Nature of Sexuality: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Nature of Sexuality » Nature of Sexuality

Nature of Sexuality

Page: 1 2

Nature of Sexuality

h0dgey84bc
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Location: Manchester,England
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 82

Posted 03/25/08 - 01:46 PM: Subject: Nature of Sexuality	#1
Hi, With many varieties of sexual attraction occuring in human nature, for example within heterosexuality alone there are men who like, fat women, hairy women, pain, bondage,urine! and then there is of course homosexuality, and paedophilia, and beastiality! How would one describe why all these types of sexual desire occur? From an evolutionary point of view why would such desires evole, as oppose to standard heterosexuality, whereby people are attracted to mates with the strongest survival chance? (typically non fat, atheletic etc) Or what are the psychoogical/sociological origins for such behaviour?

nawitus
Transhumanist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2006
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 221

Posted 03/25/08 - 02:15 PM:	#2
Well, in evolutionary sense being fat might guarantee that the individual has plenty of resources, and does not die of hunger if the next hunting season doesn't go that well. In the past fat people were the beautiful ones. You must also know that evolution is not perfect, and we humans not some kind of absolutely evolution driven robots, and even consciously 'fight against evolution' by using condoms etc. Why does dogs sometimes try to have sex with their toys? They might even know it is not a real dog (if dogs can know something), but they do it because it gives them pleasure. Evolution has not made their feedback system perfect enough to make having sex with toys feel undesirable but sex with dogs good. Evolution does not force all our beliefs, since our brains have the capability to learn new beliefs and adapt to new environements. Our beliefs are not directly decided by our genome.
_____________________ "In a place like this, words fail. In the end, there can only be a dread silence, a silence which is a heartfelt cry to God -- Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?" - Pope Benedict

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 03/25/08 - 04:55 PM:	#3
I assume that most sexual perversions, fetishes, and unique tastes among individuals are caused by nurture more than nature. There are all sorts of different influences on people throughout their life that can cause them to develop unique sexual tastes or obsessions. Social conditioning may cause some people to repress certain sexual urges more than other people. Pedophilia may be somewhat normal from a genetic or evolutionary perspective, but is not common in our civilization because we have socially decided to repress certain parts of our nature, but some people may not repress those parts as much for a variety of reasons. I wonder if homosexuality is more of a genetic gender mix-up of some sort, which may also explain why gay men often seem more effeminate than straight men on average, and why gay women seem more manly than the straight women on average. For example, I speculate that in many cases a "gay man" is partly a woman in a man's body so to speak. Anyway, variety in the nature of off-spring is a very helpful evolutionary tool. Evolutionary, it's the species natural way of not putting its eggs all in one basket.
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

tomv
Bee Hive Resident

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 19

Posted 03/26/08 - 04:27 AM:	#4
Floyd wrote: Social conditioning may cause some people to repress certain sexual urges more than other people. Social Conditioning is an interesting term, one that I completely agree with. I like to personally believe that we are who we are because of who other people are (the African Ubuntu philosophy). And I believe that does explain both conformity and deviance - lack of understanding of a societies norms will cause someone to be themselves less through other people and their institutions. On the other hand, a deeper understanding of society will allow the individual to both live their life through others yet still feel that they have the control to chose for themselves. Think about that in a sexual context, I would be interested to see what you have to say.
_____________________ "The door is open, the road transformed. The exit code to civilisation is hacked beyond despair, chased by the moon toward the freeing sun, on our journey to light. This is an open plea to the beautiful insanity of your hearts. It is time to consummate the kiss of oblivion into the obsidian of love!" - Serj Tankian

h0dgey84bc
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Location: Manchester,England
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 82

