Gay characters in children's cartoons

[Chrinik]

Bull-shit. Grade-A bull-shit. Okay, that was too strong. Nonsense is more the word I'm looking for.

There is nothing in our genes that make us go "that person's gay, let's treat him differently". Human males aren't made to be monogamous yet our society generally frowns upon people who have more than one sexual partner at a time. It's not because we're born that way, it's because society tells us that's how we should act. You aren't born with an opinion on everything, you learn it from the society you grow up in.

Also, evolution is not some ultimate goal that our genes have. We don't evolve by getting stronger, we evolve by simply changing. Usually to better fit our environment. And if that' by turning into a blind, fat, hairless race; then that's what we'll evolve into.

I said genetic-programming...AKA instincts...
You ever wonder where they come from? Fear, for example, it is a basic genetic coding to ensure your survival...
You didn´t learn fear, newborn babies can be terrified quite easily, and will then call out for others to help (cry), because that´s what they are programmed to do. They didn´t learn that from nobody...they cannot even comprehend what the hell you are saying.

And no, since we are still animals, procreation and having sex with as many women as possible is still a major driving force in our basic routine for the survival of the race. There is a reason women and men treat sex differently. And despite society "frowning upon" having more then one partner at a time, there are MILLIONS of men who have affairs constantly, or who bang a new chick every weekend...

Yes, it is true, society made us have perceptions, but those perceptions can be routed back to our programming...They can also be overcome, thanks to our massive concious mind and the ability to override our instincts, which is the only thing we can influence.
Afterall, the standing has to come from somewhere.
My point actually ignored society, we HAVE a genetic (call it what you want, I don´t even think genetic is the right word) coding, that drives us unconciously, stay away from danger, multiply with the best partner available.

I actually watched a documentation that was very interesting, it was about how we subconciously choose partners by things we don´t even notice...why do we find a certain women more attractive then the other? Because of that..."attractive" women have better genes, usually child-bearing hips, they display that they will most probably get healthy children.

Our society was gradually build upon those basic thoughts. It´s not bullshit.

 

[Chrinik]

Hi, i'm a heterosexual male and what the hell are you talking about?

genetics simply don't control our behavior to anywhere near that extent. our standards of physical attraction are influenced first and foremost by society; in particular, changes in what we consider to be the 'ideal' weight have been well-documented throughout history. and Darwin never said anything about our genes making us hate those we consider 'inferior', not to mention that not procreating can <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection>still be a very viable evolutionary strategy.

Hi, I don´t care about your gender or sexual preference, but nice to know anyway.

I never said anything about HATE...but this nagging feeling of uncomforableness most people feel in the back of their head. THIS is what I am talking about.
Blind hate is fueled by society, but read on to understand.


Genetics, Instincs, call them whatever. Fact is, we STILL have traces of our ancestors behaviour patterns, we STILL choose sexual partners by various degrees of subconcious decisions...

The reason why our instincts don´t drive us is because we evolved a self-concious mind. We can supress urges as need be.

Yes, the "ideal women" has changed alot...I give you a hint why.
Back in the day, when food was scarce and people where poorer, a higher body weight indicated wealth, or atleast an abundance of resources, so your offspring would have had a better chance at surviving. Nowadays, when food is just a 5 minute drive away, a higher body weight indicates that the person takes less care off themselfs and therefore might not be a very good parent. Afterall, someone who cannot care for themselfs cannot possibly be best suited to care for children.

Society isn´t something that is seperate from nature, society changes as a form of evolution. Minor scale evolution. Think of it as animals changing their behaviour patterns to best suit their environment. This is what society is. Society "dictates" basically what is deemed best for the survival of the race. Wether or not that rule is bullshit someone made up at one point (fashion for example serves NO purpose at all), is still up to debate.
But when it comes to what is "attractive", nature will always have a say. I´m not saying it is okay to hate gay people, colored people, deformed people etc, I am saying that these feelings don´t stem from society, but are reenforced by it. Still, we all should have the ability to supress these primal thoughts.

There is a reason some things are considered attractive in women and some not. There is also a reason these change over time. It is not society per se...

