California Proposition 8

[PLC1]

There is a fine work detailing the research that has been done on animal sexuality: BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE Animal Homosexualiy and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl which details the work of thousands of researchers. But books like this cannot be used in schools because the Siho's of the world cannot deal with the truth.

If animals have homosexual individuals, doesn't that prove that sexual orientation is not a choice?

Or, do penguins make conscious choices too?

 

[Sihouette]

Inasmuch as imprinting is a choice, the answer is yes PC. But imprinting isn't exactly a choice, it's a foist from the environment. It's unclear whether or not penguins specifically can be sexually imprinted but Pfaus et al. http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf have found that quail used cues from their environment to select mates. So the avian group has shown susceptibility to environmental foist.

Exactly Mare. We are all confused, even the ones who won't admit it to you, how you started out a gay man, married a woman, attempted to change your gender by removing your penis and then stayed married to and in love with a woman while under new identification as a woman..yet not somehow being now a lesbian.

Yes, it's affecting our sense of what is "normal". Again I direct you to Google and examine primate [human] methods of learning via mimicry using group-norms to model after.

The point is this is America where we are free to make our own choices good or bad.~topgun

Yes. That's why we have voting, to choose. Right now we are in the pre-choosing stage of deep examination of the issue, socially speaking, concerning GLBT etc. praying for rights to marry. We are, in process. Informed choice is always the best..

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If animals have homosexual individuals, doesn't that prove that sexual orientation is not a choice?

Or, do penguins make conscious choices too?

Well, according to Siho it means that all gay animals were molested at a vulnerable age and were imprinted with homosexuality.

In point of fact the research shows that the natural range of sexual response in most higher animals includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality.

Despite rather dim arguments to the contrary is has also been shown that homosexuality has survival value in at least some of the species, this suggests that it may have survival value in other species that we have yet to discover.

In geese there are females that are called super-layers because they lay far too many eggs to care for. These eggs are donated to gay male couples to raise. Gay males actually have a higher success rate that male/female pairs since there are two large ganders working for the benefit of the goslings and they can provide more food and better protection.

Some animals self-segregate by gender except during mating season. Big horn sheep live in all male herds and have gay sex most of the year, during mating season some of them run with the females and impregnate them before returning to the all male group.

What BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE shows is that sexuality is far more fluid and less black and white than we have been lead to believe. It also makes it very clear that procreation is only a small part of sexuality for most animals. The book is large, heavily footnoted, has many photos, and is quite fascinating.

The whole argument about choice is ridiculous, if you want to you can choose to remain celibate your whole life. What one finds sexually attractive is probably hard-wired into the system, but what's hard-wired may be far more diverse than we usually believe. The problem arises when we try to attribute moral value to consentual sex between adults, this calls for all kinds of baseless value judgments that can not be scientifically supported nor logically defended.

In one of Siho's previous posts she tried to make me out to be hypocritical because I think that consenting adults should all have access to legal marriage, but that I think that adult men having sex 8-9 year old girls is wrong and should not be legal. We have a huge body of scientific evidence to show that child/adult sex is always damaging to the child, there is no such body of evidence to show that sex of any kind between consenting adults is necessarily damaging at all. Though I'll admit that heterosexual intercourse can cause pregnancy which has substantially higher risks for the woman.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Exactly Mare. We are all confused, even the ones who won't admit it to you, how you started out a gay man, married a woman, attempted to change your gender by removing your penis and then stayed married to and in love with a woman while under new identification as a woman..yet not somehow being now a lesbian.

Silly Siho, you claim I'm gay with no proof, then you try to make me a lesbian, then you post more surgical nonsense about penises, and YOU CALL ME CONFUSED? Hello. The confusion comes from your desperate need to pass judgment on others and you're not smart enough to figure out how to do it--so you make up crap to post.

Why are you bothering to spend so much time labeling me? Got a day off from work, or what? You know your bleating doesn't bother me, you ought to know that you aren't convincing anyone else with this kind of tripe. What is it? Are you just so miserable that you have to take it out on somebody and I happen to be convenient? If so, glad I could help.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Inasmuch as imprinting is a choice, the answer is yes PC. But imprinting isn't exactly a choice, it's a foist from the environment. It's unclear whether or not penguins specifically can be sexually imprinted but Pfaus et al. http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf have found that quail used cues from their environment to select mates. So the avian group has shown susceptibility to environmental foist.

As usual your post is about animals and does not apply to people unless those people have the intellect of quail. Real research notes that humans are far more complex and "estrous odors" are far less a part of mating rituals unless one's personal hygene is less than optimum.

