Handsome lamb what about people who have different standards of beauty? (for example, they don't like big breasts)

Obviously it's different from person to person

But it's still basic primal instincts, so for the majority, eh.

Still, that doesn't refute the idea that someone can learn behaviours that are contrary to thier innate dispositions (ie gay men being straight, straight men being gay). In ancient Athens, most free men would have practiced some form of pederasty (erotic ideas about young men) , but is that attributed to thier brain size or the societal conditioning that gave rise to the self-replicating institution and that also ensured that people would fight more passionately for their fellow free men (because of the mess of romantic feelings that were stirred up in there). What we would have percieved as homosexual or bisexual behavious were considered normal for a majority of the male population, which most probably didn't have the brain-size difference ratio that this researcher was talking about.

This is because society back then was more open about this stuff, treated it as normal, didn't have bigots who killed or harassed people who did such things, allowed these people to be married, etc.

Completely different societal values. There is probably a lot of people now who are bisexual and don't know it, or choose to hide it, simply because, well...homosexual behavior isn't treated that way anymore. Sadly.

the problem with your reasoning Blitzen, is that you have nothing to back it up, you *think* sexual orientation can be changed, and claim you could change your if you really wanted to, but it's all empty claims, you have nothing to back up your opinion, where on the other side, even though there is no PROOF there are several things that seem to point at the fact that there are biological and physical differences between straight and gay people.

To that, Cray, I'd say this again,

The study suggests that gays are born gay because of brain structure, but who is to say that the subjects brain structure wasn't influenced to shape itself in its formative years due to reinforcement of homosexual behaviours (or other behaviours that are associative with the cognitive processes that take place with homosexuality) that stimulated and encouraged growth in those parts of the brain?

I still think that sexual behaviour can be learned or conditioned, and that as self aware animals we can condition ourselves, which means that we can in effect choose our sexual orientation, or at the very least, learn or re-learn it. I'm not going to participate anymore, but I'm curious as to where this discussion will go.

EDIT: A man would never have been allowed to marry another man in ancient Greece, DN. It would've been hilarious to everyone.

But it's still basic primal instincts, so for the majority, eh.

But what about cultures that have other standards, are you sure they're not just invented by them instead of being "instinct"?

I've yet to see a culture where big breasted women with large hips aren't the symbol of beauty
Blitzen: that just says that maybe the brain changes with time not before birth, but nowhere does it say that we have any kind of control over it, where you on the other side say that we can change it at will.

So DN, were the Roman Soldiers all born gay? Or were they born straight, but changed their way of thinking what with gayness be so open?

I change the physical functions of my brain with will, I can also grow a third arm on my chest by conditioning, and will my eyes into sprouting stalks.

I've yet to see a culture where big breasted women with large hips aren't the symbol of beauty

What about those peoples who don't wear clothes. They don't really care about big breasts.

What about anorexics. They think looking like you came from auschwitz is pretty.

What about body builders. They think they're pretty.

So I think beauty is invented.

But what about cultures that have other standards, are you sure they're not just invented by them instead of being "instinct"?

These are basic primal instincts that have been innately "hard coded" into us since we were cavemen. It persists to this day...it's something natural. You don't really think about natural selection, it just happens.  I mean, you don't just go, OH SHIT THIS CHICK TOTALLY HAS THIS AWESOME HEREDITARY TRAIT IM GONNA TAP THAT SHIT SOOOO HARD. I mean, it's not something you inherently think about it, it's just there. You may not inherently think (again, going with the majority here) why a chick is hot to you besides a few features, but instinctually (making up wordz) there's a drive there to carry on the human race. I don't seriously think, YES THIS CHICK HAS 36DD BREASTS IMA TAP THAT or SUPER WIDE HIPS, but it's something that attracts us involuntarily, even if we don't think it. Likewise, (most) women are attracted to bigger dicks (on instinct, not sexually where width is preferred according to surveys) because it means the man is more "manly" and "paternal" (possibly more likely to get pregnant, too). I don't think this is much of a stretch considering its been theorized the reason humans don't have a baculum (penis bone) like other mammals is because of sexual selection from females causing us to lose them. By removing the baculum, human males rely on blood pressure, and thus gives human females a way to determine how healthy their mate is. I believe sexuality is something completely based in birth and instinct.

So DN, were the Roman Soldiers all born gay? Or were they born straight, but changed their way of thinking what with gayness be so open?

