Poll: Is sexual orientation a recent invention?

[xorinite]

Sooooo... you... don't disagree? Because that's basically what I said. Aggression isn't a male biological trait. It's a very complex aspect of nature (as is behaviour itself) and therefore it's excessively reductionistic to oversimplify such a complex issue in such a ridiculous (and not to mention, deterministic) way.

I didn't say it isn't a (h. sapiens) male biological trait, just that as far as I am aware, it hasn't been demonstrated that it is and therefore there is no good reason to believe that it is.
I should also state for clarity nobody has demonstrated to me that it isn't either. So my position is undecided until presented with further evidence.

While that is all well and good for knowledge claims, I operate under the belief that aggression in adults is usually the result of trauma, learned behaviour, or individual variation. While I think we tend to agree on this, I believe we differ in what with think is the cause and therefore the solution is to higher male aggression.

 

[Darken12]

*snip*

I am not going to open that can of worms again. I have made my case in the Sarkeesian thread, posted studies, references and so on. I am not arguing over that again. I will believe what I want to believe given the current available evidence, and you shall do the same. And as for the rest of your post, every oppressor assumes their justification is correct and that it cannot be any other way, so your question is meaningless.

I didn't say it isn't a (h. sapiens) male biological trait, just that as far as I am aware, it hasn't been demonstrated that it is and therefore there is no good reason to believe that it is.
I should also state for clarity nobody has demonstrated to me that it isn't either. So my position is undecided until presented with further evidence.

While that is all well and good for knowledge claims, I operate under the belief that aggression in adults is usually the result of trauma, learned behaviour, or individual variation. While I think we tend to agree on this, I believe we differ in what with think is the cause and therefore the solution is to higher male aggression.

Ah, I see your point. Yeah, I think we might coincide in some things and not in others, but we otherwise have a few points in common.

 

[chikusho]

Every oppressor assumes their justification is correct and that it cannot be any other way, so your question is meaningless.

My question is highly relevant.
I'm not asking whether or not _an opressor_, _believes_ s/he is correct.
I'm asking about when something is an unequivocal fact.

 

[Darken12]

My question is highly relevant.
I'm not asking whether or not _an opressor_, _believes_ s/he is correct.
I'm asking about when something is an unequivocal fact.

It is completely irrelevant because facts are meaningless. On their own, facts are neutral, apolitical and do not lead to any sociocultural revelations on their own. Everyone has a political stance and/or sociocultural ideology, and those who would try to pass off theirs as "entirely grounded in reality, unbiased and based exclusively on facts" are liars of the highest sort. Such a thing does not exist, and every single time I have heard that coming out of someone's mouth, it has been followed by the aforementioned sociocultural/political ideologies that, in almost all cases, invariably end up attempting to justify oppression.

Whether you have formed your ideological opinion from facts or not doesn't make it any more relevant (or any less oppressive) than the person who has formed their opinions from a millennia-old book. Basing your ideologies on facts might make it more compelling to others, but it doesn't make it any less subjective than any other opinion.

 

[chikusho]

It is completely irrelevant because facts are meaningless. On their own, facts are neutral, apolitical and do not lead to any sociocultural revelations on their own. Everyone has a political stance and/or sociocultural ideology, and those who would try to pass off theirs as "entirely grounded in reality, unbiased and based exclusively on facts" are liars of the highest sort. Such a thing does not exist, and every single time I have heard that coming out of someone's mouth, it has been followed by the aforementioned sociocultural/political ideologies that, in almost all cases, invariably end up attempting to justify oppression.

Whether you have formed your ideological opinion from facts or not doesn't make it any more relevant (or any less oppressive) than the person who has formed their opinions from a millennia-old book. Basing your ideologies on facts might make it more compelling to others, but it doesn't make it any less subjective than any other opinion.

It is completely relevant, because facts are crucial. On their own, facts are neutral, apolitical, and thusly lead to sociocultural revelations by the information and context they provide. The _fact_ that planting a seed in the earth leads to a plant growing means that humanity can raise crops. The _fact_ that penicillin kills a certain type of bacteria leads to millions of people not dying in the flu each year. Based on what you just posted, I'd imagine you think shutting down airports to and from countries riddled with a rampant viral infection is somehow oppressive.

Also, I can't believe you are actually likening informed opinions interpreting the meaning of proven facts to the interpretation of thousand year old fantasies.

 

[Darken12]

It is completely relevant, because facts are crucial. On their own, facts are neutral, apolitical, and thusly lead to sociocultural revelations by the information and context they provide. The _fact_ that planting a seed in the earth leads to a plant growing means that humanity can raise crops. The _fact_ that penicillin kills a certain type of bacteria leads to millions of people not dying in the flu each year. Based on what you just posted, I'd imagine you think shutting down airports to and from countries riddled with a rampant viral infection is somehow oppressive.

Also, I can't believe you are actually likening informed opinions interpreting the meaning of proven facts to the interpretation of thousand year old fantasies.

I was going to compose a message, but then I realised I would have nothing to say that I haven't already said in the post you quoted. Go back and re-read it for my response.

Also, nice strawman, comparing a temporary epidemiological measure with oppressive practices, which are by their very nature not temporary at all, but instead seek to instil a permanent status quo.

I think we're done here.

 

[Daveman]

Well it's certainly true that some past cultures haven't cared about sexual orientation. I think it has always been there though, it's just now and other times in history we attach pointless bullshit morality to it and as a consequence we actually care about it.

So basically "no", but caring about it is a current fad, and one that is dying out.

 

[rbstewart7263]

Homosexuality (or any non-straight orientation) is not an invention, recent or otherwise. It's a natural part of the animal kingdom and is just as normal, valid and integral as heterosexuality.

Some theorists say that bisexuality is the default state of humanity (with pure heterosexuality being as rare as pure homosexuality) and that the reason so many people have a problem with same-sex sexual interactions is a result of heteronormativity and sexism, the idea that gender roles are rigid and that men who display attraction to other men (or other traits associated with the female gender) are unmanly and therefore inherently wrong and disgusting. That theory would explain why bisexuality, bicuriosity, "experimenting" and homosexuality are seen as more acceptable among women than among men (because of the sexist notions that men who do traditionally feminine things are disgusting because femininity itself is a bad thing, and that same-sex interaction for the pleasure of men is encouraged, while women's pleasure is dismissed).

I don't know if I necessarily agree with that theory as a whole, but I definitely agree that homophobia and the tolerance of lesbianism or female bisexuality are almost certainly the product of heteronormativity, sexism and rigid gender roles.

Your theory is actually very problematic, in many different ways, because it implies that female sexuality revolves around men or childbirth. According to what you're saying, women are straight for reproduction purposes (and are also invariably attracted to male aggressiveness, as if aggressiveness was a male biological trait and not part of the social gender construct. Also you imply that women are biologically attracted to protectors (and that only men are capable of being protectors), ignoring the fact that the whole myth of women seeking protection from men is a sexist construct perpetuated by the patriarchy as a way to sell women that the presence of a man is necessary in their lives because they are incapable of taking care of themselves), and then turn to bisexuality or lesbianism to conveniently absolve men of responsibility for their child (also implying that men "cannot help themselves" when it comes to aggressiveness and other undesirable traits), and that while men are able to explore their sexuality as they see fit without consequences, for women their sexuality is either a form of reproduction (heterosexuality) or birth control (homosexuality), and they switch back and forth as is most convenient for men. It also makes the awful, awful assumption that homosexuality started exclusively with women and then was "passed down to men" as if homosexuality in men was so inconceivable that it needed to be "passed down" from the other gender. That is actually kind of sexist, if you think about it, because it implies that women are solely responsible for homosexuality, regardless of whether you mean "pass down" in terms of genetics or behaviour.

That is... I really would never agree with that theory. It has a lot of problems on a feminist level and it really does not sit well with me as a member of the LGBT+ crowd.

Also I'm actually not a fan of biological or evolutionary explanations for any aspect of society or human behaviour, as it is very, very easy to slide into biological determinism and eugenics (which are quite possible the most horrible misapplications of science I've seen). While I am neither for nor against the genetic explanation for homosexuality/bisexuality/etc (as there are evidence that go in both directions), I think that your theory in particular has a lot of problems that indicate you might want to educate yourself on feminism a little.

Back then doing things for survival was paramount. if say one were to prefer being with men he was; at a time when mankind was few, going against his own survival.

People did what they had to because nature is a dictator and doesnt care for frivolous preferences. I imagine that the strict gender roles we have today evolved from survivalism. These days we have the luxury to pursue fulfilling lives with whoever we want.

 

[rbstewart7263]

Sooooo... you... don't disagree? Because that's basically what I said. Aggression isn't a male biological trait. It's a very complex aspect of nature (as is behaviour itself) and therefore it's excessively reductionistic to oversimplify such a complex issue in such a ridiculous (and not to mention, deterministic) way.

I didn't say it isn't a (h. sapiens) male biological trait, just that as far as I am aware, it hasn't been demonstrated that it is and therefore there is no good reason to believe that it is.
I should also state for clarity nobody has demonstrated to me that it isn't either. So my position is undecided until presented with further evidence.

While that is all well and good for knowledge claims, I operate under the belief that aggression in adults is usually the result of trauma, learned behaviour, or individual variation. While I think we tend to agree on this, I believe we differ in what with think is the cause and therefore the solution is to higher male aggression.

I think if you presented scientific evidence to the contrary it would be more effective then simply saying. "Your theories go against my beliefs and therefore they are invalid". Its the people who are willing to consider the hard and contemptable possibilities as well as the more preferable ones who come to more educated and conclusive realizations about the world.

 

[Korolev]

I don't think it's a modern or recent invention - I just happen to think that society's attitudes towards it have varied considerably.

As for bisexuality - I'm not bisexual, so I cannot tell you what they feel. I do not possess the means to scan their brain and peer into their thoughts - so, in regards to the reasons why bisexual people are bisexual, you have to go on what they say, and most bisexual people will say that they feel genuine physical attraction to both genders.

If that's what they want, cool for them, I guess. Opens up their dating possibilities. I don't really care as to their reasons, because it's really none of my business. Regardless of whether it's cultural (and I don't think it is), biological or personal, their choices and their preferences don't affect me and don't affect society at large (the vast majority of people always have and always will be straight - nothing can or ever will change that. You don't have to be worried about "society turning gay and then there's no children and oh god we'll end up like that film "Children of Men"").

 

[chikusho]

I was going to compose a message, but then I realised I would have nothing to say that I haven't already said in the post you quoted. Go back and re-read it for my response.

Also, nice strawman, comparing a temporary epidemiological measure with oppressive practices, which are by their very nature not temporary at all, but instead seek to instil a permanent status quo.

I think we're done here.

Oh, so you actually believe that there is no such thing as drawing correct conclusions based on facts?
What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science
Not a straw man, just your logic applied to a very real situation. Oh, so it isn't oppressive if it's temporary?

 

[conflictofinterests]

Recent in terms of "civilization," our species, or on a cosmic scale?

Humans are biologically more or less monogamous (Kinda polygamous? Not nearly so much as bonobos, but whatever), so a greater propensity for heterosexual intercourse is granted. From studies among modern hunter-gatherers, we think there was an early division of labor along gender lines, such that women gathered and men hunted, and this imposition of gender role could conceivably have fostered others. In terms of our species, the rise of anti-homosexual thought appears, to me, to coincide with the emergence of agriculture and cities.

Beyond that, humans and biologically adapted such that we can have sex for pleasure. We can look to some of our closest living relatives on the animal tree, the bonobos, and see that homosexual intercourse is used as a social tool, to smooth over arguments and to reinforce hierarchy (bonobo society is matriarchal). From this, the presence of the female clitoris, an organ whose sole purpose is the derivation of sexual pleasure, and the occurrence of the anal orgasm in our species, we might guess that homosexual intercourse, for the purpose of maintaining social bonds, may have been more or less common throughout the history of our species.

It occurs to me that there may possibly have been a distinction between reproductive sex and recreational sex, such that recreationally our species may have been more or less promiscuous, and reproductively we may have been more or less monogamous. This is primarily speculation on my part, however. Feel free to discard it entirely.

 

[conflictofinterests]

I think if you presented scientific evidence to the contrary it would be more effective then simply saying. "Your theories go against my beliefs and therefore they are invalid". Its the people who are willing to consider the hard and contemptable possibilities as well as the more preferable ones who come to more educated and conclusive realizations about the world.

That isn't what he's saying. It's the basic stance of skepticism to withhold judgement until evidence is provided, and he simply informed you that he does not have enough evidence to evaluate the veracity of your statement. He's not finding it false, he's just finding it insufficiently supported to believe at this point. If we were required to present evidence to the contrary of gods before we found them insufficiently supported to believe, there would be no atheists.

 

[rbstewart7263]

I think if you presented scientific evidence to the contrary it would be more effective then simply saying. "Your theories go against my beliefs and therefore they are invalid". Its the people who are willing to consider the hard and contemptable possibilities as well as the more preferable ones who come to more educated and conclusive realizations about the world.

That isn't what he's saying. It's the basic stance of skepticism to withhold judgement until evidence is provided, and he simply informed you that he does not have enough evidence to evaluate the veracity of your statement. He's not finding it false, he's just finding it insufficiently supported to believe at this point. If we were required to present evidence to the contrary of gods before we found them insufficiently supported to believe, there would be no atheists.

I was speaking to darken who challenged his theory on the grounds that it was "anti feminist" and I was telling darken that science would be a better route than "Not feminist not valid."

 

[Fluffythepoo]

blah

You seem to be confusing violence with aggression. Violence is a manifestation of aggression, that is more likely as a result of increased testosterone (makes you more physical, therefore makes youre aggression more physical).

But aggression is simply a competitive behavior and the testosterone plays a fairly insignificant role in determining its application Testosterone does however play a huge role in its manifestation. Again more physical things have the more tangible form of aggression: physical aggression.

 

[ZorroFonzarelli]

It isn't "new", since it's human behavior. It wasn't talked about until recent centuries because it was seen as abnormal.

 

[Augustine]

Was just reading some prose of Ancient Roman poet Juvenal regarding the homosexuality in Rome. He certainly recognizes orientation as an entity, and he makes it very clear that it is something that already had a long history in his time.

My guess is that the concept is as old as humanity is.

 

[Jux]

In my psychology class we learned that everyone is innately bi-sexual to a degree, and we tend to become monosexual because of our environment or upbringing, we are also biologically attracted to the opposite sex by nature, but nurture (environment, upbringing etc...) can override this.

This may not be a popular view on here, but the truth is that people can choose their sexuality. Look at prison for example, the men enter entirely straight. However due to the environment they develop same sex attractions, there are also many cases of women who are abused by their boy friends and they turn lesbians. It's a similar scenario.

The mind is like a series of doors, we can open certain one's and close others.

You can read more about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_bisexuality

I'd like to see some citations on the stuff I italicized.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/12/11/homosexuality-ultimately-result-gene-regulation-researchers-find/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

The only truth I see is that there is no consensus on this and that there is a wide range of factors that interact with each other in determining sexuality.

edit: This isn't to say that some people may make the choice to be gay, but it would be fallacious to say that because some people chose it means that everyone chose it.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I believe that we may have started to name personality traits for sexual preferance. Someone who is pan sexual siimply sees the world of people not races. The fact remains a man can be physically compatable with any woman. While same sex orientations go for physically relationships that nature didn't design for. Asexuals seem to be a disorder. We did not always want sex. For most of us something triggered in our teens that made us want to take parts of our body we relieve ourselves with and ache for others to play with it. We must also consider if these above preeferances are all in fact hard coded orientations that much less accepting preferances would be forced into orentation as well. Such as pedophila or beasteality.

In the end these preferances have been a part of us for centuries. Some of histories memorable figures never had sex, were gay, or went as far as sex with their sister.

 

[mitchell271]

It's not new, it's just become a less taboo subject for people to talk about.
Captcha: Space is big.
Really, really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggling big it is. You may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist but that's just peanut's to space.