I'm sure that if Siho could get very small children and raise them in cages in her barn and use all kinds of techniques on them, that she could raise some pretty twisted kids, but short of that we all need to look to the REAL scientific research done on REAL children in REAL situations.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Siho,
There's a pretty fine line between determination and insanity, a line you crossed some time ago. I have been pondering what could possibly motivate you to such lengths. Obviously it will be a mix of things such as your broken heart, your religious beliefs, and your toilet training, but still with all of those things taken into account it seems that something else is going on as well.

I wonder if it might not be guilt. What you do for a living is really disgusting and cruel, it trades the lives of creatures intrusted to your care for money and I think you know deep down that it's wrong. Rather than facing your own guilt and finding a new way to make a living, I think that you have sublimated your guilt into outrage at "other" people for doing what you do, but what they do is even WORSE because "they" do it to other people--defenseless children in fact! (In a twisted sort of way you have come to see these imagined child victims in place of the poor animals you abuse.)

It may be that your one class in psych doesn't qualify you to deal with this yourself, I suggest a compassionate professional--I could send you my little brother's number.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Interesting short article on a single gene that can change mouse gender from female to male. Doesn't work for male to female though since testosterone is a one-way street.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...all-they-did-was-turn-off-a-gene-1838170.html

As we study we continue to learn.

 

[Sihouette]

What BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE shows is that sexuality is far more fluid and less black and white than we have been lead to believe. It also makes it very clear that procreation is only a small part of sexuality for most animals. The book is large, heavily footnoted, has many photos, and is quite fascinating.

At last! A point we both agree on...

That exuberance is the genderless drive to acheive orgasm that imprinting works on early in life. Yes, it is fluid [malleable] and fixates at a given time around puberty and associates itself with a given stimuli/response. It is affected by rewards such as enticement to orgasm or orgasm itself with a given behavior [such as the shoe fetish] at induction. Many other complex factors affect the solidifying of this drive including social pressures, negative experiences such as frustration/partner inaccessibility [such as in prison sex] but at an earlier age where the "choice' sets...and so on.

Literally the list of environmental factors that could affect and therefore be classically associated with orgasm-seeking [sexual "preference"] or its cause are basically endless. That's why we have people associating orgasm with pain [S&M], objects, certain hair-color/body style etc.in people, certain genders, surroundings, sounds, smells and so on.. This is CLASSICAL CONDITIONING via [thank you Mare ] the fluid nature of the sexual exuberance factor until the "preference" sets around adolescence.

I knew we would agree on something.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That exuberance is the genderless drive to acheive orgasm that imprinting works on early in life. Yes, it is fluid [malleable] and fixates at a given time around puberty and associates itself with a given stimuli/response.

Actually, the book doesn't say any of that, it doesn't even suggest that.

It is affected by rewards such as enticement to orgasm or orgasm itself with a given behavior [such as the shoe fetish] at induction. Many other complex factors affect the solidifying of this drive including social pressures, negative experiences such as frustration/partner inaccessibility [such as in prison sex] but at an earlier age where the "choice' sets...and so on.

No, it doesn't say that either, in fact it says quite the opposite. Most of these are not herd animals and have no social pressure to deal with, it appears that all of this behavior is hardwired before birth.

Literally the list of environmental factors that could affect and therefore be classically associated with orgasm-seeking [sexual "preference"] or its cause are basically endless. That's why we have people associating orgasm with pain [S&M], objects, certain hair-color/body style etc.in people, certain genders, surroundings, sounds, smells and so on.. This is CLASSICAL CONDITIONING via [thank you Mare ] the fluid nature of the sexual exuberance factor until the "preference" sets around adolescence.

The conclusions drawn magically from thin air are not at all what this very large tome of science says at all.

Grasping at one final straw, Siho tries propping up her weird theory by citing a book she has never seen, based on a 6 sentence reference by me--a person she has accused of being a liar and incapable of telling the truth. Taking things out of a context that she knows nothing about, she spins this lack of knowledge into a vague and contradictory theory, and feels vindicated by this confection of imagination.

All this nonsense, Siho, like calling me a liar, a mutilated man, a lesbian, a gay man, confused, not normal, and much more, what we come down to in the end is that you are miserable and I'm happy. That works for me.

 

[Sihouette]

Actually, the book doesn't say any of that, it doesn't even suggest that

It doesn't have to. I'm saying it and so are hundreds if not thousands of AI professionals across the globe. If the animals were "hardwired" before birth, there would be no point in calling the trait "fluid" now would there? And if they were hardwired, there'd be zero success in training them to fixate "preference" on inanimate objects..or animate ones of other species or the same gender.