There was gay roman soldiers, I'm sure. And purely straight roman soldiers too, I'm sure. But bisexuality was way more allowed in their society than ours, so I'm sure a lot more of them were more open in their sexuality. I think a lot of people are bisexual really, it's just our society teaches people to suppress the homosexual side, because of how horrible homosexuals are treated.

EDIT: But I think bisexuality is way more common than we like to believe. It's always been a huge majority if you look back in history through the romans and greeks etc, it's just not now because of new society values...we're more likely to hide it. I know a lot of guys who have had passing thoughts about men in their teenager years etc, because I think there's that innate curiosity about the other side. It doesn't mean they are pure homosexual though, I think it's just latent bisexuality if anything.

What about those peoples who don't wear clothes. They don't really care about big breasts.

What about anorexics. They think looking like you came from auschwitz is pretty.

What about body builders. They think they're pretty.

So I think beauty is invented.

You missed his point. Just about every culture ever worships big breasts & big hipped women because instinctively men see big breasted women & large hipped women as better moms and mates, big breasts for the child feeding process, big hips for the child bearing process (and iirc they have a slightly better chance of getting preggers too)

I guess I just don't understand this mentality that some people have that we have no control over who we are (and in that sense, I mean who we are as a collection of thoughts, feelings, attitudes and behaviours). I know that I can shape who I am as an individual, when it comes to these things, and so others probably can too, in various respects. Yeah, so to me, you do have the power choose your attitudes, behaviours, feelings through self conditioning and self reasoning, in spite of the fact that that your brain size says you "should" do different. People learn, and I really do think because of this reasoning that sexual behaviours are learned (or at the very least can be learned or re-learned) and not entirely innate.

If I read the article correctly, this particular researcher believes that his findings occur during the development of the fetus.  If there is any substantial scientific evidence to back this it would effectively rule out your suggestion that sexual orientation is not a predetermined default. 

I kinda see what you're saying about believing that each person has the ability to change certain aspects of himself/herself.  I don't see how this has any application whatsoever to a concept that is purely scientific.  A person who is inherently gay could very well self-condition himself to suppress those urges, but would it be healthy?  Would it be right?  It seems to me that consciously working to change a fundamental aspect of your body that was determined before you were even born might not be one of the most fruitful pursuits one could undertake.

This is the kind of stuff that sociologists probably talk about on the highest level. Because of popular attitudes towards homosexuality being more accepting, people are more willing to find reasons that make gays "faultless". (I didn't want to say it cause it sounds bad but its the only way I can think of describing it.) But yeah, we define each other by the behaviours we observe (you're not gay until you choose to do something gay) and we can define ourselves by our thoughts and feelings and behaviours (which as far as I am concerend can be chosen, learned, and re-learned through external and self-conditioning). Because we define homosexuality in these ways, if you agree that people can shape these things themselves, then you can see why I think choice is involved in the development of homosexuality in the individual.

I think there would be a choice as well, only not in the way you're describing it.  You seem to think that just about every aspect of human development is something that is learned and thus subject to change on a relative whim.  You also think that a person cannot be considered to possess a specific trait until he has formally participated in an activity that is popularly associated with that trait.  This is wrong in several ways.

If an 18-year-old male finds himself with no attraction whatsoever to the opposite sex but still has not officially participated in a sexual act with another male, does that make him some sort of invalid?  What title do you propose we give to these individuals, if not homosexual?  Furthermore, does that imply that he should "self-condition" himself to rid his being of these urges and simply fit in with the crowd? 

Also, I don't believe that there is in any way an effort to make the homosexual community appear "faultless" or however else you want to put it.  It's a good thing that society is coming to accept homosexuality as a valid way of life for some people and not something that should be discriminated against.  You seem to think that there's some sort of FAGGOT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION thing going on when the only real concept people are trying to uphold is equality.

The study suggests that gays are born gay because of brain structure, but who is to say that the subjects brain structure wasn't influenced to shape itself in its formative years due to reinforcement of homosexual behaviours (or other behaviours that are associative with the cognitive processes that take place with homosexuality) that stimulated and encouraged growth in those parts of the brain?

If this were the case then it would also follow that heterosexuality could have its roots as a learned process.  If sexual orientation is so subjective in relation to environmental stimulus, why has the human race propagated itself to the point of overpopulation?  Who was there to reinforce heterosexuality during the infancy of the human race as a species?  Sounds to me like science just isn't something that should be applied to those silly gays.  Or, you know, JESUS GUIDES MY TOOL.

