• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Sexual confusion in children

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 13:46
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
I'm about to rant. I rarely rant, but I feel one coming on here.

Can we approach the topic of sexual confusion in children?

Here's the thing. I believe that sexual confusion does, indeed, exist. I want to start by saying that. However, we don't seem to be very good at defining what it is in this society - what it means, why it happens, how it manifests, what the consequences are, and so forth. Sexual confusion is what a child experiences when they have physiological sexual reactions to a stimulus in their environment, which they are not knowledgable enough to understand. When weird stuff starts happening with your very private areas, and you don't really know why that's going on, it can be very confusing and even, in many situations, psychologically painful for a child to experience. This is especially a thing with young children if they have not been taught about the parts of their body, because a child without this kind of education is going to find it very difficult to explain what they are going through. If, tomorrow, you saw a pretty person and your leg started going numb, you would probably be very confused - even fearful. This is sexual confusion in children.

What sexual confusion is NOT is sexual urges for a particular gender. I've spoken to many people about this. Everyone I've spoken to, myself included, was well aware of what gender they preferred when they were very young. I was aware in Kindergarten. I just didn't know what it meant yet. Kids understand their sexual preferences. Sometimes, I think they understand them far better than older children do, because once hormones start taking off, even a car exhaust pipe can start looking sexy to a pent up teen. (True story)

Here is what makes me feel like ranting.

If you believe that sexual confusion exists, and you believe that your child is experiencing this psychological challenge, WHY ON EARTH would you tell them that their feelings are WRONG. Really people?! Really? I'm sorry. Let's go through this with some points.

(1) If your heterosexual child is attracted to a peer, you don't call it sexual confusion. It's likely that if it's a male child, it's "funny" and the reaction is "Good on you" or "That's my boy". If it's your female child, you're likely to think "That's cute" or "How sweet". Yet if the child is a homosexual child its "wrong" and "you're just confused".

(2) It's absolutely none of your business what sexually stimulates your child. Stop being gross by grooming them to have the same sexual preferences you do. It's straight up creepy.

(3) For all those pigheaded males out there who want their boy to be "tough" and won't accept a gay son. Guess what? Nothing makes you tougher than learning how to cope with bullying in a healthy fashion. Teach your kids to conquer the world by having the skills necessary to deal with its challenges, not by rolling over and being the person everyone else feels like they should be.

(4) If your worried that your child's sexual identity reflects badly on you, you're a narcissist. Get help.

(5) If you're worried that your child won't produce children to satisfy your own desires, you're probably a sociopath who thinks it's okay to breed humans for your pleasure. Get help.

(6) If you worried because "times are changing" and you think homosexuality is "on the rise" and you think it's going to bring abut the end of the world...please study history, evolutions, and bonobo behavior. You are suffering from ignorance. Help yourself.

(7) If you're worried that your child will be alienated for being anything except for heterosexual, and you're concerned that it will be hard for them to find love and create a happy, emotionally and psychologically healthy home for themselves and their adopted or biologically birthed children in a homosexual marriage, for instance...then congratulations. You're a good parent, and those are real fears. You should also be aware, then, that it's wrong to try to change who someone is to fit your own perfect little "life as it should be" square of idealistic nonsense. However, it's right to be worried for your kid.
Help your kid feel comfortable in their own skin
Help your kid to accept who they are, to value their strengths, hone their skills, and grow beyond their shortcomings
Help your kid to learn how to find like-minded peers and individuals who are a healthy, positive influence
Teach your kid the value of love, and tell them it takes constant work and effort to do it justice, even if that love is unconditionally given.
Teach your child how to be introspective about the things which distress them. How to carefully consider, and systematically process events in their life, and come up with philosophies and solutions that can help to arm them for similar events in the future.
Teach your child to come to you with anything, so that they can feel accepted.

It's the same old song no matter what your child has to struggle with. If they were asian, would you do your best to convince them they're not asian? No. That would be seriously messed up. So don't go brainwashing your kid about topics you don't understand.

And my last point on this...to those parents out there...there are simplistically two types of kids. Those who talk to their parents, and those that don't. Which do you think has a better shot at succeeding in life? Either your an idiot who shouldn't be listened to - in which case, go ahead - humiliate and alienate your child, and tell them that the way they were born is "unnatural" and "unacceptable" (be sure to do it in really kind words so you can play it off like you're not being an ass). Or, you're someone who has valuable lessons to impart to your child, who can help them to choose the right path in life and make conscious decisions with regards to their self-respect and self-preservation. You're someone who, basically, has not gone through life with their eyes squeezed shut, bouncing off the walls. You're an adult with experience, wisdom, and philosophies that, over time, you can use to strengthen your child, and rear them to be an effective, healthy, happy, highly functional adult with loving, long-lasting relationships, and excellent morals.

