Is it in the Genes?

[bigboab]

A British couple, a Doctor and his wife are sueing Social Services because the two children that they adopted, or were given, have ended up in prison. Does this confirm that criminality is in the Genes? I have always had a sneaky suspicion that some people are born with a Gene that makes them susceptible to a life of crime. I know conditions are also to blame in a lot of cases.

[Busyman]

A British couple, a Doctor and his wife are sueing Social Services because the two children that they adopted, or were given, have ended up in prison. Does this confirm that criminality is in the Genes? Of course not. :dry:

[Snee]

I guess it is in the genes to some extent.

I reckon people who tend to be aggressive more often choose a life of crime, and since being aggressive is in part tied to testosterone, and a higher testosterone-production is something you may inherit, you can be born with a statistically larger chance of ending up leading a life of crime.

But the same people might just as well become athletes or something else that involves being aggressive and/or competitive. To become a criminal you still have to be in a situation where negative behavior is rewarded or necessary.

So while some may have an easier time becoming criminals it's still something that ultimately depends on their society/environment.

[Rat Faced]

No.

It confirms that either the Dr and his wife were 'too busy' to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong, or the kids became involved in a bad crowd and subdued to peer pressure or similar.

I bet it was the former...

[vidcc]

I think all human actions/reactions can be attributed back to instinct and genetic make-up. The question shouldn't be "do we have a crime gene?" as crime is something we decide is or should be illegal.

As Snny said our genes make us more liable to be aggressive etc. but it is how we manifest that aggression into what society considers a criminal act that makes one a criminal.

So I say are genetic make-up does have a definite effect on our behaviour but fortunately we have brains that can mostly control those urges.

Of course these adoptive parents have no case as a genetic fault because how would the social services know. Plus we don't have the facts of the story.
How old were the children at time of adoption and did they have a criminal past that social services didn't disclose?

[bigboab]

I think all human actions/reactions can be attributed back to instinct and genetic make-up. The question shouldn't be "do we have a crime gene?" as crime is something we decide is or should be illegal.

As Snny said our genes make us more liable to be aggressive etc. but it is how we manifest that aggression into what society considers a criminal act that makes one a criminal.

So I say are genetic make-up does have a definite effect on our behaviour but fortunately we have brains that can mostly control those urges.

Of course these adoptive parents have no case as a genetic fault because how would the social services know. Plus we don't have the facts of the story.
How old were the children at time of adoption and did they have a criminal past that social services didn't disclose?

I dont know the full facts as it was related to me by my wife who was watching the news. So until I see the papers it might be 'Chinese Whispers':lol: I heard some of it. guess what I was doing.:lol:

I can say that one of my brothers was a 'wrong un'. sady he died fairly young. My sister adopted his son, age 6. His son turned out to be a 'wrong un' too. Yet all my sisters children turned out OK. Could be a coincidence. I dont know.

[micolithe]

No. Unless they develop a mental disorder like Attatchment Disorder or Schizophrenia, it's the fault of the main caregiver from age birth to three years old.

[MCHeshPants420]

No, doctors just make for bad parents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4080424.stm

[Everose]

bigboab, if you find more info about this case, will you post it? Micolithe has a point about the first three years being crucial, as are the 9 months in the womb.

RF: I will see that bet and raise you 'natural parents', social services' knowledge of the children's history with the natural parents, and those five special words social services' are so famous for offering instead of full disclosure of the children's history. 'All they need is love.' ;)

[hobbes]

No.

It confirms that either the Dr and his wife were 'too busy' to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong, or the kids became involved in a bad crowd and subdued to peer pressure or similar.

I bet it was the former...


How, exactly, does it confirm that? That is an extreme and ridiculous assumption.

Why does "right" and "wrong" even need to be taught?

It confirms that you have issues that seem to place labels on people with a certain job, without even knowing the individual. This is as offensive as stating that people who pick up the trash are lazy, stupid and abusive.

My Father was a doctor and he did more than teach, he lead by example.

Let us talk about real factors. Some people have bad role models, regardless their profession, and some kids just come out "defective".

[Busyman]

No.

It confirms that either the Dr and his wife were 'too busy' to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong, or the kids became involved in a bad crowd and subdued to peer pressure or similar.

I bet it was the former...


How, exactly, does it confirm that? That is an extreme and ridiculous assumption.

Why does "right" and "wrong" even need to be taught?

It confirms that you have issues that seem to place labels on people with a certain job, without even knowing the individual. This is as offensive as stating that people who pick up the trash are lazy, stupid and abusive.

My Father was a doctor and he did more than teach, he lead by example.

Let us talk about real factors. Some people have bad role models, regardless their profession, and some kids just come out "defective".
Where did you get that the focus of RF's post had to do with "the Dr" (or any profession)?

...or was this a segway to let us know that your pops was one?

also did you read the end of his post or ignored it for your soliloquy?

[lynx]

If it does prove to be the case that the couple are to blame for the way they brought up these kids, then there is one obvious conclusion...

Doctors should not be allowed to have large kitchen knives. :shifty:

[hobbes]

Where did you get that the focus of RF's post had to do with "the Dr" (or any profession)?

...or was this a segway to let us know that your pops was one?

also did you read the end of his post or ignored it for your soliloquy?

He used "Dr and wife" rather than "parents". Given my bias, I found that phrasing to be rather suggestive. I could be wrong.

I think I have posted several times before that my father was a doctor, so that is old news, with no segue required. As you can see, this fact is highly relevant in identifying a bias which might effect how I interpret a thread.

Soliloquy? :huh:

[JPaul]

Diatribe perhaps.

[manker]

I thought soliloquy was quality. He's obviously put some thought into the word choice, there.

Which is nice.

[Snee]

He used it in lieu of diatribe, it was not sans reason, per se. Quelle surprise.

[clocker]

A British couple, a Doctor and his wife are sueing Social Services because the two children that they adopted, or were given, have ended up in prison. Does this confirm that criminality is in the Genes?
This neither "confirms" nor "disproves" anything...it's a legal case, not a scientific study.
Lawyers on both sides will filter available data through their particular bias and present only that which supports them. It will be a very "black v. white" presentation.
Much like the Bush administration, actually.

No matter the outcome, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the winning side had a better grasp of the legal system, not scientific fact.


Hi hobbes.

[Busyman]

Where did you get that the focus of RF's post had to do with "the Dr" (or any profession)?

...or was this a segway to let us know that your pops was one?

also did you read the end of his post or ignored it for your soliloquy?

He used "Dr and wife" rather than "parents". Given my bias, I found that phrasing to be rather suggestive. I could be wrong.

Suggestive...maybe, but 'confirming he places labels on people with certain jobs' is out in left field.

I think I have posted several times before that my father was a doctor, so that is old news, with no segue required. As you can see, this fact is highly relevant in identifying a bias which might effect how I interpret a thread.

....and of course we all know you are great at interpretations....take a wink at the homeless people shouldn't have dogs thread. :mellow:

Soliloquy? :huh:

Yes I liked that word better since, even though you posed questions, I didn't get where you were going with them. Seemed more like monologue that we overheard.

[Money Fist]

can't inherit thoughts and feelings

[Busyman]

can't inherit thoughts and feelings
Not so. Apparently you can inherit sexual preference feelings.

[Rat Faced]

Hobbes, we were talking about "A Dr and his Wife" suing social services.

Dr's arent the only busy people; in this day and age many parents both have jobs and the kids are therefore more likely to get into trouble... ie: They're too Busy. This is not necessarily the fault of the parents, as putting food on the table and a roof over their heads must take priority, however it does say something about society as a whole.

The profession/Job of said parents is immaterial, except that most wouldnt be able to afford to sue Social Services. The fact that they can suggests that both parents in this case didnt NEED to be working, if indeed they were.....thats why my bet is on that.

[Money Fist]

can't inherit thoughts and feelings
Not so. Apparently you can inherit sexual preference feelings.
really?
so if ur pops was a sex fiend you can inherit that?
where was this proven?
i just dunno if i can agree

but i think if a gay guy has a child thru donating sperm to a couple in need
the kid may turn out gay.
because i hear that some homos brains actully show some characteristics of a female brain
(dont ask for source i read that 3 years ago)

im sure the construction of the brains characteristics can be inherited

[Snee]

Not so. Apparently you can inherit sexual preference feelings.
really?
so if ur pops was a sex fiend you can inherit that?
where was this proven?
i just dunno if i can agree

but i think if a gay guy has a child thru donating sperm to a couple in need
the kid may turn out gay.
because i hear that some homos brains actully show some characteristics of a female brain
(dont ask for source i read that 3 years ago)

im sure the construction of the brains characteristics can be inherited

Who teh fook told you having a "female" brain had anything to do with your sexuality?

That's something else. Incidentally a significant percentage of all males have what's known as a female brain. It's to do with how you process information.

I haven't heard of any definitive proof of homosexuality being hereditary. As far as I know it's to do with several factors, both biological and environmental.

[manker]

As far as I know it's to do with several factors, both biological and environmental.Quite. Behaviour is entirely different to a physical trait such as eye-colour or height, it's much more complicated. Sexuality cannot be pigeon-holed as one or t'other. Same goes for criminal tendencies.

Busyman was fishing :dry:

[MCHeshPants420]

I thought soliloquy was quality. He's obviously put some thought into the word choice, there.

Which is nice.

It doesn't really work as a word choice though does it? I mean Hobbes is quoting someone to answer their point, and is actually questioning RF's views directly. Hardly someone talking to themselves... :blink:

Nice word though. :D

[Busyman]

As far as I know it's to do with several factors, both biological and environmental.Quite. Behaviour is entirely different to a physical trait such as eye-colour or height, it's much more complicated. Sexuality cannot be pigeon-holed as one or t'other. Same goes for criminal tendencies.

Busyman was fishing :dry:
Ding-Ding...a winner.

[Busyman]

I thought soliloquy was quality. He's obviously put some thought into the word choice, there.

Which is nice.

It doesn't really work as a word choice though does it? I mean Hobbes is quoting someone to answer their point, and is actually questioning RF's views directly. Hardly someone talking to themselves... :blink:

Nice word though. :D
I used it 'cause he may as well had been. :dry:

Plus it was my chance to use the word soliloquy.

[manker]

I thought soliloquy was quality. He's obviously put some thought into the word choice, there.

Which is nice.