And WOW.  While I was typing this 17 new replies were posted.   

You missed his point. Just about every culture ever worships big breasts & big hipped women because instinctively men see big breasted women & large hipped women as better moms and mates, big breasts for the child feeding process, big hips for the child bearing process (and iirc they have a slightly better chance of getting preggers too)

But what about those who don't, this is my point.

What about them? People can be different, but I'm talking about the overwhelming majority, which obviously exists because if the majority didn't like big breasted & big hipped women, they wouldn't be worshipped.

What about them? People can be different, but I'm talking about the overwhelming majority, which obviously exists because if the majority didn't like big breasted & big hipped women, they wouldn't be worshipped.

I'm pretty sure in 1910 they didn't like big breasts that much. In 1800 they also had other standards. In 1600 they also had other standards and so on. It's cultural, not instinctive.

--

PS: Like Alec said it most people like just normal looking women/men etc for the reasons you said, but this "Venus of Willendorf is beautiful", "Pamela anderson is beautiful" is what is invented and not really instinct at all

--

PS2: I'm done arguing

I'm pretty sure in 1910 they didn't like big breasts that much. In 1800 they also had other standards. In 1600 they also had other standards and so on. It's cultural, not instinctive.

Yes, they did. Are you kidding me? Lol. It's something that's been around in pretty much every culture since the dawn of time, man.

Ok, Bled, you roped me back in.

I kinda see what you're saying about believing that each person has the ability to change certain aspects of himself/herself.  I don't see how this has any application whatsoever to a concept that is purely scientific.  A person who is inherently gay could very well self-condition himself to suppress those urges, but would it be healthy?  Would it be right?  It seems to me that consciously working to change a fundamental aspect of your body that was determined before you were even born might not be one of the most fruitful pursuits one could undertake.

The "inherent gayness" which is alluded to by the study suggests that their is a direct correlation between the brain size (the inherent gayness) and the actual sexual orientation of the individual. But, as the ancient Greeks had proven, that the range of sexual behaviours one partakes in is something that is legitimated and fostered by the social group. Sexual orientation is not a purely individual trait, it requires a social group. (Ie you can't be gay on your own, you need to be around someone else of the same sex to have homosexual behaviours.) Because of this, sexual orientation (perhaps not sexuality but sexual relationships) are indeed social relationships that require outside forces from the individual for initiation, ie other people of the same of different sex. This would imply that sexual orientation is something that is borne of influence.

I think there would be a choice as well, only not in the way you're describing it.  You seem to think that just about every aspect of human development is something that is learned and thus subject to change on a relative whim.  You also think that a person cannot be considered to possess a specific trait until he has formally participated in an activity that is popularly associated with that trait.  This is wrong in several ways.

Human behaviour is not subject to change on a relative whim, but most behaviours (short of heart needs to beat to live) have been altered in one state or another by the individual in some case through self conditioning or through an experimental process. Apparently, if we take DN's word that sexual attraction is supposed to be as natural as you heart beating, then it can be seen that a sexual response to something could be controlled in the same way that Buddhist monks have been known to slow and even stop thier heart and breathing rates.

I only mean that we can associate a person with a trait as outsiders, applying definition, when we percieve another participating in activites indicative of that trait. Basically, our of sight out of mind for the rest of us. For the individual, it comes down to thier own perceptions, which I still beleive can be shaped by internal or external learning experiences.

If an 18-year-old male finds himself with no attraction whatsoever to the opposite sex but still has not officially participated in a sexual act with another male, does that make him some sort of invalid?  What title do you propose we give to these individuals, if not homosexual?  Furthermore, does that imply that he should "self-condition" himself to rid his being of these urges and simply fit in with the crowd? 

Psychologists have talked about people being a-sexual. An example that comes to mind from my research is Cecil Rhodes. The varied range of sexual behaviour (like what DN was talking about, that there are probably more people who exhibit bisexual behaviours than anyone cares to admit or ever has) is evidence that the homo-hetero binary attested to by the "born gay" theory is something that should be taken with scrutiny.

The self-conditioning I describe doesn't imply that all gay people should condition themselves to become straight, or vice versa, but only that because it is possible and achieveable means that their physiological predisposition shouldn't affect a person's choice about who they want to be. Because we can shape our own selves, anyone can be whoever they want, and if they WANT to be gay, that's fine, if they DON'T WANT to be gay, that's fine too, but if you accept that a person can change thier behaviours and attitudes, you should accept that it is possible for one to change thier sexual orientation.

