Almost Smart  

Go Back   Almost Smart > The Lounge > Science

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-28-2010   #1
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

I did research on Kinsey a while back, because I'm always interested in trying to understand human behavior of all kinds, but kind of forgotten about Kinsey. That is, until somebody I know just told me that they showed the Kinsey movie in their college psych course. This is both a good and bad thing. Good in the sense that anything to get people into dialogue and asking questions about human sexuality is a benefit. But more so bad if they are showing a Hollywood movie depiction of Kinsey, and presenting it as a learning tool in the classroom.
Hollywood versions of movies like Kinsey with Liam Neeson, even when it says it's based on true story, are always watered down with lots of added fiction. And as a result, are incredibly bias and short-sighted when it comes to showing all the facts.

Below is an actual documentary (not a Hollywood movie) that shows the reality of what Kinsey and his research was really all about. It involves interviews with his direct colleagues, so it's practically right from the horses mouth as far as how shady, narrow-scoped, and downright bias as far as how he conducted his research.
Even when his colleagues where trying to stick up for them, they were admitting or couldn't deny it.
Depending on the colleague being questioned, they either talked around it, or admitted to it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5708018993332#

Kinsey claimed to have proven, based upon the mostly deviant samples used in his research, that 95% of Americans engaged in deviant sex, and thus were sex offenders by nature. I REPEAT, he based this on mostly deviant samples!

Kinsey believed that all sex was legitimate — pedophilia, bestiality, incest, adultery, prostitution, sadomasochism — and he worked to overthrow and/or weaken all laws prohibiting any of these.

Kinsey and his associates also testified and wrote in favor of parole for sex offenders and violent felons, was greatly responsible for the reduction of penalties for rapists and child molesters, and the release of these repeat offenders back into society. Many children and women have been brutally victimized as a result of these Kinsey-inspired "reforms."

Kinsey’s impact on American law provides evidence of the deceitful coordination and collaboration between Kinsey and key members of the ALI to overthrow the Common Law and constitutional underpinnings of the legal protections provided against sexual predators.

Prior to Kinsey, rape was treated as a heinous crime in keeping with the Common Law standard.
If convicted, rapists faced mandatory execution in three states, the possibility of a death penalty in 20 states, and a minimum of a 20-year sentence in all but one of the states. Kinsey changed all that. Now — women and children — are victimized twice: once by sexual crimes and vice, and again by the changed laws that refuse to penalize the perpetrator. This is Kinsey’s legacy.

Kinsey portrayed himself as a normal "family man"and "devoted father" from Indiana University in conservative Bloomington, Indiana, but he was a sadomasochist who not only tried and often times succeeded to push his wife and his Kinsey Institute colleagues into engaging in humiliating, violent, and destructive sex acts.
He actually filmed many of these sessions in his attic. He so immersed himself in every kind of sexual deviancy that he found, as usually happens with such persons, it was taking more and more bizarre and painful stimuli to arouse himself. This led, ultimately, to his sexual self-mutilation.

Kinsey’s "interview" technique involved leading, instructing, and badgering the subject to obtain the answers Kinsey wanted. And when the subjects still didn’t give the desired answers — meaning, they didn’t admit to engaging in the sexual activity Kinsey wanted them to admit to — Kinsey regularly played "God," dismissing their responses and putting down what he thought their answers should be. All of this was necessary, of course, in order to obtain the much higher reports of deviant behavior, which could then be redefined as "normal" because it is supposedly so commonplace.

Kinsey used criminal pedophiles to sexually abuse children, including infants, in the name of "research."

Kinsey stands condemned by his own "research," but no one seems to have the courage to declare the obvious, because most government officials continue to assume he was legit and credible just based on the fact that he was able to luckily get funding initially through a legitimate University and college-related funding source, which anybody can get with the right connections.

Kinsey claimed that his data proved that children are "sexual" from birth. What was this based upon?
According to the admission of his associates, such as Wardell Pomeroy and Paul Gebhard, much of this data came from an habitual pedophile Kinsey code-named "Mr. Green" (also referred to sometimes as "Mr. X"), who had molested as many as 800 boys and girls over many years, and who kept meticulous records of his exploits. We now know that this predatory pervert was Rex King, a U.S. government land examiner, who traveled about Arizona, New Mexico, and the Southwest. Much of Kinsey’s data comes from the diaries of this monster who sexually tortured children, some infants as young as three months, and recorded their screams of pain as "orgasms."

Instead of being repulsed and horrified by this, as any normal person would be, Kinsey was tantalized.
He told King, "I congratulate you on the research spirit, which has led you to collect data over these many years." He assured King that his insidious criminal activity had great scientific importance. Research spirit!
We do not know how many other violent pedophiles, even child murderers, Kinsey may have used as "researchers," nor do we know for certain how many children Kinsey and/or members of his staff directly abused themselves, but there is evidence in their own notes that they were present, and at least witnessed some of this activity.

So Kinsey thought the "alleged" fact that an infant could have an orgasm, and also thought that was more important "scientifically" than the reality of rampant child abuse!? He geared, garnished, and manipulated all of his research.

The bottom line is, Kinsey used fraudulent data and methods, which has been both directly and indirectly admitted by many of his colleagues. He repeatedly used abnormal and deviant samples of males and females for his study, and then claimed that the sexual practices of these groups were representative of the activity of the common men and women on the whole.

His male sampling use to publish his book on Male sexuality was heavy with pedophiles, pederasts, convicts, pimps, and other sexually aggressive males whom he recruited at bars, clubs, and bath houses, so these were completely unrepresentative of the average American male. There's no way hell that my sexuality and sexual behavior should be defined by pedophiles, convicts, and pimps. All I have to say to that is, wtf?!

The same was true of his female studies that was used as a source for his female sexuality book that was published. Female study groups consisted of mostly incest and rape victims, nude magazine models, porn stars, prostitutes, and strippers, and then used them as the representative of what is normal female sexuality and behavior for all women that exist. So yes girls, according to Kinsey, your sexuality and sexual behavior is the same as the average incest/rape victim turned crack whore or stripper.

Also, Kinsey's research usually only consisted of less than 1,000 people per study group.
Considering how many people exist in America in the 1950s when his books were published was close to 200 million and now this day is over 300 million, a study based on under 1,000 people who were mostly deviants and predators. But yet, his studies are considered valid!? What is wrong with people?

The only benefit Kinsey's research has is that it provokes discussion and questions with regards to human sexuality and behaviors. Other than that, Kinsey and his research is mostly fraud.

Kinsey is guilty of self absorption into his own inclinations for his own deviant and destructive sexual behavior, under the guise of his connections to some key government officials, lawmakers, and funding sources, rather than working for the greater good of mankind and the progress of human sexuality.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 02-10-2010 at 10:01 AM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010   #2
Zanahoria_Picante
Orange you glad she's not a banana?
 
Zanahoria_Picante's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,952
Rep Power: 140
Zanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond repute
Re: About Albert Kinsey...

Quote:
Originally Said by The poor-grammar-filled, but (perhaps excessively) informative documentary


Kinsey claimed that his data proved that children are "sexual" from birth.
Uh, Freud already said that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund...al_development

*Exaggerated eye roll*

Not to insult Freud by the comparison [even though his thoughts were indeed a bit "sketchy" as well, at least he referenced Greek mythology--that almost explains/excuses it]--obviously, the hellishly-behaving Kinsey in question more resembles, I don't know, a serial rapist. Satan's henchman, Wormwood. Hitler. Jeffrey Dahmer. Bizarro-Ghandi. In short, he definitely ranks high on the World Infamy List.

As contrived as his "statistics" and evil as his [I hesitate to use the word] "methods" were, however, he did represent, unintentionally of course...something rather profound, I think. Just the horrible atrocities one man is capable of really makes one think:

[How] does that apply to or reflect humanity's state, as a whole?
How can such evil have been committed [by one man] and tolerated?
How can we allow even a fraction of the obscenity of that behavior to permeate the same sentence as what we would call our Laws of Justice?
To what capacity can we, each of us, commit evil?
[How] can we prevent such atrocities?

