First of all. I don't even want to think about how long it took to type all of that.
By comparison to my usual, it's a fleeting thought.
Comparing anime to sexual preference is ridiculous. It's like saying scuba diving and eating are equally as important. Heterosexuals that give up on women putting thenselves down for homosexuals despite not originally being sexually attracted to them...? Stahp. Just stahp. Homosexual gene was just an example to show it's deeper than just liking anime. It could be to do with chemical levels during pregnancy or something. No one realky knows.
Now, we are getting somewhere.
No one knows, but the important thing is that we establish homosexuality as an identity. You -are-
a homosexual. This is important, as in order to use homosexuals as a vehicle for political advancement, they must be a stable demographic.
See, the problem with kids is that they grow up and become adults. Same with young adults. While you can divide the old against the young to some degree, the demographic changes.
In order to make the demographic useful for community organizers, it has to be a demographic identity akin to race. But, the West has largely bridged racial divisions. "Whites" and even "blacks" are too large of a demographic to be all that politically advantageous. Further division is necessary in order to claim one as the victim to use as a vehicle for the advancement of political authority - for the conquest over a nation.
Which is precisely why homosexuality went from being a behavior to being an identity.
It doesn't matter what the science is. Homosexuals were born that way and they will be treated as if they are forever supposed to be homosexuals. There is something wrong with them if they experience a change later on. And to the gas chamber with anyone who insists life is otherwise - including any 'scientists' or 'doctors.'
Once again. Arousal and sexual preference being less related than you made out to be? Stahp. Just stahp. You gets aroused mainly by your sexual preference as well as a few random boners down the back of the class which you have to beat down with your book before you can get up and leave.
No, arousal is not triggered by sexual preference.
You must be registered for see links
" And sometimes, in the middle of an act that is always a violation, a rape survivor will experience increasingly intense physical sensations leading to climax – an orgasm.
Yes, it really happens.
Of those who report their rapes, around 4–5% also describe experiencing orgasm. But the true numbers are likely much higher. In a 2004 review paper, a clinician reports, "I (have) met quite a lot of victims (males) who had the full sexual response during sexual abuse…I (have) met several female victims of incest and rape who had lubrication and orgasm."
...
But how can this be? How can a victim's experience of rape, especially violent rape, include an orgasm? If you are a blogger on one website (which I refuse to honor with a link) the explanation is simple: "You've suddenly realized that actually, in spite of what you thought before it happened, in reality you wanted to be raped and you're... loving every minute of it... that fact alone makes 'rape' an act of consensual ***."
No. This is not the explanation. Rape and arousal can happen simultaneously, and one does not exclude the other. As disgusting as they are, that blogger's words illustrate a common error of conflating arousal and conscious intention. An orgasm, at least in popular understanding, represents a peak of sexual pleasure, a state of euphoria. In that perception, if someone is experiencing rape, shouldn't pleasure be absent? Shouldn't the body, you know, shut that whole thing down?
We really need a better understanding of human sexuality and human physiology. Just as Todd Akin (and hundreds of years of science) was so wrong in thinking that rape can't lead to pregnancy, I and many others were entirely wrong about arousal and climax during rape. Despite what many rapists would like to believe, arousal does not mean that an assault was enjoyable or that a victim was asking for it. So what does it mean? "
You must be registered for see links
" Men’s genital arousal occurs in response to a limited number of sexual stimuli, whereas women’s genital arousal occurs in response to a wide range of sexual stimuli, including those depicting nonpreferred cues. Researchers have hypothesized that women’s nonspecific pattern of genital arousal prepares the body for sexual activity, thus functioning to protect the genital organs against injury. If this hypothesis is correct, women should show genital responses to any cues suggesting sexual activity, even unappealing cues that involve nonconsensual *** and extreme violence. Fifteen men and 15 women listened to fourteen 2-min audiotaped narratives that depicted an interaction between a man and a woman and that varied factorially according to the presence of consent, violence, and sexual activity. The results support the preparation hypothesis: Men showed the greatest genital arousal in response to narratives depicting consensual, nonviolent ***, whereas women showed similar responses to all the narratives involving sexual activities, including those describing a sexual assault. "
This works at least in the case of women.
What about involuntary arousal of men?