In which case - is it not more valuable to you that your child feels like they can come to you with anything? Isn't that worth more than your instant gratification of having the peace of mind that you're manipulating your child by disapproving of behaviors you personally find to be disagreeable to you?

And while I might get heat from this...I have one more rant to share. When it comes to your child vs. religion, pick your damn kid. Stop prioritizing the relationship you think you have with someone you've never seen, who is a supreme being and basically views you like their child...over your relationship with your actual child who is standing right in front of you. I can't believe that God would approve of you being a shitty parent. It seems like, if God does view humans as his children, he takes parenthood pretty damn seriously.

-------

Can we please all do our best to at least consider this subject matter? I think the people on this forum tend to be very objective, reasonable, and logical. I think our opinions can help to persuade other people when we voice them rationally. This is a really important issue that we should all put some thought into, regardless of whether you're a parent or not. It affects all of us. It affects the welfare of your nation, your economy, many things. It's a relevant topic we all should familiarize ourselves with, because the shaming and manipulation of our kids is barbaric, and we need to evolve beyond it.

Disclaimer : That's not me saying you should take this rant-like attitude with people that disagree with you. Quite the opposite. You should be compassionate, do your best to accept them and look for their good qualities, try hard to empathize with their stance as best you can, and listen first. Then, you should be persuasive, accurate, and logical in your response. It's not a debate. It's a discussion. Debates don't change the world. Discussions do.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 13:46
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
Just to clarify - and I'm putting this in a separate post because most people probably won't read the whole thing of the last one....

But I wan't to say yes, I'm biased on this topic. It's not because I have children, or I have some personal story with a child that was affected this way...it's because it's hard for me, as I think it's hard for many people, to be completely objective when it comes to topics of child welfare. I do see this as a topic of child welfare. I feel protective and defensive of children. That does not, however, mean that my views are baseless, irrational, or invalid. It also does not mean I would refuse to listen to someone who challenges my views.

That being said, when I do get passionate about a subject like this, it's generally because I've spent a lot of time thinking about it. So my views are unlikely to change if challenged by someone who has clearly not put the effort into coming up with a reasonable counterargument. Regardless of how credible they think their opinions are. Credibility does not count much, in my book.

Anyways. I just wanted to clear the air. Yes, I'm being biased, and yes, I'm totally okay with that. I understand that it is happening, acknowledge that it is something to be aware of, but also something that cannot be "defeated" by trying to think like a psychopath or something...and I'm of the opinion that while you should be cautious with obviously biased people who are using persuasive rhetoric (as I did), it does not mean that they're wrong, or that what they say is meaningless or invalid due to the existence of relevant emotions. I would question the validity of someone who speaks of issues of children, psychology, sexuality, and mental development, with a completely unemotional and clinically detached personality. Facts are facts regardless of feelings, but feelings are highly relevant.

~ Thanks people
 

Marbles

What would Feynman do?
Local time
Today, 19:46
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
659
Location
Oslo
once hormones start taking off, even a car exhaust pipe can start looking sexy to a pent up teen. (True story)
And that to both genders. Talk about sexual confusion..

I'd be disappointed if my child turned out to be gay. I think very strong cultural pressure would be required to annihilate that response in a parent, since procreation is the primus motor of our emotions. However, in today's culture, to most parents, I think empathy would overrule primal craving for grand children, and that the "drop in love" would be small to non existent. I sure hope so.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 13:46
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
once hormones start taking off, even a car exhaust pipe can start looking sexy to a pent up teen. (True story)
And that to both genders. Talk about sexual confusion..

