Poll: The 'why' in Sexuality

[BeerTent]

[...]
Whats your sexuality?
Do you think there is a Why too your Sexuality?
Are we born this way? or does it just happen? or do are experiences Define our sexuality?
Have you ever been sexual Attracted to a member of the Same sex when you are not Homosexual?
Have you ever been Sexual Attracted to a member of the Opposite Sex when you are Homosexual?

Also my grammer and Puncuation is very bad im sorry about that.

You and you alone can define what orientation you are, and those are shaped through your own experiences. I don't believe it's a choice, no... But we can't tear apart your brain to see how your wired, so the only other way to find out is by testing it.

Personally, I'm a pretty straight Tent. In my experiences, I feel in the mood around women, and when a man comes onto me, I feel nothing. As to why? Just how I was fabricated.

 

[Elate]

I'm gay because I like it da' butt, men are far easier to relate to, share more interests and generally make actual sense, also vajayjay isn't my cup of tea.

 

[verdant monkai]

SNIP

Love the mounting entheusiasm!

Yep it would get pretty dilute. However THEN we factor in the other things i talked about where we have gay people having children with straight people. Not to mention we have the extremely complex interactions of different genes to consider. Perhaps the "gay gene" is a repressor gene for another gene that causes attraction in a certain way. Perhaps its an incredibly complex combination possible from anyone in the population but with a very small chance of the combination being viable.

That is to say we all have the genetics and alleles for attraction, say about 90% of your gametes will contain the correct sequence to give straight attraction while ther other 10% contain the correct sequence of genes and repressor genes and other parts to lead to a "gay" person if in combination with others. All stemming from genetics that are essential to attraction that we all have but a unique combination therein. Im perfectly willing to accept the gay gene doesnt exist. However its a perfectly valid theory and it needs me research into it.

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual

This however throws a spanner in my ideas. It should be 100%. Its higher than usual. But its also not 100%. This leads me to think that genetics may make a person more... accepting to becoming gay depending on how their brain develops after birth. But the factor isnt described entirely by genetics. Ill concede that.

The enthusiasm is due to that new word "fallacious" (I will never forget you for that)

Some people have said I have made a big mistake when I said "Gays cant have kids" they are right. I should have said Gays don't normally have kids.

You make a very valid genetic point, but at the end of the day. Actual scientists have studied this matter deeply and found no evidence or trace of a gay gene. The points I offered are just my view on the matter, which you didn't disprove.

Oh and also I know you did not say so but using words like Zygote and monozygotic (pretty standard GCSE stuff really) does not make your biological knowledge superior in anyway to mine. If anything we seem to be on the same level of understanding from what I can see.

 

[Chefodeath]

What is Demi-sexual? And how does Pan-sexuality differ from bisexuality?

Pansexuality is where you're attracted to literally anyone, no matter who they are.

Bisexuality is just male/female

Tell me of these other mythical genders.

The implication being that there is no distinction to be had between a pansexual and a bisexual if there are only two genders. Say I have two people and offer each of them to pick from a bag of jellybeans.

The first person says "Oh, thank you, but I only like the red and blue jellybeans."

The second person says "Fuck ya! Jellybeans!"

Now as it turns out, the bag contains only red and blue jellybeans, so both people share a common pool of compatible jellybeans. The distinction between them comes in the fact that person 1 likes the jellybeans because they are either red or blue, person 2 likes the jellybeans because they are jellybeans.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

now i was playing Burnout Paradise [its where idea's happen] and i was thinking about Sexuality.

anyway im Pansexual, so i started thinking, i read earlier on a different site that 'Your Experiences define your sexuality'. i wasn't 100% sold on this however, because i didn't have a great time with Male or Female people, at all. i looked into the subject even more and i got a different response

'your just born that way' [also i don't listen to most modern music so i was unaware of the Lady Gaga song'] i wasn't sold on this either, because if you have certain experiences with a gender you might end up hating that gender. As far as i know people aren't born with hate, so i was really against the wall trying to figure it out.

as i zoomed around another corner and off a jump, i had a realization, 'I have Absolutely no idea'.

i couldn't figure out why i was pansexual because it didn't really make sense too me, i was always treated badly by the Sexes and wouldn't that negatively impact on what i think of them sexually?

but i was Straight only 4 years ago, i found gay stuff and by that i mean like 'Erotica' kind of 'unappealing' if you get me. I did and still do believe in Gay rights and stuff i just didn't really wanna see Erotica in action.

maybe it was that scene in FF7 but i never found that stuff exciting in any case.

