Friday, October 27, 2006
Explaining desire and sexuality - how both of the two dominant explanations (genes v choice) are wrong.
From ace, one more discussion about the causes for sexual desire - which is actually a better word and concept than the ridiculous term "orientation." I've slightly touched upon some of the problems with the concept of "orientation" in other posts (see a comment I post here at the end), but I really need to sit down and do a whole post on it. But I digress, here is my understanding as to why the two dominant explanations to human desire are both ignorant and detrimental to our progress in understanding human beings and our complex psychology.
I think some people *are* born gay
Right, and some people are born pedophiles (children orientation), some are born pederasts (homo adolescent orientation), and others podophiles (feet sexual orientation), and still others diaperphiles (guess what orientation that is)- and the latter being pro-homos' case.
You look at a baby's face and you just know it: there's a pedophile right there! Completely sexually diseased right from the start. Because nothing impacts the brain of a human being from the time they are born until they reach puberty or adulthood with whatever sexual/emotional dysfunction they develop.
Yup.
Isn't the depth and the breadth of the genetic explanation to everything mind-blowing?
Posted by alessandra at October 26, 2006 01:44 PM
But Allesandra, if people aren't genetically pre-disposed to sexual attraction, then what about heterosexuality? Is that just a choice, too?
Liking diapers or whatever, is clearly a whacky cultural thing. But the way I felt when I met my wife, for example, was extremely powerful. Not just mentally, but in my gut, too. I won't say it was "irresistable," because we remained chaste through a very long courtship. But it was much more than a fleeting thought or an idea.
I don't know what it is like to be gay, but some people say that they have the same sort of total feeling of attraction and that it is not something that they can ignore (And I am talking about gay people who have chosen celibacy). These people feel no attraction to members of the opposite sex, but for the sake of their religious beliefs have chosen to live without romantic companionship.
I think you shouldn't just pretend that these people are imagining their orientation. I mean, how many people do you know who will sacrifice the hope of romantic love for the love of God? There aren't many people like that. They are more courageous than I am. And I would be reluctant to just say they are the same as a pedophile or something.
Posted by Well at October 26, 2006 02:53 PM
I don't know genetics, but how many people were surprised when the little boy from "Who's the Boss" came out of the closet a year or so ago? Did that little nancy-boy choose to be gay when he was 6? That used to depress me, here he is, in his formative, should be a horny little bugger and he's growing up around Alisa Milano and he's fricking gay! Instead of a horny little bugger, he was a little buggerer. That's why, if there is a God, He has a sense of humor I can appreciate.
My brother was inside baking cookies while we were outside playing football when he was younger than 10. He actually tried to be straight, he was married at 18 and a grandpa at 40, but he's been exclusively with men since he was about 22 or so.
I know lots of homersexshuls, and most of them scoff at people who say they chose to be gay.
"Sure, I love being a pariah to my family and, quite often, an object of derision and target for violence."
Posted by Veeshir at October 27, 2006 06:40 AM
But Allesandra, if people aren't genetically pre-disposed to sexual attraction, then what about heterosexuality? Is that just a choice, too?
=====================
I guess you assumed (incorrectly) that there are only two ways we can theorize or understand human desire. Either we, humans, are like reptiles, ants, and other creatures that have their entire brain controlled by instinct (which is really what the "genes causes homosexuality" people say) or we, humans, choose every psychological dynamics that happens in our brains before it happens. (it's all a choice). I don't think any of these explanations is either useful, or true.
Both of these explanation attempts do not take into account how extremely complex the human brain and our psychology is. Also, they do not take into account the most fundamental fact about humans, and that is that humans develop(including dysfunctionally). Humans change tremendously since the time they are born, and so does the human psycho-emotional structure, including all the dynamics therein. 15 years of experiences since a baby is born will have profound impact on the functioning of that person's brain, on that person's psychology.
So, when you say feeling desire for diapers is a choice, you are wrong, because the desire comes first, and then the person has the choice of what to do with it. A person does not intellectually think "I want to feel desire for a diaper at 3 o'clock" and then it happens. That's not how desire works.
At the same time, we all receive millions of messages, emotional and mind shaping, that affect how we desire, what we desire, and the choices and attitudes and decisions we make about our desires. That is cultural.
Similarly, our culture does not encourage your average Joe to be a diaperphilic, neither a pedophilic, but people end up that way.
I think homosexuality is dysfunctional, it is a dysfunction of a healthy heterosexuality, just as you have dozens of other dysfunctions that can be found in heterosexuals regarding human sexuality. Therefore the very idea that homosexuality equals heterosexuality is invalid.
Posted by alessandra at October 27, 2006 11:08 AM
Liking diapers or whatever, is clearly a whacky cultural thing.
Why is liking diapers or whatever obviously a wacky cultural thing when other things aren't? You think they CHOSE to get get turned on by diapers?