It doesn't really work as a word choice though does it? I mean Hobbes is quoting someone to answer their point, and is actually questioning RF's views directly. Hardly someone talking to themselves... :blink:

Nice word though. :Dhobbes did meander a bit - how relevant is the anecdotal part about his dad being a top bloke; I'm presuming Busy was being sarcastic.

I just liked it :naughty:

[JPaul]

It doesn't really work as a word choice though does it? I mean Hobbes is quoting someone to answer their point, and is actually questioning RF's views directly. Hardly someone talking to themselves... :blink:

Nice word though. :Dhobbes did meander a bit - how relevant is the anecdotal part about his dad being a top bloke; I'm presuming Busy was being sarcastic.

I just liked it :naughty:
Maybe she just felt like mentioning that her Dad was a top bloke and used the thread as a vehicle to do that.

Like Busy used it to post the word "soliloquy". It was quite suite actually.

[MCHeshPants420]

hobbes did meander a bit - how relevant is the anecdotal part about his dad being a top bloke; I'm presuming Busy was being sarcastic.

I just liked it :naughty:
Maybe she just felt like mentioning that her Dad was a top bloke and used the thread as a vehicle to do that.

Like Busy used it to post the word "soliloquy". It was quite suite actually.

Kind of like how we all responded so we could prove we knew what the word meant. :schnauz:

[manker]

hobbes did meander a bit - how relevant is the anecdotal part about his dad being a top bloke; I'm presuming Busy was being sarcastic.

I just liked it :naughty:
Maybe she just felt like mentioning that her Dad was a top bloke and used the thread as a vehicle to do that.

Like Busy used it to post the word "soliloquy". It was quite suite actually.Seems feasible and to make it a three piece:

My Mam was in Girl Guides with Catherine Zeta Jones' Auntie.

[hobbes]

hobbes did meander a bit - how relevant is the anecdotal part about his dad being a top bloke; I'm presuming Busy was being sarcastic.

I just liked it :naughty:
Maybe she just felt like mentioning that her Dad was a top bloke and used the thread as a vehicle to do that.

Like Busy used it to post the word "soliloquy". It was quite suite actually.

At least my dad actually was a doctor. My post certainly wasn't a soliloquy.

And I liked the homeless dog thread, BTW. I was brilliant.

[manker]

Maybe she just felt like mentioning that her Dad was a top bloke and used the thread as a vehicle to do that.

Like Busy used it to post the word "soliloquy". It was quite suite actually.

Kind of like how we all responded so we could prove we knew what the word meant. :schnauz::dry:

Now my quality three piece suite gag doesn't work anymore.

[JPaul]

Kind of like how we all responded so we could prove we knew what the word meant. :schnauz::dry:

Now my quality three piece suite gag doesn't work anymore.
:lol:

I didn't get your wee joke the first time. So it's nice that Chebus' self-deprecating post made me read it again.

Three peace sweet, kewl.

Was she BTW.

[JPaul]

Maybe she just felt like mentioning that her Dad was a top bloke and used the thread as a vehicle to do that.

Like Busy used it to post the word "soliloquy". It was quite suite actually.

At least my dad actually was a doctor.


My Dad was Joiner.

[Snee]

I bet my dad could kick your dads' arses.

[JPaul]

I bet my dad could kick your dads' arses.
My late Father only had the one arse.

Well 2 if you count me.

So you are probably right, your Dad could kick my Dad's arse - me.

(Lovely use of the apostophe after the "s" btw. Top Man)

[Snee]

:01:

[vidcc]

I think the fact that this was a professional couple and not just "high school drop out" type people added weight to the story. I believe Rat made a point about the possibility of the parents being too busy because of the nature of the job, which may or may not have been the case but we don't know all the story so it is a valid possibility.

@ Hobbes.

I have a few close friends that are doctors and they do indeed make exceptional parents. They are fallible like everyone else though.

I guess one downside of having a doctor as a parent is that you are more aware of the advances in medicine and the "miracles" they can perform in life saving emergencys so you are more confident to take that risk behind the wheel ;) :lol:

[Busyman]

Maybe she just felt like mentioning that her Dad was a top bloke and used the thread as a vehicle to do that.

Like Busy used it to post the word "soliloquy". It was quite suite actually.

At least my dad actually was a doctor. My post certainly wasn't a soliloquy.

And I liked the homeless dog thread, BTW. I was brilliant.
Hell I lost touch with mine over 10 years ago and he was far from a doctor.

We all know you thought you were brilliant. We also knew at that very point in time that you were a stark raving idiot..but it's good you still have teh confidence to share with us today. Now the board can have that "learned appearance" all over again.

Sharing is caring. :blushing: Awwww

[hobbes]

At least my dad actually was a doctor. My post certainly wasn't a soliloquy.

And I liked the homeless dog thread, BTW. I was brilliant.
Hell I lost touch with mine over 10 years ago and he was far from a doctor.

We all know you thought you were brilliant. We also knew at that very point in time that you were a stark raving idiot..but it's good you still have teh confidence to share with us today. Now the board can have that "learned appearance" all over again.

Sharing is caring. :blushing: Awwww

Appearance? I think not soliloquy boy. :naughty:

I'm just comfortable in my education, you are not. That is your issue- a Busyman motif if you will, which pops up from time to time wearing various outfits.

[JPaul]

What does "learned appearance" mean.

I'm surprised manmer hasn't jumped on that one.

[Rat Faced]

Wears a white wig?

My Dads a Bus Driver, and he sits on his arse all day btw :blink:

[Busyman]

What does "learned appearance" mean.

I'm surprised manmer hasn't jumped on that one.
Appearing learned usually through googling.

[JPaul]

What does "learned appearance" mean.

I'm surprised manmer hasn't jumped on that one.
Appearing learned usually through googling.
"Appearing learned" is just gobbledegook. Can you Americans not learn to speak the language. It would be "appearing educated".

[Busyman]

Appearing learned usually through googling.
"Appearing learned" is just gobbledegook. Can you Americans not learn to speak the language. It would be "appearing educated".
Why does it have to be "American's"?

Anywho, it was originally a hobbes' original...from way back.

[lynx]

I see nothing wrong with the phrase "appearing learned".

Perhaps it doesn't scan in a Scots accent.

Edit: btw, are you sure your gobbledegook wasn't gobbledygook? :shifty:

[Busyman]

My Dads a Bus Driver, and he sits on his arse all day btw :blink:

To drive a bus while standing would indicate a truly singular talent. :huh:

BTW-Studies I have studied show that genes can predispose criminal behavior, to an extent short of absolute fate.

It seems that a good upbringing is not always enough to overcome a bent child, but also that a bent child need not stay that way.

Good to see my friend Hobbes posting; there had been scuttlebutt to the effect he had gone missing.
Ever since I mentioned Vodka with Apple Pucker, hobble has been awol for weeks at a time.

...and when he does show up he's been fubar.(the aforementioned homeless dog thread)

Now I have to get him on the Henny (I like my Apple Martini's better though).

[hobbes]

[QUOTE=j2k4]

To drive a bus while standing would indicate a truly singular talent. :huh:

BTW-Studies I have studied show that genes can predispose criminal behavior, to an extent short of absolute fate.

It seems that a good upbringing is not always enough to overcome a bent child, but also that a bent child need not stay that way.

Good to see my friend Hobbes posting; there had been scuttlebutt to the effect he had gone missing.


I fully support everything I said in that thread.

The initial post concerned a person who was both homeless and a beggar, using a dog to make a few extra bucks. A dog that will likely be trashed when his cuteness is gone. I stated that these people chose this homeless existence as a lifestyle.

That is the reality.

Some people can lose their homes due to bad luck financially or natural disasters, but these people DON'T turn to begging.

It is unclear to me why I needed to clarify such an obvious distinction. It seems that some are more interested in taking offense than attempting to understand why one posts as he does.

That is why explaining ones potential bias is so important and why in another thread, I mentioned my fathers career.

Have you people ever heard of a straw horse?

It is a specious argument about a subject that obsures the real motivation of the author. Instead of telling you why he is really offended, he creates the straw horse as his pretend offense as a diversion, as he is too insecure to reveal the real reason why he is upset.

[hobbes]

What does "learned appearance" mean.

I'm surprised manmer hasn't jumped on that one.
Appearing learned usually through googling.

We all "google" for convenience.

I used it to find an article on homosexuality.

I don't really deal in that area so I am not up on the latest story, but I have complete understanding of the inheritence of genetic traits. Sure, the authors location on the genome was not supported, but there was no conclusion that genetics was not the cause, just a quibble about where it was.

Just like Einstein died 20 years before his theory of relativity was experimentally proven, he like I, understand what we are talking about and are confident that it is just a matter of time that we are proven correct.

A single study does not a Googlemaster-make. I understand what I am talking about, and the exact genetic locus is not really an issue. Being "gay" is genetic/hormonal and not a concious choice. That is 100% accurate.

What astounds me is that Busyman feels that he is in a position to make the call about who is legit and who is not. A man who has no formal training in the area of biology and has only popular exposure to the literature.

What extreme arrogance, no?

[Busyman]

[QUOTE=Busyman]


I fully support everything I said in that thread.

The initial post concerned a person who was both homeless and a beggar, using a dog to make a few extra bucks. A dog that will likely be trashed when his cuteness is gone. I stated that these people chose this homeless existence as a lifestyle.

That is the reality.

Some people can lose their homes due to bad luck financially or natural disasters, but these people DON'T turn to begging.

It is unclear to me why I needed to clarify such an obvious distinction. It seems that some are more interested in taking offense than attempting to understand why one posts as he does.

That is why explaining ones potential bias is so important and why in another thread, I mentioned my fathers career.

Have you people ever heard of a straw horse?

It is a specious argument about a subject that obsures the real motivation of the author. Instead of telling you why he is really offended, he creates the straw horse as his pretend offense as a diversion, as he is too insecure to reveal the real reason why he is upset.
Ffs hobbes, I didn't need a real explanation. I'm fucking around.

But since you mentioned it....

Your explanation of the why is out in left field. Sometimes the reasons people say certain things are just that and there is nothing to read between the lines.

To be extreme...it's as if I said "black" and you come with "you meant white" and your rationale would be due to something like my age, race, height, blahblahblah...
I have become very much in tune with "the minds of people" and with how people sprout off bullshit but.....

Sometimes it's just simply.....