I'd be disappointed if my child turned out to be gay. I think very strong cultural pressure would be required to annihilate that response in a parent, since procreation is the primus motor of our emotions. However, in today's culture, to most parents, I think empathy would overrule primal craving for grand children, and that the "drop in love" would be small to non existent. I sure hope so.
I disagree. I think that people who are disappointed in a gay child have fundamental irrationalities in their psychologies that lead them to live lonely, isolated lives full of self-loathing and fear. I've known a few of those parents, and I would describe them as psychologically unhealthy. Procreation is a minor motivator for emotions. It is the poor scientific reasoning of evolutionary psychology that leads us to believe that procreation is something of a powerful motivator - that, coupled with generations of mysoginistic abrahamic religions, and male perversions that are obsessed with the male genetalia and the idea of male supremacy. I question the moral integrity of anyone who would be disappointed in their child due to their child's sexual preferences. I don't think that, alone, makes a person a "bad" person, but it certainly makes a person foolish and morally immature.

The love a parent has for their child is paramount. If a person has dysfunctionalities of character, philosophy, empathy, or morality, that lead them to fail in their capability to love their own offspring, they're simply undeserving of reproduction.
 

Marbles

What would Feynman do?
Local time
Today, 19:46
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
659
Location
Oslo
Your psyche has developed through selective pressure to make your genes as resistant to entropy as possible. Your psyche includes your morals.

I am just offering an explanation of why so many parents are disappointed to have gay children. I am not saying being disappointed in your child because of its nature is moral. Morals are subjective.

In establishing norms, I think we should work on acceptance of homosexuals, especially when they are our children. My ethics are based on maximizing happiness for as many people as possible, over time. That is why I appreciate that there are people like you out there, who seem to have their mental models of the world particularly designed to reach that goal; even if you throw the most sensible branch of psychology under the buss :p Actually, please don't do that..
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 13:46
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
Your psyche has developed through selective pressure to make your genes as resistent to entropy as possible. Your psyche includes your morals.

I am just offering an explanation of why so many parents are disappointed to have gay children. I am not saying being disappointed in your child because of its nature is moral. Morals are subjective.

In establishing norms, I think we should work on acceptance of homosexuals, especially when they are our children. My ethics are based on maximising happines for as many people as possible, over time. That is why I appreciate that there are people like you out there, who seem to have models of the world particularly designed to reach that goal; even if you throw the most sensible branch of psychology under the buss :p Actually, please don't do that..
Well, I disagree with the fundamental concepts, I think, that would compose your definition of selective pressure. I disagree with it because I think that evolutionary psychology is largely BS. A lot of the notions we have in that regards are ridiculous, and there's a lot of philosophers who feed into this idea that I also disagree with.

I think you're familiar though with my arguments to some degree on that point! So it would be repetitive to reiterate them.

My models, I think, are based more on actual science. I think science is abused these days, and a large amount of psychology is utter nonsense. BUT! That's my personal philosophy. I don't like to overshare. For one thing, I have to really have the energy to go look up all of my sources and link all of the articles necessary to make my case...which I've done, and am capable of doing, but I have to really care enough to do it. Generally, I only do it when people really piss me off, which only happens on YouTube. XD

The fundamental issue I have, though, is simplistic. We take a hell of a lot of soft science for granted, attributing to it a similar degree of certainty as would be attributed to a hard science like, for instance, archaeology. A lot of the soft science we've developed stems from our subjective desires. It's biased, and undeserving of the title of "Science", which should be as accurate as possible. Barely supporting theories belong in the realm of philosophy, or better yet, science fiction.

DOWN WITH SUBPAR SCIENCE!

I wish we had more standards.
 

Marbles

What would Feynman do?
Local time
Today, 19:46
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
659
Location
Oslo
Well, I disagree with the fundamental concepts, I think, that would compose your definition of selective pressure. I disagree with it because I think that evolutionary psychology is largely BS. A lot of the notions we have in that regards are ridiculous, and there's a lot of philosophers who feed into this idea that I also disagree with.

I think you're familiar though with my arguments to some degree on that point! So it would be repetitive to reiterate them.
Well, I'm familiar with the derogatory adjectives you use, but I don't remember any arguments :P No, really.. I can't remember.

... I have to really have the energy to go look up all of my sources and link all of the articles necessary to make my case...which I've done, and am capable of doing, but I have to really care enough to do it. Generally, I only do it when people really piss me off, which only happens on YouTube. XD
Haha, yeah.. I feel ya.

The fundamental issue I have, though, is simplistic. We take a hell of a lot of soft science for granted, attributing to it a similar degree of certainty as would be attributed to a hard science like, for instance, archaeology. A lot of the soft science we've developed stems from our subjective desires. It's biased, and undeserving of the title of "Science", which should be as accurate as possible. Barely supporting theories belong in the realm of philosophy, or better yet, science fiction.
That our mind has developed through natural selection isn't really debatable, though. It doesn't get much more hard science than that. Denial of the most fundamental principle of biology isn't compatible with an appeal for more objectivity in science. If you disown the theory of evolution, you give up on the scientific method. You disown rationality.
 