Honestly, it is sad that this individual's sadistic intentions did not entirely die with him; it is sad and horrible that he could have had any effect on what we call justice. It is even sadder that so many suffered because of him and still suffer even after his death. (Yet, I believe, one way or another, he is suffering or suffered for it; either eternally in Hell or, having committed such gruesome, self-satisfying horrors in his life, having [had] to face God.)
__________________
Zanahoria_Picante

..| |
.| | |
_____
\ love /-|
-\__/--|

"When I first read the dictionary, I thought it was a long poem about everything."
Steven Wright




;

Last edited by Zanahoria_Picante; 01-29-2010 at 06:43 AM.
Zanahoria_Picante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010   #3
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Another thing I forgot to mention is that Kinsey had no scientific background, or any background in sociology, psychological, or psychiatry. He was actually just a college professor of zoology and zoologist.
So how he was able to get funding and all that backing to do "research" on human sexuality and behavior, is beyond me...
I'm curious to know how and why???

It seems like the director and just about everyone who was involved in the making of that Hollywood version depicton of Kinsey that starred Liam Neeson did very little homework on the real Kinsey.
And I can't help, but to also wonder why that is?
Any college psych professor that's showing that movie in their class as a learning tool about human sexuality is being entirely irresponsible.

Here's even more info....

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0311140923.asp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_x9fhfBj6Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1B_f...eature=related
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 02-10-2010 at 10:02 AM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2010   #4
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

BUMP!

Come on people... more thoughtS...

It's a travesty that most people are not keen to all this, so why do you think that is?
I mean that's not a good thing, because Kinsey's "research" is becoming accepted as the standard and/or foundation
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2010   #5
my.dragons.lady
happy heretic
 
my.dragons.lady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,000
Rep Power: 51
my.dragons.lady has a reputation beyond reputemy.dragons.lady has a reputation beyond reputemy.dragons.lady has a reputation beyond reputemy.dragons.lady has a reputation beyond reputemy.dragons.lady has a reputation beyond reputemy.dragons.lady has a reputation beyond reputemy.dragons.lady has a reputation beyond reputemy.dragons.lady has a reputation beyond reputemy.dragons.lady has a reputation beyond reputemy.dragons.lady has a reputation beyond reputemy.dragons.lady has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Abuse is definitely one of my personal interests. However, considering the entire Kama Sutra in its entirety, discussion about Kinsey and his kind could easily be called a worn diatribe. While Kinsey doesn't deserve glamorization in any form, people are people. I believe everyone has the capacity for extremes and that most of us choose not to indulge in acts that defy nature's call to reproduce and nurture.
__________________
~*.*~ - ~*.*~ - ~*.*~ - ~*.*~ - ~*.*~ - ~*.*~ - ~*.*~ - ~*.*~ - ~*.*~
Religion and science coexist when neither tries to be the other. ~~ me

"If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need." ~~ Cicero


"Let food be your medicine and medicine be your food." ~~ Hippocrates

"Trust, but verify." ~~ Damon Runyon * Said to me by Andy Stephenson of Hacking Democracy, in memory of and one account. Miss you much, Andy.
my.dragons.lady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2010   #6
hai Jay
Time for breakfast!!!
 
hai Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 9,098
Rep Power: 104
hai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Kinsey claimed to have proven, based upon the mostly deviant samples used in his research, that 95% of Americans engaged in deviant sex, and thus were sex offenders by nature. I REPEAT, he based this on mostly deviant samples!
ok i'll get back to responding to/and reading all of the other shit, but i had to address this first....

most of who he interviewed WERE deviants. Well, I say most...but he did interview and study sex offenders, homosexuals, and other "deviants" of the time.

Quote:
Another thing I forgot to mention is that Kinsey had no scientific background, or any background in sociology, psychological, or psychiatry. He was actually just a college professor of zoology and zoologist.
but kinsey was a biologist that studied insects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey
__________________
Dare to dream.
hai Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2010   #7
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

I wouldn't group homosexuals in the same group as pedophiles and rapists in the sense of deviancy.
Even though there is legit research that proves that gay and bisexual males and females are more promiscous than any other group of people. That makes it skewed right there. And also based on the fact that homosexuals consist of a very small part of the population just proves it even more. Interviewing a small segment of the population geared towards a specific orientation and then passing that off as the standard norm for all human sexual behavior is completely ridiculous.

It's plain as day if you do enough invesigation that Kinsey's studies and methods were bias.
He either did this on purpose, because he himself was in fact a deviant and this was his way of trying to
(and in many ways succeeded) manipulate the system in order to get his sexual behavior more legally emancipated and/or accepted. You can argue conspiracy theory against that statement, but the fact hat he was such a deviant himself was confirmed by many of his colleages. OR maybe his research and methods were bias simple because most straight people who were in commited relationships, especially in the 40s and 50s, probably wouldn't give him an interview. It could be a combination of both, but the bottomline is that either way, his "research" was bias, and therefore is not legit.

Also, giving a biologist who's experience was primarily the study of incests and zoology free reign to do "research" on human sexual behavior = assinine. Just goes to show how incredibly niave people in the 40s and 50s were. And we must still be to a significant degree for our society to be accepting any of Kinsey's "research" as the foundation of human sexual behavior.

I am a moderate who often times leans to the left. It's not even a conservative or liberal view point when all the facts are plain as day and practically come from the horses mouth...Kinsey's publications and colleagues.

This is going off on a little bit of a tangent but being gay or straight or bisexual or asexual is a choice we all make that is based on sociological and psychological conditioning that is pathological by nature. We are born a blank document when it comes to sexual orientation and/or behavior. For example, I choose to be straight.
One of our core survival (not social) instincts is to have sex and to reproduce. But when we get to the point in our life when we decide who we want to have sex with, that is our choice. How we feel, act and react to and bout people and things comes from learn behavior from sociological and osychological influences, and is ultimately either consciously or subconsciously chosen. It has nothing to do with biology or being born that way, but it has much to do with (prelearned and learned) psychological and/or sociologial influences.

People try to combat this by rhetorically asking the question, "why would any person chose a life or lifestyle that includes the path of more resistance, or a life that is harder or more difficult?" Well, to be perfectly honest, this shouldn't be a rhetorical question at, because there is an answer...

People that come from a life that mostly lacked positive emotional support, compassion, and nurture are conditioned to continue to be drawn to a life that includes drama, despair, and emptiness, because that is what they are mostly, and even sometimes ONLY, familiar with. Especially when exposed to an upbringing that is oppressive and involves hard-line religious views, but not limited to. This kind of conditioning causes most to either completely conform to this empty or superficial lifestyle repeating the same behaviors that were oppressed upon us, or it causes us to rebel towards the opposite extreme. Either way, we still become conditioned to conform to that lifestyle in a hard-line extreme way. So it is social and psychological conditioning that causes us to be drawn to or subconsciously chose a life filled with more drama, difficulties, hardships, and negativity than what the average person needs to endure, rather than a life that is more fulfilling, nurturing, and complete. This isn't to say that people who cause hardships towards others and/or try to control others are in the right for any reason. For what they do comes from similar reasons. It's a choice they make that is based on sociological and psychological conditioning that is pathological. The oppressed, whether they end up in adulthood conforming or rebelling to their conditioning, are still ultimately conditioned the same...Trouble is where trouble goes, and trouble goes where trouble is.

But that is neither here nor there, because it's only an issue of civil rights. Everybody has the right to be treated fairly and equally with all the same opportunities. Evelyn Hooker, a REAL psychologist, through different studies, already demonstrated that most self-identified homosexuals are no worse in social adjustment than the general population.