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

I said genetic-programming...AKA instincts...
You ever wonder where they come from? Fear, for example, it is a basic genetic coding to ensure your survival...
You didn´t learn fear, newborn babies can be terrified quite easily, and will then call out for others to help (cry), because that´s what they are programmed to do. They didn´t learn that from nobody...they cannot even comprehend what the hell you are saying.

And no, since we are still animals, procreation and having sex with as many women as possible is still a major driving force in our basic routine for the survival of the race. There is a reason women and men treat sex differently. And despite society "frowning upon" having more then one partner at a time, there are MILLIONS of men who have affairs constantly, or who bang a new chick every weekend...

Yes, it is true, society made us have perceptions, but those perceptions can be routed back to our programming...They can also be overcome, thanks to our massive concious mind and the ability to override our instincts, which is the only thing we can influence.
Afterall, the standing has to come from somewhere.
My point actually ignored society, we HAVE a genetic (call it what you want, I don´t even think genetic is the right word) coding, that drives us unconciously, stay away from danger, multiply with the best partner available.

I actually watched a documentation that was very interesting, it was about how we subconciously choose partners by things we don´t even notice...why do we find a certain women more attractive then the other? Because of that..."attractive" women have better genes, usually child-bearing hips, they display that they will most probably get healthy children.

Our society was gradually build upon those basic thoughts. It´s not bullshit.

I will agree that there are some parts of human nature that go back to genetic programing. The want to eat, drink, and sleep are all biological wants that we have. Breeding is also one of those things that can drive our actions. But the thing is, these are all rather basic. People can learn to eat (and eventually enjoy) things that taste nasty, which goes against the programming that has been set up in our species countless generations. These basic drives help to create our wants and needs, but what we learn from our culture plays a huge roll in how they are felt. Too much sexual thoughts can be a thing of shame for those who don't believe it to be pure, for others it can be a pure pleasure at it's finest. Some people find eating to be beyond filling, it becomes a wonderful experience in and of itself. To others it's a chore that needs to be done every now and then to stave off the much worse pang of hunger.

As for learning things, sure you didn't learn how to fear, but you did learn what to fear. Young children won't fear heights at first due to the fact they see no reason to. Once they've taken several spills and experienced the pain that goes with them, then they begin to make sure they don't fall off high ledges and the like. Similar fears are learned from society.

I won't deny that we have some basic primal instincts, but they are just that. Basic. Very basic. We don't have a drive to mate with the ideal partner (an adjective that can be very relative upon the society; today it's thin women, hundreds of years ago it was more full women) we have a drive to mate. We don't have a drive to eat the healthiest foods, we have a drive to eat what tastes good.

 

[Chrinik]

Irony's Acolyte is right: that's nonsense. Many cultures throughout history turned a blind eye to homosexuality, or even outright encouraged it.

And beauty standards have shifted hugely throughout history and across cultures. (For example, thinness as an ideal is very recent in the grand scheme of things, and is almost entirely limited to post-industrial cultures.) Aside from possibly the waist to hip ratio and maybe the perennial appeal of big shoulders, there is no such "basic drive."

I dare to find these cultures today...Oh wait, they misteriously vanished. I wonder why.

There is, but you see society as apart from nature, as if it isn´t influenced by it at all.
This is bullshit. Just because the acient greek fucked little boys doesn´t mean that the rest of the world jumped in on the idea. Again, THAT is a society thing...

If you wanna know wh beauty standarts shift, read my other post above. There is a reason they shift around from location to location, and change over time. It is because they are adapting to the environment.

Again, I am NOT against homosexuals, at all. I just plan to tell you all the source of that shit. Sure, society influences us, but what influences society?
There is a reason we find certain things attractive and others not.
The things I am saying rout back to our ancestors, which where much more primitive and bound to these drives, as much as you deny it. I´m not saying they hold the same kind of value nowadays, since we, by then have evolved past insticts and into concious thought.

