LGBTAitp 27: Of Shoes, and Ships, and Sealing Wax

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

What does it say about me that I read the "****" as "butt"?

Nobleness, maybe. Innocence, possibly. I'm leaning towards the one where your mind subconsciously picked the option that you'd find most amusing though.

Originally Posted by noparlpf

That's why we have androsexual/gynosexual.
And fluidsexual. That's a word now.

Oh?

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by Rawhide

It's definitely not a harmless joke, nor is it a "victimless crime", it affects the server (especially on popular threads such as this one). The rule is there for multiple reasons, not just the flood the server gets at the creation of a new thread due to people who want to get in the first few posts, or the fact that contentless posts (e.g. consisting only of things listed below or things such as "+1") are prohibited in general.

We have asked people to not post things along the lines of "first post/page!", "new thread!", "*boogies*", etc. at the creation of a new thread. In cases where people reference the first post/page, the entire post is deleted, regardless of other content. The mention of the other things is somewhat tolerated, though frowned upon and not really appreciated, as long as there wasn't a rush to be amongst the first and the post contains actual content.

If you see it happening, then please report it.


Note, of course, that not all one or minimal word replies are contentless. I myself am a fan of putting a lot of meaning into a small reply. And, sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words. An example of this is where I have used a picture of a Facebook thumbs up to mean "Wow, congratulations! That is amazing news!"

Ah, you misunderstand. I personally do not think it is a victimless crime, I just think, from experience, very few people are ]aware they are beraking the rules, and when told such they cannot rationalise it in light of what the rest of the rules are (which read "if we suspect you of being a dingus we will crack down hard").

Also, wow. I just got Qaera's old username, given the information that they posted predominantly in pictures for a whiel.

Originally Posted by Heliomance

What I do?

Jokingly, your life is everything thus far I would like mine to be. Pole dancing, parkour, being able to dress up pretty, etc.
I thought I expolained that, but as I was osting due to insomnia... Well, there have ben some egregious typos on my part, including forgetting entire sentences. Sorry to worry you, friend

Originally Posted by Heliomance

I have no idea what my odds of being caught are, that's what I'm so nervous about. I'm going to attempt to go as a girl, but I have no idea if I'll be read or not - I suspect I probably will, because I'd be very surprised if I pass well enough to withstand more than a casual glance. I just hope it won't be an issue :/

I would say your odds of getting "caught" would be pretty low.... Going from your pictures, I wouldn't be surprised to find out you had a twin sister. Inertia is on your side. If you show up en femme, then tha's the first impression you'll give and that is what folks will cleave to.

Originally Posted by Lord Raziere

Bah, thats all impure. The only true study is an Infinity-Blind study! Even the scientist doesn't know that its a test.

We call that life, and it's not really science yet, because we lack the ability to analyze the data, or even access it.

I am fully convinced Life: the board game was an early attempt at distilling the formula to a workable method.

Originally Posted by Coidzor

I thought the general consensus was that our sexuality was innate. Where else could it come from but from ourselves?

mm. I may be misunderstanding you, but isn't that like saying your bones are innate because your body grows them - and then ignoring that your environment plays a huge part in how they form?

The question isn't about whether your sexualkity is part of you, it is about whether it would be the same in a vacuum as it is hen amongst people, in society.

I lean towards more innate, mesel'. But I can't really be sure, as I knew more about the details of the acts at age 2, than most of my fellws did by the time high school sexual education rolled around. It's entirely posible I picked it up through osmosis.

suspicion that emphasizing the possibility of them receiving a placebo would increase their paranoia that they were one of the ones getting a placebo and muck with the results, though, I must admit, I'm not very familiar with what information is released to people as they're entering into such studies.

There have been sitcom and drama episodes about this, actually. Usually involving breaking in to the scientist's computer and finding who is in which group and then switching pills around and ruining the scientific process. So long as the scientist doesn't mention it a lot, I don't think it's a real problem. People know that most of cofee getting rid of their caffeine headache is a placebo effect, but still need the coffee, after all.