Posted 03/26/08 - 01:46 PM:	#5
Well, in evolutionary sense being fat might guarantee that the individual has plenty of resources, and does not die of hunger if the next hunting season doesn't go that well. In the past fat people were the beautiful ones. I think the evolutionary motive, you put forward for 'fat-lust' is true. I once watched a documentary on TV ,about how a large proportion of Afro-Caribean males,prefer the larger lady. It would seem they have a genetic motive for that desire. I just wonder how much of sexuaity is purely genetic and uncontrolled, and how much is a nurted emotion. OK, so 'fat-lust', seems to easily yield to the evolutionary model, how about pain and bondage, homosexuality, or attraction to those under the age to reproduce? You must also know that evolution is not perfect, and we humans not some kind of absolutely evolution driven robots, and even consciously 'fight against evolution' by using condoms etc.Why does dogs sometimes try to have sex with their toys? They might even know it is not a real dog (if dogs can know something), but they do it because it gives them pleasure. Evolution has not made their feedback system perfect enough to make having sex with toys feel undesirable but sex with dogs good. Evolution does not force all our beliefs, since our brains have the capability to learn new beliefs and adapt to new environements. Our beliefs are not directly decided by our genome I don't doubt this. I'm interested in how something so primal such as lust(which must be fundamentally genetic and chemical), be mutated by our beliefs and social nurturing. Also to say that lust in anything other than standard heterosexual lust, is a kind of malfunctioning of the evolved mechanism for lust, or that the mechanism has not evolved far enough, seems to miss out a big piece of the jigsaw puzzle. I mean, dogs may have sex with toys, as do men and women!, but both dogs and humans would still prefer real partners if given the chance. So although evolutionary feedback isn't sufficient, in that feedback consists just of physical touch of an object which resembles the real partner, with things like homosexuality/paedophilia it's a whole different story. Take paedophilia, peadophiles actually prefer partners that are not developed, and in some cases have no attraction at all for partners of age.This doesn't seem like a feedback limitation; they're not confusing the child with an adult, quite the opposite. Posted 03/26/08 - 12:55 AM: #3 I assume that most sexual perversions, fetishes, and unique tastes among individuals are caused by nurture more than nature. There are all sorts of different influences on people throughout their life that can cause them to develop unique sexual tastes or obsessions. Social conditioning may cause some people to repress certain sexual urges more than other people. Pedophilia may be somewhat normal from a genetic or evolutionary perspective, but is not common in our civilization because we have socially decided to repress certain parts of our nature, but some people may not repress those parts as much for a variety of reasons. I think I definitley agree that it's more nurture than nature. I'm just surprised as obviously genetic and chemical causes must be at the root of various sexual desires, but they are so ill constrained that they can be molded to literally almost anything, I cannot think of anything that could be sexualised in this world, and has not been by someone I personally think that the root of many sexual fetishes, especially things like paedophilia, incest, violance, beastiality, domination, rape fantasies etc, are just in the risqu� and taboo factor, the forbidden fruit if you will. I imagine this must provide an adrenaline rush and excitment and so on, perhaps if they had been brought up somewhere where paedophilia was the norm (see various african tribes throughout the ages), then this would become boring, and whatever taboo's that society had would become what they chased. This is a bit like how some homosexuals are individuals with many female siblings, so they are numb (desensitized) to female nudity, it is the norm, and not at all off limits, thus not exciting. So in a way it's the laws and norms of society, that provide fodder to such an individual, perhaps brought up in a different socity with different laws and different taboos, this individuals desires would follow suit.

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 697

Posted 03/26/08 - 07:21 PM:	#6
h0dgey84bc you wrote: OK, so 'fat-lust', seems to easily yield to the evolutionary model, I totally agree. you wrote: how about pain and bondage, homosexuality, or attraction to those under the age to reproduce? Inteligent design maybe? But no, seriously I agree with you that it is probable the forbidden fruit symdrome. The problem is explaining how it can effect only one person in a family of very normal people that are easy going and don't usually forbid anything. Floyd's idea of a mix up might explain gays, but not masocists.
_____________________ Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

nawitus
Transhumanist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2006
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 221

