Keep It Real wrote:

tuco wrote: However, a quick look at homophobia in wiki tells me that your hypothesis is not based on correct nor complete assumptions.

That wiki page has more holes than a kilogram of swiss cheese. My homophobia was neither internalised nor institutional and yet there is no mention of it. Methinks there is an agenda at play on that page.

Unlike your hypothesis, right?

Well, its possible there is agenda there. What matters is whether you can spot and prove it or not. Just saying so, does not make it so, even if it makes sense.

Keep It Real wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Gay men are perfectly capable of having sex with women.

The accepted wisdom is that if you don't fancy a cookie; you don't eat a cookie.

Blind appeals to common sense, are dishonest.

Keep It Real wrote: If your mouth is watering (phallus) the chances are you do fancy a cookie, and it would be incorrect to define yourself as one who doesn't fancy cookies.

If a non-human animal has sex with both genders we call them bisexual. We don't do this with humans because it would stop people from being able to label themselves how they like. You'll be telling me next that I'm perfectly capable of fucking a sheep.

KIR why don't you try reading up on homosexuality in general, rather than relying on your personal imaginations and credulity and whatever cherry-picked studies you think support your view? (Which they don't btw)

Keep It Real wrote:Please enlighten me then.

Nice attempt at shifting the burden of proof there.
You made the initial claim that the question has been settled and it's mostly environmental.
You need to actually demonstrate that and no, one study about one of many ways genetics can affect your sexuality, does not do that.

tuco wrote:You care about your feelings? Now, that is interesting

btw why would you want to modify the mechanism behind the feeling? What you feel when watching Brokeback Mountain is irrelevant to anything really, and I cant see how it could hurt someone else which I suspect could be reason for modification.

Makes it easier for me to watch Game of Thrones. I care about these things deeply. I don't want to choke on my bacon every time I see a dick on GOT or god forbid two dicks in the same scene!

SpeedOfSound wrote:

tuco wrote:You care about your feelings? Now, that is interesting ;)

btw why would you want to modify the mechanism behind the feeling? What you feel when watching Brokeback Mountain is irrelevant to anything really, and I cant see how it could hurt someone else which I suspect could be reason for modification.

Makes it easier for me to watch Game of Thrones. I care about these things deeply. I don't want to choke on my bacon every time I see a dick on GOT or god forbid two dicks in the same scene!

I see. Well, if you want to spend time and energy on such thing, overcoming unpleasant feelings when seeing dicks, whatever flows your boat.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Please enlighten me then.

Nice attempt at shifting the burden of proof there.
You made the initial claim that the question has been settled and it's mostly environmental.
You need to actually demonstrate that and no, one study about one of many ways genetics can affect your sexuality, does not do that.

You stuck your foot in it when you threatened him with how genetics can actually work. My guess is that genetics actually has determined the structure of all those axonal highways that are in place in our brains at birth. I think it quite reasonable to believe that that structure leads to male on female mating most of the time. How that happens exactly is what got me into neuroscience in the first place. My big questions is how do genes wire a brain to prefer a .7 waist to hip ration across so many cultures. My guess now is that it does that indirectly because females have that ratio when they are by other conditions more likely to bear offspring. But who the hell knows for sure?

All we know is that this happens too damned much to be without mechanism.

tuco wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

tuco wrote:You care about your feelings? Now, that is interesting

btw why would you want to modify the mechanism behind the feeling? What you feel when watching Brokeback Mountain is irrelevant to anything really, and I cant see how it could hurt someone else which I suspect could be reason for modification.

Makes it easier for me to watch Game of Thrones. I care about these things deeply. I don't want to choke on my bacon every time I see a dick on GOT or god forbid two dicks in the same scene!

I see. Well, if you want to spend time and energy on such thing, overcoming unpleasant feelings when seeing dicks, whatever flows your boat.

You apparently don't watch as much tv as I do. This is a Big Problem in my life. Probably the only one left unresolved!

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Please enlighten me then.

Nice attempt at shifting the burden of proof there.
You made the initial claim that the question has been settled and it's mostly environmental.
You need to actually demonstrate that and no, one study about one of many ways genetics can affect your sexuality, does not do that.