Also, I don't believe that there is in any way an effort to make the homosexual community appear "faultless" or however else you want to put it.  It's a good thing that society is coming to accept homosexuality as a valid way of life for some people and not something that should be discriminated against.  You seem to think that there's some sort of FAGGOT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION thing going on when the only real concept people are trying to uphold is equality.

Personally, I see a trend in all of popular culture were no one is to blame for thier current state, favourable or not. Apparently, its not someone's own choice weather they are fat, lazy, gay, good at sports, good at math, etc. Because of the readiness for popular culture to accept gays in vein with the spirit of equality you mention, I would say that it is an extension of this mentality more than a direct manifestation of it.
I'm not saying gay people shouldn't be allowed to be gay, I'm not a biggot, but from my point of view that is a behaviour and an attitude that they have chosen and practiced, which allows them to be recognized as gay. I'm all for equality, but sexual orientation isn't something like eye colour, because it is a social trait that requires some sort of internal or external learning for recognition.

If this were the case then it would also follow that heterosexuality could have its roots as a learned process.  If sexual orientation is so subjective in relation to environmental stimulus, why has the human race propagated itself to the point of overpopulation?  Who was there to reinforce heterosexuality during the infancy of the human race as a species?  Sounds to me like science just isn't something that should be applied to those silly gays.  Or, you know, JESUS GUIDES MY TOOL.

Idk, for me this is less a question of science and more a question of the philosophical and social aspects of the self. As for the overpopulation thing, the reason why all species will breed to the point of overpopulation is just because they can. Heterosexuality as biologically nescessary to the propgation of the species is not something that need be enforced but rather incorperated itself into the cultural behaviours of people during the infancy of the race. Just like deer when thier aren't enough wolves around.

While I think (and the study agrees) that the link between brain shape and the predisposition towards homosexuality needs to be explored more before there is any conclusive evidence, nothing will ever change my mind that we as individuals are who we choose to be in almost every behavioural aspect because we have that ability to change who we are.

I'm pretty sure in 1910 they didn't like big breasts that much. In 1800 they also had other standards. In 1600 they also had other standards and so on. It's cultural, not instinctive.

--

PS: Like Alec said it most people like just normal looking women/men etc for the reasons you said, but this "Venus of Willendorf is beautiful", "Pamela anderson is beautiful" is what is invented and not really instinct at all

--

PS2: I'm done arguing

this

also the whole Chinese thing where they made the feet tiny and it looks pretty fugly and painful

so all we've established so far is that blitzen just finished his introductory psych class, and now has the ability to make startling insights into people's minds.

jesus christ.

And I wonder, if at any given point in history that the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals has increased or descreased with the social atmosphere of any given place and time towards homosexual/bisexual behaviours. They never did keep statistics on that kind of thing though (which is a shame because it would be pretty interesting.)

so you're saying people are more open to their homosexuality/bisexuality depending on the social climate and other circumstances (no shit)

this doesn't support your theory at all.

it has nothing to do with being able to change yourself to the extent of being able to choose your sexual orientation. the whole argument you guys are having about WELL DIFFERENT PLACES THINK BEAUTY IS THIS has nothing to do with this shit. differences in the perception of beauty are the result of external influences that become deeply ingrained in a person's mind. and once there, they can't really be removed or OVERWRITTEN as you're suggesting. you gather these perceptions of the world as you're growing up and removing them is most likely impossible. and of course there's no evidence that sexuality is at all the same as perceptions of beauty and suggesting it is is pretty ignorant in itself

your idea that it doesn't become homosexuality until it's acted upon comes from the fundamentalist standpoint. they need to say this to believe that it is a choice to be homosexual. however, homosexuality is defined as sexual desire within the same sex and pretty much everyone who isn't a bigot acknowledges this.

I guess you really want to believe that it's a choice to be gay (which is what you're saying, believe it or not!), but there's absolutely no way you can prove or even test this. you just don't know how other people's minds work, regardless of how much LOGICAL REASONING and pseudopsychology you toss around. as is, you're just telling everyone how weird you think gay folks are and how much you want to believe that they don't have to be gay if they didn't want to, even though there's absolutely no evidence to back this up and you're really just giving yourself a bad image