But anyway, when it comes to children, they need to be protected from sick adults. Kinsey's based his studies of child sexuality on pedophile's experiences with them, rather than intervewing a child who went through the natural process of exploring with another of similar age. This reeks of bullshit, bias, and it's just plain fucked up. This is the only segment of Kinsey's "research" and publications where there it's a moral issue, and not just ethical.

I understand that when faced with unhappy facts, many people will cling to the "research" or sentiment that allows them to think they are bigger, better, prettier, stronger, smarter, the norm, etc. Unfortunately, it seems to be human nature to prefer a lie that says a person is right or the standard norm, even when real research and facts will say differently.

Furthermore, when a lie is repeated as "fact" so much by a lot of people, it becomes blindly accepted as "fact," unless it is challenged. Unfortunately, whenever these "facts" are challenged, the activists tend to get defensive and scream "phobia" or "agenda." And then try to imply that the challenger is either being too uptight, is lacking morals, is bias, religious, extreme, or even sometimes mentally ill. (A system of propaganda first developed by the Nazis, and carried forward by political and social activists). Both the left and the right are guilty of this. And the minorities on the left using Kinsey's research as a tool to gain approval is a perfect example of the left being guilty this time.

Drawing the conclusion that homosexual orientation and behavior is wrong or not normal based on a study that only consisted of heterosexuals is bias and therefore not legit. Well, the same goes for the opposite, which is what Kinsey did. And the morality issue with Kinsey is primartly about the "research" and bias methods he used to figure out child sexuality. That was just downright fucked up and criminal.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 02-01-2010 at 06:47 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2010   #8
Jenn and tonic
"maaaaagic!"
 
Jenn and tonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Age: 33
Posts: 5,965
Rep Power: 119
Jenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to Jenn and tonic
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
I wouldn't group homosexuals in the same group as peophiles and rapists, but the fact that homosexuals consist of a very small part of the population just proves my point even more. Interviewing a small segment of the population geared towards a specific orientation and then passing that off as the standard norm for all human sexual behavior is completely ridiculous. It's plain as day if you do enough invesigation that Kinsey's studies and methods were bias. He either did this on purpose because he was a deviat himself and this was his way of manipulating the system to try and get his sexual behavior more legally emancipated and/or accepted, OR his research and methods were bias in the way I explained it, because most straight people who were in commited relationships, probably wouldn't give him an interview.
In my opinion, most studies like his are biased; people take samplings of a population (which is oftend a questionable and biased process) and generate "facts" from there. People like to say that samples represent the whole, but I've never thought this was the case.

I could go on and on about that, but that's for another thread, I suppose.

Quote:
Also, giving a biologist who's experience was primarily the study of incests and zoology the free reign to do "research" on human sexual behavior = assinine. Just goes to show how incredibly niave people in the 40s and 50s were, and we must still be to a great extent for our society to be accepting any of Kinsey's "research" as the foundation of human sexual behavior.
Honestly I had no idea that anyone accepted Kinsey's research as norm.


Quote:
Many people rhetorically tend to ask why any person would chose a life that includes the path of more resistance, or a life that is harder or more difficult? To be perfectly honest, this shouldn't be a rhetorical question, because it is a mute argument or point, and there is an answer to that question...

People that come from a life that mostly lacked positive emotional support, compassion, and nurture are conditioned to continue to be drawn to a life that includes drama, despair, and emptiness, because that is what they are mostly, and even sometimes ONLY familiar with. Especially when exposed to an upbringing that is oppressive and involves hard-line religious views. This kind of conditioning causes most to either complete conform to this empty or superficial lifestyle, or rebel towards the opposite extreme, but still conditioned to conform to that lifestyle in a hard-line extreme way. So it is social and psychological conditioning that causes us to be drawn to or subconsciously chose a life filled with more drama, difficulties, hardships, and negativity than what the average person needs to endure, rather than a life that is more fulfilling, nurturing, and complete. This isn't to say that people who cause hardships towards others and/or try to control others are in the right for any reason. For what they do comes from similar reasons.

It's a choice we make that is based on sociological and psychological conditioning that again is pathological. The oppressed, whether they end up in adulthood conforming or rebelling to their conditioning, are still ultimately conditioned the same...Trouble is where trouble goes, and trouble goes where trouble is.

So nobody is born straight or gay, they choose it. We are born a blank document when it comes to sexual orientation and/or behavior. For example, I choose to be straight. This has nothing to do with biology or being born that way, but it has much to do with (prelearned and learned) psychological and/or sociologial influences. But that is neither here nor there, because it's only an issue of civil rights. Everybody has the right to be treated fairly and equally with all the same opportunities. Evelyn Hooker, a REAL psychologist, through different studies, already demonstrated that most self-identified homosexuals are no worse in social adjustment than the general population.
Nature vs. Nurture is an argument that's been going on for a long, long time. I tend to believe most people are born with their sexual orientation. It's my belief, though. In any case, what does Nature vs. Nurture have to do with your arguments about Kinsey's study?

Quote:
But when it comes to children, they need to be protected from sick adults. Kinsey's based his studies of child sexuality on pedophile's experiences with them, rather than intervewing a child who went through the natural process of exploring with another of similar age. This reeks of bullshit, bias, and it's just plain fucked up.
Well, yeah it is...but again, I don't know that his studies were the basis of "norms" about sexuality today. In fact, I'd never even heard of Albert Kinsey until that movie with Liam Neeson came out, and I like to consider myself a pretty educated person.

Quote:
I understand that when faced with unhappy facts, many people will cling to the "research" or sentiment that allows them to think they are bigger, better, prettier, stronger, smarter, the norm, etc. Unfortunately, it seems to be human nature to prefer a lie that says a person is right or the standard norm, even when real research and facts will say differently.
Well sure. It's human nature to want to believe yourself normal, so you find ways to justify your behavior or belief system.


Quote:
Furthermore, when a lie is repeated as "fact" so much by a lot of people, it becomes blindly accepted as "fact," unless it is challenged. Unfortunately, whenever these "facts" are challenged, the activists tend to get defensive and scream "phobia" or "agenda." And then try to imply that the challenger is either being too uptight, is lacking morals, is bias, religious, extreme, or even sometimes mentally ill. (A system of propaganda first developed by the Nazis, and carried forward by political and social activists). Both the left and the right are guilty of this. And the Kinsey research is a perfect example of the left being guilty of this.
It's mob mentality and human nature. I disagree that it was a system developed by the Nazis; however, I wholeheartedly agree that the art of prejudice such as this was perfected by them. People have been willfully ignorant and prejudiced since the beginning of humanity.
__________________
When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. – Thomas Jefferson
Jenn and tonic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2010   #9
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Jenn and tonic View Post

Honestly, I had no idea that anyone accepted Kinsey's research as norm.


Nature vs. Nurture is an argument that's been going on for a long, long time. I tend to believe most people are born with their sexual orientation. It's my belief, though. In any case, what does Nature vs. Nurture have to do with your arguments about Kinsey's study?

It's mob mentality and human nature. I disagree that it was a system developed by the Nazis; however, I wholeheartedly agree that the art of prejudice such as this was perfected by them. People have been willfully ignorant and prejudiced since the beginning of humanity.
First responding to your comment about research not being valid because the samples are almost always too small to determine the whole population... True, but also take into consideration that the population of gays and lesbian is significantly smaller than that of hetereosexual population, therefore even small samples used hold more signicant credibility when compared to a group of people who represent only a very small part of the overall pospulation.

Yeah, his "research" is becoming more widely accepted as fact. Kinsey developed the Kinsey Scale of sexuality. Kinsey created his famous 7-point Kinsey scale of sexuality, with heterosexuality at 0 and homosexuality at 6 (bisexuality being a score at 3.5). He drew a line from 0 upward and rightward to make a perfect diagonal, as if human sexuality could be precisely and geometrically charted. This entirely fabricated "scientific" scale has unfortunately been used in sex education books, court cases, and legislative hearings as a basis to represent sexual behavior. Kinsey concocted the scale even before he had done any substantial interviewing of data subjects, according to Kinsey's co-author, Wardell Pomeroy.