"black"

[hobbes]

[QUOTE=hobbes]
Ffs hobbes, I didn't need a real explanation. I'm fucking around.

But since you mentioned it....

Your explanation of the why is out in left field. Sometimes the reasons people say certain things are just that and there is nothing to read between the lines.

To be extreme...it's as if I said "black" and you come with "you meant white" and your rationale would be due to something like my age, race, height, blahblahblah...
I have become very much in tune with "the minds of people" and with how people sprout off bullshit but.....

Sometimes it's just simply.....

"black"

But, I understand that. I wanted to point out when it is not. The offense in that thread was specious bullshit.

[Busyman]

Appearing learned usually through googling.

We all "google" for convenience.

I used it to find an article on homosexuality.

I don't really deal in that area so I am not up on the latest story, but I have complete understanding of the inheritence of genetic traits. Sure, the authors location on the genome was not supported, but there was no conclusion that genetics was not the cause, just a quibble about where it was.

Just like Einstein died 20 years before his theory of relativity was experimentally proven, he like I, understand what we are talking about and are confident that it is just a matter of time that we are proven correct.

A single study does not a Googlemaster-make. I understand what I am talking about, and the exact genetic locus is not really an issue. Being "gay" is genetic/hormonal and not a concious choice. That is 100% accurate.

What astounds me is that Busyman feels that he is in a position to make the call about who is legit and who is not. A man who has no formal training in the area of biology and has only popular exposure to the literature.

What extreme arrogance, no?
I missed this post initially...

Extreme arrogance?

You say being gay is genetic/hormonal based on the "latest" study which is unproven.

That's just fucking stupid.

It pigeon holes anyone who "feels" a certain way to a genetic/hormonal trait.

That's just fucking stupid.

So how the fuck is something that's unproven "100% accurate".

I don't have a choice in how I feel (which includes what I like) but your statement
"Being "gay" is genetic/hormonal and not a concious choice."

is only half right and that's the latter half.

I'll put it to you a better way....

ANYONE is capable of being gay.

It all depends on environment and timing.

This doesn't just apply to being gay. It applies to everything from what color you like, to what sport you like.

A child with gay parents may or may not turn out gay
A family of basketball players may have that 4th child that may or may not even like watching the sport.

The boy that wants to mimic mommy and dress in skirts at age 11 is hardly case for "he has gay genetics/hormones".

You lot are trying to pin something you will never pin....

Why every person likes what they like. :dry:

[Busyman]

[QUOTE=Busyman]

But, I understand that. I wanted to point out when it is not. The offense in that thread was specious bullshit.
Oic.

You came off as arrogant though. You were telling everyone that your rationale was positively the correct one when in actuality, it was far-fetched.

I've buried my head in books most of my life and been around the same folk, from TAG in my early childhood to "table" members...but many lacked an acute creative side which I feel is needed to open up to a real understanding of the mind.

Book knowledge is great but one must really buckle down to really understand people.

[hobbes]

You say being gay is genetic/hormonal based on the "latest" study which is unproven.

That's just fucking stupid.


I made my decision based on my understanding of biology and genetics. I then went to the web to look for articles on the subject.

So my opinion was formed based on my experience and knowledge, not based on a google search. The google search was to provide something that anyone could look at. In googling we find that my opinion is supported by both the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association.

The time from suspecting that something is true until actual confirmation can be lengthy, as per the Einstein example. He knew he was right as he had confidence in his theory, but science failed to prove him right until he had been dead and buried 20 years.

Genetics determines many of or likes/dislikes but it is so automatic that we don't even understand or notice this. We like to think we are making a choice, but there really is no choice to be made.

Why does steak smell good? A choice, no-genetics-it is a good source of energy.

Everything we do is influenced by the programming of our brains, which is genetic.

Do we have to learn pain? Did we see mommy get hurt and want to be hurt as well? No, it is automatic. But guess what, pain does not exist, that is a programmed perception. An inherited self defense to keep stupid animals from continuing to do things that will kill them.

Some people cannot feel pain, it is a genetic/developmental disorder.

For some things, the genetic/developmental link is staight forward. For other more complex behaviors the link is not so apparent. As humans we crave the feeling of autonomy, so we like to think that things that we do are decisions that we conciously make, but we are often deluding ourselves. It was right there in our blueprints and we are just acting as planned.




















:[/QUOTE]

[Busyman]

You say being gay is genetic/hormonal based on the "latest" study which is unproven.

That's just fucking stupid.


I made my decision based on my understanding of biology and genetics. I then went to the web to look for articles on the subject.

So my opinion was formed based on my experience and knowledge, not based on a google search. The google search was to provide something that anyone could look at. In googling we find that my opinion is supported by both the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association.

The time from suspecting that something is true until actual confirmation can be lengthy, as per the Einstein example. He knew he was right as he had confidence in his theory, but science failed to prove him right until he had been dead and buried 20 years.

Genetics determines many of or likes/dislikes but it is so automatic that we don't even understand or notice this. We like to think we are making a choice, but there really is no choice to be made.

Why does steak smell good? A choice, no-genetics-it is a good source of energy.

Everything we do is influenced by the programming of our brains, which is genetic.

Do we have to learn pain? Did we see mommy get hurt and want to be hurt as well? No, it is automatic. But guess what, pain does not exist, that is a programmed perception. An inherited self defense to keep stupid animals from continuing to do things that will kill them.

Some people cannot feel pain, it is a genetic/developmental disorder.

For some things, the genetic/developmental link is staight forward. For other more complex behaviors the link is not so apparent. As humans we crave the feeling of autonomy, so we like to think that things that we do are decisions that we conciously make, but we are often deluding ourselves. It was right there in our blueprints and we are just acting as planned.
I agree with just about everything you said.

However...

Why does steak smell good? A choice, no-genetics-it is a good source of energy.
Is somewhat flawed.

Everyone doesn't think steak smells good. :dry:

I don't know why you mention choice either. I sure don't. You can't choose feelings.

[Money Fist]

this topic is rolling into the field of natural instincts
dont get it twisted

[Busyman]

this topic is rolling into the field of natural instincts
dont get it twisted
Yup. I have the natural instinct to fuck.

I have no choice in what attracts me and have a choice in who I fuck.

What attracts me can change.

[JPaul]

[QUOTE=hobbes]

Everyone doesn't think steak smells good. :dry:


I do :blink:

[Snee]

I don't think that the fact that steak smells good is proof of anything you've inherited.

It could be, as the human race has been using fire so long now that the smell of charred flesh has become hard-coded into whatever genes there are that govern our instincts. But the fact that there are quite a few people who don't like the smell, and the fact that it's so easy to build up an aversion against if you turn vegetarian, points to that it should be something reliant on association.

Most of us have eaten solid foods since before we could remember, that's ample time to learn how to associate certain generic smells to something positive, without us ever knowing we have, in later life.

As for sexual preference, what I know has been proven is that we, operating on our senses of smell (phermones) and sight, pick individuals that A) have genetic material most different to ours, most especially the genes that govern our immune defense, as that makes for a better immune system in a possible child. This is also a safe-guard against inbreeding. B) We pick individuals we either associate with something positive (some trait our parents might have had, for instance) or who we find exotic (this again promotes diversity, although people do tend to avoid something too exotic, I think, though this is just a personal observation), sometimes opposites attract, and sometimes we seek comfort in that which is familiar. C) We avoid assymetry as far as we can, as an assymetrical body-shape or a face can be a tell-tale sign of illness or damage which would make for a bad partner.

To complicate things further we can override all of these instincts (in some they aren't working properly, think of parents that abuse their children and such) if the situation calls for it, say if our only means of genetic survival means we have to mate with someone who doesn't fit all the criteria, maybe because the population is too small.

Now, in the case of homosexuality (which I'm not trying to attach any positive or negative value to here), I've never heard of any purely genetic mechanisms that would make us chose same-sex partners above others. I've read that there is no such thing as absolute heterosexuality, other primates use sex as a means of bonding and recreation, and not just heterosexual sex, but nothing I've ever read points to exclusive homosexuality passing from parent to child on a purely genetic basis.

What I do believe, is that the percentage of (not just openly) homosexual individuals in the population changes with how acceptable it is, culturally. And seeing as the potential for it may be something we all carry with us, it's a more or less unconcious choice we can make, and if it's, for example, something our culture, and perhaps our parents seem to find all right, then more of us will make that choice.

The only real genetic predispositions we have for sex that I know of affect procreation, and the creation of the best possible offspring (A, B & C), and of course recreation/bonding (the primates). Far too generic, I think, to classify someone's genetic material as decidedly gay.

[Busyman]

[QUOTE=Busyman]
I do :blink:
Ok thanks for chiming in, everyone. :blink:

[Busyman]

As for sexual preference, what I know has been proven is that we, operating on our senses of smell (phermones) and sight, pick individuals that A) have genetic material most different to ours, most especially the genes that govern our immune defense, as that makes for a better immune system in a possible child. This is also a safe-guard against inbreeding. B) We pick individuals we either associate with something positive (some trait our parents might have had, for instance) or who we find exotic (this again promotes diversity, although people do tend to avoid something too exotic, I think, though this is just a personal observation), sometimes opposites attract, and sometimes we seek comfort in that which is familiar. C) We avoid assymetry as far as we can, as an assymetrical body-shape or a face can be a tell-tale sign of illness or damage which would make for a bad partner.

To complicate things further we can override all of these instincts (in some they aren't working properly, think of parents that abuse their children and such) if the situation calls for it, say if our only means of genetic survival means we have to mate with someone who doesn't fit all the criteria, maybe because the population is too small.
I agree with most of what you said except most of the above.

In A), where has it been proven that we choose folks based different genetic material? A man wants to jump in pussy (for the most part). While it's ideal not to fuck your sister or first cousin to make sure there isn't a baby with 3 eyeballs, one wouldn't know it in a blind study.

In B), people choose others for mishmash of reasons.

I agree with C) but mainly because MOST of us tend to avoid people that look weird to us....not necessarily signs of illness.

We can override instincts but I don't think A, B, AND C are really instincts but are cultural phenomena.

[hobbes]

I don't think that the fact that steak smells good is proof of anything you've inherited.


It was just an example.

Let us take the opposite approach- feces.

We perceive it to smell "bad" because it is nutritionally bereft and contains chemical which are harmful. Anybody mistake a toilet filled with feces for a
large bowl of soup?