Sure, society can influence your thinking if you let it, but most societies just reinforce what is already there. Even the desire to hate something is a basic instinct, because it gives you a clear focus. "Those are the bad guys", and the day has order.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

I actually watched a documentation that was very interesting, it was about how we subconciously choose partners by things we don´t even notice...why do we find a certain women more attractive then the other? Because of that..."attractive" women have better genes, usually child-bearing hips, they display that they will most probably get healthy children.

If the waist-to-hip ratio were the be-all and end-all of modern beauty standards, you might have a point. However, it ignores the way modern beauty standards prize thinness above all else.

Sure, your typical straight male may be attracted to "childbearing hips." But the media tells women with such hips that this is a "problem area." And the women aren't the only ones who buy into that crap.

I dare to find these cultures today...Oh wait, they misteriously vanished. I wonder why.

Nothing "mysterious" about it. Some were conquered; others were assimilated into (or adopted the values of) cultures which thought differently. If you're implying that they "gayed" themselves into extinction by not breeding fast enough, you'd be sadly mistaken.

There is, but you see society as apart from nature, as if it isn´t influenced by it at all.
This is bullshit. Just because the acient greek fucked little boys doesn´t mean that the rest of the world jumped in on the idea. Again, THAT is a society thing...

It wasn't just ancient Greece and little boys. It's only fairly recently, in the grand scheme of things, that marriage and procreation have been seen as something other than duties with no real connection to love.

Yes, the "ideal women" has changed alot...I give you a hint why.
Back in the day, when food was scarce and people where poorer, a higher body weight indicated wealth, or atleast an abundance of resources, so your offspring would have had a better chance at surviving. Nowadays, when food is just a 5 minute drive away, a higher body weight indicates that the person takes less care off themselfs and therefore might not be a very good parent. Afterall, someone who cannot care for themselfs cannot possibly be best suited to care for children.

A post-industrial social conceit. Sorry, but when you make claims like this, you really can't claim that it's a matter of instinct rather than society.

 

[LCP]

If all else fails call the opposition a bigot and stupid, well done there champ! *claps slowly* go troll somewhere else

I didn't call you stupid, good gent. I merely implied your opinion on this subject matter was idiotic, as you have done others. All your arguments to me are as stupid as saying gay is normal is to you. And, as for calling you a bigot, I am just stating what you yourself have implied. You admit you find homosexuals disgusting, so I just assumed you were stating a fact.

(I will admit I am a bit of a troll, and also a big meanie, too.)

And now, I have humored you.

I think your opinion is stupid too, don't worry too much about it. I find homosexuals activities disgusting, if someone that acts normal is a homosexual and keeps his things and relationships in his home, hey who should argue against that? If 2 gay guys are making out outside, I will point out it's disgusting. If there are semi naked men in a gay pride parade, I will consider that a "fuck you" to my retinas.

And he complains when I call him a bigot.

I love how you proved 2/3 of what I said about you with just that reply.

Say something else. Moments are fleeting, but the Internet, the Internet is forever.

Whatever makes you happy.

 

[Chrinik]

I actually watched a documentation that was very interesting, it was about how we subconciously choose partners by things we don´t even notice...why do we find a certain women more attractive then the other? Because of that..."attractive" women have better genes, usually child-bearing hips, they display that they will most probably get healthy children.

If the waist-to-hip ratio were the be-all and end-all of modern beauty standards, you might have a point. However, it ignores the way modern beauty standards prize thinness above all else. (While your typical straight male may be drawn to "childbearing hips," the media tells women built like that to see to their "problem areas." And the women aren't the only ones who buy into that crap.)

Yes, the "ideal women" has changed alot...I give you a hint why.
Back in the day, when food was scarce and people where poorer, a higher body weight indicated wealth, or atleast an abundance of resources, so your offspring would have had a better chance at surviving. Nowadays, when food is just a 5 minute drive away, a higher body weight indicates that the person takes less care off themselfs and therefore might not be a very good parent. Afterall, someone who cannot care for themselfs cannot possibly be best suited to care for children.

A post-industrial conceit. Sorry, but when you make claims like this, you really can't claim that it's a matter of instinct rather than society.