You must be registered for see links
" To help put this in context; some men may experience some involuntary arousal when their doctor performs a digital rectal examination to check for prostate problems. This is a purely physiological reaction. It does not mean in any way that the man is sexually attracted to his doctor, or has a sexual preference for doctors in general! In the same way, developing an erection, or ejaculating, during sexual assault does not say anything at all about one's sexual preferences or identity. "
It is worth noting that the site in general attempts to poo-poo homosexuality away. The problem is that a massive number of homosexuals report sexual abuse:
You must be registered for see links
" There is indeed a clear disparity between homosexual men and heterosexual men and child sexual abuse. Using a non-clinical population of 465, Tomeo et al. found that 46 pe cent of the gay men reported being sexually abused as children compared to 7 percent of the matched heterosexual men. (15) What’s intriguing is that 68 percent of the homosexual men did not identify as homosexual until after the abuse. Earlier research by Johnson and Shrier concluded that boys who had been sexually abused are 7 times more likely to identify as homosexual or bisexual than their heterosexual counterparts. Even more intriguing is that Friedman noted that the boys who later identified as heterosexual had a mean average of 15.7 as the time of their first sexual experience. For the boy who later identified as homosexual, the mean average was 12.7. (16)
Dr. Byrd continues:
There is an interesting problem with the research – we have been asking the wrong question for many years. If you ask men if they were sexually abused, many will say “no,” because “allowing” oneself to be sexually abused is incompatible with masculinity. However, if you ask men how old they were at the time of their first sexual experience, the data seems more accurate. "
The song example is irrelevant. It was a poor example/hyperbole. Plenty of things affect you like that, producing seratonin and dopamine. Excercising, eating chocolate etc.
You must be registered for see links
Again, research shows otherwise:
" You may have heard of oxytocin, sometimes called the "love hormone." Human and animal studies have shown that oxytocin plays a role in bonding; when released in your brain during certain types of human contact, it has the effect of bonding you to the other person involved. This makes a lot of sense, because oxytocin is known to be released when a woman is nursing her infant, when two people are hugging, and during sexual activity. It's also thought to be involved in other corollary emotional responses of bonding, like trust-building and empathy. Some early research has suggested that oxytocin could be used therapeutically in people who suffer from disorders like autism or schizophrenia, which hinder bonding and positive relationship development. In studies, applying a dose of oxytocin via nasal spray showed promise in such patients.
However, things are never as simple as they seem, and more recent research on oxytocin suggests a dark side to the so-called "love hormone." While affecting positive behaviors of trust and bonding, it can also affect opposite behaviors like jealousy, envy, and suspicion. This would suggest that contrary to prior belief, oxytocin triggers and amplifies social feelings of all types, not just the positive, feel-good ones. In the words of researcher Simone Shamay-Tsoory of the University of Haifa, "…when the person's association is positive, oxytocin bolsters pro-social behaviors; when the association is negative, the hormone increases negative sentiments". According to psychologist Greg Norman, this shows that "oxytocin is not a love hormone; its effects vary in different people." So maybe we should hold off on that nasal spray thing for the time being. "
Continuing into a different source:
You must be registered for see links
" The third, for both men and women, is oxytocin. Oxytocin is the bonding agent, the cuddle chemical. This bonding agent makes us want to connect, physically, with another person. And once connected, stay connected. It is a powerful force, one that men sometimes complain about “she wanted to cuddle, I needed to get to work”, and women too “… and then he just left me”.
Oxytocin can be easily fabricated, just with close contact to another human being (or a pet). Just twenty seconds of hug contact, even with a stranger (with a tolerable level of body odor), can dramatically boost levels of oxytocin. It is very much the bonding glue for humans. "
The article, itself, is a relatively interesting read.
The point is that abuse affects the development of the neurological networks that work in tandem with these chemical signals. I would caution that emotions are less about chemicals, and more about the neurology. The chemicals simply serve as a form of more globalized feedback.
For example, when building a bootstrap evolutionary models that attempt to build systems without presupposing what arrangements form a valid base - you must still have a separate component that determines what we call the "objective" - a means of evaluating the performance of the system being built by the evolutionary process.
Neural networks are no exception - and a fair amount of computer science work has been done on identifying objective functions and describing them so as to be evaluated:
[video=youtube;xOCurBYI_gY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCurBYI_gY[/video]
Learnfun is an interesting example of this. While it is not -technically- a 'bootstrap' program, because a human input sequence is used - the program simply analyzes memory addresses in that play-through cycle for orderings - identifying what memory addresses are supposed to be made to increase in value. The resulting random gameplay is then analyzed and the best performing result is selected.
This is different from other projects, like MarI/O - which is actually a simulated neural network - but works off of far fewer objective functions (simply going "right" and taking less time to do so are the basis for evaluating the performance of the network). A complete 'bootstrap' program would effectively merge both projects where a random neural network is constructed and then evaluated using a learnfun-like program to evaluate performance.
The point of all that is that there needs to be some metric to let our network know when new connections need to be made - when output of the network is evaluated to be success, failure, or what. The chemicals in the brain serve as coordinators for the entire neural network that includes the elements of our autonomic nervous system.
The thing to keep in mind is that all neural networks have exceptionally simple fundamental operating rules that are easy to understand - but that produce exceptionally intricate and complex behavior the more neurons and input/output options exist.