And before anyone asks, most people will perk up when they know th ecoffee is being brewed, before ingestion. That's why I say that.

Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost

Regarding nature-vs.-nurture: I'm leaning heavily towards the all-or-at-least-mostly-nature side. I'm between a 5.5 and a 6 on the Kinsey scale, have known as far back as I can remember, and was in a conservative religious environment that was not at all conducive to or supportive of being gay; if something somehow accidentally managed to turn me gay despite all that, I'd be very impressed.

I don't know. I think aneutral environment is actually the least likely to foster nurture-based changes. Consider that a religious community that puts a lot of emphasis on homosexuality is still putting a lot of emphasis on homosexuality, even if it is negative.

The only parallels I have are racist, but; As a kid, when I met my first black person, I was curious. I wondered why their skin was darker, why his palms were still light, and that was it. Took me another ten years to figure out the differences were more than utterly superficial (genetic, different effects from some medication, different hair- and skin-care procedures). On the other end, I had friends who had racist parents, and they were really really aware that "black people are different". That stands to reason, right?

Except I also had friends who had parents that were all about breaking down inequality and such, and those friends were still aware that "black people were different". They just weren't allowed to bring up or act on those differences.

Anecdotally, being informed that there is such a thing as Gay, and that you should have an opinion on it, whathver that opinion is "suppposed" to be, will focus on that Gay ness.

Originally Posted by KenderWizard

Social pole-dancing etc

Spoiler

I will also just use the first bit!
Re: poledancing: I said there's nothing inherently problematic about it, it's the stripper connotations. Again, you can't just say it doesn't have them. Maybe we're having the cultural divide again, but when it's "pole-dancing" as opposed to "gymnastics" or "acrobatics" or "break-dancing" that happen to include poles, that's what people are talking about, at least here. Also, everyone has been supporting Helio's new hobby, all that happened was I said it wasn't for me, and then, foolishly, elaborated.

That is true, and I didn't mean to say the connotations weren't there. I meant they aren't as strong as they could be, and that ... Actually, i can't remember the rest of my point. Ah well.

Tea?

Going mad, people. The most annoying part is, I can't go to my therapist unless I register at college, and I can't register unless I get funding, so I can't see my therapist during this stressful period waiting for funding.

Yick. If you register with your therapist, could you get back-pay? Or whatever oit is called? I know when I got insurance, they were able to take care of expenditures as far back as three months, because the process could take a while and they want you to be able to get treatment.

[quote+"Nope"]What does it say about me that I read the "****" as "butt"?
[/quote]

Too much or not enough Adventure Time

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

Nobleness, maybe. Innocence, possibly. I'm leaning towards the one where your mind subconsciously picked the option that you'd find most amusing though.

Seems like my conditioning to swear less is working.

Oh?

Yeah I just invented it.

Originally Posted by SiuiS

Too much or not enough Adventure Time

Meh, I never got into the series. I hold a grudge against it, actually, because its release was what told me I have an inner hipster. (I watched the pilot ages ago when it came out, and was being all hipstery about it.)

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Lix Lorn

I only really flirt on the playground, rather than Flirting. The former is just for funzies. Genuine romantic desire would be much less... blunt. Until the point where, unable to see through the mists of subtlety, I ask directly 'are we still joke-flirting?'

Well now I have to wonder which is which at which part of the discussion.

Originally Posted by SiuiS

mm. I may be misunderstanding you, but isn't that like saying your bones are innate because your body grows them - and then ignoring that your environment plays a huge part in how they form?

Spoiler

It's more like innate might not have been the best word to choose in particular, but your bones can only grow in so many ways and if someone tries to break them there's only so many ways that a given bone will reform to the stimulus. Even with the leading explanation for sexuality actually changing, which, as far as I can recall, is still a bit of a gray area due to the usual ages of the children involved, is such that it's more whether the person who experiences that kind of traumatic event has the potential for being affected in that way.