I did state that I was going off on a tangent, but it is indirectly relevant. What it has to do with Kinsey is that is Kinsey's "research" is that it's being used as the foundation of human sexuality, but it's bias and fraud. So therefore shouldn't be used to disapprove nature vs nuture. The nature vs nuture is not an argument.
In comparison to studies based on biology, the nature vs nuture studies are much more prevelant and congruent.

There currently is no definitive proof that anyone is born homosexual. Several studies by researchers claimed to find some possible biological bases for homosexuality. These studies include,

Flawed study #1: The twins study
Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and psychiatrist Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine tried to show that homosexuality occurred much more frequently among male identical twins than in fraternal twins.5 They did not prove this. For this study to be valid, the identical twins would have needed to be homosexual in every case, but they were not; only about half of the identical twins examined were both homosexuals. This 1991 study also had a major flaw: All of the twins grew up together which means the researchers failed to consider the role environmental factors could play in homosexual development.
Had these researchers compared their findings with a control group of twins raised apart they may have elicited vastly different results. They would certainly have discovered that homosexual identity was shaped by other factors, such as family dynamics and relationships with parents and peers.

Flawed study #2: The Bailey Sister study
In a 1993 study of 85 lesbians and 79 heterosexual women, Dr. Bailey again set out to prove a biological cause of homosexuality by studying the correlation between lesbians and their sisters. In essence, he tried to demonstrate that female homosexuals were twice as likely to have siblings who struggled with same-sex attraction—thus, verifying the existence of a “gay gene.” Dr. Bailey reported that anywhere between 12 and 35 percent of the 79 heterosexual women had sisters who were lesbians, while only 2.4 to 13.8 percent of the 84 homosexual women had sisters who were heterosexual.6 However, there is a large discrepancy between each of the percentages, which from a scientific perspective casts significant doubt on the accuracy and conclusiveness of this study. In other words, it is hard to determine exactly what percentage of the women had lesbian sisters. Additionally, environmental factors were not even investigated, and therefore cannot be ruled out. We know that environmental factors do contributing to the lesbian condition.

Another flaw in Bailey’s research is found in his own words. He says, “What we found was that lesbians were twice as likely to have a gay sister as a gay brother, which is particularly interesting given that the rate of female homosexuality in the general population is probably half that of males (2.3 percent).7 If anything, we would have expected them to have more gay brothers. That suggests to me that there may be separate facts that cause male and female homosexuality.”

Since the number of homosexual men is significantly higher (about double) than the number of lesbians, would you not expect that if there were a gay gene in the family there would be twice as many homosexual brothers as sisters? Instead, the figures are reversed, which would point toward environmental factors such as relational issues, for example with one’s parents or one’s peers. Causes of male and female homosexuality are similar; however, there are slight differences, and, therefore, probably led to the substantial difference in the percentages between homosexual sisters and brothers.

Flawed study #3: The inner ear study
In a 1997 study by two professors at the University of Texas at Austin, differences were discovered between the cochleae of lesbians and those of heterosexual women.9 The cochlea is the bony portion of the inner ear responsible for hearing. In women, it is typically more sensitive than in men, but in this study, the sensitivity of the cochlea in lesbians was “in between” that of men and heterosexual women. This led the scientists to conclude that biological factors cause female homosexuality.

This research is shady in that its conclusions were based solely upon the difference in sensitivity in the cochlea of women—not men. In addition, the analysis is weak because the study has never been replicated.
To merit serious consideration by the medical community, findings should be duplicated several times, and produce the same results. Even so, for unknown reasons, further studies have never been undertaken, perhaps because it is suspected they will not confirm initial findings. Additionally, there is no variation found in the cochlea of heterosexual males compared with homosexual males.

Would it not be safe to expect that for the same reason the cochlea is weaker in lesbians, it is either stronger or weaker in homosexual men? Therefore, we can safely rule out the role the inner ear plays in sexual orientation.

Flawed study #4: The finger-length study
More recently, an article in Science, Williams et al, 10 reported on a study which seems to show a biological basis for lesbianism. These researchers measured finger lengths in heterosexuals, homosexuals and lesbians, and found that certain finger-length ratios in lesbians are significantly less than in female heterosexuals.
This suggested a biological basis to lesbianism, with the further implication that sexual-reorientation therapy for lesbians would be difficult or impossible. Although the correlation was only slight, and although the researchers could not explain why some heterosexual women also had the same finger pattern, the study was quickly hailed as further evidence that homosexually-oriented people are "born that way." Neil Whitehead, Ph.D., author of the recent book, My Genes Made Me Do It! responded to the evidence and points out that this claim is significantly misleading.

Dr. Whitehead explains that Williams and the other researchers reported that the mean finger-length ratio for lesbians was significantly less than that for heterosexual women, and did this by comparing the two ratios by a statistical test. They used a large number of interviewees. Dr. Whitehead points out that in such circumstances, although the mean finger lengths may be statistically different, they are often so close that it is not practically useful to say they are different. That is what has happened in this case, he says. “The original normal distributions can be reconstructed from the researchers' data, and the results show that there is obviously a very large overlap in the two populations, and although the two means may be statistically different, the difference is only 1 percent-- which is a small effect, and not diagnostically useful in any sense.”

He further points out that the study shows that there are large numbers of heterosexual women who have much more "masculine" finger-length ratios than most lesbians, but this is not considered by the researchers to be related to their sexual orientation. This study is similar to many other misleading reported links between homosexuality and some biologically based phenomena. Although statistical connections may be shown, only a small percentage of subjects with that biological feature actually end up homosexual.

An identity struggle: The lesbian struggle is not a sexual orientation problem; it is an identity crisis.
Research shows that relationship, a deep connection with others and self-identity are all inseparable for women. Consequently, when the process of learning who they are is derailed by broken or unhealthy relationships with either their parents, their peers, or both, an identity crisis develops. Typically, rejection, abandonment and separation from Mom, and unavailable, passive, negative, or abusive treatment by Dad, combined with other factors, communicate that being a woman is unacceptable, unsafe, and ugly. These women often subconsciously despise being female at some level or another. Lesbians are searching for a basic sense of self, as well as for an identity, and their concept of femininity has been distorted.

The above studies are just four examples of popular research that attempts to link homosexuality to genetics. As we have discovered, they are all unreliable. We will further explore other widely accepted theories which conclusions have been insinuated rather than proven. It is these falsehoods, however, that receive the most publicity.

Again, other scientists easily pointed out the flaws in those studies, and the results of those studies have yet to be replicated by others. In the words of pro-homosexual Newsweek magazine: "In the early '90s, three highly publicized studies seemed to suggest that homosexuality's roots were genetic....More than five years later the data have never been replicated." (This fact has been almost totally ignored by the biased liberal media.)
And in the May/June 2008 issue of Psychology Today we have this: "No one has yet identified a particular gay gene....There is no all-inclusive explanation for the variation in sexual orientation, at least none supported by actual evidence....There are many different mechanisms [involving both nature and nurture], for producing homosexuality.

Source: Robert Kunzig, "Finding the Switch," Psychology Today, May/June 2008, pp. 90 and 93.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 02-01-2010 at 08:38 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010   #10
hai Jay
Time for breakfast!!!
 
hai Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 9,098
Rep Power: 104
hai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

ok...just addressing the fact that you think sexuality is a choice......


http://www.hulu.com/watch/108325/tab...ace#s-p2-sr-i1

this was interesting...just a clip from taboo.

this culture acknowledges 5 FIVE different genders.
__________________
Dare to dream.
hai Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010   #11
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

That video proves my point that it's choice. Their culture defines gender and sexuality, which means prelearned before through society and their environment = choice, whether it be subconscious or conscious.
I commend a society for their display of such acceptance, because homosexuality is not a mental illness.
But their acceptance of 5 genders is a choice they make through their cultural beliefs and influences.
Whether it's choice or not, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't respect and accept the GLT community.
They should be respected and treated fairly no matter what.