The attraction to tits bit. Ima just take your word for it. Cba with the link but it's understandable why men tend to be attracted to women with an hourglass figure, just like how women prefer broad shoulders, big chests etc.
It's difficult to pinpoint the origin of all of these - but I was not especially attracted to women with wide hips until I was in a relationship with one who had wide hips as one of my first relationships. Before that - it was mostly face/hair/cheeks. That isn't to say that I dislike the figures of other women - but that there's always a special place for that figure, and since the relationship began online - it is difficult to ascribe any kind of innate genetic or birth cues to it. It was after we saw each other that I found myself drawn to that figure more so than others.
Where a person obtains the notions of preference from is considerably important to a conversation about sexual preference.
I'm familiar with Pavlov's dog but once again your comparisons..ugh. You also make it sound like most homosexuals are sexually abused to end up the way they are which is totally preposterous.
It is the case in an alarming percentage of homosexuals. Homosexuality correlates very strongly with childhood abuse and trauma, in general.
It's simply a fact that has repeated itself through scientific literature regardless of era or the social climate surrounding homosexuality.
I'm not saying that people are abused and told to become homosexual - but that abuse interrupts the development of neural networks. That the correlation is stronger among people who were abused at younger ages as opposed to later on in life suggests that it interrupts processes developing within the brain regarding: "what is ***?" and "from where do I get ***?" - Which later influences the foundations upon which neurology is built.
Similarly, hormone shifts during gestation could also disrupt earlier foundations of neurological development that feed back into the development of sexuality.
Reminds me of priests tbh. Were they all molested by priests and the circle continued until it was exposed?
The error in assumption is that male on male child *** abuse is indicative of a priest being homosexual.
That said, abuse does tend to spawn abuse simply in general - sexual or not. People who are physically abused as children are more likely to commit sexual assault and/or abuse in their lives. It may not be as strong of a correlation as when the initial abuse is sexual, but you get the idea.
Other potential explanations just have to do with general expressions of dominance/control/authority. Positions of power have always been exploited to extort favors and property from the people subject to those authorities. Children are naturally vulnerable entities who are regularly subjected to authority. Rates of priestly abuse of children are little different from rates of teachers who abuse their children. It's an entire class of eroge.
You must be registered for see links
" Students in America's schools are groped. They're raped. They're pursued, seduced and think they're in love.
An Associated Press investigation found more than 2,500 cases over five years in which educators were punished for actions from bizarre to sadistic.
There are 3 million public school teachers nationwide, most devoted to their work. Yet the number of abusive educators - nearly three for every school day - speaks to a much larger problem in a system that is stacked against victims. "
I can kinda see where you're coming from with the mothers celebrating homosexuality of their kid as my aunt is a single mother and her son carried around a handbag for idek how long but that's part of my argument. Let the child come to terms and find out his own sexuality and be comfortable with the outcome regardless. Don't instill false prejudice and indoctrinate the poor kids with lies. Remain indifferent throughout.
There is a context for everything.
For example, when I was considerably younger, I wanted to paint my nails like my mom. Since my mom was stay-at-home, and I was the first born - it was only natural that I would want to imitate her. The concession was made that I could use the clear polish. It was known that it was not 'okay' for me to imitate my mother to the point of being 'girly' - but it was also understood that this was part of being a child.
I would also hang around my father as we built models together, as I helped him with minor construction, learned how to operate computers from him, listened in to management discussions about factory operations, etc.
It was also known that my dad didn't think of it as 'cute' when I would try to run around the house in my mom's high-heels or something of the like. He may have laughed a bit, but the context was that it was just ridiculous - and I was not going to leave the house with painted nails or wearing high heels. At least, not in their car.
Of course - that passed. I did inherit my mother's talent for cooking, gardening, and the like - things that people don't often expect from my very science and engineering-based mentality - but which are more appropriate to who I wanted to become, if I could ever be said to have wanted to become anyone.
Which is another point of contention I have. Children have no idea what or who they want to be. While there is caution to be exercised in a parent's vicarious tendencies - they do exist for a reason. A child literally is no one and has no way of grasping many of the decisions they are making that will develop who they are in the future. I've seen this, interestingly enough, in dogs. We had a dog that grew up in a daycare. The dog grew up with human children, and even adopted human posturing in how he laid on the ground or in the fact that he would sit and watch TV. Imitation is a very strong factor that develops who and what we want to become later in life - but so do things like parental guidance.
While children can eventually develop independent interests from their parents - and likely will - the idea that a child is ever completely in control of this process or has any sort of predefined identity for him/herself is just silly, and damaging when it leads to effectively choosing to allow kids to remain feral.
I think this may be the longest post I've ever seen on here.
You must be registered for see links
Tops it.