Also it's a bad example because the bones will form as they form so long as there's nothing catastrophically wrong happening. Or maybe it's still good because I only recall equally traumatic things as giving rise to what we think are changes in sexuality as opposed to just ceasing to live life in denial and/or the closet.

Sexuality arises from the self in my view, and while people can try to break you in many, many ways, what allows one's sexuality to be broken is, again, something intrinsic to the person being broken or else the techniques would roughly work on all of us.

Originally Posted by SiuiS

There have been sitcom and drama episodes about this, actually. Usually involving breaking in to the scientist's computer and finding who is in which group and then switching pills around and ruining the scientific process. So long as the scientist doesn't mention it a lot, I don't think it's a real problem. People know that most of cofee getting rid of their caffeine headache is a placebo effect, but still need the coffee, after all.

Hmm, I'd forgotten about that. Only increases my unease with the idea of making a big deal out of it then.

Originally Posted by SiuiS

Too much or not enough Adventure Time

[Absol197]

Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost

My PM box is always open.

Originally Posted by KenderWizard

My PM box is open too, but I won't be offended if you want to talk to someone with more relevant experience.

Originally Posted by Astrella

My box is always open as well~

Originally Posted by noparlpf

Good luck! (I don't remember if I saw your first post in this mess of new thread pages.) If you'd like I can read it for you. My PM box is pretty empty.

Thanks to you all! No offense meant to those I don't get in touch with; I only need one or two opinions. But you're all so very wonderful!

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

You measure it as a woman because you are a woman. Anyone who thinks anything else either doesn't have all the facts or is acting like a ****.

Thank you. This *almost* brought a tear to my eye. I don't really hear this kind of thing enough. Aside from you guys, who have other things to worry about, all I've got is two friends I get texts from once or twice a month. I've been having trouble claiming that title for my own, no matter how right it fels, or how much I want it. So, thank you. A whole lot.

EDIT: Oh, and that means I'm probably between a 5.5 to a 6. Yay!

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

I don't know. I think aneutral environment is actually the least likely to foster nurture-based changes. Consider that a religious community that puts a lot of emphasis on homosexuality is still putting a lot of emphasis on homosexuality, even if it is negative.

If one is unsure about sexuality (or opinions on race, in your racism example), then yes, a society drawing attention to it when one didn't consider it as an option before might have an effect; as supernerd said above and some others have said in previous iterations of the thread, they didn't realize it was an option and when it was brought up at all, even in a negative light, they gravitated in that direction. There will always be some people who are subconsciously influenced to do or be something because it's forbidden or edgy or whatever, and I could see some people being nurtured in a gay direction as a form of rebellion.

However, if one is aware of one's sexuality beforehand, that doesn't really hold. I knew I was gay for at least 3 years before it was brought up in church or school, and a friend of mine in a similar situation figured out she was a lesbian a few months before it was brought up. In that sort of situation, all of the anti-gay rhetoric might convince one to try to act and/or become straight (as happened with my friend) or to research the issue and make sure one is actually gay in the face of all the crap one is going to get for it in future (as happened with me), but the most I could see that doing in terms of actually directly affecting sexuality in some way would be causing someone who's really bisexual to identify as purely gay in reaction ("You can't make me straight, I'm gonna ignore [opposite sex], so there!").

Also, if nurture really had that kind of effect, going through your formative years with people telling you gays are going to Hell, it's unnatural, etc. would be much more likely to cause you to turn out straight than one that says it's okay to be gay or that ignores the whole issue entirely. It's the old "Given how crappy gay people have it in many areas, why would anyone there choose to be gay?" argument: if you eat an apple every day after school and suddenly discover that it's an option to eat a candy bar instead, but people who eat a candy bar after school are shunned and hated and evil, then no matter how much your nature tells you that candy bars or delicious you're probably going to try pretty damn hard to convince yourself the apple is just dandy and you might eventually convince yourself that you truly do like the apple better...but you're going to have vastly fewer people go with the candy bar in that scenario than you would in a scenario where kids are asked "So, would you like an apple or candy bar?" or just "Whaddya want?" instead

[Lix Lorn]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

Well now I have to wonder which is which at which part of the discussion.