Posted 03/27/08 - 03:02 AM:	#7
Our actions and desires are decided by our neuron-brain, which has the function of adaptation and learning. This is the reason that our thoughts and desires are not 'forced' as much by evolution like they do in species with lower cognitive ability. Evolution is not an conscious designer, it is just a biological abstraction. Maybe more 'elastic' brains are better at survival than more 'robotic ones', even though it increases the possibility of the environment to dictate sexual desires, the positive aspects of higher intelligence outweight the negative aspects.
_____________________ "In a place like this, words fail. In the end, there can only be a dread silence, a silence which is a heartfelt cry to God -- Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?" - Pope Benedict

Epilogas
Floating Dust

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2004
Location: Lithuania
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 220

Posted 03/27/08 - 04:40 AM:	#8
h0dgey84bc wrote: From an evolutionary point of view why would such desires evole, as oppose to standard heterosexuality, whereby people are attracted to mates with the strongest survival chance? (typically non fat, atheletic etc) From evolutionary point of view- standart heterosexuality evolved from asexuality and accidental sexuality. Pollen flow through air without certainty it would reach pistil. Wasted on the dusty ground sperm as well as pollen doesn't make God irrate. It just goes to show not everything we do is for survival and reproduction. Rather some things we do leads to reproduction, some to certain death. There are so many ways species survive it becomes impossible to say weather one action is for survival or not. Maby all sexual perversions have use for human specie as a whole. I see life as condition rather than motivation. Some motivation is direct cause of reproduction. Causes of reproduction does not neceserly constitute the value of life. Though oftentimes it makes us feel happy.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 03/27/08 - 05:05 AM:	#9
h0dgey84bc wrote: I think the evolutionary motive, you put forward for 'fat-lust' is true. I once watched a documentary on TV ,about how a large proportion of Afro-Caribean males,prefer the larger lady. It would seem they have a genetic motive for that desire. I just wonder how much of sexuaity is purely genetic and uncontrolled, and how much is a nurted emotion. I think the preference for overweight is predominant around the world. It is only relatively recently that certain western societies reversed that trend to the other extreme. Being overweight used to be a sign of wealth and health. I saw one article that claimed that the western, (and Japanese), ideal were being pushed toward pedophilia -- idolizing androgynous or male adolescent features in females. h0dgey84bc wrote: OK, so 'fat-lust', seems to easily yield to the evolutionary model, how about pain and bondage, homosexuality, or attraction to those under the age to reproduce? Pain=stimulation in an overstimulated world, bondage=social roles of control, (dominant/submissive), and role reversal. I've seen it argued that homosexuality is a genetic tendency to prevent a society from becoming too competitive, (and thus preventing the species from cooperating). The same was said for the "homophobic" reaction, and that "homosexuality" was really describing the lack of homophobic "taboo" feelings. h0dgey84bc wrote: Also to say that lust in anything other than standard heterosexual lust, is a kind of malfunctioning of the evolved mechanism for lust, or that the mechanism has not evolved far enough, seems to miss out a big piece of the jigsaw puzzle. I mean, dogs may have sex with toys, as do men and women!, but both dogs and humans would still prefer real partners if given the chance. So although evolutionary feedback isn't sufficient, in that feedback consists just of physical touch of an object which resembles the real partner, with things like homosexuality/paedophilia it's a whole different story. Take paedophilia, peadophiles actually prefer partners that are not developed, and in some cases have no attraction at all for partners of age.This doesn't seem like a feedback limitation; they're not confusing the child with an adult, quite the opposite. It is way more complex than that. There is a very innocent biological preference for "authentic" experience. You might prefer a real sunset to a photograph of one simply because it ties into a sense of novelty and rewarding experiences. Pedophilia might often be a complex mixture of control issues, (feeling insecure about dominating adult partners), as well as the attraction to innocence. Why do people feel that virginity is such a big issue, (either preferring it or trying to reject the stigma)? It doesn't make much difference biologically. There are seemingly genetic impulses to reject partners you have lived in close proximity with, (like siblings), and prefer people who are physically similar, especially relatives you have not lived in close proximity. h0dgey84bc wrote: I think I definitley agree that it's more nurture than nature. I'm just surprised as obviously genetic and chemical causes must be at the root of various sexual desires, but they are so ill constrained that they can be molded to literally almost anything, I cannot think of anything that could be sexualised in this world, and has not been by someone I personally think that the root of many sexual fetishes, especially things like paedophilia, incest, violance, beastiality, domination, rape fantasies etc, are just in the risqu� and taboo factor, the forbidden fruit if you will. I imagine this must provide an adrenaline rush and excitment and so on, perhaps if they had been brought up somewhere where paedophilia was the norm (see various african tribes throughout the ages), then this would become boring, and whatever taboo's that society had would become what they chased. This is a bit like how some homosexuals are individuals with many female siblings, so they are numb (desensitized) to female nudity, it is the norm, and not at all off limits, thus not exciting. So in a way it's the laws and norms of society, that provide fodder to such an individual, perhaps brought up in a different socity with different laws and different taboos, this individuals desires would follow suit. I have a long list of things that humans do to trick biological stimulus. Lipstick is supposed to simulate a woman's lips when she is sexually aroused, which makes her subconsciously "attractive". I saw one very enlightening study which said that when humans started to walk upright, the female genitalia was no longer on display for males to see the receptiveness, so we biologically morphed to provide substitutes. Our lips turned outward to resemble a sideways genitalia, (we're the only primates with exposed areas of the lips). A woman's breasts were permanently enlarged to resemble the "backside", (other primates only have enlarged breasts after pregnancy) ... and much more.
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 03/27/08 - 09:34 AM:	#10
tomv wrote: Social Conditioning is an interesting term, one that I completely agree with. I like to personally believe that we are who we are because of who other people are (the African Ubuntu philosophy). And I believe that does explain both conformity and deviance - lack of understanding of a societies norms will cause someone to be themselves less through other people and their institutions. On the other hand, a deeper understanding of society will allow the individual to both live their life through others yet still feel that they have the control to chose for themselves. Think about that in a sexual context, I would be interested to see what you have to say. I would say that many sexual perversions are actually natural in an uncivilized sense. Thus, I would categorize them as a type of social deviance. How much a person deviates is, I believe, less a result of a person's specific genetics and more a result of how the person is raised and influenced by society. Any sort of sexual addiction can probably happen just by engaging in the activity to which a person becomes addicted. This is true of most behavioral addictions, I think. If one person gets addicted to gambling and another addicted to overeating, I think it may be the result that they each started to engage in a very stimulating activity that is not that unusual, but stimulating activities are addictive. When we mix anything with the very stimulating act of sex, it has great potential of becoming a habit or an addiction. Some sexual habits may not be frowned upon just as some non-sexual addictions may not be frowned upon (such as being addicted to coffee), but getting heavily involved in a habit that is frowned upon (such as illegal prostitution or illegal drugs) is probably caused more by social deviance than those that are not frowned upon. Most social deviances are generally discouraged by the majority of people in society, or else they wouldn't be social deviances. But I am often more fond of non-conformity than the typical person. Nonetheless, there are many addictions that will cause a person to hurt others against their will--be it a crack addict stealing car radios or a pedophile molesting children. In those cases, almost all of us would want to stop that from happening, at least I hope so. -Floyd
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

