As if anime preference and mating are even close.
They are both a preference, are they not?
I'd trust Steven Fry over you who said that scientists are still working on it and looking for a gay gene.
Who?
They will be looking for a 'gay' gene for a very long time, because there isn't one.
Or, to be more scientific with the response - there is no gene that is both common to homosexuals and exclusive of heterosexuals. Worse, the studies are difficult to do in the first place as there are no criteria by which to objectively distinguish someone as 'homosexual.'
Sounds crazy - but when you look at most of the more thorough studies, the study subjects are asked their sexual preference and there is a course of followup interviews/surveys where, after a few years, a number of homosexuals now identify as heterosexual or bisexual.
Translated - this means that there exists no way to 'prove' anyone is a homosexual.
Consider this - let's say there -is- a gay gene. But how can you find it if people who check "homosexual" on the survey are just confused heterosexuals who gave up on women? Now you have contamination of your data set ... and how do you control for that?
The best way to try and control for that is twin studies. If homosexuality is something governed by genetics, then we would expect identical twins to both be homosexual. Since this is only the case roughly 50% of the time, there are other factors that quite clearly influence this. Further, without digging into each of those studies to see what follow-ups found several years later, it's impossible to declare them definitive. If the study allowed for 18 year old people to respond to the survey, it is likely that the number of people who identify as homosexual decline.
There's your personality and then there's finding things arousing.
Finding things arousing and sexual preference are two completely different things.
Just as a dog is likely to get a hard-on when he becomes emotionally excited - men and women are both likely to become stimulated, particularly in their teenage years. Men become very sensitive, and just the presence of their clothing can trigger arousal. It is also common for young men to become aroused in the presence of other men - similar to how a dog contesting another dog will become aroused. It is also common for people entering puberty to engage in exploratory behavior with those whom they trust, regardless of their ***. Close friends are more likely to be chosen to explore sexuality - someone they feel more comfortable with.
None of those are to be confused for sexual preference.
I don't like a song so much that I cream myself.
There are songs, however, that trigger an immediate response from you. When you listen to some songs, your adrenal glands are stimulated and you are filled with energy. Others that you find more relaxing will trigger a relaxing of your blood vessels and a lowering of your blood pressure (as well as heart rate, breathing, etc).
You tend to associate songs with the environments where you first encountered them or the people who introduced you to them. While there are sounds and patterns we find inherently stimulating in one way or another, there is a much broader context that ties into our perception of music that then triggers the somatic response.
There is a reason certain music is called "mood music" and some people play it while engaging in sexual activity to 'enhance' things.
There's reasons for liking tits though etc. You're breastfed or you weren't etc.
Somewhat.
Under the Red Queen Hypothesis, the fact that women have these large, fatty masses on the front of their chests is completely unnecessary in terms of classical evolution. It is an increased strain upon the body with little benefit (women with larger breasts don't necessarily have a greater capacity to produce milk, or anything).
You must be registered for see links
Therefor, under classical evolution, large breasts are unfavorable to the human population and would be selected by the environment for reduction.
Yet, here they are.
Why?
In fact, this is somewhat unique among all other mammals on the planet. It is not as if humans had large boobs to begin with and the smaller breasted among us are the harbingers of evolution.
The answer is fairly simple within the Red Queen. For whatever reason, men decided they liked women with larger breasts - enough of them to skew things in that direction. Perhaps it was cognitive - men thought that a woman with larger breasts was better suited to child birth - or perhaps it was just a 'that looks different and I like different.'
The same can be said of the hip-waist ratio in women. It's well beyond what is necessary for healthy childbirth, and actually contributes to the rate of hip fractures for women. In fact, in more egalitarian populations, there is a lower hip/waist ratio among women, as the rate of hip fractures begins to weigh more heavily upon a woman's ability to survive until reproduction.
What causes homosexuality then, eh? Don't tell me it's learned.
It is a broader class of developmental disorder affecting neurology.
You could say: "It is learned" - but within the context of how neural networks 'learn' in the vein of Pavlov's Dog. Pavlov noticed that a dog would salivate upon being fed, and hypothesized that dogs would be able to salivate simply upon hearing a call to dinner. Sure enough - if one rang a bell before feeding a dog, then the dog could be 'taught' - or 'conditioned' - to salivate simply upon hearing the bell.
There are higher-order processes involved in this, but they all follow similar patterns that feed into each other.
This is why those who identify as homosexuals typically have been sexually abused - an incidence vastly greater than 50%. Various forms of abuse interrupt the natural development cycle of our neurology and generate abnormal concepts of identity and association.
Which is why I believe the haste to "identify" and "celebrate" homosexuals is more damaging than it is helpful. Given the above regarding teenage exploratory behavior, which is well documented in psychology studies looking into human behavior from the 1800s on up, it would be particularly damaging to put it into the heads of children that people "are" homosexual as an irreversible and born identity - as any arousal or behavior including the same *** would be interpreted as a sort of sentencing to homosexuality among people who have not yet developed sexuality in the first place.
Simply put - these 'mothers' who try to 'celebrate' the 'homosexuality' of their 10 year old child are effectively committing a form of psychological abuse, as sexuality has not even remotely developed in individuals 10 years old. Sexuality is developed between puberty and young adulthood.
While there may be genetic factors that bias the neurology of individuals toward one disorder or another - genetics do not provide a very strong argument for homosexuality.
The same liberal groups that argued 'sexuality is fluid' also want to argue that 'homosexuality is a born trait.' You can't have it both ways. Either sexuality is fluid and a concept that develops within the minds of people - or it is a born-in concept that is set by genetics (which is something that is currently proven false by current research).
Take your pick.