Adaire

backish
Local time
Today, 10:46
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
3,692
The fundamental issue I have, though, is simplistic. We take a hell of a lot of soft science for granted, attributing to it a similar degree of certainty as would be attributed to a hard science like, for instance, archaeology. A lot of the soft science we've developed stems from our subjective desires. It's biased, and undeserving of the title of "Science", which should be as accurate as possible. Barely supporting theories belong in the realm of philosophy, or better yet, science fiction.

DOWN WITH SUBPAR SCIENCE!

I wish we had more standards.
Louder for the people in the back!
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 13:46
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
The fundamental issue I have, though, is simplistic. We take a hell of a lot of soft science for granted, attributing to it a similar degree of certainty as would be attributed to a hard science like, for instance, archaeology. A lot of the soft science we've developed stems from our subjective desires. It's biased, and undeserving of the title of "Science", which should be as accurate as possible. Barely supporting theories belong in the realm of philosophy, or better yet, science fiction.

DOWN WITH SUBPAR SCIENCE!

I wish we had more standards.
Louder for the people in the back!
Lol. I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or a compliment.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 13:46
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
That our mind has developed through natural selection isn't really debatable, though. It doesn't get much more hard science than that. Denial of the most fundamental principle of biology isn't compatible with an appeal for more objectivity in science. If you disown the theory of evolution, you give up on the scientific method. You disown rationality.
I'm not an evolution denier. In fact, I think evolution is one of the most factual "theories" we have. It's nonsense to deny evolution.

It's equally irrational, however, to regard theories are highly credible simply because they are theories of evolution. The fallacious line of thinking that is involved here is to assume that because you are able to observe that something is the case, you are also able to rationalize the causes of what you've observed with a high degree of accuracy. Or that, because you can observe something, it must be something that is there for a reason, or it must make sense. Furthermore, that you are able to decide what that reason or rationality is.

Regarding evolution:

Here is something I believe:
We evolved from primates.

Here is something I don't believe:
Male humans are larger than female humans because males evolved to protect females and provide for the young.

Here is something I believe is most likely true:
Humans evolved to stand on two feet because the ability to do so improved our species' survivability.

Here is something I believe is most likely not true:
Females choose masculine, dominant males to mate with because they are naturally attracted to high levels of testosterone.

There's a problem here. We can say, almost point blank, that people evolved from primates and that becoming a bi-pedal species was a natural advantage. The former is more of a given, I think, than the latter, because the latter presupposes that we became bi-pedal animals for a reason. However, due to the observations we've made of other species' evolutions, we can assume that this is most likely the case - that standing on two legs indeed was advantageous.

However, explaining human behaviors by using evolutionary rationality is a soft science. Not a hard science, like archaeology. Furthermore, it's rife with subjectivity and bias, and heavily tainted by old science we've debunked. However, we regard these assumptions as being "almost certainly true" because they are "evolution" and anyone who disagrees with evolution "is a moron". I guess you could even say that this behavior is used for "gas lighting" or whatever.

If you have a belief that contradicts these theories, people will use the credibility of evolution to attack your character. Or else, they will use appeal to authority, or - I forgot what this fallacy is called - but the "everyone believes this is true so it must be the case" line of irrational reasoning to contradict philosophies that challenge their worldview.

Scientists, I think, are incredibly prone to appeal to authority, and to drawing conclusions based on information that, in and of itself, is not all-encompassing enough to be conclusive.

For example - that study we'd talked about. How women who were ovulating chose male subjects with higher levels of testosterone. Now - the study isn't "wrong". The experiment was conducted and that is what transpired. However, aside from that, this study means very, very little. It's such a meager piece of evidence, that it, frankly, is fairly worthless without additional data. To use this study to suggest that testosterone is a significant factor in mate selection - ridiculous. Extremely unscientific. That is what happens though.

Then, subsequent studies, using that concluded theory, will then look to demonstrate even more "ways" in which females use testosterone for mate selection. Which, in and of itself, is inherently biased. You believed something was true, and set out to prove it. Highly unscientific. What you should have done was sought to disprove this study, and in doing so, you might have ended up validating the opposite argument.