I don't /genuinely/ flirt with people I don't have a thing for. I don't have a thing for people I haven't had deep, meaningful conversation with.

[golentan]

Originally Posted by Lix Lorn

I don't /genuinely/ flirt with people I don't have a thing for. I don't have a thing for people I haven't had deep, meaningful conversation with.

And now my dreams have been crushed. Alas...

[Socratov]

Originally Posted by golentan

And now my dreams have been crushed. Alas...

You could always try to start a deep meaningful conversation...

On the subject of the romance etc. I found a new 'zone': businesspartnerzoned. Apparently my crush doesn't want me for my godlike actually not so great body, but for my experience in starting up a business. The plan never took off since she couldnt come to sailing and cooking becuase she had a last minute nickelback concert (yeah she actually likes them, the one imperfection ), so I got stuck at the Wile E Coyote stage of the plan, and never got to the vetinary stage...

Ah well, apparently my brains are sexy (did I ever tell you about the robustness of my ego, it bounces back most beautifully)

[Jeff the Green]

Since I missed the discussion on placebo and blinding:

Originally Posted by Coidzor

It's more like innate might not have been the best word to choose in particular, but your bones can only grow in so many ways and if someone tries to break them there's only so many ways that a given bone will reform to the stimulus. Even with the leading explanation for sexuality actually changing, which, as far as I can recall, is still a bit of a gray area due to the usual ages of the children involved, is such that it's more whether the person who experiences that kind of traumatic event has the potential for being affected in that way.

Also it's a bad example because the bones will form as they form so long as there's nothing catastrophically wrong happening. Or maybe it's still good because I only recall equally traumatic things as giving rise to what we think are changes in sexuality as opposed to just ceasing to live life in denial and/or the closet.

Sexuality arises from the self in my view, and while people can try to break you in many, many ways, what allows one's sexuality to be broken is, again, something intrinsic to the person being broken or else the techniques would roughly work on all of us.

Originally Posted by SiuiS

mm. I may be misunderstanding you, but isn't that like saying your bones are innate because your body grows them - and then ignoring that your environment plays a huge part in how they form?

The question isn't about whether your sexualkity is part of you, it is about whether it would be the same in a vacuum as it is hen amongst people, in society.

I lean towards more innate, mesel'. But I can't really be sure, as I knew more about the details of the acts at age 2, than most of my fellws did by the time high school sexual education rolled around. It's entirely posible I picked it up through osmosis.

Spoiler

*Puts on professor hat* Ahem. Let me introduce you to the wonderful concept of phenotypic plasticity. Basically everything we are is, in some sense, genetic. We aren't evolved to be netizens, for instance, but our pre-civilization ideas about fairness, reciprocity, and punishment dictate how we respond to trolling. The degree to which environment can change how our genes express a trait (called a phenotype) is called plasticity.

The classic example is English ivy. In the shade its leaves look like this:

while in sunlight they look like this(the shape, not the disease):

This is because the lobes allow the leaves to tessellate and collect all available light in the understory, while the rounder leaves are more efficient for collecting light in the canopy. Ivy has to have genetic programming for both shapes (and intermediates) because it's a climbing plant and has leaves in both the canopy and the understory.

The human brain is a classically plastic organism. That's why, whenever I hear of a new study finding differences between men's brains and women's brains (or between straight and gay brains, or any of the other mostly trivial differences neuroscientists like to look at), I don't go OMG teh wimminz r different from us menz and tear up my feminist membership card. It's at least as likely that twenty-plus years of growing up female has changed the brain. In fact, the very fact that you're capable of learning demonstrates its plasticity.

So, what does that mean for sexuality (and gender identity)? I dunno. From what I understand from twin studies, it's unlikely that sexuality is dictated entirely by genes. It could be that everyone has the same chance of turning out either gay or straight or bi (there just isn't enough research on asexuality to say anything at all, yet), and that environment dictates the outcome. Also because of twin studies, I think that's unlikely as well. The reality is probably intermediate. Everyone has a genetic bias toward some portion of the spectrum, and then environment shapes it further. A hundred years ago, the shame of sporadic same-sex crushes I've had may have either magnified them so I'd end up more bisexual, or may have squelched them before I was cognizant of them.