On the other hand, rabbits eat their own poop. Do you think they do this because they have a concious understanding that there are important vitamins in their feces. No, they are programmed to eat them. Not all of them, just the ones that smell "good" (contain nutrients).

There is no absolute good or bad smell, babies don't need to be taught not to eat their poop. It is programmed. It is no different than a tendon response, when the doctor hits your knee with a reflex hammer. Stimulus in, reflex out.

Again, the steak situation was just an example of a general concept not an absolute, that we have instinctive responses to certain smells.

Things that are not essential to survival , such as eating steak, can be modified by life experiences. I got sick on potato chips one year and stopped eating them for the next 5. Some people died of food poisoning at Jack in the Box when I was a kid, I still don't eat there.

It is called "learned aversion". Steak can be substituted by many things, so it is not essential.

But how many people do you know that won't drink water? Who taught you "thirst"? When you're dehydrated, who taught you to drink water and not maple syrup. How come only water "quenches" that thirst.

Well then, why doesn't water smell/taste? It is chemically too small and it is always present to some degree in the mouth. Something that is stimulating a receptor all the time, tends to extinguish the response to that stimulus.

And as Snny pointed out, we respond to stimuli that we don't even conciously perceive. Phermones go below our radar, but we resond to them just the same.

We are all just robots in denial.

[JPaul]

[QUOTE=JPaul]
Ok thanks for chiming in, everyone. :blink:
What be chiming in.

You made a sweeping generalization, which was patently incorrect. I refuted it based on my own personal liking for the smell. I can also state that I know several people who like the smell of steak, both raw and cooked.

You were wrong, just accept it for once and move on with your life. It isn't always a competition.

[Snee]

As for sexual preference, what I know has been proven is that we, operating on our senses of smell (phermones) and sight, pick individuals that A) have genetic material most different to ours, most especially the genes that govern our immune defense, as that makes for a better immune system in a possible child. This is also a safe-guard against inbreeding. B) We pick individuals we either associate with something positive (some trait our parents might have had, for instance) or who we find exotic (this again promotes diversity, although people do tend to avoid something too exotic, I think, though this is just a personal observation), sometimes opposites attract, and sometimes we seek comfort in that which is familiar. C) We avoid assymetry as far as we can, as an assymetrical body-shape or a face can be a tell-tale sign of illness or damage which would make for a bad partner.

To complicate things further we can override all of these instincts (in some they aren't working properly, think of parents that abuse their children and such) if the situation calls for it, say if our only means of genetic survival means we have to mate with someone who doesn't fit all the criteria, maybe because the population is too small.
I agree with most of what you said except most of the above.

In A), where has it been proven that we choose folks based different genetic material? A man wants to jump in pussy (for the most part). While it's ideal not to fuck your sister or first cousin to make sure there isn't a baby with 3 eyeballs, one wouldn't know it in a blind study.

In B), people choose others for mishmash of reasons.

I agree with C) but mainly because MOST of us tend to avoid people that look weird to us....not necessarily signs of illness.

We can override instincts but I don't think A, B, AND C are really instincts but are cultural phenomena.

It's just what some scientists whose work I read said, maybe they are all wrong, though. Who teh feck knows.

Most of what I wrote there is based on empirical data gathered through (hopefully) appropriately conducted research though, and some of it is apparently based on statistics.

If you are interested, there have been a couple of tv-series about the mechanisms of physical attraction, both on the discovery channel and on bbc.


@hobbes: I hadn't considered the rabbit poop, but you may have a point there. Regarding our own droppings (we're just animals really, so I might as well call it that) I recall being told (think it was in psychology-class) that infants find all unfamiliar smells frightening/bad, and that smells that become familiar become good, if we start to associate them with something good.

In theory, following this, since we don't have any use for it, we'd never learn how to associate the smell of it with something good, and therefore our perception of it would either remain that it was bad, or we'd be neutral to it as it isn't a threat, either. After that it would be a matter of culture. But all of this is debateable, of course.


Your point about water is interesting too, it's definitely part of our programming to want to drink, the suction reflex babies have proves this, the question is whether we can ever say that our drinking water in particular is something we inherited or not, maybe someone might say that we learned to want that particular fluid (I'm with you there though, I think human beings have an instinct for it, people certainly seem to respond to the sight of water in a certain way).

Thirst is definitely normally a part of human programming. Incidentally, I was born without it, as I don't really feel thirst. I can't tell you how many times my mother have had to tell me to drink something when I was a kid, nowadays I tend to drink at regular intervals (I think I've learned to pick up on when I haven't drunk enough, somehow, but it isn't the same thing as regular thirst as I understand it) without having to be reminded about it, but I had to learn it.

[Busyman]

I don't think that the fact that steak smells good is proof of anything you've inherited.


It was just an example.

Let us take the opposite approach- feces.

We perceive it to smell "bad" because it is nutritionally bereft and contains chemical which are harmful. Anybody mistake a toilet filled with feces for a
large bowl of soup?

On the other hand, rabbits eat their own poop. Do you think they do this because they have a concious understanding that there are important vitamins in their feces. No, they are programmed to eat them. Not all of them, just the ones that smell "good" (contain nutrients).

There is no absolute good or bad smell, babies don't need to be taught not to eat their poop. It is programmed. It is no different than a tendon response, when the doctor hits your knee with a reflex hammer. Stimulus in, reflex out.

Again, the steak situation was just an example of a general concept not an absolute, that we have instinctive responses to certain smells.

Things that are not essential to survival , such as eating steak, can be modified by life experiences. I got sick on potato chips one year and stopped eating them for the next 5. Some people died of food poisoning at Jack in the Box when I was a kid, I still don't eat there.

It is called "learned aversion". Steak can be substituted by many things, so it is not essential.

But how many people do you know that won't drink water? Who taught you "thirst"? When you're dehydrated, who taught you to drink water and not maple syrup. How come only water "quenches" that thirst.

Well then, why doesn't water smell/taste? It is chemically too small and it is always present to some degree in the mouth. Something that is stimulating a receptor all the time, tends to extinguish the response to that stimulus.

And as Snny pointed out, we respond to stimuli that we don't even conciously perceive. Phermones go below our radar, but we resond to them just the same.

We are all just robots in denial.
Cool steak wasn't a great example. Food, water, and shit are better ones.

The type of food one likes (and even water for that matter nowadays) makes us not so robotic.

[Busyman]

[QUOTE=Busyman]
What be chiming in.

You made a sweeping generalization, which was patently incorrect. I refuted it based on my own personal liking for the smell. I can also state that I know several people who like the smell of steak, both raw and cooked.

You were wrong, just accept it for once and move on with your life. It isn't always a competition.
Great, a JPaulism. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ok then I was wrong.

Everyone does think steak smells good. :blink:

[Busyman]

I agree with most of what you said except most of the above.

In A), where has it been proven that we choose folks based different genetic material? A man wants to jump in pussy (for the most part). While it's ideal not to fuck your sister or first cousin to make sure there isn't a baby with 3 eyeballs, one wouldn't know it in a blind study.

In B), people choose others for mishmash of reasons.

I agree with C) but mainly because MOST of us tend to avoid people that look weird to us....not necessarily signs of illness.

We can override instincts but I don't think A, B, AND C are really instincts but are cultural phenomena.

It's just what some scientists whose work I read said, maybe they are all wrong, though. Who teh feck knows.

Most of what I wrote there is based on empirical data gathered through (hopefully) appropriately conducted research though, and some of it is apparently based on statistics.

If you are interested, there have been a couple of tv-series about the mechanisms of physical attraction, both on the discovery channel and on bbc.
It's just that some conclusions are made because they fit and necessarily because it's right.

I mean I choose someone based on genetic material?

Maybe you are right, as long as that a good amount of that genetic material is in her ass. :naughty:

[JPaul]

[QUOTE=JPaul]
Great, a JPaulism. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ok then I was wrong.

Everyone does think steak smells good. :blink:
I think you'll find that those and such as those have agreed that it is being mankerized.

The JPaulism is a fantasy, an urban myth if you will. It has only ever existed in the head of those who cannot achieve that which you so easily accomplished.

The admission of fallibility.

[vidcc]

Why are people using the fact that different people like different to suggest that proves genes have nothing to do with liking or disliking things when we all have uniqueness in our genetics?
Genes are not purely the way they are in the individual because of what is passed on by parents. Some genes can be missing or "corrupted". There is no absolute.

So an argument against hobbes "smell=food" point because not everyone likes the smell of steak is flawed because we don't all have identical genetics...similar yes but not identical...we are not clones.

Behaviour can be instinctive and learned, but it is our genetics that decide how our brain develops and therefore how we learn. Some people can operate a computer with almost instinctive ease but not a stove.

Why do some people like some things others don't like?....because we are not genetically identical

[Busyman]

[QUOTE=Busyman]
I think you'll find that those and such as those have agreed that it is being mankerized.

The JPaulism is a fantasy, an urban myth if you will. It has only ever existed in the head of those who cannot achieve that which you so easily accomplished.

The admission of fallibility.
JPaulisms were around before mankerisms.

I know 'cause I came up with teh word (JPaulism, at least on here) and manker was no where around.

[Busyman]

Why are people using the fact that different people like different to suggest that proves genes have nothing to do with liking or disliking things when we all have uniqueness in our genetics?
Who did that? :huh:

[JPaul]

[QUOTE=JPaul]
JPaulisms were around before mankerisms.

I know 'cause I came up with teh word (JPaulism, at least on here) and manker was no where around.
:lol:

Have you reason to believe it is used elsewhere.

[JPaul]

Why are people using the fact that different people like different to suggest that proves genes have nothing to do with liking or disliking things when we all have uniqueness in our genetics?
Who did that? :huh:
It might have been me, I can't understand what it means.

Tho' to be fair I often struggle when a sentence contains 33 words and one punctuation mark.

[Snee]

It's just that some conclusions are made because they fit and necessarily because it's right.

I mean I choose someone based on genetic material?

Maybe you are right, as long as that a good amount of that genetic material is in her ass. :naughty:
It's in her jeans, like :unsure:

[Busyman]

Who did that? :huh:
It might have been me, I can't understand what it means.

Tho' to be fair I often struggle when a sentence contains 33 words and one punctuation mark.
The password is:

:dog: Run-On :dog:

[Busyman]

It's just that some conclusions are made because they fit and necessarily because it's right.