Whatever the cause of it, I don't see how you so simply distinguish "liking diapers or whatever" from any other latent sexual impulse. It seems to me you've made a knee-jerk, arbitrary judgement here.
Posted by Entropy at October 27, 2006 11:25 AM
My brother was inside baking cookies while we were outside playing football when he was younger than 10.
=======================
Well, there you go. I hadn't yet heard that genes determined a person's orientation towards baking cookies. Is there something particularly sexual about baking cookies that I missed? or does it have more to do with gender roles? with differences between femininity and masculinity? with how attached a child may feel to one of their primary caretakers? with feelings of emotional safety? or with a thousand other psycho-emotional-cultural factors?
I don't think I have the link anymore, maybe I do, I need to look for it. But there is a really interesting testimony of this guy who used to be homosexual that wrote at length about how many psycho-emotional problems he had with masculinity, which is something that goes to the depth of our psychology structure and development. And as he was able to work out these complex things, his "orientation" changed. Just as some pedophiles who actually worked out a lot of their immensely profound psycho-emotional problems began to have a more adult sexual orientation.
What was happening with your brother's entire psycho-social structure when he was a child? do you know? maybe it is more complex than you assume.
Posted by at October 27, 2006 11:27 AM
I know lots of homersexshuls, and most of them scoff at people who say they chose to be gay.
"Sure, I love being a pariah to my family and, quite often, an object of derision and target for violence."
Posted by Veeshir at
=====================
As a group, non-heterosexuals are very violent (just like straights) and they are not being prosecuted, just like the majority of heterosexuals exploiters, harassers, and abusers.
So, your little LGBT clique does a lot more harm to society than any comparison to any anti-homosexual crime.
The day you denounce a single crime perpetrated by non-heterosexuals, you will be in a better moral position to cry "wolf" about how much violence homosexuals suffer.
Posted by alessandra at October 27, 2006 11:32 AM
I found a past comment of mine regarding some of the problems with the concept of "orientation:"
I think the way pro-homosexuals structure their discourse in this civil rights language merits more analysis, since it is highly manipulative and dissimulating. In order to equate homosexuality with race, you have to squash human sexuality to this highly dubious construct of "sexual orientation." Otherwise, there is no way one can equate some superficial physical characteristics (races) with profound spheres of psychology, mental and intellectual developments in a human being that results in homosexuality or bisexuality.
One more discourse strategy to ground profound human complexity of sexuality and relationship psychology into something stupid and minimal ("sexual orientation").
I also find interesting to see that pro-homosexuals only use this "sexual orientation" label for homosexual attraction. I never hear people saying the so-and-so has a feet sexual orientation or a dog sexual orientation.
I think some people *are* born gay
Right, and some people are born pedophiles (children orientation), some are born pederasts (homo adolescent orientation), and others podophiles (feet sexual orientation), and still others diaperphiles (guess what orientation that is)- and the latter being pro-homos' case.
You look at a baby's face and you just know it: there's a pedophile right there! Completely sexually diseased right from the start. Because nothing impacts the brain of a human being from the time they are born until they reach puberty or adulthood with whatever sexual/emotional dysfunction they develop.
Yup.
Isn't the depth and the breadth of the genetic explanation to everything mind-blowing?
Posted by alessandra at October 26, 2006 01:44 PM
But Allesandra, if people aren't genetically pre-disposed to sexual attraction, then what about heterosexuality? Is that just a choice, too?
Liking diapers or whatever, is clearly a whacky cultural thing. But the way I felt when I met my wife, for example, was extremely powerful. Not just mentally, but in my gut, too. I won't say it was "irresistable," because we remained chaste through a very long courtship. But it was much more than a fleeting thought or an idea.
I don't know what it is like to be gay, but some people say that they have the same sort of total feeling of attraction and that it is not something that they can ignore (And I am talking about gay people who have chosen celibacy). These people feel no attraction to members of the opposite sex, but for the sake of their religious beliefs have chosen to live without romantic companionship.
I think you shouldn't just pretend that these people are imagining their orientation. I mean, how many people do you know who will sacrifice the hope of romantic love for the love of God? There aren't many people like that. They are more courageous than I am. And I would be reluctant to just say they are the same as a pedophile or something.
Posted by Well at October 26, 2006 02:53 PM
I don't know genetics, but how many people were surprised when the little boy from "Who's the Boss" came out of the closet a year or so ago? Did that little nancy-boy choose to be gay when he was 6? That used to depress me, here he is, in his formative, should be a horny little bugger and he's growing up around Alisa Milano and he's fricking gay! Instead of a horny little bugger, he was a little buggerer. That's why, if there is a God, He has a sense of humor I can appreciate.
My brother was inside baking cookies while we were outside playing football when he was younger than 10. He actually tried to be straight, he was married at 18 and a grandpa at 40, but he's been exclusively with men since he was about 22 or so.
