ahna Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Came upon this article and found it an interesting read. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/is-sexual-orientation-a-choice-9582897.html The question this article asks: Do you choose your sexuality or does sexuality choose you? Link to post Share on other sites
PiF Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 The question I would ask instead is...has she just launched a book for sale?..it would appear yes I do believe in the born this way myself Link to post Share on other sites
Touchofinsight Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Honestly I find the question meaningless. Its absolutely pointless to me if orientations exist or not as an innate part of our DNA or if its a learned behavior. Argue the merits/results of the behavior. I feel like its a cowardly argument to say with 100% confidence (Despite the clear lack of evidence) that you were "born this way" just argue the merits of your behavior. I can't think of a convincing argument why being Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Asexual, etc etc is detrimental to society. Lets put is this way, assume in a hypothetical that every sexuality is purely a choice... wheres the problem for any of these sexualities? Whats the real issue? Does someone choosing to be a certain sexuality really have a detriment to society? It feels like a bunch of people just hate the idea or are uncomfortable with people not "making the same choices" as they do. Oh wait, that's pretty much the root of every controversial topic ever... There is no "standard" for life, everyone is different in some way.... get over it. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 PiF, on 04 Jul 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:I do believe in the born this way myself Ditto. I was. Link to post Share on other sites
poindexter Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I actually wrote a post on this subject a few days ago: http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/104547-asexuality-and-nature-vs-nurture/ though admittedly, it's not very concise/well-written. I tend to go off on a tangent when it comes to stuff like this - there's too much to think about. Sometimes, I feel like people are afraid of considering whether sexuality is learned rather than innate because they fear the repurcussions from the anti-gay community, and the people who think they can "cure" it, which is a fallacious argument because it doesn't address the actual question. "It can't be learned because that would mean we can change it!" I'm an introvert - is that innate or learned? I don't know, and I don't think anyone does. It's not something I feel I should attempt to change about myself - if I even can - because it's part of who I am, and it's not much of a hindrance to my every-day life. No one suggests I should change it (apart from the people who write books), so it becomes a non-problem, and it's not a "disorder" or an "illness" or anything like that. So I don't get why it's such a contentious issue when it comes to homosexuality - I mean I do get it (i.e. because some people are close-minded assholes), but it's no different from changing the fact you're shy or outgoing, or you like.... fricking bungee jumping or something. I often feel that people need to get over the idea that sexuality is this big thing that defines who you are, and understand that it's simply a single facet of your personality; of who you are. It matters not whether you "chose" that path or if it was already laid out for you because, ultimately, we cannot undo our past. Accept and move on. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I'm certain that it's been chosen for me, without my conscious input. However, I won't make a final conlusive statement on whether the choice is mostly made by genes or mostly by (early) surrounding influence. I tend rather strongly towards the "nature" end of the ol' "nature vs nurture" debate, but I have my doubts that it's 100% black or white. Link to post Share on other sites
PiF Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I feel like its a cowardly argument to say with 100% confidence (Despite the clear lack of evidence) that you were "born this way" Just WoW Link to post Share on other sites
Chewy Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 PiF, on 04 Jul 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:I do believe in the born this way myself Ditto. I was. Check out this research Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Dang, I wish the audio on that one was better. I can (acoustically) understand only half of it. :( Link to post Share on other sites
Chewy Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Dang, I wish the audio on that one was better. I can (acoustically) understand only half of it. :( Is two of them play at the same time? sounds like echo? That happened to me once and apparently there were two playing at the same time. Try closing one of them. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Weird. Yes, that seems to have been the main issue, thanks! Link to post Share on other sites
MoraDollie Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Biologically speaking, it takes 2-5 seconds to make a first impression or not and then it takes 4-7 seconds to determine if a person if physically attractive. MANY factors go into this (scent, facial symmetry, hair color, eye color, body type, etc...). For this reason, no, I don't believe we can consciously choose who we find attractive and who we don't find attractive. We can choose whether or not to act on urges/impulses/whatever you want to call them, but we can't choose who we find attractive. There's sexual orientations, romantic orientations, etc... Humans are so freaking complicated with all our emotions, desires, whatever. There was this interesting article that popped up not too long ago: http://www.ibtimes.com/does-gay-gene-exist-new-study-says-xq28-may-influence-male-sexual-orientation-1555564 but I'm a firm believer that science will never be able to fully explain some concepts to us. Society definitely plays a role in how comfortable people willingly express their interests in someone else. For example, a poll taken not too long ago that women were MUCH more comfortable showing their feelings towards another woman. However with guys? Guys were overall very uncomfortable towards showing feelings towards another guy. Blame the patriarchy on this one. Link to post Share on other sites