BitterCrank
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 03/27/08 - 12:09 PM: Subject: Sex preferences	#11
h0dgey84bc wrote: Hi, With many varieties of sexual attraction occuring in human nature, ...fat women, hairy women, pain, bondage,urine! How would one describe why all these types of sexual desire occur? Dear H0dgey84bc, I will divide your question into two parts, the first being "Why are we attracted to specific physical features?" Most people do seem to prefer partners with certain visual characteristics: red hair, fleshiness, athletic build, lots of hair, hairless, tall, short, and so on. For some people specific visual characteristics are essential: Only blonds, only big breasts, and so on. My question is "when and how do men and women acquire these very specific visual preferences? I suppose they learn them, but how and when? When does a man learn that red headed women are more attractive than women with blond, brown, or black hair? How is this learned? Were his first sexual experiences with bonds bad? That seems too simple. Are we genetically primed to be strongly attracted to some visual cue? I don't know. Any thoughts on this? h0dgey84bc wrote: and then there is of course homosexuality, and paedophilia, and beastiality! How would one describe why all these types of sexual desire occur? I don't these these three behaviors fit together. There are theories which might be true about how homosexuality arises. Some people think it arises from early childhood experiences, or differences in the brain, or from genetics, or from pre-natal experiences. Based on study and experience, I would rate early childhood experiences (the Freudian explanations) as least likely. Differences between the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals are probably the consequence of either genetics or pre-natal influences, so may be a result rather than a cause. My guess is that homosexuality is the result of a genetic influence on pre-natal development. The theory is that at a certain point during gestation, the mother doses the fetus with certain hormones. The effects of the hormone are dose and time sensitive, so the fetus will get a nudge in one gender direction or the other. PLEASE NOTE: I am not talking about genital ambiguity or transsexuality. The consequence of this hormone dose will be a strong heterosexual preference or varying degrees of homosexual preference, ranging from minimal to very strong. The genetic influence is on how the mother's endocrine system works. The brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals are, as a result, organized slightly differently. This slight difference is what allows male homosexuals to respond so strongly to other males. Effeminacy (or its opposite) seem to be learned behaviors. Does this explanation sound reasonable? Paedopilia and bestiality are also learned behaviors, I would think. How paedophilia is learned is, as far as I know, not very well understood. (Aren't there two types here - preference for pre-pubescent children and preference for post-pubescent - but not adult - children? Bestiality is probably learned because the opportunity is available. For example, a calf that has not been weaned will suck on just about anything that resembles a teat. It isn't hard to imagine how a farm boy might experiment with the calf. I don't know how well evolution can be used to account for homosexual preference. We just aren't privy to all the answers. Yet, anyway. Any thoughts on this?
_____________________ If you can't fan the flames of discontent, at least don't join the fire department.