You stuck your foot in it when you threatened him with how genetics can actually work.

I don't particularly care.
Even if I did not support my claim, that doesn't change the fact that KIR hasn't either.

SpeedOfSound wrote:My guess is that genetics actually has determined the structure of all those axonal highways that are in place in our brains at birth. I think it quite reasonable to believe that that structure leads to male on female mating most of the time. How that happens exactly is what got me into neuroscience in the first place. My big questions is how do genes wire a brain to prefer a .7 waist to hip ration across so many cultures. My guess now is that it does that indirectly because females have that ratio when they are by other conditions more likely to bear offspring. But who the hell knows for sure?

Who the hell knows what that has to do with the price of fish?

SpeedOfSound wrote:All we know is that this happens too damned much to be without mechanism.

Your point being?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

tuco wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

tuco wrote:You care about your feelings? Now, that is interesting ;)

btw why would you want to modify the mechanism behind the feeling? What you feel when watching Brokeback Mountain is irrelevant to anything really, and I cant see how it could hurt someone else which I suspect could be reason for modification.

Makes it easier for me to watch Game of Thrones. I care about these things deeply. I don't want to choke on my bacon every time I see a dick on GOT or god forbid two dicks in the same scene!

I see. Well, if you want to spend time and energy on such thing, overcoming unpleasant feelings when seeing dicks, whatever flows your boat.

You apparently don't watch as much tv as I do. This is a Big Problem in my life. Probably the only one left unresolved!

If chocking on bacon when seeing dicks on TV was my only problem, I'd be a lot happier, believe you me. I talk back to TV! because it drives me nuts. Hmm perhaps it would be worth the time and energy to change it after all. You know what I tell myself in such situations? If I'd changed it, it would not be me no more. And when I question this notion, I can never find resolution, so I let it be.

You're burying your head in the sand in a misguided and fanatical attempt to protect and defend homosexuals Thomas. Your comments are weak - anybody reading this thread can see. I just ignore most of them because they're not worthy of a response. You think you're fighting a righteous cause, but all you're really doing is bitching and whining without logic, reason or evidence. I'm embarrassed for you.

SpeedOfSound wrote:My guess is that genetics actually has determined the structure of all those axonal highways that are in place in our brains at birth. I think it quite reasonable to believe that that structure leads to male on female mating most of the time.

What you think is reasonable turns out to be no better than a tautology. Sexual reproduction evolved long before any axonal highways did. In fact, axonal highways are one of the factors helping to explain failures of sexually mature organisms to produce offspring of their own. Otherwise, sexual reproduction is automatic. FFS, higher plants reproduce sexually. Your second (mistaken) sentence is based on the ignorance demonstrated in the first, in case you've never heard of fetal alcohol syndrome or low-birth-weight deliveries among women who smoke during pregnancy.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

tuco wrote: However, a quick look at homophobia in wiki tells me that your hypothesis is not based on correct nor complete assumptions.

That wiki page has more holes than a kilogram of swiss cheese. My homophobia was neither internalised nor institutional and yet there is no mention of it. Methinks there is an agenda at play on that page.

I agree. The agenda baffles me though. Why and the fuck can't we get used to the idea that we are organisms with structure and that structure is behind some of the modern issues we face? I'm afraid to say but violence and rape are in the same condition.

The agenda seems to be to damn anyone who has the feeling and somehow imply that they have sat down and been either cultured or reasoned toward having this feeling. Therefore they be bad and should be damned to hellfire. For those of us who are honest about this that seems fucking ridiculous. I have never had a reasoned issue with homosexuals and nothing in my upbringing cultured me thus. I never heard the word homosexual until i was probably 16 years old. I had gay friends but did not have the means to classify them as such. I rather classified them as my more interesting and less bullying friends.

In 1996, a controlled study of 64 heterosexual men (half said they were homophobic by experience, with self-reported orientation) at the University of Georgia found that men who were found to be homophobic (as measured by the Index of Homophobia)[60] were considerably more likely to experience more erectile responses when exposed to homoerotic images than non-homophobic men.

