Babylon is an attention whore ITT, even for negative attention.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm going to go ahead and be the lone dissenter to the idea that you can't choose what turns you on. There are choices everybody gets to make about what threads of arousal to pursue, and everyone has, at various times, the unbidden twinges of arousal at an idea or scenario that is as repulsive as it is arousing. Most people go "Ew, that's horrible, I'm not going to think about that" and the arousal cycle is broken, but a few people go "Heh yeah that turns me on, I'm going to think about it while I masturbate" and the arousal cycle gets reinforced. That's a choice.

Some people are really into the idea of being "edgy" or "alternative" and make choices to indulge what they see as a sexual dark side, not realizing they're locking their sexual preference in for something that is not so much dark as seedy and repulsive. Even so, it's hard to accept the idea that a mind that would turn toward sexual gratification in other people's suffering and death, even imagined, is a mind that started out anything but pathological to begin with.

I agree to an extent.

Some basic inclinations seem hardwired or as close to as to be indistinguishable, but a lot of the stuff from a level or two below that is going to be based, in part, on feedback loops and the choice to induldge in certain scenarios and fetishes.  It's classic operant conditioning at work.

True enough. Some fundamentals, like homosexuality, seem to be biologically hardwired. However, I don't think anyone is biologically hardwired to want to fuck dead people, children, dogs, or their mom.

I wasn't going to derail the thread...but then i finished it so i decided that it's not really going anywhere and I might take this opportunity:

Anyway...Nigel, I'm not sure about this one.  How do you figure this one because it's been years and I haven't been able to make up my mind about it.

Partly because it tends to run in families and partly because it appears in animal populations that grow too numerous. I suspect it's a genetic "switch" that's built in to some percentage of the population. My guess is that it's activated in utero based on the mother's environment. I don't have anything more sophisticated than that to offer, but in my observation with growing up with (and raising) gay children, it usually becomes evident at a pretty young age, unless it's actively suppressed. And sometimes even if it's actively suppressed.

I know, on another level most people are bisexual to some degree... but I think primary attraction to same-sex partners may well be a social benefit trait that tends to kick in when the population is high enough that it could make do with more caretakers/providers and fewer breeders. I am pretty confident that it's heavily innate and not learned behavior.

[Phox]

I'm going to go ahead and be the lone dissenter to the idea that you can't choose what turns you on. There are choices everybody gets to make about what threads of arousal to pursue, and everyone has, at various times, the unbidden twinges of arousal at an idea or scenario that is as repulsive as it is arousing. Most people go "Ew, that's horrible, I'm not going to think about that" and the arousal cycle is broken, but a few people go "Heh yeah that turns me on, I'm going to think about it while I masturbate" and the arousal cycle gets reinforced. That's a choice.

Some people are really into the idea of being "edgy" or "alternative" and make choices to indulge what they see as a sexual dark side, not realizing they're locking their sexual preference in for something that is not so much dark as seedy and repulsive. Even so, it's hard to accept the idea that a mind that would turn toward sexual gratification in other people's suffering and death, even imagined, is a mind that started out anything but pathological to begin with.

I agree to an extent.

Some basic inclinations seem hardwired or as close to as to be indistinguishable, but a lot of the stuff from a level or two below that is going to be based, in part, on feedback loops and the choice to induldge in certain scenarios and fetishes.  It's classic operant conditioning at work.

True enough. Some fundamentals, like homosexuality, seem to be biologically hardwired. However, I don't think anyone is biologically hardwired to want to fuck dead people, children, dogs, or their mom.

I wasn't going to derail the thread...but then i finished it so i decided that it's not really going anywhere and I might take this opportunity:

Anyway...Nigel, I'm not sure about this one.  How do you figure this one because it's been years and I haven't been able to make up my mind about it.

Partly because it tends to run in families and partly because it appears in animal populations that grow too numerous. I suspect it's a genetic "switch" that's built in to some percentage of the population. My guess is that it's activated in utero based on the mother's environment. I don't have anything more sophisticated than that to offer, but in my observation with growing up with (and raising) gay children, it usually becomes evident at a pretty young age, unless it's actively suppressed. And sometimes even if it's actively suppressed.

I know, on another level most people are bisexual to some degree... but I think primary attraction to same-sex partners may well be a social benefit trait that tends to kick in when the population is high enough that it could make do with more caretakers/providers and fewer breeders. I am pretty confident that it's heavily innate and not learned behavior.

Very well put, Nigel.

[Bu🤠ns]

I didn't mean to step in on Nigel's question.  And what do you mean by social role/label?  Stereotyping?

I think Stereotyping goes with it. That's part of what i'm unsure of.  I included the dictionary definition of homosexuality in trying to explain it but it just seems to be so much more important to our society than mere same-sex desire / intercourse.  That's about where I get lost. It's such a distinction to loving.  and maybe it's just my model of loving but it seems so much more all encompassing to me to have such a distinction in the first place.

But then I see the value of it for it's social role. The necessary social action against those who wish to define loving to a degree that it affects another's freedom to love equally.