PiF Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I didn't get where she disclosed the amount of people took part in the surveys i checked the ubc lab and it is primarily a sexual dysfunction and sexual phsycology unit..so am slightly puzzled why the drift into asexuality and what is in it for them why can't she just say left handed rather than non right handed? the gay association was not helpfull I noticed when a member of the audience asked is there a correlation between women and asexuality... she said no...even though based on avens 2008 census and our current membership it would seem 75% of those declaring asexuality ..are women older siblings..she seems to be saying where there is a group of children and one maybe asexual then it's likely to be the oldest asexuals masturbate to the same level as sexuals? because she then corrected herself and said some? they seem well versed on power point and sign laguage...but the omission of the study numbers...more vaguities than a politician I have to say it's not the best presentation on asexuality I've seen she got the definition right though which is always a good start :lol: Link to post Share on other sites
Xavy Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I personally think I was born asexual. From reading her own description of herself, I think the author of that book appears to have chosen a certain sexual behavior (lesbian) but sexual orientation is not the same thing as sexual behavior. Link to post Share on other sites
Fire & Rain Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I think it's both nature and nurture for me but either way I didn't get to choose anything. Link to post Share on other sites
shockkkk Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I don't think sexuality is determined at birth, but that doesn't mean that you can choose your sexuality. Identical twin studies basically show that sexual orientation isn't solely determined at birth. Quickly pulled from Wikipedia: "In a 1991 study, Bailey and Pillard found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality" "Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34ā.39 of the variance [of sexual orientation], the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61ā.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18ā.19 for genetic factors, .16ā.17 for shared environmental, and .64ā.66 for unique environmental factors." I don't see why we would expect asexuality to be different. Link to post Share on other sites
Kanenas Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I remember reading studies (cisgendered people were scanned) about how lesbian's brains looked different from heterosexual women's brains and an awful lot like heterosexual men's brains. Neuroscience Whether we get worked up about calling it DNA or neurology, it is nature and not nurture. Link to post Share on other sites
R_1 Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 As someone whose sexual orientation had changed, I personally do not believe that everyone is born that way. I also believe it is not a choice. The brain is suspectible to changes and that would mean that changes to areas of the brain related to sexual orientation can alter one's preference or the degree of sexuality. Link to post Share on other sites
shockkkk Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I remember reading studies (cisgendered people were scanned) about how lesbian's brains looked different from heterosexual women's brains and an awful lot like heterosexual men's brains. Neuroscience Whether we get worked up about calling it DNA or neurology, it is nature and not nurture. Except that brain development and genetic expression depends on one's environment. Link to post Share on other sites
Janus the Fox Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Within the nature vs. nurture argument it's just simply both. An individuals sexuality could be influenced more or less between the two. Link to post Share on other sites
Coolwhoami Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 One of the problems with this subject I find is that there is a difference between the "nature vs nurture" argument (which is a misnomer, as the environment one lives in cannot be separated from their genes) and the idea of choice. Typically the arguments that fly in face of a genetic determinism (which I think itself is a pretty questionable position to take) are not about there being some sort of broader explanation that includes genes, but that the actions are entirely chosen. āBecause I think the opposite of having an innate, biological explanation [for homosexuality] ā thereās no evidence for that ā has to be some kind of choice, as well as some deep-rooted, embedded responses that developed through different experiences in our childhood.ā This here demonstrates (among other statements in the article) the confusion, and potentially the source of it. In a lack of clarity upon the insistent of being "born in such a way", people think that the basis of the argument is founded upon a genetic determination of sexuality. They then decide that this means any evidence to the contrary leads to a conclusion that it must be chosen. This is utter nonsense: A behaviour not found to be determined by a particular thing does not allow for the substitution of whatever explanatory system you wish to replace it with. By such a logic, I could say that the flying spaghetti monster dictates sexuality in all humans. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Coolwhoami, on 05 Jul 2014 - 5:29 PM, said:Coolwhoami, on 05 Jul 2014 - 5:29 PM, said:One of the problems with this subject I find is that there is a difference between the "nature vs nurture" argument (which is a misnomer, as the environment one lives in cannot be separated from their genes) Of course genetic inheritance can be separated from environment. If identical twins grow up in different environments, they may display different personalities due to their environments, but their genes are not affected by those environments. You are born with a set of genes; you don't develop them during life.. Link to post Share on other sites