Also, there's no such thing as a trait "in a vacuum." There's always an environment that shapes phenotype, even if that environment is "a vacuuum." Though typically that pheotype is "dead." Even a metaphorical vacuum is an environment: the closest two I can think of are neglect (for children) and sensory deprivation. In both cases, the phenotype that results is usually severe mental illness.

(A key note: just because a trait is plastic doesn't mean that it's changeable once it arises. Particularly for psychological traits, there's often a key period for plasticity and after a certain point, it's set in stone. Language is a good example: if a normal person doesn't have the opportunity to learn to speak by age 5 or so, you probably will remain nonverbal for the rest of their life, and your ability to learn new a new language without a significant accent basically disappears by the time you're 16. Likewise, asthma can be caused by a relatively germ-free upbringing, but by the time you reach adulthood, no amount of sterilization can cause it and no amount of grunginess can cause it. So wingnut pray-the-gay away types are still wrong and the APA is still right.)

[turkishproverb]

Originally Posted by golentan

You know the funny thing about when you're sarcastic? Your avatar's smirk always makes me read it in an "amused" tone of voice. It's awesome.

On topic though... Do people here believe they were born with their sexual orientation (and specifically only that)? I ask because I was called homophobic and closeted today for saying I didn't believe I was born with my sexuality. Funnily enough he stormed off before I could point out I was bisexual and thought that it was partially social and environmental, but... yeah...

I don't believe humans can voluntarily change their sexual orientation (well, not with the inadequate neurological technology humans have developed as of this writing anyway), and from my own experience I have to wonder how much of it is a matter of posturing rather than substance, but I also don't believe that it's fixed before it develops. So... other people's opinions?

If I wasn't born with my sexuality I want to know where in the nine ****s I got it. Trust me, I was not in an environment conductive to it in any way.

That said, I'm open to the possibility that some people have fluid sexual orientation while others don't.

[golentan]

So, I've started in on writing a new story. Science fiction. The owner of the starship is in an interspecies homosexual relationship. Though given that her wife isn't even humanoid, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that gender is fairly irrelevant in context by any reasonable standard.

[Heliomance]

Spoilered for potential TMI:

Spoiler

Tucking plus morning wood is NOT a comfortable combination

ow

[Zorg]

Oh Helio, if it makes you feel better you did manage to bring a shard of joy to my blackened, misanthropic heart.
Hope you're feeling better now

[Heliomance]

Originally Posted by Zorg

Oh Helio, if it makes you feel better you did manage to bring a shard of joy to my blackened, misanthropic heart.
Hope you're feeling better now

I did? O_o

[supernerd]

Originally Posted by Heliomance

Spoilered for potential TMI:

Spoiler

Tucking plus morning wood is NOT a comfortable combination

ow

OW!! That must suck, and not in the good way!

[Socratov]

Originally Posted by supernerd

OW!! That must suck, and not in the good way!

I see what you did there...

But my sympathies for helio, waking up with a raging b***r in an uncomfortable position is never funny...

[Lentrax]

Originally Posted by Lix Lorn

I don't /genuinely/ flirt with people I don't have a thing for. I don't have a thing for people I haven't had deep, meaningful conversation with.

Makes me wish I could have a meaningful conversation...

Originally Posted by golentan

And now my dreams have been crushed. Alas...

I don't think you are the only one golentan. Myself being among the gathered throngs.

Originally Posted by Heliomance

I did? O_o

You did indeed. And I must say, I sympathise, and hope your situation has improved.

Good luck with the clubs, let us know how things turned out.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Heliomance

Spoilered for potential TMI:

Spoiler

Tucking plus morning wood is NOT a comfortable combination

ow

Spoiler

Did you go to sleep like that?

