Not true. Your enviroment affects even from birth.
Indeed, that is why I said culturally, as in its effects on your culture.
This doesn't mean their work is at all accurate. notice it doesn't appear in acadamia today.
Well, they primarily dealt with the personal experiences, and showed how many of those who're in the border, in the fringes of the definitions of society, feel. Many of those programs dealed with what are known as hermaphrodites, people whose gender is ill define, and since academia said they could be molded, so it was that society attempted to do so. But many a times society went against what nature desired, and thus its intentions ended in failure.
Some of these programs also dealt with those who didn't meet the standards, and as such where deemed worthy of inhuman experimentation. Is a boy with a recessed gen!tal!a not better off as a girl? Is the same true for a girl, if her cli466ris is too large is she better of as a man?
Can you provide me with their research so i may know who you are refering to and what their research was concerning? I have read quite a bit on this issue and have come to the rightful conclusion most of the so called evidence up to this point is bunk. The rest remains highly contested.
I wouldn't call dozens upon dozens of lives ruined do to erroneous believes, simply bunk.
What the programs focused mostly was on the accounts of those who'd been butchered. I'd assume these people wouldn't go public, just for the sake of publicity, after all what they've gone throught is considered taboo by many.
I'm sure a search on "hermaphrodite", "early child sex change surgery", and the like could provide some info. I'd do so myself, but it'd take a while to screen through the different sources for appropiate ones.
There's also that experiment which appeared I think either in nature, cnn, or newscientist, etc. In the experiment t-shirts from several men, were given to some females. They were asked to rate which men was the most attractive, or something like that, based on the smell of the t-shirts. Females in this experiment chose as most attractive the t-shirts of those most symmetrical, as you know symmetry is an indicator of good genes. Thus we could assume info about the quality of genes, and probably more, can be transmitted in non-verbal-visual ways.
But that wasn't really the question i was asking you...I am wondering if genetics affects other forms of sexuality. Which logically, if it affects ones hetero/homosexuality there isn't any reason other rejected forms of sexual behavior couldn't be genetically influenced.
I'm assuming that it would take significant alteration to provide something, akin to the attraction between the sexes, toward another non-human form. Now I could make the hypothesis that maybe if in some way one was less influenced by nature, one might become more succeptible to develop strange desires towards cars, dogs, or some other thing. In such a case you might say one is genetically influenced to do something like that. But to say become akin to some of the less developed(int.) animals in sexual attraction might require changes to pheromone receptors, and to many areas in the brain.
But I wouldn't rule out the possibility that if something goes wrong here or there, one might find oneself confused, not able to relate to the strange social and mating rituals around one. Maybe even intrigued by the bias that is mostly present in each of the sexes. One could say that such individuals could end up being bisexual, pedophiles, necrophiles, etc...
Again i disagree. If anything enviroment affects our views on attraction more so then genetics. I think you can do a simple cross section of world cultures and see exactly what i am talking about.
Well, in many cases that is not so, this indicates to me, that either the influence is as strong or slightly more so.
For example there are regions where for generations people have done barbaric things to their lips, ears, etc in order to be considered more desirable to the other gender(hint). Now that many people in many of these regions are learning of the modern world, they are abandoning that which was taught to them. They are abandoning what is expected of them, what was taught since they were children, it seems THEY DIDN'T agree with their culture, with their local enviroment.
Can you provide me for how genes conceive breasts, phallic objects, etc as sexual? How do genes translate this information to the working psyche of the mind?
Somehow they translate facial features, at least from what I've heard. The brain has special h/w to do so, IIRC. Seeing how there are similar things in other areas, like the inclination towards fat and sweets, it is not hard to imagine something similar involved in sexual attraction.
Decades ago, I didn't understand why men where so into looking at females back, or at females in swimsuits... clearly even when their peers are not looking, they seem to have strange urges to seek the female figure, even in the privacy of their own homes... Why do boys seek images of nude girls, and not of nude boys, there is no one around, what is it that compels them?
Of course they won't develope attraction to random objects. They aren't incouraged to. It is much like learning the value of money. A purpose or worth has to be instilled in the object first. This may come through experience or through incouragements from peers/parents.
True, the brain is malleable, it is meant to adapt and to survive. Experiences and traumas can mold the mind beyond what is acceptable in society. Thus it is not hard to imagine that they can alter or distort sexual perception.
Well, no one has encouraged me, and I value many things that are outside the realms of what is expected of me. Yet, I cannot brake free from these chains. But they can be broken to a certain degree, drugs, age, alterations to caloric intake, and the like are said to influence sexual libido, among other things.
I would still like for you to provide a more indepth response.
hmmm, Ok. Many young children tend to have no notion of what sex is, they at most tend to play with each other and the like. Even when nude, they might make a joke here and there, but no (advanced)sexual intentions tend to develop. As they grow, many a times parents don't even mention sex, they begin to be more attracted to the opposite sex... even those that tend to be secluded, the small gangs, the geeks, antisocials, etc. From my personal experience, even people with little exposition or guidance towards sexual attraction, develop it, and even more intriguing this tends to be towards the opposite sex.