However, if sexual orientation is being confused with gender identity crisis based on family upbringing and/or peer relationships that were unhealthy, then being gay, lesbian, or trans is not a sexual orientation issue, but gender identity crisis. That is not to say that they cannot function and prosper in society, but in those situations, being GLT is a coping mechanism rather than them being true to their identity and sexuality.

So with this video, your point is that when a society takes away the social stigma against being GLT, it shows that they can live and function happy and healthy lives, and therefore disproves the "gay by choice" argument? Because with complete acceptance of society, than GLTs can live happy and properous lives, which in turn gives more credibility to the "they were born that way" argument? Whther a society's culture includes social stigma or not, it has nothing to do the "choice vs genetic" debate.

Multiple studies have identified high rates of psychiatric illness, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among self-professed gays and lesbians. Being gay or lesbian isn't a mental illness, but most of them suffer from it. Some proponents of GLB rights have used these findings to conclude that mental illness is induced by other people's unwillingness to accept same-sex attraction and behavior as normal.
They point to homophobia, effectively defined as any opposition to or critique of gay sex, as the cause for the higher rates of psychiatric illness, especially among gay youth. Although homophobia must be considered as a potential cause for the increase in mental health problems and stress, medical literature suggests other conclusions.

An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands.

So the high rate of psychiatric disease that is associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.

The Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex. Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males and females who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia, and obsessive compulsive disorder.

Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia, or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study.

The researchers found "that homosexuality is not only associated with mental health problems during adolescence and early adulthood, as has been suggested, but also in later life."

The Dutch researchers concluded, "this study offers evidence that homosexuality is associated with a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders, and not from the effects of social phobia. The outcomes are in line with findings from earlier studies in which less rigorous designs have been employed."

Evelyn Hooker (September 2, 1907–November 18, 1996) was a North American psychologist in 1954 conducted 3 different experiments on homosexuals. She gathered two groups of men: one group would be exclusively homosexual, the other exclusivelyheterosexual. She had to use her home to conduct the interview to protect people's anonymity. Hooker used three different psychological tests for her study: the TAT, the Make-a-Picture-Story test (MAPS test), and the Rorschach inkblot test.

After a year of work, Hooker presented a team of 3 expert evaluators with 60 unmarked psychological profiles. She decided to leave the interpretation of her results to other people, so as to avoid her own prejudice.

The results demonstrated even back in 1954 when people were much less accepting as they are now, that homosexuals are no worse in social adjustment than the general population. This is just one more thing that proves that the gay and lesbian occurrences of mental illness or stress being linked to social stigma has been and still is grossly over exaggerated. It has nothing to do with it.

Sources:

-For example, Judith Bradford, Caitlin Ryan, and Esther D. Rothblum, "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2): 228-242 (1994);

-Richard C. Pillard, -"Sexual orientation and mental disorder," Psychiatric Annals, 18(1): 52-56 (1988);

-see also Mubarak S. Dahir, "The Gay Community's New Epidemic," Daily News (June 5, 2000), www.gaywired.com/story detail.cfm?Section=12&ID=148&ShowDate=1.

-Katherine A. O'Hanlan, M.D., et al., "Homophobia As a Health Hazard," Report of the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association, pp. 3, 5, -www.ohanlan.com/phobiahzd.htm;

-Laura Dean, et al., "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health: Findings & Concerns," Journal of the Gay & Lesbian -Medical Association, 4(3): 102-151, pp. 102, 116 (2000).

-"Netherlands Ends Discrimination in Civil Marriage: Gays to Wed," Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Press Release, March 30, 2001, -http://lambdalegal.org/cgibin/ pages/documents/record?record=814.

-Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001).
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 02-04-2010 at 10:41 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010   #12
hai Jay
Time for breakfast!!!
 
hai Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 9,098
Rep Power: 104
hai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
That video proves my point that it's choice. Their culture defines gender and sexuality, which means prelearned before through society and their environment = choice, whether it be subconscious or conscious. I commend a society for their display of such acceptance, because homosexuality is not a mental illness. But their acceptance of 5 genders is a choice they make through their cultural beliefs and influences. Whether it's choice or not, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't respect and accept the GLT community. They should be respected and treated fairly no matter what.

However, if sexual orientation is being confused with gender identity crisis based on family upbringing and/or peer relationships that were unhealthy, then being gay, lesbian, or trans is not a sexual orientation issue, but gender identity crisis. That is not to say that they cannot function and prosper in society, but in those situations, being GLT is a coping mechanism rather than them being true to their identity and sexuality.

So with this video, your point is that when a society takes away the social stigma against being GLT, it shows that they can live and function happy and healthy lives, and therefore disproves the "gay by choice" argument? Because with complete acceptance of society, than GLTs can live happy and properous lives, which in turn gives more credibility to the "they were born that way" argument? Whther a society's culture includes social stigma or not, it has nothing to do the "choice vs genetic" debate.
ok, a lot of what you're saying doesn't even make any sense to me.

my bottom line when posting the video is this:

If this variation of genders and sexual orientation is acknowledged cross-culturally as natural, it seems fair to say the variance occurs naturally and not by choice.

Quote:
Multiple studies have identified high rates of psychiatric illness, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among self-professed gays and lesbians.74 Being gay or lesbian isn't a mental illness, but most of them suffer from it. Some proponents of GLB rights have used these findings to conclude that mental illness is induced by other people's unwillingness to accept same-sex attraction and behavior as normal. They point to homophobia, effectively defined as any opposition to or critique of gay sex, as the cause for the higher rates of psychiatric illness, especially among gay youth.75 Although homophobia must be considered as a potential cause for the increase in mental health problems and stress, medical literature suggests other conclusions.

An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands.76

So the high rate of psychiatric disease that is associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.

The Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex.77 Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males and females who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia, and obsessive compulsive disorder.

Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia, or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study.78

The researchers found "that homosexuality is not only associated with mental health problems during adolescence and early adulthood, as has been suggested, but also in later life."79

The Dutch researchers concluded, "this study offers evidence that homosexuality is associated with a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders, and not from the effects of social phobia. The outcomes are in line with findings from earlier studies in which less rigorous designs have been employed."81

Evelyn Hooker (September 2, 1907–November 18, 1996) was a North American psychologist in 1954 conducted 3 different experiments on homosexuals. She gathered two groups of men: one group would be exclusively homosexual, the other exclusivelyheterosexual. She had to use her home to conduct the interview to protect people's anonymity.
Hooker used three different psychological tests for her study: the TAT, the Make-a-Picture-Story test (MAPS test), and the Rorschach inkblot test.

After a year of work, Hooker presented a team of 3 expert evaluators with 60 unmarked psychological profiles. She decided to leave the interpretation of her results to other people, so as to avoid her own prejudice. The results demonstrated even back in 1954 when people were much less accepting as they are now, that homosexuals are no worse in social adjustment than the general population. This is just one more thing that proves that the gay and lesbian occurrences of mental illness or stress being linked to social stigma has been and still is grossly over exaggerated. It has nothing to do with it.
also, just curious...but why'd you decide to throw in a debate about homosexuality as MI vs. homosexuality as natural?
That Hooker lady's experiment helped get homosexuality removed from the DSM as a mental illness, but what relevance does it have otherwise?
__________________
Dare to dream.
hai Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2010   #13
cstoll
?!
 
cstoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,154
Rep Power: 76
cstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
There currently is no definitive proof that anyone is born homosexual. Several studies by researchers claimed to find some possible biological bases for homosexuality. These studies include
...

In the words of pro-homosexual Newsweek magazine: "In the early '90s, three highly publicized studies seemed to suggest that homosexuality's roots were genetic....More than five years later the data have never been replicated." (This fact has been almost totally ignored by the biased liberal media.)
I Googled random phrases from a couple of your posts, wondering where you were getting your information from.