shockkkk Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Coolwhoami, on 05 Jul 2014 - 5:29 PM, said:Coolwhoami, on 05 Jul 2014 - 5:29 PM, said:One of the problems with this subject I find is that there is a difference between the "nature vs nurture" argument (which is a misnomer, as the environment one lives in cannot be separated from their genes) Of course genetic inheritance can be separated from environment. If identical twins grow up in different environments, they may display different personalities due to their environments, but their genes are not affected by those environments. You are born with a set of genes; you don't develop them during life.. This is not exactly true. Genetic expression changes based on your environment. See epigenetics. Link to post Share on other sites
Coolwhoami Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Coolwhoami, on 05 Jul 2014 - 5:29 PM, said:Coolwhoami, on 05 Jul 2014 - 5:29 PM, said:One of the problems with this subject I find is that there is a difference between the "nature vs nurture" argument (which is a misnomer, as the environment one lives in cannot be separated from their genes) Of course genetic inheritance can be separated from environment. If identical twins grow up in different environments, they may display different personalities due to their environments, but their genes are not affected by those environments. You are born with a set of genes; you don't develop them during life.. I will add to what was said above. You have epigentics, which "turn off" or "turn on" genes due to environmental factors, and can be passed on but not permanently (because the DNA itself is not being changed, access to parts of it are being blocked). Furthermore, how genes are actually expressed themselves is also condition upon environment. Therefore, there is no way to actually separate the two aspects meaningfully. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Coolwhoami, on 05 Jul 2014 - 9:41 PM, said: .. I will add to what was said above. You have epigentics, which "turn off" or "turn on" genes due to environmental factors, and can be passed on but not permanently (because the DNA itself is not being changed, access to parts of it are being blocked). Furthermore, how genes are actually expressed themselves is also condition upon environment. Therefore, there is no way to actually separate the two aspects meaningfully. OK -- have been googling and found a number of sources that said research has been done that says that environmental differences can produce epigenetic results in twins. *should not get into scientific disputes with those who know more than I do* :redface: Link to post Share on other sites
Coolwhoami Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 OK -- have been googling and found a number of sources that said research has been done that says that environmental differences can produce epigenetic results in twins. *should not get into scientific disputes with those who know more than I do* :redface: Well hey, now you learned something new, nothing bad about that! Link to post Share on other sites
Moon Ace Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Came upon this article and found it an interesting read. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/is-sexual-orientation-a-choice-9582897.html The question this article asks: Do you choose your sexuality or does sexuality choose you? So... Following her argument... Scientists have so far failed to find evidence for life on other planets, so there isn't any... Or in other words, until we found evidence for a heliocentric universe, the universe was geocentric. It's not because we haven't found evidence yet that it isn't true. Link to post Share on other sites
multiverseismultilingual Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 The word please means pleasure so if you say to someone can you please do something for me you are asking them to do something for your pleasure. Saying if you please is fine but saying will you please is wrong and leads to uncontrollable sexual desire. Sexuality is meant to only be for sexual reproduction or unitive purposes. Link to post Share on other sites
5_ā¦ā£ Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 please [pleez] Show IPA adverb 1. (used as a polite addition to requests, commands, etc.) if you would be so obliging; kindly: Please comehere. will you please turn the radio off? verb (used with object), pleased, pleasĀ·ing. 2. to act to the pleasure or satisfaction of: to please the public. 3. to be the pleasure or will of: May it please your Majesty. verb (used without object), pleased, pleasĀ·ing. 4.to like, wish, or feel inclined: Go where you please. 5. to give pleasure or satisfaction; be agreeable: manners that please. /End thread derailment. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 multiverseismultilingual, on 06 Jul 2014 - 04:53 AM, said:The word please means pleasure so if you say to someone can you please do something for me you are asking them to do something for your pleasure. Saying if you please is fine but saying will you please is wrong and leads to uncontrollable sexual desire. Sexuality is meant to only be for sexual reproduction or unitive purposes. So if I ask a friend "Will you please xxx" that friend will experience uncontrollable sexual desire? :lol: :lol: :lol: Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.