So there is one of the problems with our science, these days, and why I feel that much of it cannot be trusted. Creating science by conducting an experiment, observing the results, and reporting on them, is trustworthy. However, creating science by presupposing another scientific study, and then seeking to demonstrate that the conclusion it has drawn is true - not by conducting the exact same experiment - but by conducting a similar one - is biased, subjective, bullshit.

Happy to be proved wrong though, because this philosophy makes me an unlikable individual apparently.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 13:46
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
There's a slew of other "scientific" assumptions regarding evolution that I find to be nonsense. I just chose those examples because they're related to each other, and I feel like many of the philosophies regarding male and female roles, and sexual selection, are not only laughable, but a disgrace to the field of science. Of all of the "evolutionary theories" I can think of that I've questioned, those belonging to this category, in my opinion, are the most poisonous to scientific knowledge. I think they've damaged us culturally, I think they've damaged the psychological welfare of men, and I think they've created scientific "foundations" of knowledge that are extremely biased and inaccurate, and therefore, have contaminated generations of scientific studies, which are only building on to the faulty foundation with increasingly inaccurate sentiments and subjective beliefs.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 18:46
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,834
Can we approach the topic of sexual confusion in children?
Up to you.

If, tomorrow, you saw a pretty person and your leg started going numb, you would probably be very confused - even fearful. This is sexual confusion in children.

What sexual confusion is NOT is sexual urges for a particular gender. I've spoken to many people about this. Everyone I've spoken to, myself included, was well aware of what gender they preferred when they were very young. I was aware in Kindergarten. I just didn't know what it meant yet. Kids understand their sexual preferences. Sometimes, I think they understand them far better than older children do, because once hormones start taking off, even a car exhaust pipe can start looking sexy to a pent up teen. (True story)
I've known lots of heterosexual guys who sometimes had feelings for a male friend growing up, and were confused about their sexuality, sometimes into their 20s.

I've always thought that was why so many gay guys dated women before they started dating men, because they were unsure.

Obviously, though, any men who were certain that they were homosexual since they were very young, would not see any point in dating women at any age, except possibly as a beard.

I can't say that I've known anyone who wondered why they were getting a stiffy, as that sort of thing is common knowledge that even young kids would hear about from other kids.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of women?

I'm only suggesting this, because I've read that a woman's entire body is her erogenous zone, as lots of women have all sorts of sensory experiences that are stimulated by arousal. So I can well imagine that many young women might have a numb leg without understanding why.

Also because IME, almost all of the women I've met seemed to be very certain about their sexuality, and a lot more certain than they guys.

If you believe that sexual confusion exists, and you believe that your child is experiencing this psychological challenge, WHY ON EARTH would you tell them that their feelings are WRONG.
Sometimes kids feel like not going to school. Jung hated school so much that he feigned illness for 6 months.

Parents still make kids go to school even though they don't feel like it, eat their veggies even though they don't feel like it, go to sleep even though they feel like staying up, get up even though they feel like staying in bed, and generally get their kids to do all sorts of things even though their feelings are different.

If the kid's feelings match what the parent thinks the kid should be doing, then parenting is a breeze.

A large part of why parenting is considered so difficult, is because it's so common for kids to have one feeling, but the parent knows they are better off doing something else.

So naturally, people are bound to extend that basic principle to all sorts of areas, especially things that most pre-pubescent kids have no understanding of yet, such as sex and dating, with the same presumptions as with school. When the kid gets to 16 and is legally making his/her own choices, then it's up to the kid if he/she chooses to buy a gun, skip university and get a job working with cars, get a nose ring, or date their own sex.
 

Adaire

backish
Local time
Today, 10:46
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
3,692
It was agreement. I like good science.
 

Marbles

What would Feynman do?
Local time
Today, 19:46
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
659
Location
Oslo
Evolutionary psychology is not a theory of biology, it is one of psychology. All branches of psychology are soft sciences, but they are sciences. If you are to discard all sciences but the hard ones, you would only be left with physics, math? (is math even empirical?), chemistry, astronomy, biology, and geology (I saw you mention archaeology, but that is not a hard science). None of these are applicable to the topic we are discussing, namely psychology. So on what basis do you suggest we proceed with our discussion in a reasonably objective manner?

I completely agree that psychology is full of nonsense. The axioms of evolutionary psychology are firmly rooted in the hard sciences, so I consider that branch of psychology unusually robust. It is still full of conjecture, though, and many of the “theories” you mention are just that, conjecture. They are theories in the colloquial sense of the word, not the scientific, and are not claimed to be.