Why is it not? We adapt to our environment. Society is not a thing that is just there, it is bound to rules. It changes for reasons. It, too, is something very influenced in how we need it. Why did thinness get more attractive when we had an abundance of food? I told you why, and you still blame it on society.

Society changes in ways that is more convenient for our species as a whole. Think back many hundred years and you will find that constant war was THE hip thing to do.
While we still have war, it is generally frowned upon. Why? Probably because it´s not very productive in keeping us alive.

And as our planet overcrowds with people, maybe the next big thing will be homosexuality (or war again), because they cannot make babies to flood the earth, and then heterosexuals are gonna be the outcast minority, just enough for our population to sink to bearable levels again.

Who knows. All I know is that these things don´t happen at random.
Nature does strange things, and believe it or not, it still has a say in how we act.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Why is it not? We adapt to our environment. Society is not a thing that is just there, it is bound to rules. It changes for reasons. It, too, is something very influenced in how we need it. Why did thinness get more attractive when we had an abundance of food? I told you why, and you still blame it on society.

No, you didn't "tell me why." You said that thinness has become the beauty standard because we're a post-industrial culture and scarcity is not an issue, then tried to fob that off as biological rather than cultural. (Mostly, from what I can tell, by trying to argue that culture is entirely a product of instinct.)

What you did not do is even attempt to explain why thinness has eclipsed the waist-to-hip ratio (despite the fact that the waist-to-hip ratio, with its implications in regards to fertility, could be explained off as biology) as a beauty standard. In other words, this culture tells broad-hipped women to get that unsightly fat under control, no matter how trim they may actually be. Tell me that's not counter-intuitive.

 

[Chrinik]

I will agree that there are some parts of human nature that go back to genetic programing. The want to eat, drink, and sleep are all biological wants that we have. Breeding is also one of those things that can drive our actions. But the thing is, these are all rather basic. People can learn to eat (and eventually enjoy) things that taste nasty, which goes against the programming that has been set up in our species countless generations. These basic drives help to create our wants and needs, but what we learn from our culture plays a huge roll in how they are felt. Too much sexual thoughts can be a thing of shame for those who don't believe it to be pure, for others it can be a pure pleasure at it's finest. Some people find eating to be beyond filling, it becomes a wonderful experience in and of itself. To others it's a chore that needs to be done every now and then to stave off the much worse pang of hunger.

As for learning things, sure you didn't learn how to fear, but you did learn what to fear. Young children won't fear heights at first due to the fact they see no reason to. Once they've taken several spills and experienced the pain that goes with them, then they begin to make sure they don't fall off high ledges and the like. Similar fears are learned from society.

I won't deny that we have some basic primal instincts, but they are just that. Basic. Very basic. We don't have a drive to mate with the ideal partner (an adjective that can be very relative upon the society; today it's thin women, hundreds of years ago it was more full women) we have a drive to mate. We don't have a drive to eat the healthiest foods, we have a drive to eat what tastes good.

Yes, they are basic...which is why they clash with our society. Obesety? As you said, we have the drive to eat...there are no "unhealthy foods" (aside from poisonous foods, of course), it just depends on the amount eaten...one can be perfectly and healthyly nutrated by MacDonalds, they just have to choose the right meals and dose everything right. A single BicMac doesn´t make you fat.
So the obesity problem stems from an overabundance and easy access to good tasting food thanks to society, and our basic drive to eat.

While I won´t deny that the general bad vibes against homosexuality are in part societys fault, the basic motivation behind it is much simpler. While a homosexual couple might very well coexist happily until they die, the bond will have no real purpose evolutionary because you cannot pass on your genes. They will therefore be lost. Therefore nature makes very sure that homosexuality is not "very" common.

See, I´m not saying that we hate gay people because of our instincs or whatever, that is definately societys fault. But the general conception of "male find female, make kids, female raises kids while male hunts food" is the basic, primal plan that was behind all of that behaviour. It all roots there. The whole gender role thing, the perception of homosexuals, everything that is deemed "bad" in our society now was standart ten-thousands of years ago.