I mean I choose someone based on genetic material?

Maybe you are right, as long as that a good amount of that genetic material is in her ass. :naughty:
It's in her jeans, like :unsure:
;)

I like...big butts....and I cannot lie..................

A woman with a nice shapely fat ass brings out the primal in me. :devil:

I just want to pull an all-nighter,

[JPaul]

It's in her jeans, like :unsure:
;)

I like...big butts....and I cannot lie..................

A woman with a nice shapely fat ass brings out the primal in me. :devil:

I just want to pull an all-nighter,
You pull your "all-nighter" if you want mate.

Or anybody else's for that matter.

[MagicNakor]

Now, I'm not sure if this is the article hobbes was talking about that he ended up Googling... Regardless, this one's from Time.


If you want to stir up trouble at a party-or better still, a bar-try bringing up the question of whether homosexuality is something people are born with or something they choose. The issue has always been controversial, and it's currently at the center of a political debate in the States as well, thanks to the question of gay marriage. As a result, whenever science has something to say about the biology of sexual preference, it's bound to make headlines.

That's exactly what happened [the week of May 16th]. Researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden who had earlier shown that hormonelike pheromones stimulate the human hypothalamus-a part of the brain that governs sexual arousal-took the experiment one provocative step further. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they reported that gay men don't respond to the chemicals the same way as straight men do.

"It clearly substantiates the idea that there's a biological substrate for sexual orientation," says Dean Hamer, a geneticist at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the authour of Science of Desire: The Gay Gene and the Biology of Behaviour. "This is a highly significant result."

The experiment was elegantly simple. Just as they had in a series of tests in 2001, the Swedish scientists isolated two substances suspected of being human pheomones-an estrogen-like chemical distilled from women's urine and a tesosterone-related chemical derived from male sweat. Using both MRI and PET scans, the researchers found that women registered the female pheromone in the smell-processing part of the brain. But when women sniffed male pheromones, their hypothalamuses lit up as well. In men, the results were exactly opposite.

All that had been shown before. What was new in the recent experiments was the inclusion of gay men. "Gay men are a great control group for this kind of study," says Hamer, "because they're pretty much the same as straight men except for that one factor." Sure enough, when the Swedish scientists ran the experiment this time, the results were striking: when gay men were exposed to male pheromones, their hypothalamuses lit up just like a woman's. Female hormones did nothing for them.

What the study doesn't show, however-despite what some scientists claimed-is that sexual preference is biologically hardwired and thus present from birth. That idea is pretty much accepted by most gays and by many biologists as well. But it is refuted by those-generally on the religious right-who have a stake in believing that homosexuality is a personal choice rather than an inborn trait.

Even though last week's study strengthens the argument that desire may be triggered in part by chemical signals, it doesn't necessarily prove that gay men are preordained to pick up on male pheromones. It could also be that their brains learn to respond to them over time and with experience.

You might be able to test the proposition, says Hamer, by doing the experiment on people at different ages, to see if the response changes after early childhood. Nobody has tried that yet. The Swedish team is currently working on a related study to test how lesbians respond to female pheromones. Last week's paper also can't answer the question of how important a role pheromones play in desire. Conventional wisdom used to be that people could not detect them at all. That's because the vomero-nasal organ, a pheromone-sensitive structure in the nose that's very active in mice, for example, is largely vestigial in humans. Although it now seems that pheromones are somehow involved in arousal, their role could still be minimal.

-Michael D. Lemonick

:shuriken:

[hobbes]

You will have to excuse my off topic comment here.

One could almost think the article was a joke, with a very subtle wink.


Michael D. Lemonick

Lets put that "D" where it should be.

Micheal Lemondick

Then we have the expression "sucks lemons"

So his name would read : Michael sucksdick

Hmmm, coincidence. :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:

Who made that coffee, it tasted funny? Hey, this isn't my computer. :unsure:

[maebach]

get out of the house. is any body a doctor here? they should have a better explenation.

[Busyman]

If you want to stir up trouble at a party-or better still, a bar-try bringing up the question of whether homosexuality is something people are born with or something they choose.

But it is refuted by those-generally on the religious right-who have a stake in believing that homosexuality is a personal choice rather than an inborn trait.

It's neither.

[bigboab]

If you want to stir up trouble at a party-or better still, a bar-try bringing up the question of whether homosexuality is something people are born with or something they choose.

But it is refuted by those-generally on the religious right-who have a stake in believing that homosexuality is a personal choice rather than an inborn trait.

It's neither.

If it is neither, then what is it?

[JPaul]

If you want to stir up trouble at a party-or better still, a bar-try bringing up the question of whether homosexuality is something people are born with or something they choose.

But it is refuted by those-generally on the religious right-who have a stake in believing that homosexuality is a personal choice rather than an inborn trait.

It's neither.
Or both, plus other factors, possibly.

[Busyman]

It's neither.

If it is neither, then what is it?
Prove why your favorite color is what it is.

[Busyman]

It's neither.
Or both, plus other factors, possibly.
You can't choose attraction.

You can choose to act on it.

[JPaul]

Or both, plus other factors, possibly.
You can't choose attraction.

You can choose to act on it.
Exactly.

Tho' I tend to think attraction is the product, to a certain extent, of environmental conditioning.

One only has to look at how things have changed over the years, from the models of Reuben to the modern super model.

http://www.hermitagemuseum.ca/HermitageFriends/Bulletin/v2i1/ReubensUoEnW.jpghttp://www.essentialart.com/mh/Kate_Moss_print.jpg

It may be a case of life reflecting art. We are told what is attractive and we come to accept it.

I can see no genetic or chemical reason for this, ergo it is based on conditioning.

[Busyman]

You can't choose attraction.

You can choose to act on it.
Exactly.

Tho' I tend to think attraction is the product, to a certain extent, of environmental conditioning.

One only has to look at how things have changed over the years, from the models of Reuben to the modern super model.

http://www.hermitagemuseum.ca/HermitageFriends/Bulletin/v2i1/ReubensUoEnW.jpghttp://www.essentialart.com/mh/Kate_Moss_print.jpg

It may be a case of life reflecting art. We are told what is attractive and we come to accept it.

I can see no genetic or chemical reason for this, ergo it is based on conditioning.
The thing is those that believe it's genetic/chemical have conveniently drawn the line at the gender.

I believe ANYONE under the right circumstance could be/could have been homosexual/bisexual.

I believe what one finds attractive/unattractive now, could change.

[JPaul]

Which is why I believe it is a combination of factors.

Genetics, nurturing by parents, environmental conditioning.

I do not know if everyone is potentially homosexual / bisexual. However I think there are three main aspects to be considered

1. Whether a person is potentially homosexual / bisexual and in your scenario (where you beleive everyone is) to what extent the person is pre-disposed.

2. Whether the persons upbringing tends to make that aspect of their personality come to the fore.

3. Whether the person accepts this and lives the lifestyle, or fights it and does not accept their real self.

[hobbes]

The perception of what is beautiful varies from culture to culture and changes over time.

Both men and women are beautiful and this can be appreciated by both genders. That is the realm of aesthetics.

Asthetics are rather a non-issue in regard to nature. We are machines programmed to do one thing- procreate. This is what we call a "selected" trait. If you can't make insulin, your gene pool dies. If you don't procreate, your gene pool dies.

So attraction toward a gender which allows your genes to prosper is of paramount importance and therefore fundamentally different than your favorite color. Nature doesn't care what color you like, just as long as you make babies.

Color preference is NOT inherited. It is influenced by life experiences and aesthetics. My Indian co-workers definitely choose different colors to dress themselves in as these colors are more flattering to their skin color. We all, to some degree, have a concept of color coordination. If we don't, other people let us know. My favorite color is navy blue, because that is the color that attracts the most positive response from females. When I was a child, my favorite color was green, because that is the color of money. If I get a good tan, my favorite color is white.

So one choice effects the propagation of our gene pool, which is what we were made to do. The other has no bearing on survival or procreation, whatsoever, and if we think about, we CAN actually come up with a reason for why we chose a favorite color.

It is important to look at the big picture. We think that someone living to 90 is old, but what is that in relation to 10,000 years. Why do we die? The truth is that our genomes shut us down. We kill ourselves. This shut down mode starts as soon as our reproductive capabilities slow down.


Arousal is the distinquishing element. Your taste in women may change, but it will always be women, and never men, unless you are homosexual or bisexual.

I would go so far as to say that if you engage in sex with men simply for the orgasm, but are not aroused by them, you are not gay, you are kinda gross though. It is more like social masturbation. If you want to lay around on the couch and cuddle with men and watch a movie, you are definitely gay.

I may change what I find most attractive, but I won't change the gender.

I think extreme early trauma can alter a child, such a molestation by a trusted family member, but this is rather a "learned aversion" type situation.

I think children brought up in a culture that scorns heterosexual behavior, will just create a lot of conflicted children. Why do I feel this way when everyone says it's wrong. Why do I go against the grain. I don't want to feel the way I do.

And that is what we see with our gay population. They ARE gay despite not wanting to be. Despite execution in some societies, despite becoming a family outcast, despite being ostracized in the community. Some do cave in to society and get married, they want to be straight, they want to be normal. Then 10 years down the road they come out of the closet. They say that they have always been gay.

A choice, a decision to be like a "mom" they admire? Seems to me most people are kicking and screaming against this lifestyle. As jpol says some people just accept it and live comfortably, others live a secret life and others are riddled with guilt.

[JPaul]

hobbes

Good post, thanks for that.

To follow on on :naughty: one minor point. I think there are two seperate issues with regard to the attraction thing. One being controlled by nature / nurture and one being controled by cultural influence. They also come in a distinct order.

1. What gender am I attracted to, bearing in mind that it might be both (but possibly one more than the other).

2. Now what particular physical manifestation do I find most attractive.

I think that's what I was saying before, but hobbes' post has inspired me to express it differently.

Another however here. The desire to procreate is not as all encompassing as hobbes may have us believe. Yes, deep down the desire is there, but we have become much more sophisticated than that. We do things because we want to, because it feels good. Having nothing to do with anything other than hedonism.

There are plenty of people, for whom sexual intercourse is just a bit of fun. Not only do they not wish to procreate, they will take steps to ensure it does not happen. This group consist of pretty much every man I know.