You mention that evolutionary psychology is tainted by disproven theories. Which are these?

In closing.. When I say that our minds are molded by evolution and chance, that is a fact; our minds are tools to ensure procreation. When I suggest that parents are disappointed to have a gay child because it poses a threat to procreation, that is conjecture (and not meant to be a complete explanation even if true). It could alternatively be due to chance. In short: that the mind is shaped by natural selection and chance seems to be a direct consequence of the theory of evolution. As far as anything can be known (and please let’s not enter an epistemological discussion), we must accept the theory of evolution, and that evolution brought about our minds.

Let me emphasize: when evolutionary psychologists speculate in the causes of their test results, they are engaging in conjecture. A lot of that conjecture is bound to be wrong, and often seems as silly to me as it does to you.

Don't worry about being liked when discussing with me, Inex. I like you. Tear me a new one!

On another note, it would be great if you could weigh in here:
Serac, Grey Man and I will all leave if nothing is done about the staff.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 13:46
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
I've known lots of heterosexual guys who sometimes had feelings for a male friend growing up, and were confused about their sexuality, sometimes into their 20s.

I've always thought that was why so many gay guys dated women before they started dating men, because they were unsure.

Obviously, though, any men who were certain that they were homosexual since they were very young, would not see any point in dating women at any age, except possibly as a beard.

I can't say that I've known anyone who wondered why they were getting a stiffy, as that sort of thing is common knowledge that even young kids would hear about from other kids.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of women?

I'm only suggesting this, because I've read that a woman's entire body is her erogenous zone, as lots of women have all sorts of sensory experiences that are stimulated by arousal. So I can well imagine that many young women might have a numb leg without understanding why.

Also because IME, almost all of the women I've met seemed to be very certain about their sexuality, and a lot more certain than they guys.
I'm sure I'm not thinking of women. Plenty of women I've known have had feelings of sexual attraction towards women, as well. The thing about a woman's entire body being an erogenous zone sounds like nonsense to me. I would definitely question that.

Anyways...what makes you think that because a guy is attracted to another guy at a young age, they are confused? Maybe they're just bi. It is culture that tells us we're "confused" because we're not following the pre-subscribed method of sexuality.

Just as I've known guys that have had same-sex attractions at a young age, I've also know guys that have never, ever had these feelings, and are also not homophobic. I can back up the validity of that by the fact that I'm a heterosexual female who has never, ever had an attraction to someone of the same sex. I don't doubt that I could be stimulated by someone of the same sex - probably moreso than someone of the opposite sex, because a fellow female probably understands the female body better....but I've never felt sexual impulses for my own sex. I've wished I could. When I was in high school, I kissed a girl. But nope. Heterosexual to the core. Unfortunately.

At any rate, these people that have had sexual urges for the same sex...no one has any reason to suggest they are "confused". It's not confusion. It's horniness. And, really, horniness is quite straight forward and not confusing. Somethings make you feel sexual and some things don't. It's obvious about what does that. It is not "confusion".

The concept of "confusion" is used to disguise the truth, at best, and at worst, to delicately tell someone that they are not doing things "the right way". Ie - the way you personally approve of.

Bonobos, which we are biologically related to, demonstrate bi-sexual behavior. There's no reason to assume that there is not a gene or some kind of natural tendency that manifests in humans that gives us bisexual behavior. Everything else we know about our sex drive, for instance, the fact that humans have sex for pleasure, or that we enjoy masturbation, are evidenced in the animals we've evolved from. However, we selectively choose to ignore the fact that, along with that, there are bisexual tendencies as well. We cherry-pick what we believe in based on what the common person feels is palatable. We then use the philosophies we build off of that to shame and humiliate children, and tell them they're confused, when they're not.

Further to that, we know full well that, historically speaking, men typically had sex with other men and boys. Obviously, having sex with boys is not okay. It's barbaric, and abusive and thankfully, we're more civilized than that now. However, throughout history we've had a number of cultures to suggest that same-sex pleasure seeking is a relatively common behavior.

It's religion that has made us decide the behavior is unnatural, and therefore, because it's unnatural, that people are "confused". They're not confused. They're experiencing natural sexual enticement that is aligned with the behaviors of our species from a historical standpoint, and evidenced in the animals we evolved from.

