defined. Either straight or gay, with a minority of bisexuality and of course the asexual folks which tend to be left out of such debates.

Humans are unusual in sexual/mating behavior even on the straight side of the fence. Very adaptive and adaptable compared to other apes. We can be monogamous like gibbons or have harems like gorillas, or even low level free for alls like chimps. We fit the mating strategy to the environment. Actually on that score I wonder is there any correlation between population density and homosexual percentages? IE overpopulation leading to a response in the womb/genetics/environment that produces more kids that will not reproduce? Though set against that was one study that showed sisters of gay men had slightly more children than sisters of straight. Something proffered an advantage there. It can be fascinating stuff.

I thought the methodology of that particular study by the Kinsey institute was rather clever. Our raw sexual response is very ancient and away from our humanity as in our frontal cortex.

It is easy to measure unconscious or a conscious sexual response. You do it by measuring blood flow into the sexual organs, which is easyilly done by attaching sensors. Then show the subjects either gay or straight porn.

That is roughly how they arrived at that scale. Admittingly their sample were mainly students. But that sits alright with me because I know at some stage most of us has had a fancy for someone of the same sex.

But with some they are polarised as either gay and straight and that is OK.

Tony EH

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh certainly the extreme pantomime behaviour is learned/adopted behaviour. I'd throw in a social behaviour to more fit with the group they self identify with. I've noted with mates who became more "gay" after they came out to one degree or other.

As said above, I believe sexual orientation, as a psychological manifestation, is per-determined. There's not much anyone can do about it.

I agree that social groupings have a lot to do with the mannerisms that people (not only gay people) adopt. However the panto queen act still has to be "put on" so to speak.

Wibbs wrote: »

As for it all being learned? I dunno. One good indicator of future sexual orientation in men is how feminine they behave as children(it seems less a factor in women). Here's an article discussing same.

That would largely be predicated on what the study considers "feminine" behaviour to be. I've seen some truly ridiculous "examples" of "feminine" behaviour listed in studies, such as playing with dolls or copying mum's house chores. Such leaps are quite obviously silly and nonconstructive.

I haven't read the article in the link yet though.

Wibbs wrote: »

The other thing I've noticed is that gay men anyway seem to know they're somehow "different" very early on in their lives. Not in a sexual way at that stage, just not like the other boys. Straight men don't seem to notice either way, though will pick out and often pick on the "sissy" in their group.

Our sexual orientation makes itself known to us relatively early, but the "sissy" element isn't just refined to such limitations. Boys will often mark as a "sissy", someone who is afraid of doing certain things that the group considers ok. The kid who's afraid of contact sports, etc.

But, I understand what you mean.

However, that is still mannerisms that are being learned, by the "sissy" kid. They are not per-determined behaviour patterns. Nobody is destined to become a mincing caricature.

Wibbs wrote: »

Women's sexuality seems to be more complex again. Read an interesting study into sexual response a while back. They wired up men and women, gay and straight(though sadly no bisexuals, which would have been interesting) to sensors that measured sexual arousal. With the men it was pretty straightforward and expected. Straight men responded to straight porn and didn't respond to gay porn and gay men responded to gay porn and didn't respond to straight. Then the women were studied. While they responded more according to their self identified orientation, they also responded to "the other side", even though they reported no conscious response. They responded to sexual images full stop.

Did the straight men respond to images of female homosexuality? Girl on girl porn?

Our response to sexual imagery (pornography) is quite often different to our "real" sexual responses to our "real" sexual encounters. What turns people on in the fantasy world of porn, doesn't necessarily turn us on in a real life situation.

As I understand it, sexual response to pornography is an absolute minefield.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea I always thought the Gay penguins thing was a bit "Daily Mail" alright. Looking for examples were they didn't exist or could be interpreted in a completely different way. You mentioned dominance and that could easily be misconstrued as sexual behaviour. EG cows in a field will often mount other cows, but it ain't lesbian, it's a dominance display. You could argue Bonobo chimps do show homosexual behaviour. They're the only vaguely concrete examples outside of humans I can think of.

There have been many "studies" carried out claiming to have proven homosexual behaviour in the animal world, but they can always be combated with other more established conclusions.

The bonobo apes for example are notorious for the sexual behaviour. But, they use sex for absolutely everything. They are an extremely violent species and sex is used as a dominating tactic. Quite often females will mount other lesser females when trying to get the attention of alpha males in a group. Is this "homosexual" behaviour? No, of course not. It's simply aggressive behaviour,with a seemingly sexual act as its manifestation, in order to secure the services of the "best" male genes.

But there are no truly homosexual couplings among bonobos. Simply put, they fu*k everything, for a HUGE variety of different reasons.

Another study I read about "confirming" lesbianism amongst animals was one to do with a particular type of Albatross. The conclusion, or semi conclusion, was that because there was a large number of female-female couplings, that these Albatrosses were exhibiting lesbian traits. Unfortunately, this conclusion is destroyed by the fact that the females outnumber the males by a factor of 2:1 and that no actual sexual contact was noted or witnessed in any coupling of the same sex. Also, in every case, there was an egg involved (from a previous male/female encounter) leading others to conclude that it was an altruistic bonding to further the chances of the offspring's survival, rather than a "lesbian" relationship. The ratio of sexes, in addition to the extremely low rate of egg laying amongst these albatrosses, makes the "altruistic bond" argument far superior to the "lesbian" argument.