Ex-male escort ... 'turns straight'

#61
(Jan 16, 2019 02:18 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
Syne Wrote: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

Oh, I don’t know, Syne. Maybe because you’ve accused of me that before, and since we’re discussing desire, I thought it best to be clear.
Wow, so I accused you of it once, as a throwaway gibe, and you not only remember it, but the simple subject of desire gets you anticipating it again.
Interesting what sticks.
Quote:
Syne Wrote: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.

We all know that sensations trigger chemical responses. The color or the smell of the fruit attracts animals. Every single survival and reproductive strategy operates in tandem with social, environmental, and biological triggers, but the desire to have children is a product of our environment. Babies are adorable but so are puppies. That sneaky little coiled helix just tricks us into reproducing. You can think whatever you want…but you’d wrong.
Colors and smells only attract animals because of the positive association with food. They didn't evolve that association without any underlying biological reason. Sensations trigger physical/chemical responses because the body anticipates the outcome of such strong associations, like Pavlov's dog. It's the same reason why the body starts producing more insulin when drinking an artificial sweetener, even though there's no increase in blood sugar to counter. So again, the analogy completely fails you.

Proclaiming someone is wrong without any supporting citation is not argument. It's what many religious people do. Angel

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Yet we are a social species and can be very altruistic.

Of course, and all sorts of chemical are involved.  Take oxytocin for example, it's released during orgasms and facilitates in bonding, not only between mates, but offspring, as well.

We need each other, and like the bonobos, we, too, use sex, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual, as tool to form bonds and promote tolerance.
So you really believe that no species could cooperate until those chemicals evolved? O_o
That sexually-reproducing species without any sexual pleasure couldn't mate?

What species have evolved to use for multiple purposes doesn't tell us the impetus for the behavior. Only the biological imperative tells us that.

Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. Include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming. Living organisms that do not attempt to follow or do not succeed in satisfying these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive.
- http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Biological_imperative


We need each other because there's an impetus to survive as a species, i.e. group forming.

Quote:"Intolerance in a society is the sum-total of the intolerance of its individual members." Maybe you could work on this, eh?

No, that's just your intolerance to things you don't agree with. Seems to make you assume the worst of people.
Reply
#62
Taking the example of the boy (Martin) I knew -

@Syne:
There is no need to put homosexuals in prison to torture them when you can do it in plain sight (with impunity).

@Syne:
SS Wrote:Intolerance in a society is the sum-total of the intolerance of its individual members.
.. and you are a member of society.

@Syne:
If you are getting any sort of guidance from your God I would ask you to compare the guidance you are getting (and giving) to the rest of the honest-to-goodness sentiments expressed on this thread. How does your God stack up against them?
Reply
#63
(Jan 17, 2019 02:12 AM)confused2 Wrote: Taking the example of the boy (Martin) I knew -

@Syne:
There is no need to put homosexuals in prison to torture them when you can do it in plain sight (with impunity).

@Syne:
SS Wrote:Intolerance in a society is the sum-total of the intolerance of its individual members.
.. and you are a member of society.

@Syne:
If you are getting any sort of guidance from your God I would ask you to compare the guidance you are getting (and giving) to the rest of the honest-to-goodness sentiments expressed on this thread. How does your God stack up against them?

Who is torturing homosexuals? Is simply disagreeing with them torture? If so, that's a serious personal problem for them.

Disagreement is not intolerance. Like I told SS, due to your own intolerance to disagreement, you are mistaking disagreement for intolerance.

Like I told Leigha, my guidance is science, hence all the citations. Most the sentiments expressed here are just that, nothing more than sentiment. It's cruel to deny people the support, and even the notion that it is possible, to change a behavior strongly correlated to addiction, depression, and suicide. Living with addiction, depression, and/or suicidal tendencies is far more torture than I have or could ever visit upon them. And unlike most here, I don't demonize the person for making bad choices or having suffered trauma, much less simply disagreeing with me. How does that stack up against whatever, if anything, you use as a moral compass?

Rolleyes
Reply
#64
(Jan 17, 2019 05:07 AM)Syne Wrote: Disagreement is not intolerance. Like I told SS, due to your own intolerance to disagreement, you are mistaking disagreement for intolerance.

I agree.

Syne Wrote:Like I told Leigha, my guidance is science, hence all the citations. 

I disagree. All of your just-so stories have little, if any, empirical support.