Most of the hits seemed to be anti-homosexual and fundamentalist Christian websites: "Heterosexuals for a Moral Environment" and "Focus on the Family" and similar organizations. The kinds of places that would label a mainstream news magazine as "pro-homosexual."

You might find some of the information in those sites to be useful for the point you're making, but it makes me wonder how much you searched. After all, those websites have agendas that probably blind them to a wider range of research and explanations.

For instance, you quote a website that quotes Newsweek and Psychology Today as evidence that "homosexuality is a choice." (At least, I think that's what you are claiming. It's hard to tell...).

But the Psychology Today article (if you read it) is actually more complicated than that. The website you copied from did some selective quoting from the article.

Quote:
Originally Said by Psychology Today
Whatever brain structures are responsible for sexual orientation must emerge from a complex chain of molecular events, one that can be disrupted at many links. Gay genes could be genes for hormones, enzymes that modify hormones, or receptors on the surface of brain cells that bind to those hormones. A mutation in any one of those genes might make a person gay.

Homosexuality seems to arise as a result of various perturbations in the flow from genes to hormones to brains to behavior—as the common end point of multiple biological paths, all of which seem to survive as side effects of various traits that help heterosexuals pass along their genes.
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of "sexuality is a choice."

More on genetic links to homosexuality:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...y-genetics-usa

Quote:
Long discredited are theories that parenting - one mid-20th century theory held that boys raised by a domineering mother with a distant father were more likely to be gay - has anything to do with sexual orientation.

Evidence of that, said Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Illinois, comes from studies of genetically male infants born with malformed or ambiguous genitals. In many such cases, surgeons would construct a vagina, and instruct parents to raise the child as a girl, with no knowledge of his medical history.

As adults, those prenatally male/postnatally female people were virtually all attracted to women, Bailey said.

"If you can't make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, castrating him and rearing him as a girl, then how likely is any social explanation of male homosexuality?" he said.
By the way, I think sexuality is a combination of genes-culture-choice, especially since "sexuality" is defined by a culture and a person's "choices" are heavily influenced by that. And genes and hormones are also influential.

I think you're right that there aren't any studies that prove sexuality as being solely decided by genes. But there also seems to be a lot of science out there that complicates the idea of it just being a choice.

If you look beyond some of those questionable sites, you'll come across more of that.
__________________

"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel."
--Blackadder
cstoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2010   #14
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

^
The sources I used were medical and psychology based sources. I made a point of avoiding the Christian agenda as much as possible, because they don't sit well with me. That being said, minority political and social activists are just as guilty as false methods and agenda as much as the right. Bottomline is, whether Christian journal used those sources too, or vice versa...I have no idea. And it doesn't matter where it comes from, as long as facts are presented from non-bias research, it's is neither liberal or conservative...it's just facts.
Non-bias research = facts, not theories. I'm far from Christian, and far from being a conservative.
I'm a Buddhist and Pantheist, and more often than not I lean to the left on most issues.
I think the only time I become conservative is when it comes to issues of personal responsibility.

You stated that it's a combination of genes and culture. Well to your point, how come most of research to show genetic based homosexuality has been based on scientific studies that were primarily biological studies and data and not on social or psychological influences? Whereas most psychological research and studies that shows it's nature versus nurture has always included and factored in all 3 when the reasearch and studies were conducted. Also, please point out out a study that proved genetics where the results have been duplicated with another set of samples? You will find none

Anyway, this was about Kinsey and his "research." Because much of his study samples consisted of homosexuals, that's why this went off on a tangent. I kept trying to reiterate that when homosexuality is a result of abuse and/or neglect, that falls more in the line of choice, because they are acting out that way as a coping mechanism. Therefore in those cases, those persons aren't authentically gay or lesbian, and aren't really be true to themselves and who they really are. In those situations, it just so happens to not be about sexual orientation, but a struggle for gender identity. When you also look beyond some of those questionable sites, you'll come across a lot of non-bias research that shows evidence that most gays and lesbians have experienced some level of abuse and/or neglect that was tramatic for them. So it makes me believe that the majority of them are gay or lesbian through coping mechanism, which comes from subconscious choice preconditoned through nature vs nuture.

Lets us an example of a guy who identifies himself as gay. Here's his story...

He has only dated 1 or 2 nice girls all his life, and he never gave them much of a chance...the relationships lasted only about a few months or so, if that. All other girls have either used him or abused him in some way or another, including one night stands. His mom was/is very passive, and his dad has been completely controlling, and emotionally abusive and neglectful for most of his life, especially throughout his teen years. You can't tell me that him identifying himself as gay and his so called "more complete attraction" to guys and not with girls is genetic, and has nothing to do with those things?

These points I'm making isn't saying it's wrong, immoral, or bad. I'm saying it's not authentic to who they really are, that's all. Most people I feel are straight, but embraced the gay or lesbian as a coping mechanism to avoid getting hurt by certain people or to seek out or emotional needs they never received. They subconsciously relate it to gender, and therefore are going through their own gender identity crisis and struggle that can last unfortunately a lifetime. Nobody was born straight or gay or bisexual or asexual. We are sexual beings, but when it comes to what we are attracted to and how we act and feel sexually, we are born a "blank document."

Gay by choice means unauthentic, because 8/10 it comes from abuse or neglect, and the other 20%
of the time it comes from media pushing it as "cool" or in vogue or used to gain attention from guys, or are the ones who haven't admitted to abuse or neglect, which is very common. Unless, you are born a true hermaphrodite, you are not exempt from these possibilities. That all being said, gay by choice doesn't mean wrong, because they can live their lives without harming others, and what they do is their business.
But for themselves, they are not being true to themselves, and may be very well be robbing themselves at the chance of an even a more complete, happy, and fulfilling life. And it has nothing to do with social stigma, because Evelyn Hooker and the Dutch study I pointed out proves that social stigma being a stressor or cause for psychological illness is grossly exaggerated when it comes to the homosexual community.

Lets consider this in terms of biology, psychology, socially, and physiology...when you have two pieces of a puzzle that are the same, they might not be harmful when put side by side, but they will never be able to interlock with each other on the level that helps get closer to solving the puzzle. In other words, I believe that a gay couple and a lesbian couple who are the right fit for each other can live happy lives. But I don't believe they could ever have the chance to live a life that as as happy, complete, and fulfilling as a man and a woman couple who are the right fit for each other. Life and relationships are puzzles, and a woman with another woman or a man with another man are two pieces of the puzzle that are the same biologically, socially, psychologically, and physiologically in many ways so much more than a man and a woman. It's about overall polarity.

Again, none of this means that it gives us the right to treat gays and lesbians differently, unfairly, or deprived them of any of their rights and opportunities. Straight people should never act as if they are above gays either. And the correct emotion is never hate. Instead we should be empathetic, understanding, and supportive to them, their situation, and their process. Connecting the dots to our true sense of ourselves and our freewill is not always an easy task.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 02-08-2010 at 06:54 AM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2010   #15
Zanahoria_Picante
Orange you glad she's not a banana?
 
Zanahoria_Picante's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,952
Rep Power: 140
Zanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

^ I kind of agree. >:|

Aside from my poorly upheld Christian beliefs as a key disparity 'tween our perspectives, it seems we agree that homosexuality is behavioral--a choice that is chosen by a chooser--ultimately and, I believe, solely (as the rest of this post will i-lluminate--like a mostly-burned cinnamon candle).

Quote:
Originally Said by cstoll View Post
I Googled random phrases from a couple of your posts, wondering where you were getting your information from.

Most of the hits seemed to be anti-homosexual and fundamentalist Christian websites: "Heterosexuals for a Moral Environment" and "Focus on the Family" and similar organizations. The kinds of places that would label a mainstream news magazine as "pro-homosexual."