So im confused.

ANYWAAYYYYYYYY

Whats your sexuality?
Do you think there is a Why too your Sexuality?
Are we born this way? or does it just happen? or do are experiences Define our sexuality?
Have you ever been sexual Attracted to a member of the Same sex when you are not Homosexual?
Have you ever been Sexual Attracted to a member of the Opposite Sex when you are Homosexual?

Also my grammer and Puncuation is very bad im sorry about that.

*Straight.

*I don't think why is ever a consideration for most, it just is. If you're looking for an answer you look to biology (or bio-chemistry?) and neurology since attraction is hardwired into us from birth both mentally and physically. It's all in your head (hur hur)

*I believe we are born with a predisposition towards one sex or another (or both or none... or everything?) but external influences can condition towards certain preferences. I don't think the fetishes of the world are inherent or mutational... I think they are adapted to our lives based on experiences, both good and bad. There may be something inherent about preferences towards certain physical features, but I think that's a stretch.

*I can see how someone of the same sex is attractive (as in, personal preference, not common opinion), but not feel a stirring for that person. I find certain male traits appealing in a "I think that looks good on him" rather then a "I find that arousing" kind of way. Certain types of beards and how the beards are kept, certain hairstyles, something in the eyes, how the lips are formed, their physical build, posture and personality and even style. I look at these things in both an impersonal analytical sense (what is masculine and how do they represent the male persuasion) and a very personal artistic sense (I draw a wide variety of things, and I find certain physical nuances endearing or full of unspoken character when it comes to drawing men and women).

 

[targren]

I think there are plenty of people who hate women and yet still consider themselves heterosexual. Most (but certainly not all) of the misogynists I've met have been heterosexual men.

Well, yeah. There's a world of difference between sexual attraction and liking someone as a human being.

 

[verdant monkai]

Both of you should probably stop talking. I think the factors that feed into homosexuality, genetic and otherwise, are far more nuanced and varied than a single "gay gene", and all your sophomoric comprehension of biology is doing is getting you nowhere.

Point taken

Sophomoric another new word for me.

I thought our genetic understanding was quite reasonable actually.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

Love the mounting entheusiasm!

Yep it would get pretty dilute. However THEN we factor in the other things i talked about where we have gay people having children with straight people. Not to mention we have the extremely complex interactions of different genes to consider. Perhaps the "gay gene" is a repressor gene for another gene that causes attraction in a certain way. Perhaps its an incredibly complex combination possible from anyone in the population but with a very small chance of the combination being viable.

That is to say we all have the genetics and alleles for attraction, say about 90% of your gametes will contain the correct sequence to give straight attraction while ther other 10% contain the correct sequence of genes and repressor genes and other parts to lead to a "gay" person if in combination with others. All stemming from genetics that are essential to attraction that we all have but a unique combination therein. Im perfectly willing to accept the gay gene doesnt exist. However its a perfectly valid theory and it needs me research into it.

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual

This however throws a spanner in my ideas. It should be 100%. Its higher than usual. But its also not 100%. This leads me to think that genetics may make a person more... accepting to becoming gay depending on how their brain develops after birth. But the factor isnt described entirely by genetics. Ill concede that.

The enthusiasm is due to that new word "fallacious" (I will never forget you for that)

Some people have said I have made a big mistake when I said "Gays cant have kids" they are right. I should have said Gays don't normally have kids.

You make a very valid genetic point, but at the end of the day. Actual scientists have studied this matter deeply and found no evidence or trace of a gay gene. The points I offered are just my view on the matter, which you didn't disprove.

Oh and also I know you did not say so but using words like Zygote and monozygotic (pretty standard GCSE stuff really) does not make your biological knowledge superior in anyway to mine. If anything we seem to be on the same level of understanding from what I can see.

Those are the appropriate key words. Their level is irrelivant to be honest. I used the words to describe what i meant. I do A level biology and i finish next week. Its hardly like i was pitched an examination on genetics. We discussed a topic and i pointed out that carriers can propegate a disease since some diseases cause sterility or kill before people can reproduce. I also pointed out mutation can cause carriers to arise rather than "sufferers" as the first incidence. I also pointed out that things can be "recessive" by being covered by many other genes both dominant and co dominant.