But if you read my posts, you will find on multiple occasions that I mentioned that we evolved past a basic drive on instincs.
Society is part of that evolution, and society changes depending on certain parameters that are all dictated by a will to survive and surpass the last generation of humans. Society IS a natural part, that changes depending on natural rules. It is not seperate from nature, or evolution, it IS evolution.

 

[Chrinik]

Why is it not? We adapt to our environment. Society is not a thing that is just there, it is bound to rules. It changes for reasons. It, too, is something very influenced in how we need it. Why did thinness get more attractive when we had an abundance of food? I told you why, and you still blame it on society.

No, you didn't "tell me why." You said that thinness has become the beauty standard because we're a post-industrial culture and scarcity is not an issue, then tried to fob that off as biological rather than cultural. (Mostly, from what I can tell, by trying to argue that culture is entirely a product of instinct.)

What you did not do is even attempt to explain why thinness has eclipsed the waist-to-hip ratio (despite the fact that the waist-to-hip ratio, with its implications in regards to fertility, could be explained off as biology) as a beauty standard. In other words, this culture tells broad-hipped women to get that unsightly fat under control, no matter how trim they may actually be. Tell me that's not counter-intuitive.

Then how come that extreme thinness is actually considered very unattractive (because it´s unhealthy)? How come that big hips and large breasts are still considered attractive?
I don´t even know what you mean by thinness...Super-Models? Even there has been a change to more natural looking figures. Super-Models are not the beauty standart, and in my perception have NEVER been...the (voted) sexiest women on the planet is J-Lo, whose massive ass is one iconic feature considered to be part of the reason why she´s so sexy.
In studies all over the world it has been found that the beauty standart set by media does not reflect the actual perception of what a women should look like.

The "fat" thing, as you said, is social, but just because fat, today, indicates that someone does not take care of themselfs, eats too much, moves too little and doesn´t care about his/her health, which is naturally repulsed, because a good health is crucial.

I don´t know how you can´t see the connection.

It´s the same reason why bulemi-stricken skeletons are frowned upon, despite some kinda "thinness is kewl" standart proclaimed by the media.

And culture is not entirely a product of instinct, it´s influenced by it.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Yes, they are basic...which is why they clash with our society. Obesety? As you said, we have the drive to eat...there are no "unhealthy foods" (aside from poisonous foods, of course), it just depends on the amount eaten...one can be perfectly and healthyly nutrated by MacDonalds, they just have to choose the right meals and dose everything right. A single BicMac doesn´t make you fat.
So the obesity problem stems from an overabundance and easy access to good tasting food thanks to society, and our basic drive to eat.

While I won´t deny that the general bad vibes against homosexuality are in part societys fault, the basic motivation behind it is much simpler. While a homosexual couple might very well coexist happily until they die, the bond will have no real purpose evolutionary because you cannot pass on your genes. They will therefore be lost. Therefore nature makes very sure that homosexuality is not "very" common.

See, I´m not saying that we hate gay people because of our instincs or whatever, that is definately societys fault. But the general conception of "male find female, make kids, female raises kids while male hunts food" is the basic, primal plan that was behind all of that behaviour. It all roots there. The whole gender role thing, the perception of homosexuals, everything that is deemed "bad" in our society now was standart ten-thousands of years ago.

But if you read my posts, you will find on multiple occasions that I mentioned that we evolved past a basic drive on instincs.
Society is part of that evolution, and society changes depending on certain parameters that are all dictated by a will to survive and surpass the last generation of humans. Society IS a natural part, that changes depending on natural rules. It is not seperate from nature, or evolution, it IS evolution.

I agree that our social aspect is a result of our evolution similar to other "societies" that we see with animals, whether it be the hive of ants or the pack of the wolves.

The thing that you seem to be mistaken is that we don't want to evolve at any subconscious, primal level. Evolution isn't something that species set out to do or are even programed to do. It's just what happens. A mutation happens to cause a particular example of a species to get that little edge over other and manages to reproduce a bit more, spreading the gene (which is now beneficial) that little bit more. This continues, not because the species works towards it, but because it just so happens. After millions of generations those little nudges add up to create something new.