I know lots of homersexshuls, and most of them scoff at people who say they chose to be gay.
"Sure, I love being a pariah to my family and, quite often, an object of derision and target for violence."
Posted by Veeshir at October 27, 2006 06:40 AM
But Allesandra, if people aren't genetically pre-disposed to sexual attraction, then what about heterosexuality? Is that just a choice, too?
=====================
I guess you assumed (incorrectly) that there are only two ways we can theorize or understand human desire. Either we, humans, are like reptiles, ants, and other creatures that have their entire brain controlled by instinct (which is really what the "genes causes homosexuality" people say) or we, humans, choose every psychological dynamics that happens in our brains before it happens. (it's all a choice). I don't think any of these explanations is either useful, or true.
Both of these explanation attempts do not take into account how extremely complex the human brain and our psychology is. Also, they do not take into account the most fundamental fact about humans, and that is that humans develop(including dysfunctionally). Humans change tremendously since the time they are born, and so does the human psycho-emotional structure, including all the dynamics therein. 15 years of experiences since a baby is born will have profound impact on the functioning of that person's brain, on that person's psychology.
So, when you say feeling desire for diapers is a choice, you are wrong, because the desire comes first, and then the person has the choice of what to do with it. A person does not intellectually think "I want to feel desire for a diaper at 3 o'clock" and then it happens. That's not how desire works.
At the same time, we all receive millions of messages, emotional and mind shaping, that affect how we desire, what we desire, and the choices and attitudes and decisions we make about our desires. That is cultural.
Similarly, our culture does not encourage your average Joe to be a diaperphilic, neither a pedophilic, but people end up that way.
I think homosexuality is dysfunctional, it is a dysfunction of a healthy heterosexuality, just as you have dozens of other dysfunctions that can be found in heterosexuals regarding human sexuality. Therefore the very idea that homosexuality equals heterosexuality is invalid.
Posted by alessandra at October 27, 2006 11:08 AM
Liking diapers or whatever, is clearly a whacky cultural thing.
Why is liking diapers or whatever obviously a wacky cultural thing when other things aren't? You think they CHOSE to get get turned on by diapers?
Whatever the cause of it, I don't see how you so simply distinguish "liking diapers or whatever" from any other latent sexual impulse. It seems to me you've made a knee-jerk, arbitrary judgement here.
Posted by Entropy at October 27, 2006 11:25 AM
My brother was inside baking cookies while we were outside playing football when he was younger than 10.
=======================
Well, there you go. I hadn't yet heard that genes determined a person's orientation towards baking cookies. Is there something particularly sexual about baking cookies that I missed? or does it have more to do with gender roles? with differences between femininity and masculinity? with how attached a child may feel to one of their primary caretakers? with feelings of emotional safety? or with a thousand other psycho-emotional-cultural factors?
I don't think I have the link anymore, maybe I do, I need to look for it. But there is a really interesting testimony of this guy who used to be homosexual that wrote at length about how many psycho-emotional problems he had with masculinity, which is something that goes to the depth of our psychology structure and development. And as he was able to work out these complex things, his "orientation" changed. Just as some pedophiles who actually worked out a lot of their immensely profound psycho-emotional problems began to have a more adult sexual orientation.
What was happening with your brother's entire psycho-social structure when he was a child? do you know? maybe it is more complex than you assume.
Posted by at October 27, 2006 11:27 AM
I know lots of homersexshuls, and most of them scoff at people who say they chose to be gay.
"Sure, I love being a pariah to my family and, quite often, an object of derision and target for violence."
Posted by Veeshir at
=====================
As a group, non-heterosexuals are very violent (just like straights) and they are not being prosecuted, just like the majority of heterosexuals exploiters, harassers, and abusers.
So, your little LGBT clique does a lot more harm to society than any comparison to any anti-homosexual crime.
The day you denounce a single crime perpetrated by non-heterosexuals, you will be in a better moral position to cry "wolf" about how much violence homosexuals suffer.
Posted by alessandra at October 27, 2006 11:32 AM
I found a past comment of mine regarding some of the problems with the concept of "orientation:"
I think the way pro-homosexuals structure their discourse in this civil rights language merits more analysis, since it is highly manipulative and dissimulating. In order to equate homosexuality with race, you have to squash human sexuality to this highly dubious construct of "sexual orientation." Otherwise, there is no way one can equate some superficial physical characteristics (races) with profound spheres of psychology, mental and intellectual developments in a human being that results in homosexuality or bisexuality.
One more discourse strategy to ground profound human complexity of sexuality and relationship psychology into something stupid and minimal ("sexual orientation").
I also find interesting to see that pro-homosexuals only use this "sexual orientation" label for homosexual attraction. I never hear people saying the so-and-so has a feet sexual orientation or a dog sexual orientation.