BitterCrank
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 03/27/08 - 12:27 PM: Subject: All mixed up?	#12
Floyd wrote: I wonder if homosexuality is more of a genetic gender mix-up of some sort, which may also explain why gay men often seem more effeminate than straight men on average, and why gay women seem more manly than the straight women on average. For example, I speculate that in many cases a "gay man" is partly a woman in a man's body so to speak. Dear Floyd, There may be more effeminate gay men than effeminate straight men, but I doubt if the cause is genetic. Men and women learn how to move (move being broadly defined here). There is no such thing as a swishy baby. MAYBE a transsexual would describe himself as a "man trapped in a woman's body" (or visa versa), but I am not sure. Transsexuals do report feeling that way. But typically, a gay man is not going to describe himself that way - unless he is joking. Gay men do not want to be, or feel that they are, female. Our orientation is frankly male to male, not female to male in disguise. Sincerely, Bitter Crank
_____________________ If you can't fan the flames of discontent, at least don't join the fire department.

BitterCrank
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 03/27/08 - 12:38 PM:	#13
h0dgey84bc wrote: I mean, dogs may have sex with toys Dog behavior: A dog that is "humping" something is not necessarily trying to be sexual. "Humping" or "mounting" is also a dominance display behavior. A dog will attempt to mount your leg as a dominance move, not because it is trying to get it on. Don't be too charmed when a dog that is sitting next to you decides to put its paw on your hand. That is another dominance ploy. Dogs are pack animals and who's on top is very important to them. You may be the alpha dog in their life, but they will still try for the brass ring - hence the humping. Both male and female dogs display mounting behavior.
_____________________ If you can't fan the flames of discontent, at least don't join the fire department.