So yeah, evolution wouldn't really favor (and by favor I don't mean in a sense of choosing) any sort of "gay" gene as it would severely lower the chances of that carrier's genes be passed on, but that doesn't mean we have some innate drive to shun homosexual or treat them negatively. When you think about it, it might be evolutionarily beneficial to be supportive of homosexuality, due to the fact that it can lower the number of "competitors" one would have and by attempting to restrict homosexuality, possibly lowering your chances of having your genes passed on.

 

[Chrinik]

The thing that you seem to be mistaken is that we don't want to evolve at any subconscious, primal level. Evolution isn't something that species set out to do or are even programed to do. It's just what happens.

Did I say that somewhere? I´m not sure. But I never said that we WANT to evolve somewhere, but that our coding ensures what we do. Evolution CAN grind to a halt, see aligators, crocodiles, sharks...
I only ever said something about the survival of the species, the only things I said about evolution where never said with the intend of making them instinct based or a concious process.
The survival of the species is a general goal that is archieved by instincs, and evolution alike...
But I might have mixed some wording up somewhere.

If I said something you mistook, I´m sorry. My phrasing isn´t the best sometimes.

If it was the "we choose partners by ability to give healthy children", that is actually a basic instict that pretty much all species have. Why we should be omitted would be beyond me.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Then how come that extreme thinness is actually considered very unattractive (because it´s unhealthy)?

If some sex symbol/trendsetter loses weight, the media insists that it makes her look better until she actually starts looking sickly. If she gains so much as five pounds, you get to hear all about how shameful it is that she's let herself go like that.

How come that big hips and large breasts are still considered attractive?

Correction: big hips are usually considered acceptable if a woman is busty.

I don´t even know what you mean by thinness...Super-Models? Even there has been a change to more natural looking figures. Super-Models are not the beauty standart, and in my perception have NEVER been...the (voted) sexiest women on the planet is J-Lo, whose massive ass is one iconic feature considered to be part of the reason why she´s so sexy.
In studies all over the world it has been found that the beauty standart set by media does not reflect the actual perception of what a women should look like.

See above.

The "fat" thing, as you said, is social, but just because fat, today, indicates that someone does not take care of themselfs, eats too much, moves too little and doesn´t care about his/her health, which is naturally repulsed, because a good health is crucial.

Again: there's still a big gap between "obese" and what modern aesthetics call "fat."

I don´t know how you can´t see the connection.

I see a connection, but I think you're reading much more of one in than there actually is.

It´s the same reason why bulemi-stricken skeletons are frowned upon, despite some kinda "thinness is kewl" standart proclaimed by the media.

Yes, a woman who's skeletally gaunt will be viewed as unattractive and unhealthy. But a slightly chubby woman will be viewed as disgusting and undisciplined, even if she's got a lower waist to hip ratio. In other words, for weighing twenty pounds more than is considered aesthetically ideal, she's treated little differently than she would be for weighing twice what's healthy for her.

The one is an extreme; the other isn't. A harsher judgment is placed upon the non-extreme example, even if she more closely fits what is often considered as an innate visual cue for straight men. And you can't blame that on biology. Capisce?

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

The thing that you seem to be mistaken is that we don't want to evolve at any subconscious, primal level. Evolution isn't something that species set out to do or are even programed to do. It's just what happens.

Did I say that somewhere? I´m not sure. But I never said that we WANT to evolve somewhere, but that our coding ensures what we do. Evolution CAN grind to a halt, see aligators, crocodiles, sharks...
I only ever said something about the survival of the species, the only things I said about evolution where never said with the intend of making them instinct based or a concious process.
The survival of the species is a general goal that is archieved by instincs, and evolution alike...
But I might have mixed some wording up somewhere.

If I said something you mistook, I´m sorry. My phrasing isn´t the best sometimes.

It wasn't so much you saying is as what I got from you posts. A lot of people seem to think that evolution is some natural process that guides all living things, when really it's just something that scientists have noticed happens over time. It's like when you throw a ball in the air. It's not like the planet tries to pull it back down, it's just that it's gravitational pull happens to attract the ball back to the center of gravity.

