Ex-male escort ... 'turns straight'

[Secular Sanity]

And? How exactly can you tell if it's sexual desire or reproduction? Just because that's what you consciously feel? Wow, how scientific.  

In order for fusion to even occur something has to bring us together. Even at a cellular level, signaling occurs, e.g. cell attraction, attachment, and recognition. Cells designed to fuse even use migration mechanisms to find partners.

Unlike food, you don’t have to have sex to survive. Hunger is an unpleasant sensation. Appetite is the desire to eat food.

Take for example, something as simple as a piece of fruit.  Fruits entice animals. It is good for food and pleasant to the eye.  Its main function is to be desirable to increase its chances of being eaten and transported.

Don’t take this the wrong way. I’m not flirting with you. Capeesh? Think about it this way dumb(_i_).

It’s not a chicken or egg type question. If evolution is about preserving and acquiring information needed for survival, the desire to 'know' you is first and foremost. The desire to come together precedes replication. And that, my dear, is all that was needed.

[Leigha]

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?

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.

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.

---

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

---

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.

I imagine some people believe they were born gay, and others believe that it's a choice. Some people identify as bi-sexual, what to make of them? i have gay friends who don't believe they ''always knew'' that they were gay. Either way, maybe we don't know enough to really say with certainty, what ''causes'' someone to be straight or gay. Do you come from a religious/faith-based point of view, to reach your conclusions?

[Zinjanthropos]

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

. Everyone is open to fair criticism. However I’ll never criticize anybody for legally making a buck. Thus I think this whole thing is being carefully managed and choreographed.....I’ve been wrong before. Last time I’m going to repeat myself on why he’s doing this.

[Syne]

And? How exactly can you tell if it's sexual desire or reproduction? Just because that's what you consciously feel? Wow, how scientific.  

In order for fusion to even occur something has to bring us together. Even at a cellular level, signaling occurs, e.g. cell attraction, attachment, and recognition. Cells designed to fuse even use migration mechanisms to find partners.

Unlike food, you don’t have to have sex to survive. Hunger is an unpleasant sensation. Appetite is the desire to eat food.

Take for example, something as simple as a piece of fruit.  Fruits entice animals. It is good for food and pleasant to the eye.  Its main function is to be desirable to increase its chances of being eaten and transported.

A sexually-reproducing species does need sex to survive, and if you deny the impetus to survive as a species, you are denying basic evolution and the whole reason we are capable of having civilized, cooperative societies.

Perhaps more Darwinian than survival of the individually fittest is the thought that it is more important for evolution that the species survives. If selfishness divides, causes conflict and and kills collaboration, then individuals are effectively at war with the species, removing competitors and hoarding resources for their own use. In its eventual form, this leads to a fragile system that cannot cope with change (as perhaps has been seen in some companies).

Yet we are a social species and can be very altruistic. We have found along the way that working together helps us in many ways, from sharing resources to playing to one another's strengths. We will help strangers and even sacrifice ourselves for the greater good. This is the genetic force for survival of the species that we have developed over time.
- http://changingminds.org/explanations/ev...pecies.htm

Hunger is a synonym for appetite, and at best only distinguished as the biological counterpart to a mental state.

hun·ger
a feeling of discomfort or weakness caused by lack of food, coupled with the desire to eat.

Yes, it's trivial that plants take advantage of an animal's need to eat and that somethings are more pleasant in competition with others. That is the plant's reproductive strategy. Or do you somehow believe that the plant finds pleasure in producing appealing fruit?

Don’t take this the wrong way. I’m not flirting with you. Capeesh? Think about it this way dumb(_i_).

It’s not a chicken or egg type question. If evolution is about preserving and acquiring information needed for survival, the desire to 'know' you is first and foremost. The desire to come together precedes replication. And that, my dear, is all that was needed.

Flirting? Wow, that must be a parapraxis, as no one implied or inferred you were flirting. Why on earth would you assume anyone thought you were flirting? O_o

So you're argument is that it's "not a chicken or egg type question" but "desire...precedes replication"? Make up your mind.

In evolution, the order of current mating behaviors have nothing to do with how they developed and the underlying biological imperative for the behavior. There was obviously sexual-reproduction in species that derived no pleasure from it. This tells us that reproduction is more fundamental than desire. Desire is only grafted on top of the reproducing instinct. Otherwise, sexually-reproducing evolution would never have occurred at all.

Try using your brain for more than a point scoring abacus.

---

I imagine some people believe they were born gay, and others believe that it's a choice. Some people identify as bi-sexual, what to make of them? i have gay friends who don't believe they ''always knew'' that they were gay. Either way, maybe we don't know enough to really say with certainty, what ''causes'' someone to be straight or gay. Do you come from a religious/faith-based point of view, to reach your conclusions?

So you're completely unaware of which one is the overwhelming cultural narrative, huh? Well, some people do live under rocks.
Not "always knowing" has nothing to do with whether they think they were born gay. Most seem to assume, it was always that way, it just took them time to come to terms with.

I come from a science view to reach my conclusions, as the many scientific citations I provide for my arguments (and the pittance in response) can attest.

[confused2]

Rather than faffing about like a pansy - this guy knows how to deal with homosexuals:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/14/europ...index.html

[Syne]

Rather than faffing about like a pansy - this guy knows how to deal with homosexuals:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/14/europ...index.html

That's horrendous. You should be ashamed of even joking like that.

[Leigha]

I think it's safe to say from vast amounts of research, that most scientists today, agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, physiological and biological factors.

[Magical Realist]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/215...ientation/

[Syne]

I think it's safe to say from vast amounts of research, that most scientists today, agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, physiological and biological factors.

Sure, but the overwhelming story is that they are born that way. Hence MR's weak attempt at forwarding just that:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/215...ientation/

"Are all men who have the “gay” variants of these genes gay?
No, says Sanders, because many other factors play a role, including the environment. “There are probably multiple genes involved, each with a fairly low effect,” he says. “There will be men who have the form of gene that increases the chance of being gay, but they won’t be gay.”"

[Magical Realist]

"The latest findings open the prospect to identifying the whole pathway of genes involved in both homosexual and heterosexual orientation, says Dean Hamer at the US National Institutes of Health, who led the study that pinpointed chromosome X back in 1993. “It adds yet more evidence that sexual orientation is not a ‘lifestyle choice’. But the real significance is that it takes us one step closer to understanding the origins of one of the most fascinating and important features of human beings.”---from linked article above.