(Jan 16, 2019 07:09 PM)Syne Wrote:

Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. Include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming. Living organisms that do not attempt to follow or do not succeed in satisfying these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive.

Notwithstanding the evolutionary emergence of conscious voluntary action in some forms of life, the urge to procreate is an involuntary and unconscious biological drive which first emerged as an inherent property of living cells and is echoed in the upper levels of organization of multicellular organisms.
- http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Biological_imperative


There’s not an evolutionary mechanism for an instinct to breed. There’s an instinct to bond and have sex, but do you really think our common ancestors had an urge to procreate? If it was an instinct, we wouldn’t be gloving up, popping pills, and having surgery to prevent it. Sex is all that was needed. Sorry, sweetie, but that was a religious imperative, not a biological one.

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it."

How Valid is Evolutionary Psychology?

Quote:It’s clear from these explanations (all of which have been put forward by evolutionary psychologists) that evolutionary psychology has a great deal of explanatory power - seldom has such a simple idea been used to explain such a wide variety of human behavior. This is probably the reason why the theory has become very popular, especially in the media and amongst non-scientists. As human beings, we have a strong need for explanation, to make sense of our behaviour and of the world around us. (This is part of the reason why religions are appealing to many people too.) However, the negative side of this is that, when theories do have explanatory power, we tend to become over-enthusiastic about them, and to over-estimate their validity. And I think is the case with evolutionary psychology. Seldom has a theory gained such widespread support whilst being based on such shaky foundations.
Reply
#65
(Jan 17, 2019 03:10 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jan 17, 2019 05:07 AM)Syne Wrote: Disagreement is not intolerance. Like I told SS, due to your own intolerance to disagreement, you are mistaking disagreement for intolerance.

I agree.
Then why do you presume intolerance due to mere disagreement?
(Jan 16, 2019 02:18 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: "Intolerance in a society is the sum-total of the intolerance of its individual members." Maybe you could work on this, eh?

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Like I told Leigha, my guidance is science, hence all the citations. 

I disagree. All of your just-so stories have little, if any, empirical support.

(Jan 16, 2019 07:09 PM)Syne Wrote:

Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. Include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming. Living organisms that do not attempt to follow or do not succeed in satisfying these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive.

Notwithstanding the evolutionary emergence of conscious voluntary action in some forms of life, the urge to procreate is an involuntary and unconscious biological drive which first emerged as an inherent property of living cells and is echoed in the upper levels of organization of multicellular organisms.
- http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Biological_imperative


There’s not an evolutionary mechanism for an instinct to breed. There’s an instinct to bond and have sex, but do you really think our common ancestors had an urge to procreate? If it was an instinct, we wouldn’t be gloving up, popping pills, and having surgery to prevent it. Sex is all that was needed. Sorry, sweetie, but that was a religious imperative, not a biological one.
You keep proclaiming that without citing any support whatsoever. Even in the face of the fact that species/organisms without any sexual desire or social bonding reproduce sexually. You just ignore what you don't want to hear, like any religious nut. Angel

So you really believe that humans can't resist their biological urges? Again, that would make rape a valid means of copulating among humans. Luckily, we evolved reason, and we can exercise a good deal of control over our own behavior.

Quote:How Valid is Evolutionary Psychology?

Quote:It’s clear from these explanations (all of which have been put forward by evolutionary psychologists) that evolutionary psychology has a great deal of explanatory power - seldom has such a simple idea been used to explain such a wide variety of human behavior. This is probably the reason why the theory has become very popular, especially in the media and amongst non-scientists. As human beings, we have a strong need for explanation, to make sense of our behaviour and of the world around us. (This is part of the reason why religions are appealing to many people too.) However, the negative side of this is that, when theories do have explanatory power, we tend to become over-enthusiastic about them, and to over-estimate their validity. And I think is the case with evolutionary psychology. Seldom has a theory gained such widespread support whilst being based on such shaky foundations.

This from a psychologist with no discernible natural science expertise. Dodgy
Reply
#66
(Jan 17, 2019 07:27 PM)Syne Wrote: Then why do you presume intolerance due to mere disagreement?

It was your pity and immoral implications.

(Jan 17, 2019 07:27 PM)Syne Wrote: Like I told Leigha, my guidance is science, hence all the citations. 

Yeah, right.