And I don't believe evolution halts, despite all the people who keep saying things like "humans have stopped evolving". I doubt that the sharks, crocodiles, and cockroaches really stopped evolving. Perhaps their evolution slowed down due to having such advantageous traits that they managed to survive quite well in their environment, but I imagine if you look at the examples that live today and the ones that lived millions of years ago, you'd see a big difference. They may still be somewhat similar, but they aren't the same.

We don't want to evolve and neither is our genetic coding made to do so. It's just that we happen to have random mutations that sometimes give us that edge in our environment. If our genes were passed along perfectly, there would be no evolution.

And don't worry, it can be hard at times to fully expand one's ideas through typing or even language general. I'm sure that I haven't been putting my ideas out in the way I would like.

 

[hecticpicnic]

There's quite alot of hinted gays in kids anime and alot of actual gays teenage anime both Shonen and Shoujo.If that counts.

 

[Chrinik]

If it was about what I said that "we choose partners that have higher chance of healthy offspring." That is actually a very basic instict that all species have. Why we should be omitted is beyond me. The sick and weak in most species don´t get any females, however the species at hand handled that (Mating rituals, for instance, or fights, the stronger one get´s the girl.)...

 

[Chrinik]

And you can't blame that on biology. Capisce?

No, I blame the media for that.

So you cue from what the media sais and tells us to be good, is what the society thinks is good?

How did you make that conclusion?

The world of the media is basically a very different one full of lies and false imagery. How much of it you buy is down to individual level. Some very normal build females are very happy with their figure, and they do get partners.

So, fuck the media, they are out of the discussion here.
Capisce?

 

[GrizzlyCow]

Chrinik, I'd like to say, I prefer chubby women with large behinds and big bosoms. Is my desire to mate with one biological or because the environment I grew up in?

Seriously, I do believe you have a powerful misconception about people.

 

[Chrinik]

Chrinik, I'd like to say, I prefer chubby women with large behinds and big bosoms. Is my desire to mate with one biological or because the environment I grew up in?

Seriously, I do believe you have a powerful misconception about people.

You may believe that.

It´s biological by the way. I mean, chubby doesn´t have to mean unhealthily obese. Also, I would need to KNOW the environment you grew up in, as it is also influential.

And I NEVER ruled out society. NEVER.
I don´t even know where people are getting that I supposedly said somewhere that all we do and how we act is genetically hard-coded.

Instincts, genetics, evolution and society are all connected and in one way or another responsible for each other. We wouldn´t have "morals" without society, we wouldn´t have society without instincts...we wouldn´t have instincts without genes.

We could have this debate for weeks. Since none of us are experts in the field, we wouldn´t get a solution out of it.
Scientists today have discussed this forever and just reached a bunch of different theories.
Seems I believe in a different set of theories then others, whatever, freedom of choice.

All I said...all I started with, was the comment that a negative or distancing view on homosexuality is coming from our instincts. That the bullshit agenda against homosexuals is a social thing I never doubted, I just stated where it all stems from. Society evolves, changes, adapts, but it´s root still lies with our ancestors.
So what the fuck is it so hard to believe.
I bet our ancestors had nothing personally against homosexuals and just "choose" to be straight or whatever.

Of course a strictly chatholic by the book raised child is gonna have different views on homosexuals than maybe someone who was actually RAISED by a gay couple...
Sheesh <.<
But it´s not because there is no genetic coding, it´s actually because we have learned through evolution to override our instincts and set us a new set of rules. The old never go away fully, but they can be overwritten so much that they don´t hold much value anymore.
Say Catholic priests...their oath to never have sex leaves them so blue balled that sometimes they snap and go for whatever is in reach...yet, most didn´t, they effectively overruled the desire to procreate.
I don´t see how others can´t do that.
And as I said in my very first post, if we WOULDN´T have that ability, we would be raping, murdering and stealing everything.

 

[Sylocat]

I'm not trying to be homophobic here, just sayin'

Fun fact: No non-homophobic person has ever preceded a statement with "I'm not a homophobe, but..."