Pretty sure he's making the argument that the need for procreation is a biological imperative, and any form of deviation from that formula is socially constructed. Burns, I apologize if that's not what your saying. But, you're full of shit if it is.

I'm not making an argument at all.  Just wondering about it again. But you're mostly right on the last sentence.

[Bu🤠ns]

I'm going to go ahead and be the lone dissenter to the idea that you can't choose what turns you on. There are choices everybody gets to make about what threads of arousal to pursue, and everyone has, at various times, the unbidden twinges of arousal at an idea or scenario that is as repulsive as it is arousing. Most people go "Ew, that's horrible, I'm not going to think about that" and the arousal cycle is broken, but a few people go "Heh yeah that turns me on, I'm going to think about it while I masturbate" and the arousal cycle gets reinforced. That's a choice.

Some people are really into the idea of being "edgy" or "alternative" and make choices to indulge what they see as a sexual dark side, not realizing they're locking their sexual preference in for something that is not so much dark as seedy and repulsive. Even so, it's hard to accept the idea that a mind that would turn toward sexual gratification in other people's suffering and death, even imagined, is a mind that started out anything but pathological to begin with.

I agree to an extent.

Some basic inclinations seem hardwired or as close to as to be indistinguishable, but a lot of the stuff from a level or two below that is going to be based, in part, on feedback loops and the choice to induldge in certain scenarios and fetishes.  It's classic operant conditioning at work.

True enough. Some fundamentals, like homosexuality, seem to be biologically hardwired. However, I don't think anyone is biologically hardwired to want to fuck dead people, children, dogs, or their mom.

I wasn't going to derail the thread...but then i finished it so i decided that it's not really going anywhere and I might take this opportunity:

Anyway...Nigel, I'm not sure about this one.  How do you figure this one because it's been years and I haven't been able to make up my mind about it.

Partly because it tends to run in families and partly because it appears in animal populations that grow too numerous. I suspect it's a genetic "switch" that's built in to some percentage of the population. My guess is that it's activated in utero based on the mother's environment. I don't have anything more sophisticated than that to offer, but in my observation with growing up with (and raising) gay children, it usually becomes evident at a pretty young age, unless it's actively suppressed. And sometimes even if it's actively suppressed.

I know, on another level most people are bisexual to some degree... but I think primary attraction to same-sex partners may well be a social benefit trait that tends to kick in when the population is high enough that it could make do with more caretakers/providers and fewer breeders. I am pretty confident that it's heavily innate and not learned behavior.

I'm not worried about sophisticated details. I'm more than convinced THAT it happens. The whole runs-in-families catches me a bit.   And maybe i'm overgeneralizing but doesn't everybody have that -one uncle-? 

It just seems too all encompassing to be broken down so much. i dunno

[Phox]

Pretty sure he's making the argument that the need for procreation is a biological imperative, and any form of deviation from that formula is socially constructed. Burns, I apologize if that's not what your saying. But, you're full of shit if it is.

I'm not making an argument at all.  Just wondering about it again. But you're mostly right on the last sentence.

Just so long as you know. 

[Nast]

Our society generally has the concept of people having sexual orientations, which is part of their identity as a person. Other societies (I'm thinking like in the past), there were no heterosexual/homosexual people, only heterosexual/homosexual acts. Is that what you're saying about about social roles and such?

I'm not worried about sophisticated details. I'm more than convinced THAT it happens. The whole runs-in-families catches me a bit.   And maybe i'm overgeneralizing but doesn't everybody have that -one uncle-? 

Well, for example, both me and my only brother ended up teh gay. When I tell people this I also like to joke that our parents must have done something terribly, terribly wrong. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There is ample evidence that homosexuality tends to run in families, which is not exactly the same as being an inherited trait. It's not quite as simple as, say, blue eyes, obviously.

What it means in this case is that while one in ten people in the US is gay, that doesn't mean that a family cluster with 20 kids (say, divided between 5 siblings) will have 2 gay people in the youngest generation. It means that some such family clusters will have zero gay children, and some families will have four. So in one family, you may find that 5 siblings have 4 kids each, and none of them are gay. In another family, 4 siblings have 5 kids each, and there is a 5th sibling who is gay and has no children. Of the 20 offspring, 4 are gay.

That's a ridiculous oversimplification, of course, but there is evidence that it works that way. Families with gayness tend to have a lot of gayness, and there are families that seem to lack it entirely. My mother's family does not  have teh gay, but my dad's family totally has it, and EFO & MO's dad's family has a wealth of it, not to mention LO's dad's lovely family.

I have to admit, it's all what you know, but I kind of feel sorry for families that don't have it.

[Nast]

but I kind of feel sorry for families that don't have it.

Because it's FABULOUS!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

but I kind of feel sorry for families that don't have it.

Because it's FABULOUS!

I have been informed many times that I'm a fag.

I was BORN fabulous!

[Bu🤠ns]

Our society generally has the concept of people having sexual orientations, which is part of their identity as a person. Other societies (I'm thinking like in the past), there were no heterosexual/homosexual people, only heterosexual/homosexual acts. Is that what you're saying about about social roles and such?

