INTP Sexual Orientation

[Hawkeye]

A list of facts without any explanation as to their relevance is not a point made. It is a list of facts. Learn to argue your case.

Ah, so you speculate that homosexuality is caused by some external factor. And no you don't need to explain the importance of sexual attraction because I already gave a counterexamples as to why it is not necessary due to inclusive fitness. The failure to reproduce of an invidvidual does not necessitate the failure of that individual to help his genes survive into the next generation.

What you are claiming is a theory, as is what I am claiming. But what you said to begin with was no theory but a statement. But you don't know that homosexuality is bad from an evolutionary perspective. You've assumed it regardless of whether you are right or not.

Furthermore, the fact that it exists in animals, exists all over the world in all cultures, and has done so long before humanity had much on impact on the environment doesn't really support your case. And if the cause was not genetic, but enviromental there is still the question of why there hasn't evolved a defence against if it negatively impacts the spreading of genes.

Finally you have still yet to adress any of the points I made.

Boop - http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167

I won't address them because you are asking my to explain why sexual attraction is important to reproduction... It's not rocket science.

Beer goggles anyone?

[edit]

By the way, the scientific method (I'm looking at you THD ) has shown that the likelihood of risky sex (aka reproductive sex) increases as the facial attractiveness of a sexual partner increases.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Again: argue your case instead of just linking a lenghty article. But I guess you can't.

It's also funny how the whole article is irrelevant to the matter at hand as well as a theory among others.

-It does not say anything about whether homosexuality lessens the spreading of genes.
-It does not say anything about why there hasn't evolved a defence towards it if it does.

That homosexuality reduces reproductive success is a given but reproduction is not the only way to further the spreading of ones genes into the next generation. Geez.

 

[Hawkeye]

What exactly am I supposed to be arguing?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

but reproduction is not the only way to further the spreading of ones genes into the next generation.

Are we still talking nature?

 

[Hawkeye]

If I had no brothers or sisters and had two sons which both turned out to be gay; if they both met their male partners early on in life and never reproduced, would this not be the end of my genetic line and therefore a natural selection boo-boo?

Unless you want to add the idea of test-tube births because you know... they're totally natural...

 

[Cherry Cola]

You assume a social structure which is a novel development.

Edit: I'm still arguing that this statement is speculative and not factual:

"From the stand point of natural selection homosexuality is a boo-boo."

 

[Hawkeye]

You assume a social structure which is a novel development.

Edit: I'm still arguing that this statement is speculative and not factual:

"From the stand point of natural selection homosexuality is a boo-boo."

What about the scenario in my previous post?

If my kids do not reproduce, my direct genetic line ends: Natural Selection boo-boo.

I am fully aware that my kids need not be homosexual for this to occur, but that is a different point.

 

[Cherry Cola]

It is a specific scenario which does not dictate the overall risk/reward ratio across the species. Though in the case such a scenario its definitely a boo-boo.

 

[QuickTwist]

I understand the matrix example but I have a question about its validity. How can one matrix encompass all of the genetic structure of the said species, in this case, humans.
Given the natural evolution of the human race, it is slow no doubt, but it appears that eventually, if we don't run out of resources first, humans will start to decline in number once the evolutionary process has started to fully implement the r/K selection theory. How can this be? For all we know the human species has done nothing be flourish and incline in the last what, 10,000 years (all our known history). My assumption being that the premise is false; there is no mathematical proof that indicates otherwise.

Even if The worlds population of humans started to decline within the next 5 years it would not be due to evolution (genetic change) and simply be a matter of either dying off or being necessarily imposed. Either way it would be controlled by and external source.

P.S. Don't use sources that you are unsure about.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I was unsure about your question not the source lol.

And I don't understand what you are describing or talking about in this post either.

 

[Cherry Cola]

There is no homosexuality in primitive societies.
Also, the reproduction rate is lowered under these conditions,
so not every intercourse is rewarded with impregnation.
In fact, most intercourse is fruitless.
That's why universally primitive societies have some form of fertility rite and fertility deities.



Does breast cancer fulfill an evolutionary task?
If so, for whom exactly?

Do you have any source for that first statement of yours? I suspect not. You also ignored my argument completely.

But going by your interactions with Jennywocky I don't expect much from you. I mean your sources are part of the very same stigma that they ignore as a causative factor in their statements so that they can brand homosexuality pathological.

And the cancer simile is poor because cancer and homosexuality are quite different.