Like I said, AI bulls, boars, bucks, dogs etc. aren't born becoming aroused at the sights, smells and sounds associated with mounting a dummy under flourescent lights in the laboratory but they sure can be trained to be aroused that way.

When testing any theory, it is a rule of thumb to "plug it in" and see if all the lights in the string light up. Sexual malleability and imprinting explains so very many things in human sexuality where arousal is associated with a fixed set of stimuli after enough reinforcements via classical conditioning/association. The field of comparative psychology is very real and very potent in its findings. Classical conditioning is also very real and very potent. Sexual fluidity is also very real and very potent during the impressionable stage and we ought to take it very seriously instead of brushing it aside in favor of wishful hunches. Don't address your criticism to me, direct them to these fields of study since at heart it is they that you have a beef with.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It doesn't have to. I'm saying it and so are hundreds if not thousands of AI professionals across the globe. If the animals were "hardwired" before birth, there would be no point in calling the trait "fluid" now would there? And if they were hardwired, there'd be zero success in training them to fixate "preference" on inanimate objects..or animate ones of other species or the same gender.

Like I said, AI bulls, boars, bucks, dogs etc. aren't born becoming aroused at the sights, smells and sounds associated with mounting a dummy under flourescent lights in the laboratory but they sure can be trained to be aroused that way.

When testing any theory, it is a rule of thumb to "plug it in" and see if all the lights in the string light up. Sexual malleability and imprinting explains so very many things in human sexuality where arousal is associated with a fixed set of stimuli after enough reinforcements via classical conditioning/association. The field of comparative psychology is very real and very potent in its findings. Classical conditioning is also very real and very potent. Sexual fluidity is also very real and very potent during the impressionable stage and we ought to take it very seriously instead of brushing it aside in favor of wishful hunches. Don't address your criticism to me, direct them to these fields of study since at heart it is they that you have a beef with.

Creatures in cages can be coerced into many kinds of unnatural activities--remember the 3-tier pig confinement cages in which the top pig was given a diet rich in grains, the second pig got nothing but the feces of the top pig, and the bottom pig got only the feces of the second pig. If you read about animal research you can learn about the Well of Depair in which animals--mostly monkeys--were driven insane, after which they killed their offspring and ate them. Then we have the Noble-Collip Drum, the bi-cameral cages with electrodes... There is little that cannot be beaten, burned, crushed, or otherwise coerced, but we're not talking about that, are we? You don't have children in cages and people are not just like animals, your thesis is flawed once you try to apply it to people with whom you have NO experience.

If it was so easy to imprint sexuality then there would be no gay kids raised in straight families and ALL the kids in gay families would be gay, but real SCIENCE has demostrated that to be completely false. AI research does not apply to creatures not held in captivity and abused by people like you.

Your whole thesis revolves around coercion of some sort, even as an adult I bet that someone with a blowtorch could train you not to respond sexually to ANYTHING. You are trying to extrapolate with nothing to support your position but imaginings. And that makes you miserable so you verbally abuse me and call me names, try to psycholanalyze me, offer to sue my doctors, call me a liar (and then quote me for validation of your mauderings), call me a mutilated man, a lesbian, a gay man, and a lot of other things. On the other hand, I'm quite happy being me. Have a nice day.

 

[Sihouette]

Creatures in cages can be coerced into many kinds of unnatural activities

Not if they're hardwired like you claim sexual-preference is at birth [while you also claim it is fluid] And my stallion wasn't in a cage. He was in a large pasture running about when he was undergoing training. Exotic animals used in AI often have very large and comfortable enclosures. It seems like you're trying to make this into an animal abuse debate instead of what it is: a debate about the nature of sexual "preference" as the hub of the "gay marriage" debate.

We draw our inferences in human behavior in part [and quite reliably] from the field of comparative psychology. Like I asked before, do you have a beef with the study of animal behavior being extrapolated to the human animal? Because we can go there if you want to. I don't think you want to though because you know how widely known and trusted that field is. So instead you prefer to chisel away the AI industry since not so many people are familiar with it. You think you have an edge on the debate when you can mechanically repeat "your disgusting manipulation of animals for sex" instead of discussing the basic mechanics of the AI industry's findings with respect to sexual-malleability....a trait you just cited a book that discusses, I agreed with your terming it "fluid" and then you quickly are trying to backpeddle and recant.

You can't have it both ways. Either there is a nebulous malleable sex drive after birth or there isn't. You can't use it in your position one minute and then change your mind the next when it suits you. I hope you're not drawing an income in the field of debate since I'm pretty sure you would starve if that's the case..