[Heliomance]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

Spoiler

Did you go to sleep like that?

Yeah. I usually do when I'm in girl mode.

[KenderWizard]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

That's good. I'm a pretty bad therapist anyway.
I'm just starting up seeing a therapist here as of Monday. I think I'll be working on anxiety because my depression is pretty under control right now and anxiety just makes it worse, so I want to work on that first.

Anxiety and stress can make everything else worse. It's a good thing to be working on!

Originally Posted by SiuiS

Tea?

Love some, thanks!

Originally Posted by SiuiS

Yick. If you register with your therapist, could you get back-pay? Or whatever oit is called? I know when I got insurance, they were able to take care of expenditures as far back as three months, because the process could take a while and they want you to be able to get treatment.

No, because it's not that the college or my insurance is paying for it, I'm going (or rather, not going) to the student counselling service in the college, which is only accessible to students, and free of charge.

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

Spoiler

It's more like innate might not have been the best word to choose in particular, but your bones can only grow in so many ways and if someone tries to break them there's only so many ways that a given bone will reform to the stimulus. Even with the leading explanation for sexuality actually changing, which, as far as I can recall, is still a bit of a gray area due to the usual ages of the children involved, is such that it's more whether the person who experiences that kind of traumatic event has the potential for being affected in that way.

Also it's a bad example because the bones will form as they form so long as there's nothing catastrophically wrong happening. Or maybe it's still good because I only recall equally traumatic things as giving rise to what we think are changes in sexuality as opposed to just ceasing to live life in denial and/or the closet.

Sexuality arises from the self in my view, and while people can try to break you in many, many ways, what allows one's sexuality to be broken is, again, something intrinsic to the person being broken or else the techniques would roughly work on all of us.

Mm. I have made assumptions again.
A bone is a bone is a bone. A sexuality is a sexuality is a sexuality.
But the bones can be thicker, thinner, healthier, weaker, and vary in composition based on diet and exercise, as well as health. Diet, environment and to a degree health are all relatively external stimuli which alter the growth of the bone.

I am not arguing that sexuality isn't a part of who you are. I am saying that it's entirely possible for external values to sway you. Your environment can bombard you with enough information that it changes how you see yourself. This change is internal, ecause it's how you see yourself; it is still caused by the environment. You can debate whether or not you were changed, or allowed yourself to be changed, but that is a different conversation.

Hmm, I'd forgotten about that. Only increases my unease with the idea of making a big deal out of it then.

They don't. They have to let you know you are part of a trial, and that it may involve getting a placebo, but they aren't having you sign a document about
PLACEBOS, and that you might be taking PLACEBOS and should have conversations about PLACEBOS with your doctor. PLACEBOS. They don't make a big deal of it, because teu don't have to. There's no reason for patients to be suspicious, especially if they volunteered for the trial (which is the standard, as I understand it). The kind of people who would worry about whether they are getting a placebo or not is not the type who would be willing to go through a test anyway. Isn't that job like, discussing side effects an stuff too? The list of side effects from medicines nowadays is worse than the ailment usually.

Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost

If one is unsure about sexuality (or opinions on race, in your racism example), then yes, a society drawing attention to it when one didn't consider it as an option before might have an effect; as supernerd said above and some others have said in previous iterations of the thread, they didn't realize it was an option and when it was brought up at all, even in a negative light, they gravitated in that direction. There will always be some people who are subconsciously influenced to do or be something because it's forbidden or edgy or whatever, and I could see some people being nurtured in a gay direction as a form of rebellion.

That's a pretty good point, and not one I can argue.

Originally Posted by golentan

So, I've started in on writing a new story. Science fiction. The owner of the starship is in an interspecies homosexual relationship. Though given that her wife isn't even humanoid, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that gender is fairly irrelevant in context by any reasonable standard.