Lets face it, in hobbes' thesis any man would sexualate any woman of child bearing age willing to slap uglies. I think not.

[hobbes]

hobbes
Lets face it, in hobbes' thesis any man would sexualate any woman of child bearing age willing to slap uglies. I think not.

Nature provides the car for us to drive, but societal structure, length of forced abstinence and alcohol tends to determine when we use it. Nature just makes sure she's gassed up and ready to go.

You really shouldn't drive that car when drunk, as umm, err, asthetics have been known to be replaced with a paper bag.

My point about procreation was perhaps a little sloppy.

Nature refers to a bigger picture than a specific animal.

The animal is on a need to know basis only.

The animal does not need to appreciate that sex is related to the production of offspring, but simplly needs a desire to have it.

The animal doesn't need to understand that hydration is important to health, he just need to drink water.

We humans are driven by our nature to have sex and we enjoy it. We understand the connection between sex and procreation, which is rather a unique perspective.

I didn't mean to express that animals and humans are conciously thinking "I want to propagate my gene pool, I need to make babies", we are simply responding to natures simple command, "Go hit that, dog!". It has a plan for us bigger than we can or need to appreciate.

[JPaul]

"Nature refers to a bigger picture than a specific animal."

"The animal does not need to appreciate that sex is related to the production of offspring, but simplly needs a desire to have it."

"The animal doesn't need to understand that hydration is important to health, he just need to drink water."

All true, however

"We humans are driven by our nature to have sex and we enjoy it. We understand the connection between sex and procreation, which is rather a unique perspective."

We are not the same as the other animals, we are not driven by instinct alone. We understand cause and effect, we understand that actions have rammifications. We then make choices.

But we digress.

[hobbes]

We are not the same as the other animals, we are not driven by instinct alone. We understand cause and effect, we understand that actions have rammifications. We then make choices.

But we digress.


My mind is reading this in a couple ways, and I can't pinpoint what exactly you are implying with this line. I find I can spin it several ways, but I can't figure which way was your intent.

Meaning is that a "stand alone" comment or is it referring back to a particular point.

[JPaul]

We are not the same as the other animals, we are not driven by instinct alone. We understand cause and effect, we understand that actions have rammifications. We then make choices.

But we digress.


My mind is reading this in a couple ways, and I can't pinpoint what exactly you are implying with this line. I find I can spin it several ways, but I can't figure which way was your intent.

Meaning is that a "stand alone" comment or is it referring back to a particular point.
Yes.

However I suspect you mean "reading that" and " "that line", rather than "reading this" and "this line". As it was your good self who posted "My mind is reading this in a couple ways, and I can't pinpoint what exactly you are implying with this line."

Think it thro'.

[hobbes]

You can't answer a "this or that" post with a "yes", that's just confusing.

[Busyman]

This is flawed, flwaed, flawed

The perception of what is beautiful varies from culture to culture and changes over time.

Both men and women are beautiful and this can be appreciated by both genders. That is the realm of aesthetics.
Asthetics are rather a non-issue in regard to nature. We are machines programmed to do one thing- procreate. This is what we call a "selected" trait. If you can't make insulin, your gene pool dies. If you don't procreate, your gene pool dies.
Wrong, we are programmed to fuck (or gain orgasm)

So attraction toward a gender which allows your genes to prosper is of paramount importance and therefore fundamentally different than your favorite color. Nature doesn't care what color you like, just as long as you make babies.
Since when is nature assigned caring?

Color preference is NOT inherited. It is influenced by life experiences and aesthetics. My Indian co-workers definitely choose different colors to dress themselves in as these colors are more flattering to their skin color. We all, to some degree, have a concept of color coordination. If we don't, other people let us know. My favorite color is navy blue, because that is the color that attracts the most positive response from females. When I was a child, my favorite color was green, because that is the color of money. If I get a good tan, my favorite color is white.

So one choice effects the propagation of our gene pool, which is what we were made to do. The other has no bearing on survival or procreation, whatsoever, and if we think about, we CAN actually come up with a reason for why we chose a favorite color.

Not everyone can though. I use the color thingie 'cause it's simple. I was waiting for someone to say, "Well I like black 'cause it is what Batman wears and he's cool." Even certain paintings invoke a certain response where the "why" can't be proven scientifically. There is something in life that spurred this liking and one isn't born with it. One example you gave had nothing to with invoking an emotional response from you but rather you chose the color for a perceived emotional response of women.



It is important to look at the big picture. We think that someone living to 90 is old, but what is that in relation to 10,000 years. Why do we die? The truth is that our genomes shut us down. We kill ourselves. This shut down mode starts as soon as our reproductive capabilities slow down.
I don't know if it's been proven why we shut down or how it relates to what we are talking about.



Arousal is the distinquishing element. Your taste in women may change, but it will always be women, and never men, unless you are homosexual or bisexual.
How does one know this?



I would go so far as to say that if you engage in sex with men simply for the orgasm, but are not aroused by them, you are not gay, you are kinda gross though. It is more like social masturbation. If you want to lay around on the couch and cuddle with men and watch a movie, you are definitely gay.
How does one do this? If a man is in jail, previously heterosexual, looks at another man's ass, gets wood, and starts pounding him in the ass, how is that NOT homosexual? :blink:


I may change what I find most attractive, but I won't change the gender.

Ahhh but people do. I've seen it in numerous women. I think as gay lifestyle becomes more accepted so will gender jumping. The many don't change now is because of social pressures and stigma that are still pervasive in our society. For example, I think it's nasty (at least for men) :naughty: .

[QUOTE=hobbes]I think extreme early trauma can alter a child, such a molestation by a trusted family member, but this is rather a "learned aversion" type situation.
It's called environment. Why does one child that is molested by a man (or woman) turn out gay and another may not? Some don't avert ya know.


I think children brought up in a culture that scorns heterosexual behavior, will just create a lot of conflicted children. Why do I feel this way when everyone says it's wrong. Why do I go against the grain. I don't want to feel the way I do.

And that is what we see with our gay population. They ARE gay despite not wanting to be. Despite execution in some societies, despite becoming a family outcast, despite being ostracized in the community. Some do cave in to society and get married, they want to be straight, they want to be normal. Then 10 years down the road they come out of the closet. They say that they have always been gay.
Can you change your real desires (not actions) if society told you to? I would still like a woman with a fat ass because it riles me up. Whether I act on my desires with risk of death is another story. People are still getting infected with AIDS despite preachings of abstinence and condom usage. :dry:

A choice, a decision to be like a "mom" they admire? Seems to me most people are kicking and screaming against this lifestyle. As jpol says some people just accept it and live comfortably, others live a secret life and others are riddled with guilt.
All that proves is no matter what, you like what you like.

[hobbes]

:naughty: big butts!

[Busyman]

:naughty: big butts!
...and for me...

1. Tall

2. Muscular legs.

3. Tits don't have to be big but at least a big handful.

4. Pretty face (of course)

5. Flat stomach but not necessarily a six-pack (I don't like a rippling woman :sick: )

6. Toned arms (again not bulging and rippling)

7. Small waist

8. Hips like this < > :lol: :lol:

equals a 10.

I like an Amazon woman tall in high heels.

I've been with probably 8 perfect 10's in my lifetime and among others, I ended up pulling an all night sperm dumpsterfest. :devil:

[JPaul]

You can't answer a "this or that" post with a "yes", that's just confusing.
Yes you can, I just did.

Here's another example

Q. Did you go to the town on the bus or the train ?

A. Yes

The answer is perfectly valid

However if the question started with a which, that would be different.

Q. Which mode of transport did you use to go into town ?

A. Bus.

Do you see.

[manker]

I'd have just posted a picture of a rod.

[Busyman]

I love when folks get roped into a JPaulism.

I catch them everytime. :lol: :lol:

[JPaul]

I'd have just posted a picture of a rod.
:lol:

[JPaul]

I love when folks get roped into a JPaulism.

I catch them everytime. :lol: :lol:
How very "learned" of you :naughty:

[Busyman]

I love when folks get roped into a JPaulism.

I catch them everytime. :lol: :lol:
How very "learned" of you :naughty:
And I didn't have to google or anything and even.

[JPaul]

How very "learned" of you :naughty:
And I didn't have to google or anything and even.
Indeed.

[hobbes]

You can't answer a "this or that" post with a "yes", that's just confusing.
Yes you can, I just did.

Here's another example

Q. Did you go to the town on the bus or the train ?

A. Yes

The answer is perfectly valid

However if the question started with a which, that would be different.

Q. Which mode of transport did you use to go into town ?

A. Bus.

Do you see.

Of course I see, how else would I be able to have a favorite color? What an odd comment. A little synthesis with prior threads would go a long way. Think it through, laddy.

A jpolism or an appleism, one wonders.

[hobbes]

How very "learned" of you :naughty:
And I didn't have to google or anything and even.


Why is "googling" such an issue for him?

Is it not a valid tool for self education?

Where then is it decreed that a "google" is a crime, a breech of educational etiquette.

Alas, I cannot fathom this logic nor appreciate the transgression.

Furthermore, where is my TV remote?

[JPaul]

Yes you can, I just did.

Here's another example

Q. Did you go to the town on the bus or the train ?

A. Yes

The answer is perfectly valid

However if the question started with a which, that would be different.

Q. Which mode of transport did you use to go into town ?

A. Bus.

Do you see.

Of course I see, how else would I be able to have a favorite color? What an odd comment. A little synthesis with prior threads would go a long way. Think it through, laddy.

A jpolism or an appleism, one wonders.


:meow: :P

[JPaul]

And I didn't have to google or anything and even.

Where then is it decreed that a "google" is a crime, a breech of educational etiquette.

I can't remember, perhaps you could look it up on askjeeves.

[KaBuTo]

or is it the way they are raised.....

[Busyman]

Where then is it decreed that a "google" is a crime, a breech of educational etiquette.

I can't remember, perhaps you could look it up on askjeeves.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Busyman]

And I didn't have to google or anything and even.


Why is "googling" such an issue for him?

Is it not a valid tool for self education?

Where then is it decreed that a "google" is a crime, a breech of educational etiquette.

Alas, I cannot fathom this logic nor appreciate the transgression.


It's not a crime.

However, using it does not make one intelligent, learned, or even correct.

So providing a link doesn't either. Google masks many folks unintelligence. My fellow table members don't think that way.