That's kind of it. I can see how it has to be the case in our culture.  Maybe there's no hetero/homo people?  My ignorance comes from the fact I could never pick a side lol.  It just seems like such a division when it isn't really necessary.  I guess I'm not really speaking from within the culture's point of view. 

Maybe the roles just seem too limiting to me.

I'm not worried about sophisticated details. I'm more than convinced THAT it happens. The whole runs-in-families catches me a bit.   And maybe i'm overgeneralizing but doesn't everybody have that -one uncle-?  

Well, for example, both me and my only brother ended up teh gay. When I tell people this I also like to joke that our parents must have done something terribly, terribly wrong.  

[Nast]

Our society generally has the concept of people having sexual orientations, which is part of their identity as a person. Other societies (I'm thinking like in the past), there were no heterosexual/homosexual people, only heterosexual/homosexual acts. Is that what you're saying about about social roles and such?

That's kind of it. I can see how it has to be the case in our culture.  Maybe there's no hetero/homo people?  My ignorance comes from the fact I could never pick a side lol.  It just seems like such a division when it isn't really necessary.  I guess I'm not really speaking from within the culture's point of view.  

Maybe the roles just seem too limiting to me.

I quite understand. A lot of such divisions are arbitrary to one's personal identity, but eh that's culture for you. If you think about it in terms of preference it seems to make sense. Just like how some people like chocolate ice cream, some like vanilla, some like both, and some people are real perverts and like strawberry.

[Bu🤠ns]

Our society generally has the concept of people having sexual orientations, which is part of their identity as a person. Other societies (I'm thinking like in the past), there were no heterosexual/homosexual people, only heterosexual/homosexual acts. Is that what you're saying about about social roles and such?

That's kind of it. I can see how it has to be the case in our culture.  Maybe there's no hetero/homo people?  My ignorance comes from the fact I could never pick a side lol.  It just seems like such a division when it isn't really necessary.  I guess I'm not really speaking from within the culture's point of view. 

Maybe the roles just seem too limiting to me.

I quite understand. A lot of such divisions are arbitrary to one's personal identity, but eh that's culture for you. If you think about it in terms of preference it seems to make sense. Just like how some people like chocolate ice cream, some like vanilla, some like both, and some people are real perverts and like strawberry.

That seems like the simplest way of looking at it...too bad it has to be such a federal case in our culture.  Then all the details seem to really "matter-or-not."

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Our society generally has the concept of people having sexual orientations, which is part of their identity as a person. Other societies (I'm thinking like in the past), there were no heterosexual/homosexual people, only heterosexual/homosexual acts. Is that what you're saying about about social roles and such?

That's kind of it. I can see how it has to be the case in our culture.  Maybe there's no hetero/homo people?  My ignorance comes from the fact I could never pick a side lol.  It just seems like such a division when it isn't really necessary.  I guess I'm not really speaking from within the culture's point of view. 

Maybe the roles just seem too limiting to me.

I quite understand. A lot of such divisions are arbitrary to one's personal identity, but eh that's culture for you. If you think about it in terms of preference it seems to make sense. Just like how some people like chocolate ice cream, some like vanilla, some like both, and some people are real perverts and like strawberry.

That seems like the simplest way of looking at it...too bad it has to be such a federal case in our culture.  Then all the details seem to really "matter-or-not."

Yeah, I think it's pretty weird that something as relatively trivial as whether you like to get sticky with innies, outies, or both is considered a major matter of identity.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

Obviously this thread has moved onto something different, but I'll just respond to the things directed at me and step out if that's ok.

Negative reinforcement. You are what you eat, fill your mind with enough negative stimulus chances are its not going to have a positive effect in the long run.

That's fair and sensible.  I mean, it's not inevitable, but mostly yes.

So, you view CGI child pornography as being OK, since no actual children are involved in the making of it?

I think it's less reprehensible than actual child porn.  But then, I have a strong, instinctual dislike of paedophilia, and child abuse in general, a reaction that I don't seem to have towards snuff porn, which is probably why I invited explanations of it's "wrongness" to be passed my way.

Anyway, I'm here I might as well stir shit.  It could be argued that CGI child porn is a Good Thing:

Let's start with Event 1:  There are people with sexual inclinations towards children.

Now Option A:  These people express their desires by sexually abusing (or watching people sexually abuse) actual children.

Option B:  These people express their desires by watching CGI people abuse CGI children.

Now obviously a world without Event 1 would be most preferable, but given that there are paedophiles who wish to act on their inclinations, I think Option B is infinitely preferable to Option A.

DISCLAIMER:  I am aware that an interest in snuff porn is not exactly a healthy state of mind, and after being in a long-term relationship with a victim of sexual abuse, I'm thoroughly unimpressed by paedophiles, if the bastard ever has the misfortune to meet me I'll gladly break every bone in the fuckers body.

xx

p.s.  Sorry to all the people discussing homosexuality who's thread I may or may not just have ruined.

[hooplala]

Damnit, I told myself I wasn't going to talk about any of it any longer,

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.