Hm. I've thought about that before. I always figured that it would either freak people out really bad at the species level, or not bother them at all. I can get into the xenophobic mindset, of a culture so alien even the base assumptions o their biology, personality, social understanding, everything is so different you couldn't know what traps lie in wait... But then I figured, I don't really feel human most of the time anyway, and if she eats my head afterwards, it was a good run up until then. I'll reincarnate eventually, and be no worse for the wear than maybe a little gun-shy and afraid of mantids.

How different is the physiology? On a gross level as well - or would that be superficial level? I mean, Asari are superficially pretty close to humans, up to and including mammary and uterine structure, but totally different physiology. Also, how important is the different mechanics?

... Bah. Now I need to go find some trashy alien romance stories.

Originally Posted by Heliomance

Spoilered for potential TMI:

Spoiler

Tucking plus morning wood is NOT a comfortable combination

ow

I'm with you, on words one, five six and eight. Unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Heliomance

Yeah. I usually do when I'm in girl mode.

I thought about that, but actually discounted it for the very reason you spoilered. The mechanics are untenable. Well, without tape or something.

[Jeff the Green]

Originally Posted by Heliomance

Spoilered for potential TMI:

Spoiler

Tucking plus morning wood is NOT a comfortable combination

ow

And everybody with a penis just winced in unison. Ow.

Originally Posted by turkishproverb

If I wasn't born with my sexuality I want to know where in the nine ****s I got it. Trust me, I was not in an environment conductive to it in any way.

That said, I'm open to the possibility that some people have fluid sexual orientation while others don't.

Spoiler

Unfortunately, conduciveness has little to do with it. To make an analogy that I acknowledge is imperfect and hope isn't offensive, I have pretty severe social phobia, and am uncomfortable hugging people I don't know well. I also have an extremely physically affectionate family, so reunions are frequently uncomfortable for me. That doesn't mean I had social anxiety from birth; in fact, my anxiety probably stems from that affection.

That doesn't mean that sexuality isn't determined prior to birth, but you can't conclude that it is based on homophobes' children turning out gay.

[Heliomance]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

I'm with you, on words one, five six and eight. Unfortunately.



I thought about that, but actually discounted it for the very reason you spoilered. The mechanics are untenable. Well, without tape or something.

I don't find it too bad normally, actually. Though I really don't recommend cycling with a tuck. I find knickers are enough to keep everything in place for the most part, though it needs adjusting now and then if you're walking around and such.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Jeff the Green

And everybody with a penis just winced in unison. Ow.

Oddly I didn't wince, I was too busy trying to remember whether I've ever had "morning wood". I don't remember ever experiencing it.


On sexuality: I recently read that they're thinking it's largely determined by the hormone levels going about when you're a fetus. So by the time you're weaned, it's fairly unlikely that it will change significantly, although your perceptions of it might change over time. Either way, does it matter where it comes from?

[Absol197]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

On sexuality: I recently read that they're thinking it's largely determined by the hormone levels going about when you're a fetus. So by the time you're weaned, it's fairly unlikely that it will change significantly, although your perceptions of it might change over time. Either way, does it matter where it comes from?

To many people, unfortunately, the answer is, "Yes."

Let's see if I can explain this in a suitably a-religious manner...The people to whom it matters dislike those with atypical sexualities, and they want a reason to persecute them. It is a lot easier to persecute someone for making an immoral/disgusting/wrong choice than it is to persecute someone for something they have no control over. Thus, the seek out explainations (or sometimes, they don't seek, and just stand still shouting it as loudly as they can) that support sexuality being a choice, so that they can continue to call it "wrong."

If it's not a choice, then those people are forced to think about why such people exist in the first place, and whether it's truly immoral, and thus okay to persecute. That's how I see the whole discussion.

EDIT: Disclaimers!

Spoiler

It is important to note, of course, that not all of the people who feel that whether sexuality is a choice or not feel that way because of strong religious convictions. It's just that, in America at least, that seems to be where the most powerful and vocal of those who think that way approach the issue.

It's also not to say that all of those with religious convictions find it abhorrent; I would call myself very religious (or spiritual perhaps, because I don't follow an organized faith, but a personal mish-mash of the ideas I've found to have the strongest ring of truth; but that, I suppose is for another time and place), and obviously I have no issues with the idea .