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 03/27/08 - 01:55 PM:	#14
BitterCrank wrote: Dear Floyd, There may be more effeminate gay men than effeminate straight men, but I doubt if the cause is genetic. Men and women learn how to move (move being broadly defined here). There is no such thing as a swishy baby. MAYBE a transsexual would describe himself as a "man trapped in a woman's body" (or visa versa), but I am not sure. Transsexuals do report feeling that way. But typically, a gay man is not going to describe himself that way - unless he is joking. Gay men do not want to be, or feel that they are, female. Our orientation is frankly male to male, not female to male in disguise. Sincerely, Bitter Crank You may be correct that some of it is learned. But I've been informed of research that shows that gay men have more feminine physical features on average, such as the proportion of the size of their fingers and shape of their bones and whatnot. But I do not not remember exactly nor have the information on hand. Anyway, to me, it suggests that, though in many ways they are male, gay men may have grown a female's set of sexual attractions in terms of what gender they find sexually attractive. I'm not sure; I'm just speculating.
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

BitterCrank
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 03/30/08 - 09:13 AM:	#15
Floyd wrote: You may be correct that some of it is learned. But I've been informed of research that shows that gay men have more feminine physical features on average, such as the proportion of the size of their fingers and shape of their bones and whatnot. But I do not not remember exactly nor have the information on hand. Anyway, to me, it suggests that, though in many ways they are male, gay men may have grown a female's set of sexual attractions in terms of what gender they find sexually attractive. I'm not sure; I'm just speculating. Dear Floyd I would have to do some digging, but there is a report on the internet (not in a journal of physiology) that there is a very slight but noticeable difference between some gay people (male and female) and straight people in the relative length of the index and ring finger - differences that would not be more than a very few mm. Slight, but large enough to be visually detectable. McVey, a medical researcher, reported slight differences between gay men and straight men in a very specific area of the brain - again, a slight difference. There may be differences between the way gay men and straight men think - and again, these are subtle slight differences that show up in paper and pencil psychological tests of unknown validity or reliability. Some of these "tests" are a little bit of a parlor game. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), an old very well studied personality test with about as good reliability and validity scores as these tests get, can distinguish between men whose personalities (not necessarily behaviors) are homosexual (to varying degree) and men whose personalities are not. I am in my sixties, and years and years of trips to the gym (more or less straight men) and gay bathhouses (more or less gay men) tell me that there isn't any difference in physical appearance between the two. Lots of gay men can tell you the same thing. Earlier I said that gay men learn to move differently than straight men. It is these very subtle differences that allow gay men (I won't speak for lesbians) to spot each other. (Though this isn't a 100% reliable phenomenon - mistakes can be made.) There are subtle gestures. For instance, two gay men walking down the street, both dressed in business suits, might display differences in how far they distance themselves from each other - slightly closer than most American men, at least, would be. There might be differences in how often they orient their faces toward each other. There might be differences in how they direct their interest. (Straight men often give women a once over - a very fast sweeping glance that is visible if one is in a position to observe. Gay men would do the same thing - only it would be directed toward a male - and this is important - not just any male, but a striking male.) Gay men's speech might be a bit more expressive. But these gestures aren't fool proof, and they are very subtle. Now I should add that heterosexuals deploy as many subtle gestural behaviors as homosexuals do. They may even be exactly the same gestures, but in context they can be interpreted differently. Plasticity in appearance is a general human trait, but for gay men recent style goes like this. In the 1950s, (prior to the emergence of a politically active and socially open homosexual community) for instance, a gay man who was trying to look gay, might have tended toward say, a shaved face, slightly longer hair than the prevailing short hair of the '50s business world, and would generally not have aimed to have a very bulky, buff musculature - if that was even an option. (I exercised, got fit, and have never looked even remotely buff. Slim yes, good endurance yes, no extra fat, yes, buff - sadly not.) But - to show the variation - gay "beatniks" were remarkably shaggy - bearded, long hair, the "natural look" - no time lifting weights. This was the look for me - just let the hair grow. In the '70s "clone" look took over - the Monty Python lumberjack type. More emphasis on some defined musculature, short hair and mustaches were de rigueur. Body hair, as in the past, was still OK. By the late 80s - early 90s, and into the present the preferred body look (at least among style leaders and followers) placed a very strong emphasis on well defined musculature - and then on to very defined musculature. Facial and body hair tended to be removed, then finally all hair. So the recent porn star is likely to look like a steroid pumped body builder who took a bath in a hair-dissolving solution. But not to ramble on here too long (oops, too late for that) there are two things that tend to bring and hold a gay couple together: That they BOTH be male and masculine, and that they be interesting partners across the board. Gay men do not want to be, and are not looking for a female substitute. One last thing: Transsexualism has become part of the straight - gay continuum. I have never agreed with this. I don't think transsexuality is merely an extreme form of homosexuality. Transsexuals do feel - and believe - that they are males or females trapped in the opposite sex's body. Transsexual males want to be women. Transsexual females want to be men. Not act like - but be. They are not biological hermaphrodites with indefinite gender, and they are not homosexual. Through behavior therapy, counseling, hormone therapy, and fairly drastic surgery something very closely approaching their wishes can be achieved. Successful transsexuals become their gender opposite and are often much, much happier people. The reason they are grouped with homosexuals, I think, is a social accident. In the early 70s already the University of Minnesota had a fairly active transsexual program in the department of medicine. Transsexuals sometimes moved to Minneapolis because of the University program (which are few and far between). Where would a sexual oddball hang out? Of course, with the other sexual outcasts of the time - gay men. (Lesbians were frequently quite fussy about this - many of the lesbians resented and distrusted transsexuals) However, once a transsexual has completed a program - and now say, looks like a woman, has breasts, lost the beard, can groom away extra body hair, and has a vagina and can still feel sexual pleasure, dresses and passes as a woman - a woman for all practical purposes, they tend to drop out of the gay community. I followed the course of one woman's transformation from a Jewish female (small build, black hair, attractive) with no particular active participation in Jewish religious life to her opposite as an orthodox male. Ok, enough on this. Sincerely, Bitter Crank - a crank yes, but never bitter
_____________________ If you can't fan the flames of discontent, at least don't join the fire department.