Syne Wrote:This from a psychologist with no discernible natural science expertise.  Dodgy

Where did you find this?  Blush

(Jan 16, 2019 07:09 PM)Syne Wrote:

Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. Include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming. Living organisms that do not attempt to follow or do not succeed in satisfying these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive.

Notwithstanding the evolutionary emergence of conscious voluntary action in some forms of life, the urge to procreate is an involuntary and unconscious biological drive which first emerged as an inherent property of living cells and is echoed in the upper levels of organization of multicellular organisms.
- http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Biological_imperative

Reply
#67
(Jan 17, 2019 08:08 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jan 17, 2019 07:27 PM)Syne Wrote: Then why do you presume intolerance due to mere disagreement?

It was your pity and immoral implications.
So pity for poor mental health outcomes is intolerant? O_o
What immoral implications? Where? O_o

Quote:
(Jan 17, 2019 07:27 PM)Syne Wrote: Like I told Leigha, my guidance is science, hence all the citations. 

Yeah, right.
That's not an argument.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:This from a psychologist with no discernible natural science expertise.  Dodgy

Where did you find this?  Blush

(Jan 16, 2019 07:09 PM)Syne Wrote:

Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. Include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming. Living organisms that do not attempt to follow or do not succeed in satisfying these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive.

Notwithstanding the evolutionary emergence of conscious voluntary action in some forms of life, the urge to procreate is an involuntary and unconscious biological drive which first emerged as an inherent property of living cells and is echoed in the upper levels of organization of multicellular organisms.
- http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Biological_imperative


Nice try, little miss abacus brain. A wiki can be edited by anyone and is not an academic obviously talking about things outside of his field of study.
Reply
#68
(Jan 17, 2019 09:36 PM)Syne Wrote: Nice try, little miss abacus brain. A wiki can be edited by anyone and is not an academic obviously talking about things outside of his field of study.

Um...Syne? That was your citation, not mine. How embarrassing.
Reply
#69
I think the nice people of this forum are making better points than I ever could.

Parting shots on the thread:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC344257/

Quote:Participants 29 people who had received treatments to change their sexual orientation in the United Kingdom and two relatives of former patients.

Results Most participants had been distressed by their attraction to their own sex and people in whom they confided thought they needed treatment. Although some participants chose to undergo treatments instead of imprisonment or were encouraged through some form of medical coercion, most were responding to complex personal and social pressures that discouraged any expression of their sexuality. While many participants found happiness in same sex relationships after their treatment, most were left feeling emotionally distressed to some degree.

Conclusion The definition of same sex attraction as an illness and the development of treatments to eradicate such attraction have had a negative long term impact on individuals.

In my opinion one of the worst effects of (historically) lack of acceptance of homosexuals in society is that relationships within their peer group would attract attention - hence older men seek boys and boys seek older men.

I thought SS captured it here:

SS Wrote:No but society informs me on what I should and shouldn’t seek. Without that outside influence, shit just happens.
Reply
#70
(Jan 17, 2019 11:17 PM)confused2 Wrote: I think the nice people of this forum are making better points than I ever could.

Parting shots on the thread:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC344257/

Quote:Participants 29 people who had received treatments to change their sexual orientation in the United Kingdom and two relatives of former patients.

Results Most participants had been distressed by their attraction to their own sex and people in whom they confided thought they needed treatment. Although some participants chose to undergo treatments instead of imprisonment or were encouraged through some form of medical coercion, most were responding to complex personal and social pressures that discouraged any expression of their sexuality. While many participants found happiness in same sex relationships after their treatment, most were left feeling emotionally distressed to some degree.

Conclusion The definition of same sex attraction as an illness and the development of treatments to eradicate such attraction have had a negative long term impact on individuals.

In my opinion one of the worst effects of (historically) lack of acceptance of homosexuals in society is that relationships within their peer group would attract attention - hence older men seek boys and boys seek older men.

I thought SS captured it here:

SS Wrote:No but society informs me on what I should and shouldn’t seek. Without that outside influence, shit just happens.

The mental distress of being gay comes from trying to be out in a society that still promotes discrimination, homophobia, and vicious stereotypes of gay people. It is not a mental illness in itself, and was totally eliminated from the DSM listing as a mental illness by the American Psychological Association back in 1971. Homophobes like Syne are the only ones around still who seek to slur gay people as mentally ill victims of some twisted sickness or perversion of nature. It's just another form of bigotry and a dehumanization of people dating back to the pre-1970's based solely on their sexual orientation. He can take his "pity" and shove it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)