What about all the homophobic men who didn't get aroused by gay porn? I'm not saying internalised homophobia doesn't exist - I think it does, but that page offers no explanation for non-institutional or internalised homophobia. I think the agenda is that hey - you'd better not be homophobic or everybody will think you're gay, and given that you're homophobic that's one of the last things you'd want, so if you are homophobic you'd better not tell anybody or act on it in any way - thereby protecting the gay community. The trouble is that anybody suffering from homophobia reading that page and believing it would be pretty fucking tortured by what it says - because they don't want to be gay (and may well be straight and homophobic) but as far as wiki explains that's the only possible explanation for their homophobia other than if they followed some kind of homophobic institutional doctrine.

Keep It Real wrote:I think the agenda is that hey - you'd better not be homophobic or everybody will think you're gay, and given that you're homophobic that's one of the last things you'd want, so if you are homophobic you'd better not tell anybody or act on it in any way - thereby protecting the gay community.

Another thing you could try would be to quit blowing out plaintive rationalizations based on some sort of anxiety that somebody might think you're gay if you're homophobic. There are plenty of good reasons not to be homophobic. Worrying about whether somebody thinks you're homophobic (and hence, might be gay) is probably the least of your worries, innit?

Keep It Real wrote:
What about all the homophobic men who didn't get aroused by gay porn?

It might be worth the exercise of viewing a wide variety of porn just in order to see how wide or narrow your arousal band might be. Talk about something that's the product of your entire (including pre-sexual) history, that's a prime example. It's probably a good sign if you find most porn either boring or repulsive, so you can just stick to your fetish.

Keep It Real wrote:You're burying your head in the sand in a misguided and fanatical attempt to protect and defend homosexuals Thomas.

Empty acccusations in lieu of defending your position.
And I am not defending homosexuality. Just pointing out that your assertions are just that, assertions, not supported by conclusive evidence.

Keep It Real wrote: Your comments are weak - anybody reading this thread can see.

More empty accusations and bluster.
Do you really think people will buy that?

Keep It Real wrote: I just ignore most of them because they're not worthy of a response.

A response that would make a theistic apologist proud.
Your blind dismissal won't hide the fact that you cannot defend your position.

Keep It Real wrote: You think you're fighting a righteous cause,

Stop making shit up KIR.

Keep It Real wrote: but all you're really doing is bitching and whining without logic, reason or evidence. I'm embarrassed for you.

Pull the other one KIR.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
And I am not defending homosexuality.

Yep. How far inside out does it have to be turned in order to turn rejection of homophobia into defense of homosexuality?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:I think the agenda is that hey - you'd better not be homophobic or everybody will think you're gay, and given that you're homophobic that's one of the last things you'd want, so if you are homophobic you'd better not tell anybody or act on it in any way - thereby protecting the gay community.

Another thing you could try would be to quit blowing out plaintive rationalizations based on some sort of anxiety that somebody might think you're gay if you're homophobic. There are plenty of good reasons not to be homophobic. Worrying about whether somebody thinks you're homophobic (and hence, might be gay) is probably the least of your worries, innit?

I wouldn't mind if I was gay - that's how I got over my homophobia. If you mind if you're gay, you're gonna be homophobic methinks.

SpeedOfSound wrote:You stuck your foot in it when you threatened him with how genetics can actually work. My guess is that genetics actually has determined the structure of all those axonal highways that are in place in our brains at birth. I think it quite reasonable to believe that that structure leads to male on female mating most of the time. How that happens exactly is what got me into neuroscience in the first place. My big questions is how do genes wire a brain to prefer a .7 waist to hip ratio across so many cultures. My guess now is that it does that indirectly because females have that ratio when they are by other conditions more likely to bear offspring. But who the hell knows for sure?

All we know is that this happens too damned much to be without mechanism.

Now, that is an interesting problem. How do genes code for a value judgment?

What is the historical value for that ratio? Has it held through time, or is it a contemporary style thing?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Cito di Pense wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
And I am not defending homosexuality.

Yep. How far inside out does it have to be turned in order to turn rejection of homophobia into defense of homosexuality?

The rejection of homophobia is the defence of homosexuality.