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 03/30/08 - 09:54 AM:	#16
BitterCrank, that's interesting. Not having the personal experience, I don't know much about what it's like to be gay or much about gay culture(s).
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

BitterCrank
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 03/30/08 - 10:36 PM: Subject: You surprise me, Floyd	#17
Floyd wrote: BitterCrank, that's interesting. Not having the personal experience, I don't know much about what it's like to be gay or much about gay culture(s). Dear Floyd, You surprise me. You have an inquiring mind (if your list of posts and comments is any guide), and as the National Enquirer reports, "Inquiring minds want to know." I would have thought that a inquisitive, speculative fellow like you would have picked up more knowledge about gay culture than you report. I do not say this as criticism and I'm not implying anything about your sexuality, I'm just surprised. It might be helpful in your philosophy career to learn more about "polymorphous perversity" (Sigmund Freud) since sexuality is such a big deal in human affairs. Or as the great entomologist and human sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey said, "The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform." Sincerely, Bitter Crank (A crank, possibly - bitter, never)
_____________________ If you can't fan the flames of discontent, at least don't join the fire department.

mosh down babylon
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 14, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 04/14/08 - 12:27 AM:	#18
I have a long list of things that humans do to trick biological stimulus. Lipstick is supposed to simulate a woman's lips when she is sexually aroused, which makes her subconsciously "attractive". I saw one very enlightening study which said that when humans started to walk upright, the female genitalia was no longer on display for males to see the receptiveness, so we biologically morphed to provide substitutes. Our lips turned outward to resemble a sideways genitalia, (we're the only primates with exposed areas of the lips). A woman's breasts were permanently enlarged to resemble the "backside", (other primates only have enlarged breasts after pregnancy) ... and much more. [/quote] Do you have a link for that study?