I remember reading a scientific study, full of empirical evidence that there was a link between an amount of a certain material in the brain and homosexuality.

It was later proven to be bullshit.

[hobbes]

Why is "googling" such an issue for him?

Is it not a valid tool for self education?

Where then is it decreed that a "google" is a crime, a breech of educational etiquette.

Alas, I cannot fathom this logic nor appreciate the transgression.


It's not a crime.

However, using it does not make one intelligent, learned, or even correct.

So providing a link doesn't either. Google masks many folks unintelligence. My fellow table members don't think that way.

I remember reading a scientific study, full of empirical evidence that there was a link between an amount of a certain material in the brain and homosexuality.

It was later proven to be bullshit.


By throwing chum into the water, Busyman was baited and hooked by "soliloquy" roddage. Did take a while though.



Was the sentence structure not overly dramatic enough? Was the introspective musing not obvious?

For later reference, one might note the word "alas" as an antiquated expression of extreme remorse or emotion. The fact that the entire post is tongue-in-cheek is clinched by the query about the location of my TV remote.

Of course one cannot become learned by "googling". And also one must learn to see the unspoken wink or smilie.

Words do not always convey the true meaning, it is simply a matter of synthesis and context. Seeing through the words to the meaning or intent, that is the realm of insight.

I remember a scientific study that was full of empirical evidence and it turned out to be perfectly correct. Again, we can't let exceptions define the norm.

[Busyman]

It's not a crime.

However, using it does not make one intelligent, learned, or even correct.

So providing a link doesn't either. Google masks many folks unintelligence. My fellow table members don't think that way.

I remember reading a scientific study, full of empirical evidence that there was a link between an amount of a certain material in the brain and homosexuality.

It was later proven to be bullshit.


By throwing chum into the water, Busyman was baited and hooked by "soliloquy" roddage. Did take a while though.



Was the sentence structure not overly dramatic enough? Was the introspective musing not obvious?

For later reference, one might note the word "alas" as an antiquated expression of extreme remorse or emotion. The fact that the entire post is tongue-in-cheek is clinched by the query about the location of my TV remote.

Of course one cannot become learned by "googling". And also one must learn to see the unspoken wink or smilie.

Words do not always convey the true meaning, it is simply a matter of synthesis and context. Seeing through the words to the meaning or intent, that is the realm of insight.

I remember a scientific study that was full of empirical evidence and it turned out to be perfectly correct. Again, we can't let exceptions define the norm.
If I don't indulge these tongue and cheek references I wouldn't have any fun on here. :( (notice I left out your TV remote thing on purpose)

As far as your scientific study, I am certain it was not regarding genetic/hormonal homosexuality.

Prove why you like the color blue.

Many homosexuals say they were born that way 'cause they were that way as far back as they can remember.

How do they know they were born that way?
What is "that way" anyway?
Did they like what mommy liked?
They wanted emulate her instead of daddy?
Was the sight of a boy attractive?
What made the boy attractive?

That last question speaks volumes as to why gender is no different than what type of woman I like.

Case and point...

A man with a sex change can fool a man into believing he is a woman.

Is either man a homosexual?

This is perfect example of what I'm talking about.

If it looks like a woman a straight man will probably fuck himher.

A man finds out it's really a man with an insideout dick and he might shun the heshe, which hardly involves nature but nurture.

He makes a conscious choice not to do it with himher but what if he does fuck himher again?

This comes back to...prove scientifically why I like blue.

[bigboab]

By throwing chum into the water, Busyman was baited and hooked by "soliloquy" roddage. Did take a while though.



Was the sentence structure not overly dramatic enough? Was the introspective musing not obvious?

For later reference, one might note the word "alas" as an antiquated expression of extreme remorse or emotion. The fact that the entire post is tongue-in-cheek is clinched by the query about the location of my TV remote.

Of course one cannot become learned by "googling". And also one must learn to see the unspoken wink or smilie.

Words do not always convey the true meaning, it is simply a matter of synthesis and context. Seeing through the words to the meaning or intent, that is the realm of insight.

I remember a scientific study that was full of empirical evidence and it turned out to be perfectly correct. Again, we can't let exceptions define the norm.
If I don't indulge these tongue and cheek references I wouldn't have any fun on here. :( (notice I left out your TV remote thing on purpose)

As far as your scientific study, I am certain it was not regarding genetic/hormonal homosexuality.

Prove why you like the color blue.

Many homosexuals say they were born that way 'cause they were that way as far back as they can remember.

How do they know they were born that way?
What is "that way" anyway?
Did they like what mommy liked?
They wanted emulate her instead of daddy?
Was the sight of a boy attractive?
What made the boy attractive?

That last question speaks volumes as to why gender is no different than what type of woman I like.

Case and point...

A man with a sex change can fool a man into believing he is a woman.

Is either man a homosexual?

This is perfect example of what I'm talking about.

If it looks like a woman a straight man will probably fuck himher.

A man finds out it's really a man with an insideout dick and he might shun the heshe, which hardly involves nature but nurture.

He makes a conscious choice not to do it with himher but what if he does fuck himher again?

This comes back to...prove scientifically why I like blue.

Because blue is associated with the make gender. Is this your way of 'coming out'?:cry:

[Busyman]

If I don't indulge these tongue and cheek references I wouldn't have any fun on here. :( (notice I left out your TV remote thing on purpose)

As far as your scientific study, I am certain it was not regarding genetic/hormonal homosexuality.

Prove why you like the color blue.

Many homosexuals say they were born that way 'cause they were that way as far back as they can remember.

How do they know they were born that way?
What is "that way" anyway?
Did they like what mommy liked?
They wanted emulate her instead of daddy?
Was the sight of a boy attractive?
What made the boy attractive?

That last question speaks volumes as to why gender is no different than what type of woman I like.

Case and point...

A man with a sex change can fool a man into believing he is a woman.

Is either man a homosexual?

This is perfect example of what I'm talking about.

If it looks like a woman a straight man will probably fuck himher.

A man finds out it's really a man with an insideout dick and he might shun the heshe, which hardly involves nature but nurture.

He makes a conscious choice not to do it with himher but what if he does fuck himher again?

This comes back to...prove scientifically why I like blue.

Because blue is associated with the make gender. Is this your way of 'coming out'?:cry:
Make gender?

Tbh my favorite color is black.

[Snee]

Because blue is associated with the make gender. Is this your way of 'coming out'?:cry:
Make gender?

Tbh my favorite color is black.
Your favourite colour is the absence of all colours.

How poetic :unsure:

[JPaul]

Because blue is associated with the make gender. Is this your way of 'coming out'?:cry:
Make gender?

Tbh my favorite color is black.
Maybe he meant Fake Gender.

I think he's calling you sexually ambivalent.

[Snee]

If it looks like a woman a straight man will probably fuck himher.

Not necessarily, it could be than someone decides, unconciously, that he(-she) smells wrong, and therefore isn't attracted to him(-her).

'cos of the pheromones, see. Like I said before, that has really been proven to be a factor, although I think women make decisions based on smell more consciously than men does.



Anyway, a bloke is always a bloke, if he was born that way, IMO.
No amount of surgery and/or hormone treatments will alter that :unsure:

[Rat Faced]

They all snogged Miriam... :unsure:

[Busyman]

If it looks like a woman a straight man will probably fuck himher.

Not necessarily, it could be than someone decides, unconciously, that he(-she) smells wrong, and therefore isn't attracted to him(-her).
Damn dude, do you know what probably means? :blink:

'cos of the pheromones, see. Like I said before, that has really been proven to be a factor, although I think women make decisions based on smell more consciously than men does.
Pheromones? :lol: :lol: Sorry bud, but for men, visual stimuli overides pheromones in most cases. (that's one of my common sense guesses with no empirical evidence to back it up) :lol: :lol:

Anyway, a bloke is always a bloke, if he was born that way, IMO.
No amount of surgery and/or hormone treatments will alter that :unsure:
I totally agree.

So....if a man fucks a heshe unknowingly....is he homosexual?

I would bet if sex changes became verrrrrrry common, there'd be a ton of new homosexuals running around. :ohmy:

[Busyman]

Make gender?

Tbh my favorite color is black.
Your favourite colour is the absence of all colours.

How poetic :unsure:
:devil:

I was waiting for that. However black is still my favorite color. :dry:

[bigboab]

I stumbled across this article this morning while trying to ignore my wifes harangueing to get back into bed.(I have ran out of pills:cry:). I thought it might interest someone. it appears that they have located a gene that 'applies', 'controls' sexual preference. It is a long article, so read and make your own decisions. Dont you always.:lol:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/03/news/cell.php

[Snee]

Not necessarily, it could be than someone decides, unconciously, that he(-she) smells wrong, and therefore isn't attracted to him(-her).
Damn dude, do you know what probably means? :blink:
Well, I meant that it might not be so probable, you dig? :P

I reckon that pheromones putting even a bloke off isn't as improbable as you might think.

I've met women others thought looked great, and whom I'd have thought looked right even for me, yet they didn't attract me at all.


It's all pretty uncertain really, but I think that pheromones and such are a bigger factor than you might believe. But then again that might vary from person to person. And possibly from culture to culture as well.

[Busyman]

Damn dude, do you know what probably means? :blink:
Well, I meant that it might not be so probable, you dig? :P

I reckon that pheromones putting even a bloke off isn't as improbable as you might think.

I've met women others thought looked great, and whom I'd have thought looked right even for me, yet they didn't attract me at all.


It's all pretty uncertain really, but I think that pheromones and such are a bigger factor than you might believe. But then again that might vary from person to person. And possibly from culture to culture as well.
So because a great looking woman didn't attract you, it musta been the pheromones? :lol: :lol: :lol:

You know a great looking woman is more probable to get fucked and I know it.
You debate the CaptainObvious. If she fucking stinks then that's another story. If some bloke happens to like this good looking woman with the shit smell that's another story too. :dry:

[Snee]

So because a great looking woman didn't attract you, it musta been the pheromones? :lol: :lol: :lol:

You know a great looking woman is more probable to get fucked and I know it.
You debate the CaptainObvious.
It might have been the pheromones, yeah :huh:

Just 'cause you can't see them doesn't mean that they aren't a factor.
Especially so since research has shown that they are indeed a factor.

And anyway, all people aren't guided purely by the exterior, it could be that the good-looking chick is a moron, or that she tries too hard. Of course she'll always get laid, but with who?