Parents still make kids go to school even though they don't feel like it, eat their veggies even though they don't feel like it, go to sleep even though they feel like staying up, get up even though they feel like staying in bed, and generally get their kids to do all sorts of things even though their feelings are different.
False equivalence, I think? If we are to make a comparison between sexual urges, we need to use a case that is equivalent. Not eating your broccoli is not equivalent to avoiding sex with someone you're attracted to. You, as an adult, can probably appreciate that you could give up broccoli far more easily than you could give up sex, or that you could eat Brussel sprouts a lot more easily (if you didn't like them) than you could switch to a sex you're not attracted to. Sexual preference is present within people from an extremely early age, if not from birth. That is not the same as your desire to eat vegetables or stay up late, so the two are not comparable.

A better comparison would be to consider introversion/extroversion. If you have an introverted child, and you try to convince them that they're confused, and they're actually very social, but they just don't know it yet - that would be more similar to trying to tell a child they're confused about their sexuality.

Another example would be to try to convince a child that they're not good at something they're naturally inclined to do. You might have a child who is an artist, and you could convince them that they're confused - that they're not that good at art, that they'll never be valued by the public for being an artist, that art is useless, and that they really have an affinity for math but they just don't know it. Of course, you do, because you're the adult, so you can tell them that they're naturally good at math but that they suck at art, regardless of the evidence staring you in the face.

These two examples are aspects of a person's natural born tendencies. Sexual preference, from what we see, appears to also be a natural born tendency...and honestly, it really does seem to fall on a spectrum. Some people, such as myself, are stubbornly heterosexual. Others, like your male friends, have more bisexual tendencies present in their makeup. It's a part of who you are. Vegetables are not a part of who you are.

So naturally, people are bound to extend that basic principle to all sorts of areas, especially things that most pre-pubescent kids have no understanding of yet, such as sex and dating, with the same presumptions as with school.
I don't think that it's natural at all. When we look at tribal cultures and, frankly, most cultures throughout our history, parents do not control their children to the insane degree that they do today. Parents are very self-absorbed, manic, and controlling these days. They want to dictate everything from what their child wears, what teachers they have, who they talk to, what they watch on TV...to what they believe, and what they think they're good at, or who they want to be in life.

The prior makes sense. Our society is not safe for children. Parents need to be aware of that and mitigate the risks. The latter does not. When you try to control your child's identity and mold it to fit your perfect world view, you are not demonstrating healthy, normal human behavior. You are being domineering, controlling, and selfish, and you're damaging your child.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 13:46
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
Evolutionary psychology is not a theory of biology, it is one of psychology. All branches of psychology are soft sciences, but they are sciences. If you are to discard all sciences but the hard ones, you would only be left with physics, math? (is math even empirical?), chemistry, astronomy, biology, and geology (I saw you mention archaeology, but that is not a hard science). None of these are applicable to the topic we are discussing, namely psychology. So on what basis do you suggest we proceed with our discussion in a reasonably objective manner?
I'm not saying we should discard them. I actually find psychology to be fascinating and I study it and think of it often. By this logic, we would have to discard philosophy as well, which is essential to the human quest for truth.

Archaeology is not a hard science? I didn't know that. I guess it makes sense. I tend to regard it as a hard science. I think you know more about the sciences than I do, so I believe you. Perhaps you have a better education? Tbh, mine sucks. Lol.

You say we are mainly discussing psychology, and while I think that is true, I think that is an incomplete statement. Yes, we are discussing psychology...but I feel like many of the topics discussed in this regard either don't belong in the science of psychology...or maybe we need to subdivide psychology into more than one sciences.

Here is how I see it. I'm more than willing to be corrected, because these are personal opinions. I've not heavily researched them. They're just insights I've developed passively over time.

If we produce a study to suggest that caffeine gives you energy, this is physiology.
If we produce a study to say that caffeine stunts your growth, this is biology (?)
If we produce a study to say that caffeine gives you anxiety, this is psychology.

Psychology, I think, is how our brains work to program behavioral responses. Psychology is like the study of consciousness.

Biology and physiology, however, are concerned with things that are subconscious, and out of our control. It's why we call a woman's desire to have children a "biological clock" and not a "psychological clock". Psychology can observe the woman's behavior as a result of the biological impulse, but it does not seek to explain the underlying biological or physiological causes from which the behavior stems.