You might find some of the information in those sites to be useful for the point you're making, but it makes me wonder how much you searched. After all, those websites have agendas that probably blind them to a wider range of research and explanations.

For instance, you quote a website that quotes Newsweek and Psychology Today as evidence that "homosexuality is a choice." (At least, I think that's what you are claiming. It's hard to tell...).

But the Psychology Today article (if you read it) is actually more complicated than that. The website you copied from did some selective quoting from the article.



That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of "sexuality is a choice."

More on genetic links to homosexuality:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...y-genetics-usa



By the way, I think sexuality is a combination of genes-culture-choice, especially since "sexuality" is defined by a culture and a person's "choices" are heavily influenced by that. And genes and hormones are also influential.

I think you're right that there aren't any studies that prove sexuality as being solely decided by genes. But there also seems to be a lot of science out there that complicates the idea of it just being a choice.

If you look beyond some of those questionable sites, you'll come across more of that.
Why would there exist a gene or exist genes that go against the furtherance of the human species? Unless I'm really missing something, those who engage in homosexual behavior cannot reproduce...?

Guess we're de-evolving! Better watch out!

Sorry. Sorry, sorry.

Seriously, though, that just does not make sense to me.

It also quite rocks my world that anyone would say genes dictate--oh, they dictate; little despotsomes--how we will (or even will tend to) behave.

Going to be really frank here, so watch out (for real this time):

I think many people are intent on proving that homosexuality is innate--genetic, in fact, part of a person's physical makeup, pretty much--and not solely behavioral to really just justify it--because, if it is something innate and, so, effectively involuntary, who could possibly question such a state? It would be akin to questioning or condemning someone who is Tibetan--just for being Tibetan.

Now, I am not advocating hatred or hate crimes or...mean-stuff-doing towards people who engage in such behavior. I am just arguing that it is behavioral. It has to be. Otherwise, are we born (or, er, conceived) into geneterminism*?

Apart from any of that awkward logic (yes, mine) and "fundamentalist Christian" rhetoric (with my hitherto unstated, but violently tacit, Christian presupposition that homosexuality is immoral), why would it matter even if there were a "gay gene"? What difference should that make at all? People would still quell whatever urges this gene would "command" (colloquially) them to follow, in many cases for various reasons--so, there would still be a choice. It is always choice. Otherwise, it is indeed geneterminism, and...that'd be unusual.

Also, how is sexuality defined by culture? I mean, how fluent exactly is sexuality's definition? It seems pretty straightforward to me (aside from my radical personal beliefs on the matter; the functional side of it seems pretty straightforward!).

And I still go back to the idea of sexuality having a quite clear purpose: Reproduction. Why would our own genetics go against something so...essential?

* Heh, I made that up. It's a portmanteau of "determinism" and "gene." Isn't it, like...yeah, okay.
__________________
Zanahoria_Picante

..| |
.| | |
_____
\ love /-|
-\__/--|

"When I first read the dictionary, I thought it was a long poem about everything."
Steven Wright




;

Last edited by Zanahoria_Picante; 02-08-2010 at 06:02 AM. Reason: my letters are disappearing...? <:/
Zanahoria_Picante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2010   #16
EmperorChaos
Ruin you like this website.
 
EmperorChaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Charleston, South Carolina, United States, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster
Age: 37
Posts: 11,726
Rep Power: 145
EmperorChaos has a reputation beyond reputeEmperorChaos has a reputation beyond reputeEmperorChaos has a reputation beyond reputeEmperorChaos has a reputation beyond reputeEmperorChaos has a reputation beyond reputeEmperorChaos has a reputation beyond reputeEmperorChaos has a reputation beyond reputeEmperorChaos has a reputation beyond reputeEmperorChaos has a reputation beyond reputeEmperorChaos has a reputation beyond reputeEmperorChaos has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to EmperorChaos Send a message via AIM to EmperorChaos Send a message via MSN to EmperorChaos Send a message via Yahoo to EmperorChaos
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

THIS IS ALL TL;DR.
__________________
The first thing that came into being, void and without form, a lifeless lump, unfashioned and unframed, the Prima Materia from which all comes, influenced by forms and given structure by matter it becomes all that is, with increase in entropy it is into which all shall fall, endlessly and in all directions, a self-reflexive paradox.
-=-=-=-
"Self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is." -Isaac Asimov
EmperorChaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2010   #17
Zanahoria_Picante
Orange you glad she's not a banana?
 
Zanahoria_Picante's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,952
Rep Power: 140
Zanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by EmperorChaos View Post
THIS IS ALL TL;DR.
Your mom's face is TL;DR.
__________________
Zanahoria_Picante

..| |
.| | |
_____
\ love /-|
-\__/--|

"When I first read the dictionary, I thought it was a long poem about everything."
Steven Wright




;
Zanahoria_Picante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2010   #18
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Zanahoria_Picante View Post
^ I kind of agree. >:|

Aside from my poorly upheld Christian beliefs as a key disparity 'tween our perspectives, it seems we agree that homosexuality is behavioral--a choice that is chosen by a chooser--ultimately and, I believe, solely (as the rest of this post will i-lluminate--like a mostly-burned cinnamon candle).

Why would there exist a gene or exist genes that go against the furtherance of the human species? Unless I'm really missing something, those who engage in homosexual behavior cannot reproduce...?

Guess we're de-evolving! Better watch out!

Sorry. Sorry, sorry.

Seriously, though, that just does not make sense to me.

It also quite rocks my world that anyone would say genes dictate--oh, they dictate; little despotsomes--how we will (or even will tend to) behave.

Going to be really frank here, so watch out (for real this time):

I think many people are intent on proving that homosexuality is innate--genetic, in fact, part of a person's physical makeup, pretty much--and not solely behavioral to really just justify it--because, if it is something innate and, so, effectively involuntary, who could possibly question such a state? It would be akin to questioning or condemning someone who is Tibetan--just for being Tibetan.

Now, I am not advocating hatred or hate crimes or...mean-stuff-doing towards people who engage in such behavior. I am just arguing that it is behavioral. It has to be. Otherwise, are we born (or, er, conceived) into geneterminism*?

Apart from any of that awkward logic (yes, mine) and "fundamentalist Christian" rhetoric (with my hitherto unstated, but violently tacit, Christian presupposition that homosexuality is immoral), why would it matter even if there were a "gay gene"? What difference should that make at all? People would still quell whatever urges this gene would "command" (colloquially) them to follow, in many cases for various reasons--so, there would still be a choice. It is always choice. Otherwise, it is indeed geneterminism, and...that'd be unusual.

Also, how is sexuality defined by culture? I mean, how fluent exactly is sexuality's definition? It seems pretty straightforward to me (aside from my radical personal beliefs on the matter; the functional side of it seems pretty straightforward!).

And I still go back to the idea of sexuality having a quite clear purpose: Reproduction. Why would our own genetics go against something so...essential?

* Heh, I made that up. It's a portmanteau of "determinism" and "gene." Isn't it, like...yeah, okay.
Procreation is a factor, but it isn't a determining factor. Whether it's for procreation, pleasure, to relieve stress, etc, one of our core survival instincts is to have sex. But who and what we feel we want to have sex with is social, not instinctive. Therefore, no matter straight or gay, they both come down to choice. How we feel, act, and react to and about people and things comes from learned behavior from sociological and psychological influences, and is ultimately either consciously or subconsciously chosen. When we are born, people don't know that they are able to procreate and how it benefits them as well as their legacy...it's something they learn as they grow...the survival instinct to procreate is learned and formed, and therefore is choice too.
Sex is definitely more than just about procreation. But that only proves even more so that what we feel, who we are attracted to, and who we want to have sex with, is ultimately a choice we make.