Undoubtedly there are people who won't care about their instincts, or about who she is. She looks good and therefore they must sleep with her, as a prestige thing or something. But I don't think those people are average, or at least I hope they are not :ermm:

[Busyman]

So because a great looking woman didn't attract you, it musta been the pheromones? :lol: :lol: :lol:

You know a great looking woman is more probable to get fucked and I know it.
You debate the CaptainObvious.
It might have been the pheromones, yeah :huh:

Just 'cause you can't see them doesn't mean that they aren't a factor.
Especially so since research has shown that they are indeed a factor.

And anyway, all people aren't guided purely by the exterior, it could be that the good-looking chick is a moron, or that she tries too hard. Of course she'll always get laid, but with who?

Undoubtedly there are people who won't care about their instincts, or about who she is. She looks good and therefore they must sleep with her, as a prestige thing or something. But I don't think those people are average, or at least I hope they are not :ermm:
Oh jeez!! You might not have liked a woman for many reasons.

Not my point. You made your point as if it was the pheromones that turned you off in your example.....


I reckon that pheromones putting even a bloke off isn't as improbable as you might think.
I've met women others thought looked great, and whom I'd have thought looked right even for me, yet they didn't attract me at all.

.....yet you have no idea.....even with scientific research saying it is a factor.

I know you don't have to see pheromones. I don't see stink either. Noshizzle. :blink:

Good lord, then you go into whether she's a moron or not. :blink:

A woman walking down the street is going to be seen first and foremost. Visual stimuli.

[JPaul]

Good lord, then you go into whether she's a moron or not. :blink:

A woman walking down the street is going to be seen first and foremost. Visual stimuli.
Do you treat everything in life so capriciously, old bean, or is it just in your choice of bedfellows.

[manker]

Good lord, then you go into whether she's a moron or not. :blink:

A woman walking down the street is going to be seen first and foremost. Visual stimuli.
Do you treat everything in life so capriciously, old bean, or is it just in your choice of bedfellows.Deary me, bedfellows! That's a big ambiguous.

There merest hint of sexual deviancy usually has our chum Busy wishing to masticate the implicator's testes until viscous.

Please, pay more heed to your comments to avoid unintended ramifications.

[JPaul]

Do you treat everything in life so capriciously, old bean, or is it just in your choice of bedfellows.Deary me, bedfellows! That's a big ambiguous.

There merest hint of sexual deviancy usually has our chum Busy wishing to masticate the implicator's testes until viscous.

Please, pay more heed to your comments to avoid unintended ramifications.
My rastamafarians are generally intended.

[manker]

Deary me, bedfellows! That's a big ambiguous.

There merest hint of sexual deviancy usually has our chum Busy wishing to masticate the implicator's testes until viscous.

Please, pay more heed to your comments to avoid unintended ramifications.
My rastamafarians are generally intended.As is my roddage :naughty:

[JPaul]

My rastamafarians are generally intended.As is my roddage :naughty:
Read what I wrote, :cawk:

[JPaul]

Please, pay more heed to your comments to avoid unintended ramifications.
Are you accusing me of JPaulism, or zeugma as it's known in the trade.

[manker]

As is my roddage :naughty:
Read what I wrote, :cawk:So you weren't trying to imply that you meant to be a bit naughty, noblet.

Trois - deux - and not in favour of the senescent simulacrum.

[zapjb]

Nuture or Nature? There's statistics for nature. But I've also seen half dozen of 1 = 6 of the other.

[Snee]

It might have been the pheromones, yeah :huh:

Just 'cause you can't see them doesn't mean that they aren't a factor.
Especially so since research has shown that they are indeed a factor.

And anyway, all people aren't guided purely by the exterior, it could be that the good-looking chick is a moron, or that she tries too hard. Of course she'll always get laid, but with who?

Undoubtedly there are people who won't care about their instincts, or about who she is. She looks good and therefore they must sleep with her, as a prestige thing or something. But I don't think those people are average, or at least I hope they are not :ermm:
Oh jeez!! You might not have liked a woman for many reasons.
:rolleyes:

I might not have liked that woman for many reasons, true. But seeing as how there wasn't always been an explanation for it, then I have to assume it was because of something I couldn't see.

Sure, some women are too daft to like, and some are weird in other ways, but not all of them.

Sometimes there's no visible or otherwise obvious reason as to why I like one and abhor another, therefore I have to assume it's because of something unconcious and uncontrollable, like pheromones, unless you've got something better to explain it with.

Attraction-gnomes perhaps?



Not my point. You made your point as if it was the pheromones that turned you off in your example.....
Given the science, it has to be the most logical explanation, yeah.


Oh, and maybe you'll sleep with anything that looks good walking down the street :ermm:

But I won't.

[manker]

Oh, and maybe you'll sleep with anything that looks good walking down the street :ermm:

But I won't.Too many tawdry memories of the guy dressed up as a cheeseburger? I knows it :no:

[Busyman]

Oh jeez!! You might not have liked a woman for many reasons.
:rolleyes:

I might not have liked that woman for many reasons, true. But seeing as how there wasn't always been an explanation for it, then I have to assume it was because of something I couldn't see.

Sure, some women are too daft to like, and some are weird in other ways, but not all of them.

Sometimes there's no visible or otherwise obvious reason as to why I like one and abhor another, therefore I have to assume it's because of something unconcious and uncontrollable, like pheromones, unless you've got something better to explain it with.

Attraction-gnomes perhaps?



Not my point. You made your point as if it was the pheromones that turned you off in your example.....
Given the science, it has to be the most logical explanation, yeah.


Oh, and maybe you'll sleep with anything that looks good walking down the street :ermm:

But I won't.
I guess you wouldn't 'cause the pheromones said not to.

So this....

So because a great looking woman didn't attract you, it musta been the pheromones? :lol: :lol: :lol:
...was accurate then.

Cool.

I can't explain why I like/dislike many things. However, I don't automatically attribute a reason to the newest scientific study. :lol: :lol:

[Snee]

It's hardly recent at all. That theory, and others like it have been around for several decades at the very least



And btw, on the subject of attraction: I hear women go through different phases with regards what they are attracted too.

When ovulating, or somesuch, they prefer men with more feminine traits, possibly increasingly so when pregnant and when they've born their child, until the point when their nipples don't lactate any more.

That's all hormones, and men have other such phases which affect what they are attracted to, I think, but it's more age-related, I reckon.

[bigboab]

That's all hormones, and men have other such phases which affect what they are attracted to, I think, but it's more age-related, I reckon.

Leave me alone.:ph34r: It was just a face phase I was going through.:)

[Busyman]

It's hardly recent at all. That theory, and others like it have been around for several decades at the very least



And btw, on the subject of attraction: I hear women go through different phases with regards what they are attracted too.

When ovulating, or somesuch, they prefer men with more feminine traits, possibly increasingly so when pregnant and when they've born their child, until the point when their nipples don't lactate any more.

That's all hormones, and men have other such phases which affect what they are attracted to, I think, but it's more age-related, I reckon.
Did you say theory? Oh mmk.

Regarding attraction, I hear many women wanting to fuck more during ovulation. Maybe what you heard is fact too....or is it theory? :blink:

[JPaul]

It's hardly recent at all. That theory, and others like it have been around for several decades at the very least



And btw, on the subject of attraction: I hear women go through different phases with regards what they are attracted too.

When ovulating, or somesuch, they prefer men with more feminine traits, possibly increasingly so when pregnant and when they've born their child, until the point when their nipples don't lactate any more.

That's all hormones, and men have other such phases which affect what they are attracted to, I think, but it's more age-related, I reckon.
Did you say theory? Oh mmk.

Regarding attraction, I hear many women wanting to fuck more during ovulation. Maybe what you heard is fact too....or is it theory? :blink:

No they want to do it two months after the baby is born. It's known as thermidor, the eleventh month, also known as the month of heat (well it was in the French revolutionary calender, apparentement)

[Snee]

@busy: It's supposedly a fact, as it has been proven empirically, more or less, but there are still some kinks to iron out I reckon, which is why I'm calling it a theory.

Incomplete research might be a better way to name it then, as they have yet to find out exactly what pheromones accomplish what, and so forth.


WRT ovulation, the test I know of was performed by showing groups of women in various phases of their menstrual cycle a series of pictures or stages of a male face slowly being morphed into a female face (cunningly done on a computer).

It might have been those women who had just gone past ovulating though, it could be that those just about to picked the more male face, now that I think about it.

It's been a while since I read about it.

At any rate the theory, which was based on the fact that women really do pick people with different traits depending on where in the cycle they currently are, is that it's to do with picking a partner with better genes (more male-looking apparently) versus picking a partner who will take care of you better (mor female, again apparently).

[Rat Faced]

And btw, on the subject of attraction: I hear women go through different phases with regards what they are attracted too.

Its all hormones etc..

Changing the Pill they're on can change what attracts them.

[Busyman]

@busy: It's supposedly a fact, as it has been proven empirically, more or less, but there are still some kinks to iron out I reckon, which is why I'm calling it a theory.

Incomplete research might be a better way to name it then, as they have yet to find out exactly what pheromones accomplish what, and so forth.


WRT ovulation, the test I know of was performed by showing groups of women in various phases of their menstrual cycle a series of pictures or stages of a male face slowly being morphed into a female face (cunningly done on a computer).

It might have been those women who had just gone past ovulating though, it could be that those just about to picked the more male face, now that I think about it.

It's been a while since I read about it.

At any rate the theory, which was based on the fact that women really do pick people with different traits depending on where in the cycle they currently are, is that it's to do with picking a partner with better genes (more male-looking apparently) versus picking a partner who will take care of you better (mor female, again apparently).
So theory then. Cool.

[Busyman]

Did you say theory? Oh mmk.

Regarding attraction, I hear many women wanting to fuck more during ovulation. Maybe what you heard is fact too....or is it theory? :blink:

No they want to do it two months after the baby is born. It's known as thermidor, the eleventh month, also known as the month of heat (well it was in the French revolutionary calender, apparentement)
They only want it two months after the baby is born? That sucks. :(

[JPaul]

No they want to do it two months after the baby is born. It's known as thermidor, the eleventh month, also known as the month of heat (well it was in the French revolutionary calender, apparentement)
They only want it two months after the baby is born? That sucks. :(
:w00t: