Just what is the strength of the "born this way" argument?

[ronburgundy]

???? There is a massive amount of rhyme, reason, predictability, and identified causes of sexual attraction. There is both a mountain of evidence regarding biological bases of sexual orientation, evidence of the gender-specific nature of sexual attraction among most people (especially among males), and evidence of qualities (biological and behavioral) that trigger sexual attraction more towards one specific person than another and/or in one context than another.

There are few aspects of human psychology and behavior for which their is more evidence identifying causes and constraints than for sexual attraction.

Okay then. Show me the data!

In my post earlier in the thread I linked to numerous studies showing gender-specificity of attraction measured with both genital "activity" and brain activation in response to both visual stimuli and pheromones. Those links and papers will reference other studies that deal with the mountain of twin studies evidence for a biological basis for sexual orientation. The pheromone studies will link to other pheromone studies dealing not with gender specificity but with how pheromones of different people within a gender trigger variable arousal responses in particular other people.
Show some sincere effort in updating your view with all that data in consideration and I'll put forth more effort in directing you to several other bodies of scientific data about sexual, such how more symmetrical faces and faces more similar to oneself trigger more arousal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you think lust is a choice, even partially, then you are bisexual.

You cannot think lust is a choice for everyone unless lust is a choice for you. Lust is not a choice for you unless you feel lust for more than one gender. Hence, if you think lust is a choice (to whatever degree), then you are bisexual.

I'm not bisexual. That's why I know it's not a choice. I get a primal, physiological reaction to an image of a good-looking woman (no, not just that, there's also changes to bloodflow, breathing... why am I explaining this? Get your mind out of the gutter!), but the most primal reaction I get from an image of a good-looking man is jealousy (or guilt of the "I need to work out" variety).

It's not a choice. I was not raised Christian and I find the homosexual taboo to be bizarre and cruel. If I felt any urges to have sex with men, I would have done it by now. Probably several times.

Good point--the deniers must be either lying (perhaps to themselves) or at least a Kinsey 1.

 

[fromderinside]

If you think lust is a choice, even partially, then you are bisexual.

You cannot think lust is a choice for everyone unless lust is a choice for you. Lust is not a choice for you unless you feel lust for more than one gender. Hence, if you think lust is a choice (to whatever degree), then you are bisexual.

I'm not bisexual. That's why I know it's not a choice. I get a primal, physiological reaction to an image of a good-looking woman (no, not just that, there's also changes to bloodflow, breathing... why am I explaining this? Get your mind out of the gutter!), but the most primal reaction I get from an image of a good-looking man is jealousy (or guilt of the "I need to work out" variety).

It's not a choice. I was not raised Christian and I find the homosexual taboo to be bizarre and cruel. If I felt any urges to have sex with men, I would have done it by now. Probably several times.

Good point--the deniers must be either lying (perhaps to themselves) or at least a Kinsey 1.

Many put their urges in a box. Many put them in the guilt box. From there they need rationalizations to permit them open their boxes and act. Its a real problem with very social animals like humans. It leads to religion, taboo, hatred, etc.

 

[gmbteach]

Okay then. Show me the data!

In my post earlier in the thread I linked to numerous studies showing gender-specificity of attraction measured with both genital "activity" and brain activation in response to both visual stimuli and pheromones. Those links and papers will reference other studies that deal with the mountain of twin studies evidence for a biological basis for sexual orientation. The pheromone studies will link to other pheromone studies dealing not with gender specificity but with how pheromones of different people within a gender trigger variable arousal responses in particular other people.
Show some sincere effort in updating your view with all that data in consideration and I'll put forth more effort in directing you to several other bodies of scientific data about sexual, such how more symmetrical faces and faces more similar to oneself trigger more arousal.

Hi ronburgundy,

You want some effort in 'updating my view'. Well my view is that data can be skewed to say whatever you want it to say and that IMO, sexual attraction is akin to food likes. I will elaborate.

Firstly - I generally don't take data presented in many formats unless I can see the raw and original collection. My view of data has undergone dramatic changes over the last few years as I have seen data presented to mean the most ridiculous of things. One case in point was when I was living in Mount Isa. The 13 principals of the town wanted to change the school times from 9 am to 3 pm to 8:30 am to 2:30 pm in order to keep the kids out of the hot sun. So they did what every good person should do when they want to see change, they conducted a survey. They asked each and every parent via a voting sheet sent home which of the two sets of hours they preferred. 3 parents in the whole town responded and because they all said that they preferred an 8:30 start, they took it to the powers that be and said that '100% of parents surveyed preferred the earlier time'. Now, they didn't lie, they just presented the data as they saw fit. I realise this is just one example, however, I am sure most statistics presented are skewed. Can you show me original responses so that I can interpret the data as it was collected?

Secondly, as I stated, IMO Sexuality and Sexual Attraction is purely individual. I believe this because of not only my views on what I find attractive, but also the opinions of others.

I am an heterosexual female. Therefore, according to statistics, I should find the athletic, muscle bound men as presented in the Gorgeous Guys thread attractive. Well I don't. I actually find body builders to be quite ugly. No offense to any body builders out there. I find the bodies too sculpted, hard and definitely not comfortable to snuggle up to at all. Also, I find the same in my opinion of what I consider attractive in women. I prefer a softer looking woman. Am I wrong? According to statistics and popular thinking - I am. Well I don't give a flying rats arse what they think. I prefer a softer looking man. It gives me the message that this person cares about themselves, but not to the extent that they are obsessed with how they look.

Further to this, I have been told by some men that I am not attractive. (Not just my ex for those who are thinking that) So why is it that my darling fiance finds me 'drop dead gorgeous'? Is he statistically incorrect?

Also, what about the people I know who prefer both men and women, but in different body builds? Are they statistically following what they should be attracted to?

To sum up: You can quote all the statistics you want about who should and shouldn't be attracted to whomever or whatever they like, I am sorry, but it doesn't mean squat. Not when it comes to attraction. The saying 'beauty is in the eyes of the beholder' is what is important here.

Now, is that enough of an effort in presenting my opinion for you?

 

[ronburgundy]

In my post earlier in the thread I linked to numerous studies showing gender-specificity of attraction measured with both genital "activity" and brain activation in response to both visual stimuli and pheromones. Those links and papers will reference other studies that deal with the mountain of twin studies evidence for a biological basis for sexual orientation. The pheromone studies will link to other pheromone studies dealing not with gender specificity but with how pheromones of different people within a gender trigger variable arousal responses in particular other people.
Show some sincere effort in updating your view with all that data in consideration and I'll put forth more effort in directing you to several other bodies of scientific data about sexual, such how more symmetrical faces and faces more similar to oneself trigger more arousal.

Hi ronburgundy,

You want some effort in 'updating my view'. Well my view is that data can be skewed to say whatever you want it to say and that IMO, sexual attraction is akin to food likes. I will elaborate.

Firstly - I generally don't take data presented in many formats unless I can see the raw and original collection. My view of data has undergone dramatic changes over the last few years as I have seen data presented to mean the most ridiculous of things. One case in point was when I was living in Mount Isa. The 13 principals of the town wanted to change the school times from 9 am to 3 pm to 8:30 am to 2:30 pm in order to keep the kids out of the hot sun. So they did what every good person should do when they want to see change, they conducted a survey. They asked each and every parent via a voting sheet sent home which of the two sets of hours they preferred. 3 parents in the whole town responded and because they all said that they preferred an 8:30 start, they took it to the powers that be and said that '100% of parents surveyed preferred the earlier time'. Now, they didn't lie, they just presented the data as they saw fit. I realise this is just one example, however, I am sure most statistics presented are skewed. Can you show me original responses so that I can interpret the data as it was collected?

Secondly, as I stated, IMO Sexuality and Sexual Attraction is purely individual. I believe this because of not only my views on what I find attractive, but also the opinions of others.

I am an heterosexual female. Therefore, according to statistics, I should find the athletic, muscle bound men as presented in the Gorgeous Guys thread attractive. Well I don't. I actually find body builders to be quite ugly. No offense to any body builders out there. I find the bodies too sculpted, hard and definitely not comfortable to snuggle up to at all. Also, I find the same in my opinion of what I consider attractive in women. I prefer a softer looking woman. Am I wrong? According to statistics and popular thinking - I am. Well I don't give a flying rats arse what they think. I prefer a softer looking man. It gives me the message that this person cares about themselves, but not to the extent that they are obsessed with how they look.

Further to this, I have been told by some men that I am not attractive. (Not just my ex for those who are thinking that) So why is it that my darling fiance finds me 'drop dead gorgeous'? Is he statistically incorrect?

Also, what about the people I know who prefer both men and women, but in different body builds? Are they statistically following what they should be attracted to?

To sum up: You can quote all the statistics you want about who should and shouldn't be attracted to whomever or whatever they like, I am sorry, but it doesn't mean squat. Not when it comes to attraction. The saying 'beauty is in the eyes of the beholder' is what is important here.

Now, is that enough of an effort in presenting my opinion for you?

IOW, you ignore all relevant science and rely on your own personal anecdotes in drawing conclusions on scientific questions. Spoken like a creationist, climate change denier, and every other manner of unreasoned faith.

 

[gmbteach]

Hi ronburgundy,

You want some effort in 'updating my view'. Well my view is that data can be skewed to say whatever you want it to say and that IMO, sexual attraction is akin to food likes. I will elaborate.

Firstly - I generally don't take data presented in many formats unless I can see the raw and original collection. My view of data has undergone dramatic changes over the last few years as I have seen data presented to mean the most ridiculous of things. One case in point was when I was living in Mount Isa. The 13 principals of the town wanted to change the school times from 9 am to 3 pm to 8:30 am to 2:30 pm in order to keep the kids out of the hot sun. So they did what every good person should do when they want to see change, they conducted a survey. They asked each and every parent via a voting sheet sent home which of the two sets of hours they preferred. 3 parents in the whole town responded and because they all said that they preferred an 8:30 start, they took it to the powers that be and said that '100% of parents surveyed preferred the earlier time'. Now, they didn't lie, they just presented the data as they saw fit. I realise this is just one example, however, I am sure most statistics presented are skewed. Can you show me original responses so that I can interpret the data as it was collected?

Secondly, as I stated, IMO Sexuality and Sexual Attraction is purely individual. I believe this because of not only my views on what I find attractive, but also the opinions of others.

I am an heterosexual female. Therefore, according to statistics, I should find the athletic, muscle bound men as presented in the Gorgeous Guys thread attractive. Well I don't. I actually find body builders to be quite ugly. No offense to any body builders out there. I find the bodies too sculpted, hard and definitely not comfortable to snuggle up to at all. Also, I find the same in my opinion of what I consider attractive in women. I prefer a softer looking woman. Am I wrong? According to statistics and popular thinking - I am. Well I don't give a flying rats arse what they think. I prefer a softer looking man. It gives me the message that this person cares about themselves, but not to the extent that they are obsessed with how they look.

Further to this, I have been told by some men that I am not attractive. (Not just my ex for those who are thinking that) So why is it that my darling fiance finds me 'drop dead gorgeous'? Is he statistically incorrect?

Also, what about the people I know who prefer both men and women, but in different body builds? Are they statistically following what they should be attracted to?

To sum up: You can quote all the statistics you want about who should and shouldn't be attracted to whomever or whatever they like, I am sorry, but it doesn't mean squat. Not when it comes to attraction. The saying 'beauty is in the eyes of the beholder' is what is important here.

Now, is that enough of an effort in presenting my opinion for you?

IOW, you ignore all relevant science and rely on your own personal anecdotes in drawing conclusions on scientific questions. Spoken like a creationist, climate change denier, and every other manner of unreasoned faith.

What I do is look at data for myself and make up my own mind. I won't be told what to think by anyone. i am none of the things you suggest I am. I am an educated woman who can think for herself and make up her own mind. I don't ignore anything in forming my opinions, I simply prefer to see raw data for myself and come to a conclusion. My 'anecdotal' examples are raw data, can you provide some to confirm your opinion?