 

[Brontosaurie]

And the cancer simile is poor because cancer and homosexuality are quite different.

that's a poor way to fend off a simile

 

[Jennywocky]

Whoa whoa whoa, hold your horses.
Something's got your blood boiling, but i fail to realize just what it is.

Blood boiling? That's a stretch; please don't make assumptions. So far I don't see any arguments you've made that differ from the religious fundies I've dealt with (they're the same arguments)... so I think they're misfounded ... but otherwise, whatever.

I do enjoy digging up these articles.
What i want to do is have a critical look at the matter at hand.
The consensus never interested me very much.
Everyone knows that and it's boring.
What excites me is finding out more, or changing perspective.

You don't come across as looking at how "perspectives change over time," as by your language and the lopsidedness of your arguments you seem bent on pathologizing homosexuality. If you didn't have an opinion, you'd be exploring POVs on both sides (unless you've done this and I missed it, as I come and go). I get the same vibe from you on other topics, you don't seem to be an explorer of various perspectives but a promoter of your own.

If that's not how you mean to come across, then you should do some rewrites and look at your overall presentation.

 

[Cherry Cola]

@Bronto Yes it is but thats because he ignored my entire post so why should I cba with a cheap simile

 

[Hawkeye]

I'd just like to point out that nobody has used a simile yet.

 

[Jennywocky]

Fuck similes.

(^^ is that an orientation? I thought I was only attracted to metaphors.)

 

[kora]

I'd just like to point out that nobody has used a simile yet.

This thread is de-railing like a train driven by a drunk elephant rider. . <------ voilà.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Do you have any source for that first statement of yours? I suspect not. You also ignored my argument completely.

Years of reading anthropological and ethnological textbooks.
I guess you would have to trust my word.
Even if you came up with some example, we would have to carefully discern whether the behaviour we interpret as homosexuality is matching that which we westerners call homosexuality.
I have addressed your argument.
You said, homosexuality in primitive cultures was a useful social tool for population control, based on the assumption that the reproductive process in primitive societies is at the same rate as that of western societies, which i pointed out to you as plainly wrong.
I have addressed your argument.
You failed to refute me.

But going by your interactions with Jennywocky I don't expect much from you. I mean your sources are part of the very same stigma that they ignore as a causative factor in their statements so that they can brand homosexuality pathological.

You are making a logical error here.
Just because the information and arguments come from a group of people which you don't politically agree upon,
doesn't mean there's not a grain of truth in the whole shebang.
You have failed to address the medical and psychological implications raised in my previous post on the basis of guilt by association.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

And the cancer simile is poor because cancer and homosexuality are quite different.

I have not said that homosexuality and cancer are identical.
Also i fail to see the "smilie" context in my post.
What i simply pointed out to you that pathogens are there,
and they fulfill their evolutionary process, not that of the host.
HIV is rapidly evolving, the people afflicted with it are not.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

I will not continue this conversation because i can foresee that it would end nasty.
Because you are appealing to emotion and getting personal so early on in the discussion that if this continues, it's a slippery slope and i don't want to be responsible for that.

Just something to think about:
Somehow i must have put in the work to arrive at my position,
and if this position is not represented in a discussion i feel it is a duty to contribute this lacking perspective.

Instead of having a critical debate we are in the midst of a mock fight.

 

[Hawkeye]

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Just something to think about:
Somehow i must have put in the work to arrive at my position,
and if this position is not represented in a discussion i feel it is a duty to contribute this lacking perspective.

This is valuable as a counter-view, or balancing.

Were they homo erotic or homo epic?

 

[Jennywocky]

!! DRUNK ELEPHANT RIDERS, DEFEND US !!

 

[Minuend]

Ahhh, this interesting thread got derailed. Too bad.

Though, a mental disorder or psychiatric disorder is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes distress or disability, and which is not developmentally or socially normative. Which I don't see homosexuality being. If we are going to label anything abnormal as illnesses we have our job cut out for us.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Ahhh, this interesting thread got derailed. Too bad.

Though, a mental disorder or psychiatric disorder is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes distress or disability, and which is not developmentally or socially normative. Which I don't see homosexuality being. If we are going to label anything abnormal as illnesses we have our job cut out for us.

Distress/disability problem could be discussed. I would need some examples to jump at this. Maybe when I dig something.
developmental/social norm problem could apply to anything that is not accepted and or popular.

 

[Jennywocky]

Though, a mental disorder or psychiatric disorder is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes distress or disability, and which is not developmentally or socially normative. Which I don't see homosexuality being.

Well, drunk elephants aside, that's one of the issues at hand here. In my experience, I don't homosexuality as a pattern that causes stress or disability and can be part of a normal healthy relational pattern and life.