However ive changed my view on seeing twins arnt 100% gay when one is gay. This definately points toward the idea it isnt genetic. Defnately something to do with the development of personality and neural pathways after conception/childhood/life. Cant really comment. Very interesting though. Id like to see more studies done.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

I'm a bisexual. Is there a reason for it? Probably, but I don't really care about why I'm this way. Looking back on life I have done a lot of things that seem non-heterosexual, so there is a chance I was born like this.

Also with the whole conversation going on about a gay gene so far: If statistics were so easily applicable to genetics then left-handedness and blue eyes would've also died out over millions of years. What leads to a person's sexuality is very complicated and is more likely a mixture of things than simply genetics or environment (and even that's not covering all of the possible influences such as hormones).

Tell me of these other mythical genders.

Androgynites: People who don't fit in one or either gender roles.

Bi-Genders: People who switch between gender roles.

Intersexes: People physically born between the two biological sexes (it does happen).

There's three of them for you.

 

[Chefodeath]

Both of you should probably stop talking. I think the factors that feed into homosexuality, genetic and otherwise, are far more nuanced and varied than a single "gay gene", and all your sophomoric comprehension of biology is doing is getting you nowhere.

Point taken

Sophomoric another new word for me.

I thought our genetic understanding was quite reasonable actually.

It was very reasonable for a layperson, but you're like a kid who aced an algebra exam trying to tackle quantum physics; You're just not at that calibre.

They both like exactly the same things, it's just worded a different way. Like I thought, they are the same thing except pansexuals use the term to look different.

They like the same thing, but for different reasons. Labelling them as the same would be like calling manslaughter and premediated murder the same thing because at the end of the day, they both killed a guy.

 

[Grogman]

What is Demi-sexual? And how does Pan-sexuality differ from bisexuality?

Pansexuality is where you're attracted to literally anyone, no matter who they are.

Bisexuality is just male/female

Tell me of these other mythical genders.

There's an article here [http://anthro.palomar.edu/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm] that details some other genders and their distinctions. Also, I'm sure you don't mean it at all, but the way your comments are phrased sounds, to me, a little rude, although I'm sure this was unintentional.

 

[Polock]

Sorry again your biology is wrong. Carriers can lead to other carriers. And who says the emergence of the gay gene took place with a mutation that lead to a full on expression of the gene? A carrier may have been born through mutation and mated with another carrier. Its perfectly possible. Carriers have children with a normal person and 25% of children are carriers.

Youre right you dont know biology. It isnt your fault but the carrier arguement is valid and its not really your field of expertise. I dont mind not getting a reply. The arguement you put forward is fallacious.

If carriers "weaken" the gene then cystic fibrosis can only get better. It doesnt. It doesnt make people "less gay". Carriers spread it and it likely started in carriers if it exists. Which i admit it might not. Im just saying the idea that it CANT exist because gays have children is as invalid as the idea cystic fibrosis (or any other genetic disorder) cannot exist since these people cannot reproduce.

SORRY SORRY your last reply was to interesting to ignore, last one I promise.

I have to thank you for teaching me the word fallacious it's great.
Web definitions:
containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument"

as for the actual argument bit, my point is Gays don't have straight sex in the first place so there would be no carrier offspring. Gays cant have kids (so there cant be any carriers).
If you believe in evolution like I do, then you know all life is a sort of mutation, generally only the beneficial ones are passed on.

So you can criticize my biological comprehension all day, but my argument is by no means fallacious.

Here is a new word for you synecdoche
Noun:
A figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa, as in Cleveland won by six runs (meaning ?Cleveland's baseball team?).

You realize gay people marry women, and have kids with them, because they are too embarrassed or cannot come to terms to due social reasons that they are gay, right?

You also realize that this was especially prevalent the further back in history you go?

So if there is a "gay" gene, its very possible it could spread to other children.

OH and Edit: Women sells their eggs the same way men sell their sperm. If there is a "gay gene" its possible for gays to continue spreading their "gayness".

 

[verdant monkai]

Those are the appropriate key words. Their level is irrelivant to be honest. I used the words to describe what i meant. I do A level biology and i finish next week. Its hardly like i was pitched an examination on genetics. We discussed a topic and i pointed out that carriers can propegate a disease since some diseases cause sterility or kill before people can reproduce. I also pointed out mutation can cause carriers to arise rather than "sufferers" as the first incidence. I also pointed out that things can be "recessive" by being covered by many other genes both dominant and co dominant.