[Jeff the Green]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

On sexuality: I recently read that they're thinking it's largely determined by the hormone levels going about when you're a fetus. So by the time you're weaned, it's fairly unlikely that it will change significantly, although your perceptions of it might change over time. Either way, does it matter where it comes from?

What Absol said. I'll add that it shouldn't matter, though. Gay sex is no better or worse than straight sex and gay relationships are no better than straight relationships. It's only because of homophobes that it matters, in much the same way that homosexuality is a risk factor for suicide only because of homophobes.

More science stuff:

Spoiler

Sexuality probably isn't set by birth. There's a concordance of 50% in twin studies, meaning that 50% of gay men with identical twins have a gay twin. This is much higher than chance or fraternal twins, but it's less than the 100% you'd expect if genes + womb environment determined sexuality. There's something else going on, and it could be genetic (there are some ways identical twins aren't perfectly identical genetically), it could be that the womb environment isn't exactly the same for both twins somehow, or it could be that something in a child's environment after birth but before puberty affects sexuality as well. Don't ask me what, though.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Jeff the Green

What Absol said. I'll add that it shouldn't matter, though. Gay sex is no better or worse than straight sex and gay relationships are no better than straight relationships. It's only because of homophobes that it matters, in much the same way that homosexuality is a risk factor for suicide only because of homophobes.

More science stuff:

Spoiler

Sexuality probably isn't set by birth. There's a concordance of 50% in twin studies, meaning that 50% of gay men with identical twins have a gay twin. This is much higher than chance or fraternal twins, but it's less than the 100% you'd expect if genes + womb environment determined sexuality. There's something else going on, and it could be genetic (there are some ways identical twins aren't perfectly identical genetically), it could be that the womb environment isn't exactly the same for both twins somehow, or it could be that something in a child's environment after birth but before puberty affects sexuality as well. Don't ask me what, though.

I did say by the time the infant weans, because the mother's hormones still affect the infants until then. Do these studies on identical twins take into account whether they're breastfed or whether they receive other food? That might be interesting to look into.
Going by the studies with identical twins, environment must factor in somehow, but when? Many children's sexualities are fairly clear at around six or eight.

[Asta Kask]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

On sexuality: I recently read that they're thinking it's largely determined by the hormone levels going about when you're a fetus. So by the time you're weaned, it's fairly unlikely that it will change significantly, although your perceptions of it might change over time. Either way, does it matter where it comes from?

It matters if you think it's bad. There's a meta-ethical principle called "Ought implies can". Morality presupposes a choice - if I can't do anything about it either way it's not moral or amoral behavior. If I stumble and fall and drag someone with me, and that person is harmed, I'm not morally responsible, because I could not do anything about it (it's still nice to apologize, of course).

So, if homosexuality is not a choice then there cannot be anything morally reprehensible about being a homosexual. This irks some people who feel very strongly that there should be something wrong with it. However, accepting and living your homosexuality is still a choice, so they can always get their knickers in a twist about people who dare to accept themselves. Idiots.

[Jeff the Green]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

I did say by the time the infant weans, because the mother's hormones still affect the infants until then. Do these studies on identical twins take into account whether they're breastfed or whether they receive other food? That might be interesting to look into.
Going by the studies with identical twins, environment must factor in somehow, but when? Many children's sexualities are fairly clear at around six or eight.

In general, the studies look at twins separated at birth (something that has mercifully mostly stopped now), so none of them were breast fed.

Early childhood experiences can strongly affect sexuality in general. There is, for example, the famous Westermarck effect, which causes children to assume any other child they grew up with to be a sibling, and so not sexually attractive. This came to be a problem in the Kibbutzim of Israel, where children were raised communally, and so none were attracted enough to each other to marry! On the other hand, we tend to desire people who look similar but not identical to the primary caregiving adults in our young years, which is why many straight men/gay women end up with women who look vaguely like their mothers and gay men/straight women often end up with men that look like their fathers.