A lot of the initial issues with homosexuals seemed to be caused (IMO) more by the majority social pressures and judgments levied against homosexuals. When you're repressed, stamped out, treated as second-class citizens and even criminals, ridiculed, mocked, beaten, and whatever else... well, yes, you're going to display symptoms of PTSD at best. And you could end up far more horribly disturbed trying to repress yourself in fear of reprisal than if you were just allowed to build romantic but homosexual relationships.

So I think these years here following the destigmatization of homosexuality in the DSM for whatever reason are the most telling. When the sexual preference is treated as just another preference without judgment, will homosexual relationships become more healthy and stable? I think that is what we have been seeing; instead of having to pursue cheap sex in the dark and in the public bathhouses, you can actually build a public monogamous relationship and even a family. I think the entire anti-gay-marriage argument is built off false premise and outdated information, since the more we enable gay people to build stable family units, the more they seem to do so, and the children coming out of those families seem in many ways more stable and healthier than some of those raised by het families (partly because they've had to evaluate life more than many kids their age).

Likewise, it's another reason why gender identity disorder was changed to gender dysphoria. The issue is not being gender variant (it's not a "disorder" inherently), the problem is the dysphoria that occurs caught within social pressures. And so on.

The issues in the DSM should be ones that ones that a person has a difficult time building a stable, healthy life upon, not ones that are inherently stable and non-derailing but end up triggering social responses that create unhealthy environments and put undue pressure on an individual.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Years of reading anthropological and ethnological textbooks.
I guess you would have to trust my word.
Even if you came up with some example, we would have to carefully discern whether the behaviour we interpret as homosexuality is matching that which we westerners call homosexuality.
I have addressed your argument.
You said, homosexuality in primitive cultures was a useful social tool for population control, based on the assumption that the reproductive process in primitive societies is at the same rate as that of western societies, which i pointed out to you as plainly wrong.
I have addressed your argument.
You failed to refute me.

You are making a logical error here.
Just because the information and arguments come from a group of people which you don't politically agree upon,
doesn't mean there's not a grain of truth in the whole shebang.
You have failed to address the medical and psychological implications raised in my previous post on the basis of guilt by association.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

I have not said that homosexuality and cancer are identical.
Also i fail to see the "smilie" context in my post.
What i simply pointed out to you that pathogens are there,
and they fulfill their evolutionary process, not that of the host.
HIV is rapidly evolving, the people afflicted with it are not.

Alright so you have an incorrect claim which you can't back up thus you ask me to trust your authority? Well guess what I've studied anthropology as well. Not that it's needed to discredit your claim, you can just google it to find out you're wrong. Your argument against homosexuality in the past not being the same as that of today is also just a semantic defence, desire is at the heart of both, homosexuality occuring in a minority of any given human populace means that the way it is viewed and practiced is influenced by culture to a bigger degree than heterosexuality. But in essence one could ask that the same discernment be made in the case of that too.

Furthermore, I said that it could be useful, and I did not mention population control at all, it has nothing to do with what I said. And even if that was my argument why would I make the assumption that the reproductive process in primitive societies is at the same rate as that of western societies? That's plain wrong and anyone who isn't retarded could see that.

And yeah I probably disagree with the people behind your sources on political issues, but what I pointed out was that they failed to consider the social pressure of the stigma against homosexual people when deeming it unhealthy. Not that all of their points are invalid because of that, anal sex still isn't good for you physically for instance. But when it comes to psychological health their ignorance of social pressures renders their points moot, highly questionable at best.

Finally, simile was the wrong word, my bad there, should have written counter example instead I think. Nonetheless, there is no proof that homosexuality is caused by a pathogen with its own evolutionary process so that's an assumption on your part.

And please don't say that I appeal to emotion without explaining why and how.

 

[Hawkeye]

Do you think people choose to be homosexual?

 

[KingCrimson]

As an outsider who none of you know, I feel compelled to weigh in and maybe add some thoughts that may not have been considered so they can be ignored.

From my understanding of genetics, genes aren't necessarily deterministic, and may only be expressed phenotypically (I think that's the right use of the word) given certain conditions. For instance, I saw a BBC documentary on psychopaths which sort of explained this in an interesting way. Apparently, scientists discovered that psychopathic killers shared a gene that affected the pre-frontal lobe (I may be misremembering, but I think it was that) which meant they couldn't feel empathy properly. Alongside this, almost all of these killers were violently or sexually abused as a child. But the most interesting thing was that the scientist that happened upon this discovery also had the "psycho gene", but he had a very happy and healthy childhood, so he didn't become a vicious and uncaring murderer.