You know what I also find interesting is how the gay and lesbian community seem to get so offended when they come across a gay person who wishes they were straight. The gay community blames this on social stigma and pressures, says they are fighting who they really are, and they completely and most time intentionally rule out the idea of coping mechanism. Why do people automatically assume that finding who you are is only locked into becoming or discovering that you are homosexual or lesbian? People can't just as well feel homosexual tendencies and possibly go through a time in their life that they may have experimented with homosexuality, only to find out later in the process that being straight is who they really are? People can have gay tendencies, but feel deep down they are straight, and come to terms with that decision and be happy and fulfilled.
If people only think that finding who you are is locked into going from straight to becoming gay or lesbian and not the other way around, well that is an ignorant and narcissitic view within itself.

One of my exgirlfriends had a lot of gay and lesbian friends, so at the time I was hanging out with a lot of them through her. I'm really good at observing things, and one thing I noticed is that it seemed very dysfunctional. And then later on I befriended a girl who's a lesbian who was part of a completely and entirely different group of homosexuals and lesbians, and she would tell me stories about her friends that displayed the same level and the same kind of dysfunctional behaviors. Things like showing a greater lack of individuality, and therefore embracing more of a follower/poser mentality and traits towards labels and specific looks..they seem to display more approval-seeking behavior. They objectify each other by narrowly classifying each other into labels that have only to do with physical characteristics such as "studs, butch, bulldykes, femmes, lipstick lesbian, chapstick lesbian, stone butch, soft butch, queer," etc. Many groups or communities of gays and lesbians from one to the next tend to all know each other a little too well to the point where it's almost incestuous.
In correlation to the higher rates of promiscuity results in a higher and more frequent occurrence of cheating on their partners. Last but not least, even though they complain about it, gays and lesbians tend to accept and thrive off of continuous drama and mind games with each other that occur more frequently as a "normal" part of a gay or lesbian relationship. Even my friend said, "it's all a part of being lesbian." This blind acceptance of having tons of drama in your life is a destructive personality trait within itself.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 02-08-2010 at 05:42 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2010   #19
foxyphoenix
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
 
foxyphoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nature
Age: 30
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 106
foxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Zanahoria_Picante View Post
^ I kind of agree. >:|

Why would there exist a gene or exist genes that go against the furtherance of the human species? Unless I'm really missing something, those who engage in homosexual behavior cannot reproduce...?
Kin selection. In societies like those of naked mole rats, meerkats, bees, and ants, a majority of the population cannot reproduce. Because they cannot, they focus their attention and energy on the pups/larvae of closely-related individuals. Those pups/larvae have a greater survival chance with each non-parent caretaker.
In social animals, protecting and passing on your genes is more than just having the most babies.
I'm not saying that social castes in humans render themselves sterile for the benefit of the colony, I'm just saying that there IS a benefit to non-reproducing individuals for the furtherance of the species.

For distant kin selection (anyone of the same species, not matter direct relation), this idea is most obvious in homosexual couples that adopt children (seen in humans but also has been documented in penguin species) who would otherwise not survive without their parents. It's pretty obvious that this would benefit the species as more offspring survive to reproductive age.

-=-=-=-

I will also say that genetic determinism and behaviorism are not mutually exclusive: there can be genetic factors that allow for something to happen, or increase the chance that it happens, but do not ensure that it happens (such as the "breast cancer" gene: there is a documented increased risk, but having the gene does not mean that you will get breast cancer).

Gender behavior could easily be a combination of genetic factors and environmental factors.
__________________
o.O

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
-
Carl Sagan

"It is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."
-
Charles Darwin

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected."
-
Chief Seattle

Almost Smart Store

foxyphoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010   #20
Zanahoria_Picante
Orange you glad she's not a banana?
 
Zanahoria_Picante's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,952
Rep Power: 140
Zanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Procreation is a factor, but it isn't a determining factor. Whether it's for procreation, pleasure, to relieve stress, etc, one of our core survival instincts is to have sex. But who and what we feel we want to have sex with is social, not instinctive.
>:|

No, no. No. Procreation--that's kind of the point!

We certainly *make* it into something...more recreational, but, the gametes, they're there for a reason! They're not just there for entertainment--they're not magical fun fairies of delight who aid us in our quest to happyland--they're there for baby-makin'. Period.

How's that grab ya?

Sex itself does have a very specific, practical purpose--we just take that and turn our bodies into amusement parks.

...

(Kiiiiidding.)

...

(Mostly.)

Quote:
Therefore, no matter straight or gay, they both come down to choice.
Well, I agree.

Quote:
How we feel, act, and react to and about people and things comes from learned behavior from sociological and psychological influences, and is ultimately either consciously or subconsciously chosen. When we are born, people don't know that they are able to procreate and how it benefits them as well as their legacy...it's something they learn as they grow...the survival instinct to procreate is learned and formed, and therefore is choice too.
Sex is definitely more than just about procreation. But that only proves even more so that what we feel, who we are attracted to, and who we want to have sex with, is ultimately a choice we make.
Well, I agree...again. I agree it always boils down to choice. I mean, otherwise, we don't really have free will. We do what we are. And that's uncanny ("uncomfortably strange"), to me.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Kin selection. In societies like those of naked mole rats, meerkats, bees, and ants, a majority of the population cannot reproduce. Because they cannot, they focus their attention and energy on the pups/larvae of closely-related individuals. Those pups/larvae have a greater survival chance with each non-parent caretaker.
In social animals, protecting and passing on your genes is more than just having the most babies.
I'm not saying that social castes in humans render themselves sterile for the benefit of the colony, I'm just saying that there IS a benefit to non-reproducing individuals for the furtherance of the species.

For distant kin selection (anyone of the same species, not matter direct relation), this idea is most obvious in homosexual couples that adopt children (seen in humans but also has been documented in penguin species) who would otherwise not survive without their parents. It's pretty obvious that this would benefit the species as more offspring survive to reproductive age.
Oh yeah? Kin selection?

Okay.

That is interesting to think about.

I do see how that idea could apply to homosexual individuals, humans that cannot (or simply do not) reproduce, with their caring for children who have no "natural" parents to care for them (sad, sad to even think about). That is definitely a benefit.

But homosexual humans can still physically reproduce; they just don't. That seems to be the main difference with that analogy; like you said, there *is* a benefit with the adoption aspect, but that is still part of that lifestyle they have chosen.

Quote:
-=-=-=-

I will also say that genetic determinism and behaviorism are not mutually exclusive: there can be genetic factors that allow for something to happen, or increase the chance that it happens, but do not ensure that it happens (such as the "breast cancer" gene: there is a documented increased risk, but having the gene does not mean that you will get breast cancer).

Gender behavior could easily be a combination of genetic factors and environmental factors.
I just can't. I just can't do the whole "genes allow for something to happen" or even increase the chances*. How much control do we have over our existences, with that in mind? Are we just cogs in the great inanimate machine of existence, following what our genes determine we can be or what we can do? I just don't want to believe that, even in part. I mean, if they do determine or increase the possibility of something happening, but we can still defy that--what difference do our genes really make in influencing action? We can still choose contrarily, anyway, so it seems to become rather superfluous knowing our genes' opinion on the matter. They may have a certain "plan" for how things are going to go (anthropomorphically speaking), but...it just seems strange to think of our own genetic composition having a discernible, even a minute, role in our actions, our "choices."

I mean, I see your point; I really do. And you present it very well. I just disagree. It almost seems animistic to say genes even have a small sway of control over what we will do.

* (With the "breast cancer" gene, that seems more material than something like homosexuality; I mean, how biological, tangible is behavior? (That parenthetical afterthought threw off the momentum of the previous stream-of-consciousness, so here it is, as a footnote; please forgive this pointless intra-parenthetical explanation.).)
__________________
Zanahoria_Picante

..| |
.| | |
_____
\ love /-|
-\__/--|

"When I first read the dictionary, I thought it was a long poem about everything."
Steven Wright




;

Last edited by Zanahoria_Picante; 02-09-2010 at 02:06 AM.
Zanahoria_Picante is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2006, Almost Smart