BitterCrank
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 04/14/08 - 01:42 AM:	#19
mosh down babylon - I don't know of a link or a study about how sexual attributes evolved from our distant ancestors. However, it does seem to be the case that you are referring to characteristics of some small figurines that have been excavated in various places (in Europe) like the Venus of Willendorf (the very rotund figure shown here). These date back about 25,000 years ago. By 25,000 years ago we had evolved pretty much into the present form we have today. Big breasts, big buttocks. There you go. But they weren't all the same. Another figure (also displayed) is tall and slim. Now, we don't know exactly what these figurines meant. We can say that they were depictions of a love goddess. Maybe they referred to the abundance of food which allowed women to become fat, or maybe it was nurturing abundance. Maybe it was an advertisement for an early Weight Watchers program. "Eat too much and this will happen to you!" Determining why people do this behavior or that behavior can be tricky. If you look at 1000 women, some of them will have lipstick on. Are they signaling something to you? Maybe they are saying "I am aroused" or maybe they are saying "my costume is complete." What if they don't have lipstick on? Is there a difference in meaning between black lipstick (some women wear it) and frosted pink? What about advertising? Maybe they wear lipstick because they were influenced by advertising. Clearly physical attraction and physical characteristics are important in human interaction, but psycho/social characteristics are also important. How would you compare the two? If you were to compare two dates - one where the woman was beautiful but indifferent to you, and the other where the woman was plain but made you feel like you were really important - which one would you rate as a better experience? "venus willendorf" is a good Google search term. Start there. There should be references at various sites that you can follow to dig deeper. Just remember, the further back you go, the more speculative talk about behavior gets. Sincerely, Bitter Crank
Attached Files: 250px-Wien_NHM_Venus_von_Willendorf.jpg (15 KB, 1 downloads) 19px-Buretj_(venus_figurine).gif (2 KB, 1 downloads) _____________________ If you can't fan the flames of discontent, at least don't join the fire department.

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7784

Posted 04/14/08 - 10:23 PM:	#20
Not every trait that a human can have needs an explanation of evolutionary advantage. Unusual sexual desires can be entirely advantage nuetral, can't they? All kinds of human behaviour is advantage nuetral (including suicide post reproduction).
_____________________ Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

BitterCrank
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 04/15/08 - 01:05 AM:	#21
Reformed Nihilist wrote: Not every trait that a human can have needs an explanation of evolutionary advantage. Unusual sexual desires can be entirely advantage nuetral, can't they? All kinds of human behaviour is advantage nuetral (including suicide post reproduction). Dear Reformed Nihilist, It seems likely that traits are produced through genetic processes (evolution) that may turn out to be advantage neutral AT LEAST IN THE SHORT RUN. For example, I may possess a physical trait that IN MY LIFETIME will neither be a hindrance or a help. Oh, here's a good example. There is some indication that people who survived the bubonic plague of the 13th century in Europe (that is, either survived the disease or did not develop the disease after being infected) passed on traits that would help them resist future plague infections. Unbeknownst to them, it would someday confer resistance to another disease that wouldn't appear for another 700 years. During the 30 years of the AIDS epidemic, it has been observed that some people (usually Europeans) can be infected by HIV and not become positive, or if they become positive, do not develop the disease. The source of this resistance appears to be in the gene that conferred resistance to plague. (Now, this trait seems to be present in some African populations too, and they, presumably, were not affected by the same plague bacteria). So that would be a great example of a benefit/harm neutral trait that eventually turned out to be useful. Humans (an other animals) have benefit neutral behaviors which they have learned. Our dog has learned to speak for food. This ability isn't going to hurt or help her survival because she gets fed anyway. Besides, she was neutered so its a very moot issue for her. I have learned to like certain "looks" in guys - I don't think I inherited them. For the most part, these learned preferences are survival neutral. So yes, survival neutral traits can exist - but whether they will stay survival neutral in the longer run can not be known. Bitter Crank PS: There are people who will certainly quarrel with idea. EVERYTHING has to either help or hinder evolution, they think.
_____________________ If you can't fan the flames of discontent, at least don't join the fire department.

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 05/03/08 - 07:54 PM:	#22
Bittercrank: Gay men do not want to be, or feel that they are, female. Our orientation is frankly male to male, not female to male in disguise. Yiming: Does the gay man have an aversion to female?

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 05/03/08 - 08:29 PM:	#23
What is the nature of the gay man's aversion to the female? Is it physical or psychological?

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 05/03/08 - 08:29 PM:	#24
What is the nature of the gay man's aversion to the female? Is it physical or psychological?

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 05/03/08 - 08:29 PM:	#25
What is the nature of the gay man's aversion to the female? Is it physical or psychological?

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.