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Not if they're hardwired like you claim sexual-preference is at birth [while you also claim it is fluid] And my stallion wasn't in a cage. He was in a large pasture running about when he was undergoing training. Exotic animals used in AI often have very large and comfortable enclosures. It seems like you're trying to make this into an animal abuse debate instead of what it is: a debate about the nature of sexual "preference" as the hub of the "gay marriage" debate.

Okay, it was big cage, could you have trained him if he had been living in the wild, no, you have to sequester them to twist them. Human children are not kept in cages or pastures or feedlots sequestered from the rest of human society.

I'm not the one who has brought animal abues into the discussion, you are.

We draw our inferences in human behavior in part [and quite reliably] from the field of comparative psychology. Like I asked before, do you have a beef with the study of animal behavior being extrapolated to the human animal?

You do not draw "inferences" you draw direct, mathematical parallels. One must be extraordinarily careful when extrapolating from animal to human behavior because we are so much more complex than animals. You put forward the idea that it's a direct translation.

Because we can go there if you want to. I don't think you want to though because you know how widely known and trusted that field is.

I've read every single one of the papers you've posted and so far none of them says what you want them to say.

So instead you prefer to chisel away the AI industry since not so many people are familiar with it. You think you have an edge on the debate when you can mechanically repeat "your disgusting manipulation of animals for sex" instead of discussing the basic mechanics of the AI industry's findings with respect to sexual-malleability....a trait you just cited a book that discusses, I agreed with your terming it "fluid" and then you quickly are trying to backpeddle and recant.

You are taking the term "fluid" and using it in a way that it is not meant. As I noted in my previous post, which you refused to address, YOU could be trained to do almost anything if you were sequestered from the rest of the human population and enough force placed upon you.

You can't have it both ways. Either there is a nebulous malleable sex drive after birth or there isn't. You can't use it in your position one minute and then change your mind the next when it suits you. I hope you're not drawing an income in the field of debate since I'm pretty sure you would starve if that's the case..

Our use of "fluid" is quite different, yours is like cement, it's fluid and then it sets up and cannot flow. Mine use of the word is the actual meaning of it, able to flow with no cement to set up.

You either, what with this 1000 plus thread and you haven't made a valid point yet. If you had a valid point you would have made it by now.

This is the topper for me, Siho, you are arguing with me about what a large science book says, when I own and have read the book, and you have not only NOT READ it you haven't even SEEN it.

With all the silly stuff you've said to me, about me, and in response to my posts, this is the silliest. I know it probably seems reasonable to you that you could hang your whole thesis on your misuse of one word in a book you haven't read, but it's totally nuts for me to argue with you about it. As has been the case throughout this whole exchange, you have no idea what you are talking about outside of the barn. Perhaps you should post on Stormfront because those folks hate gays and would probably welcome your silly argument with open arms.

I'm sorry you are miserable, but I can't help you. Despite all my failings (so carefully and faithfully detailed by you) I am happy with my transition and happy with my life. I will leave you with this cogent and apropo comment by Albert Einstein: Genius has limits, stupidity has none.

 

[Sihouette]

Okay, it was big cage, could you have trained him if he had been living in the wild, no, you have to sequester them to twist them

Good point. However, in the wild the "cage" young male stallions are in is one built by the herd leader. His omnipotence pressures the young males into frustration since they may not have permission to access the mares of the herd. Some of them begin to mount their buddies in the young bachelor herds and I suppose may then be called "gay" by people in your ilk.

Cages, preturbations and pressures from without exist in almost unlimited form. And these conditions do contribute to the final fixation, the "preference" of the individual post-adolescence. And hence my problem with the terms gays have for inducing homosexuality in young boys and girls. Please don't make me trot those terms out again because I will if you try to purposefully misrepresent their meaning or say they don't exist. And these "cages" these social pressures/preturbations are what I object to. I would think you also would abhor both physical and mental cages? In any event to parade deviant sexuality as normal via marriage is introducing a titanium-alloy psychological cage to those impressionable youngsters who play house in preschool..

So we're back again to the real debate which is, since you and I both agree that environmental conditions can twist the sexual drive, and there is no dispute about how homo sapiens learns by mimicry, more and more youngsters will emulate the new "norm", we will have a proportionate rise in the overall human population of homosexuality. The only real question for kicking around is, "do we want that?". Some gays would be ecstatic. Other people not so much..

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

more and more youngsters will emulate the new "norm", we will have a proportionate rise in the overall human population of homosexuality. The only real question for kicking around is, "do we want that?". Some gays would be ecstatic. Other people not so much..

1034 posts and you are still saying the same thing and have provided no proof whatsoever. Misrepresenting my position--just like calling me names and such--does nothing to shore up your baseless thesis.