Again i disagree. Whether it tends to be one way or the other has little barings on the subject. Many cultures of the past and present welcomed homosexuality and accepted it. Based on what you have said could i say that do to the fact most cultures frown on pedophilia there must be a genetic predisposition for those who practice it? As that could be the only explanation for it?
Yes accepted, but do we know to what degree this influenced the homosexual to heterosexual ratio. If influence was minor, than it doesn't mean much.
Many things, even creativity(comparison between human ancestors, some created the same exact tools, but others were able to make alterations, etc), is said to have some genetic root, so I don't know.
Why couldn't enviroment completely explain sexual behavior? It is an absurd suggestion that most people within a culture will behave similiarly because they are all provided with similiar instructions?
Well, our ancestors were not as capable at handing down information as we now are, yet they managed to reproduce. Those who're inclined to seek the other sex, and reproduce are most likely to leave offspring, their traits are more likely to pass on. Sexual selection is seen throughout the natural world, it seems likely that there exist components beyond those that a parent teaches his offspring that influence the sexual attractions of this offspring. As I've said it's clear that genes influence other animals in their attraction, it is clear that this was so in our ancestors, it is clear that this is beneficial to the species, why tend would this be lost in humans? If it is beneficial, it will tend to remain regardless.
You have even mentioned yourself that people can change their sexuality. WHy couldn't these people who are homosexual be as the disobendient children in your analogy? What good would a poll be? I could say it is as much an example of my enviromental hypothesis as it is your genetic hypothesis when taken at face value as you have presented it.
Well, from my understanding my genetic hypothesis is more a theory when it comes to less mentally developed species, that would include our ancestors. Traits that are beneficial tend to be passed on. I'm not saying the enviroment can't influence people, that would be foolish, what I'm saying is that genes also provide some influence, and in some areas that influence can be overwhelming most of the time. Look at the desire for sweets and fats, that is something that many cannot easily overcome.
Again, if the enviromental influence was so great, then why are there dozens upon dozens of cases where this is not the case. Why are those whose genit@l!a is ill defined, not easily molded?
not establish which prior incarnations of sapiens had these preprogrammed rituals or behaviors it comes to me as father evident with the evolution of intelligence came with it the reduction of instinct. I am willing to argue NS rendered preprogammed sexual behavior obsolelete long before there were even humans.
I'd say I beg to differ. The difference in the sexes remain, physically, from outside to inside, and even mentally here and there. The desire that arises when a child reaches his early teens, is not one that can be easily controlled or molded by parents, and it is one that is distinctly different in boys and girls. Those who've believed that this is not so have performed surgeries on those at the edge, in between the sexes, only to see disastrous consequences from what I'm told.
Well, I've seen many groups, and I'd say there seems to be reward mechanisms for socializing and engaging in mating rituals...
You haven't yet provided for how it is built in to any degree.
Well, I think it's obvious. Some experiments like...
In 1998, Kathleen Stern and Mary McClintock from the University of Chicago, Illinois, published the first definitive evidence that the reason why women living together synchronise their menstrual cycle must be because they secrete an odourless chemical in their sweat.
Rodriguez and his colleagues at Rockefeller have cloned what looks like the first bona fide human pheromone receptor. Using a combination of molecular approaches, they screened a human genomic library and found a sequence 28% identical to the mouse V1ra2 gene. This sequence, which the authors called V1RL1, contains key amino acid reisdues that are conserved in every rodent pheromone receptor, and is expressed predominantly in the human olfactory mucosa
and the t-shirt one have hinted it.
It is obvious IMHO, that something is there, have you not seen the primitive, IMO, social and mating rituals in which people engage? Have you not seen that even against what is expected of them kids sometimes have sex?
Many a times girls, and boys are left alone with others of the same sex, and even allowed to be naked together in baths and the like... yet they don't tend to go into sexual orgies or the like why? Don't tell me it is reason, it may have been decades ago, but I recall these people having hyper sex drives, talking 24-7 about sex, and overall being very very horny... Yet, they could not wait to be left with a girl on weekends, or even in school, but that was not so for boys.
men don't tend to seek men, and women don't tend to seek women, when looking for a sexual partner... why is that? Do you think this bias is merely something that is taught?
Is it really bullocks? Can you provide evidence humans are born with predetermined sexual behaviors? Again, enviroment explains this. Sexual pleasure is without a doubt the major drive to have sex.
Yet there are devices, and ways to obtain it, yet it is mostly seeked in the company of a member of the opposite sex. Even amongst those who care not about society and have received little education about such things.
Parents and society expect one to excel in schools, and in life, often a child is encouraged to be a doctor or a lawyer... yet many times he does not follow or is happy with this path, but when it comes to sexual attraction it seems that even without significant influence he tends to follow more willingly.
The argument you have presented has yet to provide evidence for how genetics relates to the human cognicants what male/female are and what sex is. Children often ask questions ie "where do babies come from." If they were born with this knowledge why ask the question? Remember, simply providing a counter attack doesn't reinforce your position when so many could be correct.