However ive changed my view on seeing twins arnt 100% gay when one is gay. This definately points toward the idea it isnt genetic. Defnately something to do with the development of personality and neural pathways after conception/childhood/life. Cant really comment. Very interesting though. Id like to see more studies done.

If you are doing an A level I suggest you stop talking to me and revise for it

If you are saying it isn't genetic now as well, what is the point in arguing with me?
I get you don't like my train of thought but seriously if you think the same what's the point?

My earlier point disproves the recessive point.

 

[verdant monkai]

You realize gay people marry women, and have kids with them, because they are too embarrassed or cannot come to terms to due social reasons that they are gay, right?

You also realize that this was especially prevalent the further back in history you go?

So if there is a "gay" gene, its very possible it could spread to other children.

I have covered this check out the earlier posts. Dont expect an answer I am bored to death of this thread now. (I know I have said that before but enough is enough.... honest)

 

[3quency]

I'm mostly straight, I think. I've had a girlfriend, but I have wondered what being with a guy is like. I think I'd label myself as "unsure" more than anything else. Can't know until you've tried etcetera.

 

[Tazzy da Devil]

I'm asexual, and female, if it matters. I dunno why, I just am. Before I knew it was a sexuality, I just thought I never grew out of the 'Eww Cooties!' stage. I never had a traumatic experience. Well, nothing that would change my sexuality, anyway. That doesn't mean I don't like people though. Just instead of seeing someone I think looks good and thinking that I'd like to have sex with them, I'd be like "Damn, I'd play Halo with them all night long!"

 

[The Funslinger]

What is Demi-sexual? And how does Pan-sexuality differ from bisexuality?

Hermaphrodites are also an option.

 

[Chefodeath]

They both like exactly the same things, it's just worded a different way. Like I thought, they are the same thing except pansexuals use the term to look different.

They like the same thing, but for different reasons. Labelling them as the same would be like calling manslaughter and premediated murder the same thing because at the end of the day, they both killed a guy.

That's a pretty bad analogy.

Manslaughter is unintentional while murder is.

Neither PS or BS is unintentional.

You're missing the point completely.

Two people can do the exact same thing, but what leads them to what is ultimately the same conclusion is often significant enough for us to distinguish between them. The fact that pansexuals are just plain attracted to people while bisexuals are attracted to males and females specifically is enough for us to distinguish between them even though they are hitting on the same people at the bar.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Those are the appropriate key words. Their level is irrelivant to be honest. I used the words to describe what i meant. I do A level biology and i finish next week. Its hardly like i was pitched an examination on genetics. We discussed a topic and i pointed out that carriers can propegate a disease since some diseases cause sterility or kill before people can reproduce. I also pointed out mutation can cause carriers to arise rather than "sufferers" as the first incidence. I also pointed out that things can be "recessive" by being covered by many other genes both dominant and co dominant.

However ive changed my view on seeing twins arnt 100% gay when one is gay. This definately points toward the idea it isnt genetic. Defnately something to do with the development of personality and neural pathways after conception/childhood/life. Cant really comment. Very interesting though. Id like to see more studies done.

If you are doing an A level I suggest you stop talking to me and revise for it

If you are saying it isn't genetic now as well, what is the point in arguing with me?
I get you don't like my train of thought but seriously if you think the same what's the point?

My earlier point disproves the recessive point.

If this was the point about if the gene was recessive it would die out i disproved that by just pointing to cystic fibrosis. Thats alive and well in our population (somewhat ironically) despite only being passed by carriers and by those who havnt expressed the gene yet in early life (like the hypothetical gay gene).

In science its important to realise that even if you agree its important to work out HOW the conclusion was drawn. We see the propegation of genes actively selected AGAINST in society that can only be passed by carriers and yet they endure BECAUSE of carriers and those who breed before the effects show - EXACTLY the same as the hypotherical gay gene. Why the same observable principle doesnt apply to the "gay gene" is a part of your point i dont understand.

I favor the idea that genetics plays a role.

Im going to go revise now. Thanks for the reminder. I get so distracted! At least someones got me on task.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Demi-sexual? Well there's another sexuality added to the mix! So what is it now? The LGBTQIADPS? Wait, I forgot, drop that last one, they don't let straight folk into their little club.

Rhetorical nonsense. You fuck what you what to fuck. There would be a lot more fucking going on if people started dealing with the persons more than there categorizations.