I think that this probably logically extends to lots of human behaviour, like sexuality. Another interesting example I saw was in some relatively recent Richard Dawkins documentary (which was actually mostly rather dull). He had his genome decoded, and the scientist said that if Richard had smoked he would be more likely to develop cancer, not because his cells were more prone to damage or anything like, but because he had a gene that would make him inhale more deeply and smoke cigarettes for longer. I found that particularly intriguing.

My knowledge of biology is admittedly limited, but these observations seem to provide some tolerable explanation for the way humans are in general, to me at least anyway.

 

[Cherry Cola]

No, I think it is likely determined prenatally or by a number of things combined. Choice is one of the least likely explanations in my view.

 

[crippli]

Well, that was interesting. Well argued. Back to the question at hand.

I've been contemplating lately the psychological causality of sexual orientation.

This is an excellent contemplation. IMO it is below psychology. IOW, psycology is a product of sexuality. So, I would say. It is the other way around. What is the sexual causality of psychological orientation.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Well, that was interesting. Well argued. Back to the question at hand.


This is an excellent contemplation. IMO it is below psychology. IOW, psycology is a product of sexuality. So, I would say. It is the other way around. What is the sexual causality of psychological orientation.

#Xeah yeah, the problem is that they dont't want to consider it as an illness such as schizophrenia anymore, they want to consider as the same thing as being born with a brown or yellow skin for eternety, which clearly is confusing the oppresion of the one with the non-oppresionion of the other.

 

[crippli]

yeah, go figure. In the 50's. If you where a housewife skipping on your duties...Paranoid Schizophrenia...electroshock, under water treatment, drug experiment specimen. "for fuck's sake, what's wrong with you?"

Today, even fetishism is no longer considered an illness,

You may want to read up on what psychological illnesses are, and it's history. I'll give you a hint, mirror images.

 

[Cherry Cola]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...-chances-of-child-being-gay-in-adulthood.html

 

[holyhell]

I feel like most INTPs land on the heterosexual/bisexual line.

 

[Reluctantly]

I couple of years ago I heard of an interesting study by Meredith Chivers, in which she proposes that women as opposed to men experience category non-specific arousal. I'll quote how this interview puts it.



The interesting thing was that the female participants maintained subjectively, that they have category specific arousal.

That said I know I male who might have something interesting to say on this topic. I'll make sure to link him the thread when I see him.

Is that like saying women are more disposed towards fetishism?

 

[Spirit]

I feel like most INTPs land on the heterosexual/bisexual line.

You confuse some peoples curiosity with the subject matter as sitting on the line.

There is nothing about a man I that makes me sexually attracted to them.

Now if you want to talk about gender roles ...

 

[Red myst]

I believe type has something to do with sexual identity, and how the cognitive functions experience sex, but I don't think it has anything to do with what gender we prefer to have sex with. I would be curious to know the results of BMTI stats in the LGBT community. That would be the place I would start your inquiry. I believe we are more similar to animals than some people may want to believe, and animals do not have moral codes and social standards to adhere to. They are not conditioned to be heterosexual, they just are. I would even go so far as to say that there is a streak of the opposite sex in every human being, and I believe type may have something to do with how much a person is conscious of it and how in touch with it they are. But still has nothing to do with sexual preference.

 

[bemused]

Why the fuck does anyone care what consenting adults do with their own bodies?

Never understood why anyone cared

 

[bemused]

BTW way some of the best peoe I know are queer and some of the most repulsive are god-fearing christians

 

[Cog_Dis]

I just find the act very primitive; so very animalistic.

I must form some sort of connection with the other party before it becomes anything more than some animal impulse. I'm heterosexual, though. I've never batted for the other team.

 

[ENTP lurker]

As N-dom I have been pretty clueless about sexuality.
I'm pretty sure I'm hetero with asexual leanings. I don't have a great desire to physcically show my urges.

As socionics says ENTp is pretty clueless how to apply Fi and Se while Si as awareness is pretty low as well. I seriously have trouble to see people as objects to use my advantage.

In case of INTPs their sensing is more balanced. Extroverts are propably there to them to make the first contact.

I have never been attracted to so called sex bombs. I really prefer casual introverted people and even then... sex is only an aftertought if it is there at all. Maybe some day I find suitable I(S)FJ. Not that I never had changes but I have never used them (useless Se). BTW I don' try to act according to theory but many things just happens to go along with predictions and my knowledge of Jung's derivative stuff is quite recent.