That knowledge has nothing to do with the built in desire to have sex or with the fact people tend to be attracted to the opposite sex regardless of what you teach them.
There are ways obviously to do this, and there are ways to do many things, you can open their minds, etc.
Lol, how do you equate irrelevance to the behavior being illegal? Nonsense. It is a sexual orientation/behavior just as is homosexuality or heterosexuality. Same with lusts for animals and the dead, or for that matter anything else. If you are willing to perceive sexuality is predetermined then all forms of it are as well.
If we wish to believe sexual orientation can be determined by genetics then why not any other forms of behaviors or orienations outside of hetero/homosexuality? No one has yet provided an answer to this question.
In other animals, AFAIK, desire to engage in sexual acts with the dead or animals from other species is not so. I'd say whatever mechanisms there are, are likely quite complex, something that is probably outside the realm of realistic probability to occur from one generation to the next. Neither is it likely for a non-beneficial complex mechanism to be attracted to such things to be developed many thousands of generations if it's not beneficial.
Thus we're left with mistakes that can occur, and would leave them succeptible to develop so. So it might be possible for someone to be slightly susceptible to other sexual behaviors... I wouldn't rule out that possibility.
That as time progressed this behavior continued for matters of reason and not instinct.
Is a twelve year old child doing things based on reason? What reason is there for him to tend to chose a member of the opposite sex as opposed to the same to begin his sexual exploration? You at least admit that the desire to have sex is at least not something that arises for matters of reason, right?
If it was based up to reason... then what is the compelling reason for people to remain attracted to members of a particular sex throughout their lives? Why do they not engage in relationships with members of either sex, that is disregard the sex of their partners, even after multiple failed relations of such kind? Are you suggesting that there is a logical reason for the g3n!tal!@ of humans to be so influential in the choice of a mate?
The basis for desire does not appear to be reason, the inherent focus of this desire, I'd say too, is not up to reason. It can be influenced by the enviroment, I've not denied that, but it's components that go beyond simple enviromental stimuli. It is difficult for some to imagine a way to code for such things, but it would be difficult to imagine a code for machine out of which consciousness could arise, yet it is so done.
I have major problems with how you have written this statement. I am not sure you are meaning to be vague or not but simply discovery of sexual organs and the pleasures of masturbation would more than likely lead to sexual interactions
Sexual interactions between members of the opposite sex most likely. Now, why is it that a parent feels safe leaving his child with a friend of the same sex, but not with a member of the opposite? Why is ok, for a girl to spend the night alone with her female friend, but not with her male friend? Why are boys and girls kept separate during bathing sections, and in bathrooms? What is it that drives these things?
Many schools have no sex'ed where I live, heck many children are not taught anything about these things. Yet, the boys are interested in the girls and the girls in the boys in unusual ways especially after they reach their early teens, why is this?
argument that humans are affected by instincts comes to me as rather dubious.
Babies have an instinct to suck, if they didn't they'd die of hunger. I've heard they also have swimming instincts early on. At least they've been called as such by many professionals.
For example, it's pretty clear to myself that pop culture has been breeding a sub-group of the current adolescent female demographic into believing that bisexuality is acceptable at any age.
From what I've heard from specialists, etc in the news, is that it's more of a thing out of curiosity or game than anything serious.
Sex will happen between them anyways if they're sexually aroused by one another.
Indeed, and from my experiences... and from what I believe is occuring throughout the nation, it doesn't tend to occur between same sex children... God!!! Imagine the sexual orgies that would be occuring in the showers, and cloth changing sessions that occur in many a school's gym throughout the country... Yet, it doesn't happen? Why? Why not, why is a boy not sexually attracted to his best friend Johnny doe, in the shower... but he is to Suzie?
Why, because he was taught so? By whom? Yeah, now we have the net, and the like... But decades ago that was not so, and sex was even more taboo back then. Surely 10 year old boys and girls weren't being taught sex either in school or at home... but still they were attracted to members of the opposite sex, and not to members of the same sex... they could even change their cloths together, and sleep in each others house no worry, eh?
Again i disagree with you. You have yet to provide evidence sexual orientation is predetermined. Thusly i can not see how you can argue, factually, that no orientation change can be made.
Well, besides the entire societal structure, the dozens of accounts of those who've unwillingly become part of surgeons who believed the same as you, and the fact that one often chooses ones partners based on their genetic quality... The fact that at least the impulse is obviously predetermined, along with the biological gen!t@l!a, and differing brain structures, and physiques, should suggest it's not outside the realm of possibility.
However, i believe as evidence suggests during the process of human evolution humanity became increasing less dependant on instincts and more on cognicents.
I agree, but having seen many a groups of society, and many a humans, and many a debate, I've come to a slightly different conclusion. We're not as advanced or as far of from the animal world as you'd like to think.
You don't actually believe humans have instinctual mating rituals, do you?
Well, it is true that the mating rituals vary from culture to culture, but pointless, boring, dare I say idiotic behavior seems to predominate human social and mating activities. I wouldn't doubt that we're a little more primitive than you actually think... heheheh...
