(Jan 15, 2019 02:39 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan 14, 2019 11:50 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]That's not just without outside influence. That's also without any other potential for a mate. Of course sexual selection can't occur where there is no competition and no choices. And just like I said, "nurturing affects nature", and culture is a trivial part of that nurturing.
That's what an innate drive is, Syne. Innate behavior is an instinct programmed at a genetic level. What part of this don’t you understand? We are animals. If it’s an innate behavior, an animal raised in isolation will perform that behavior. Throw two sexually uneducated humans that are attracted to each other into a room and one is bound to windup pregnant.
Our sex drive is what drives reproduction, not the other way around, silly boy!
I don't know what's wrong with you. Maybe you were brainwashed by Peterson or something. Who knows?
You keep arguing as if someone said sex is not innate behavior. I really don't know, at this point, if that's an intentional straw man or you're really that confused. Likely just an effect of you quelling cognitive dissonance...like your inability to even address the hunger analog.
Yes, any sexually-reproducing animal will do so, if given the opportunity. And? How exactly can you tell if it's sexual desire or reproduction? Just because that's what you consciously feel? Wow, how scientific.
Again, species evolved sexual reproduction before sexual pleasure. The evolutionary use for pleasure only serves the biological imperative to reproduce...just like the pleasure found in food serves the imperative to consume calories. Maybe you're confused because the libido is usually only studied/discussed in psychological terms, where evolution is in biological terms. But here's a winning [sarcasm] example of an anthropologist's take on the evolution of human sexuality:
Symons also argues that rape can be explained in evolutionary terms and feminist claims that it is not sexually motivated are incorrect.
...
It has been seen as a classic work on human sexual evolution and used as a textbook, though critics have questioned Symons's explanation of the female orgasm and his suggestion that eliminating rape "might well entail a cure worse than the disease".
...
Discussing rape, Symons suggests that because males can "potentially sire offspring at almost no cost ... selection favors male attempts to copulate with fertile females whenever this potential can be realized." He criticizes the feminist Susan Brownmiller's argument in Against Our Will (1975) that rape is not sexually motivated, writing that she inadequately documents her thesis and that all of the reasons that she and other authors have given for concluding that rapists are not motivated by sexual desire are open to criticism. Symons writes that Brownmiller's claim that the function of rape is to keep all women in a state of fear has been "vigorously contested", and that it is also an example of a naïve form of functionalism, which is unacceptable since no process that might generate such "functions" has been shown to exist. Symons argues that socialization towards a "more humane sexuality" requires the inhibition of impulses that are part of human nature because they have proved adaptive over millions of years, and concluded that while under the right rearing conditions, "males could be produced who would want only the kinds of sexual interactions that women want" this "might well entail a cure worse than the disease." He considers the major contribution of feminist investigations of rape to be to document the perspective of its victims, showing, for example, that they do not want to be raped.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolut..._Sexuality
Are you really on board with that? O_o
Or do psychologists/anthropologists just try to add legitimacy to their own work by trying to tackle biology/evolution well-beyond their own field?
Quote:Quote:You should have some kids so that you have something to do. It’s a barren future without children, man. I can tell you that. It’s a real mistake. And you think when you’re nineteen, because you’re so clueless when you’re nineteen. You don’t know a bloody thing. You think...well, I’m not really sure I want children anyways. It’s like, oh, yeah, you can tell how well you’ve been educated. Jesus!
He goes on and on and it gets even worse. 
Who or what is that from?
Without context, it's just non sequitur.
Quote:Syne Wrote:You didn't mention your parents:
Not my problem if you don't understand basic genetics. You passed on all the traits your children could have inherited from your parents. Any unique variation of those that your brother could call his own are not passed to your children...again, barring incest.
It sounds like you're the one that doesn't understand how it works. My brother is heterosexual but my point was that if homosexuality was genetic, the trait could be passed on through siblings.
You're being so ridiculous. I'm starting to think that you're just fucking with me.
Zinman is right and we've already had this discussion in the past. Nothing ever changes. It's futile.
Now it just sounds like you're backpedaling. Where in, even the vicinity of, that comment was anyone discussing passing on homosexual genetics? Nowhere, that's where.
Luckily I know you're not smart enough to be messing with me. If you could even make one coherent scientifically-backed argument, you might have half a chance, but alas.
(Jan 15, 2019 04:13 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Is it okay to criticize him now that he identifies as straight? Or do you have any similar criticisms of current gays too?
Your decision, go ahead if you want, don’t need my permission. Unless I know your critique I can’t answer second part. What is your criticism?
I’m just sitting back, waiting to see him capitalize. Should start soon.
No, I asked if
you are okay criticizing him, now that he's straight, are
you just as willing to criticize a gay man?
Or do you think one is acceptable while the other isn't? O_o
(Jan 15, 2019 04:46 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]How does it ''counter the narrative'' though, if one gradually falls out of attraction when it comes to having same sex partners? For every story that is similar to the guy in the OP, there are many stories that are told from the opposite viewpoint. (straight people who ''gradually become'' gay)
Really? The main cultural narrative isn't that LGBT are born that way? Since when? You might want to let MR know about that.
Usually the only thing they report as gradual is awareness of and acknowledging "who they really are", having lived with some nagging uncertainty beforehand.