You mention that evolutionary psychology is tainted by disproven theories. Which are these?
The categories that come to mind immediately are:
(1) Dominance hierarchies
(2) Genetics
(3) Sexual selection
(4) Natural selection
(5) Social behavior

In these categories, I've observed many theories I disagree with. I can give you examples if you choose a topic. Trying not to be long-winded!

In closing.. When I say that our minds are molded by evolution and chance, that is a fact; our minds are tools to ensure procreation.
It's a problem when you snowball this all into one sentence. You say:

Our minds are molded by (1) Evolution, and (2) Chance. ---> Correct
That is a fact ---> Well, it's believable enough to be considered factual. So, yes, correct.
Our minds are tools to ensure procreation ----> Dubious

Just because we do evolve does not mean we're made to evolve.
We tend to think of evolution as the end-all, be-all reason of what we've become today, but you said yourself, it's not only evolution that has formed us...it's evolution and chance. The chance part is important, and absolutely necessary to include in discussions of evolution. Humans could have just as easily evolved the neocortex by chance, as by evolution. We could have wound up standing on two legs by chance.

In fact, it's likely that many of our "evolutions" were chance-based, and not survival-based, because if they were survival based, we should be far superior to our ancestors...and stripping away technology and achievement, I can't see that we are. Can you?

When I suggest that parents are disappointed to have a gay child because it poses a threat to procreation, that is conjecture (and not meant to be a complete explanation even if true).
I think there are far more likely causes.

In short: that the mind is shaped by natural selection and chance seems to be a direct consequence of the theory of evolution.
Okay. Well. When we say that the mind is shaped by natural selection, it's an oversimplification. Yes, obviously, our mind is the result of breeding. Nobody can refute that unless they're...like, insane, or something. Maybe they think we're all Sims living in God's Sims 4 game. Not sure. Anyways, a typical person can't argue that the mind is not a product of breeding, because we know that's how genetics work.

That being said, the mistake is to assume that qualities of the mind were chosen for their superiority, and that today, we have a superior mind, due to evolution.

If you apply this philosophy across the board - which people do...take a look at how many variables are influencing natural selection. Physique, personality, sociability, mental ability, even such superficial things as a person's fashion - or their smell because they're genetic profile is different from yours (and therefore, worth breeding with). Their testosterone, estrogen. Their ability to pick apples from trees.

Without straight-forward evidence, it's sort of nonsense to assume that any one characteristic of the human's body or behaviors were determined by breeding. Some things were, but it is because the circumstances or environment imposed a restriction. Iguanas of the Galapogos islands probably evolved to dive underwater because Iguanas that weren't capable of this died. An INTP chimpanzee, however, was perfectly capable of breeding, because being an INTP was not significant enough to hinder their survivability.

It's rarely a question of sexual selection. It's a question of how long the animal can live. Sexual selection, I think, plays a role, but not much of one. The role it plays is to weed out those who are poor breeding stock. Not necessarily those who are superior breeding stock. If you think of it on a bell curve, we take everyone from 30% - 100%. Sexual selection weeds out the ones beneath that. (Just an example, not a real probability, obviously).

Sexual selection is a meager aspect of evolution.

epistemological
Let me emphasize: when evolutionary psychologists speculate in the causes of their test results, they are engaging in conjecture. A lot of that conjecture is bound to be wrong, and often seems as silly to me as it does to you.
Thank ducking god I'm not the only one. I don't have a problem with conjecture - I enjoy it, actually. It's how I whittle away my days. I love to suppose this, and that, and the other thing....

But people treat these conjectures as if they're scientific when they're not, OR as if they deserve a high degree of certainty when they do not. And scientists are often guilty of being cocky, and speaking as though their beliefs are truth. The arrogance in the scientific community these days is disheartening. I'm glad I never became a scientist. It might have been a better career path for me, but if I had, I probably would have been contaminated by scientific arrogance.

Don't worry about being liked when discussing with me, Inex. I like you. Tear me a new one!
Aww...Thanks <3
That's really nice to hear! I almost never hold anyone's philosophies against them. To me, the random things you believe aren't something you can help, and they're not a testament to your character. Most people don't agree with me in this regard. However, I, myself, have been prone to nasty beliefs in the past. I think I told you and Peoples that I struggled with sexism. A person can't help believing these things. Some people just deny it and others are willing to be honest.

So I hate when my voicing beliefs becomes a thing that is used to attack me or discredit me. I find it to be so frustrating. I feel like people tell me they want me to be honest, but then, they don't want to hear what I have to say. Humans can be so, so frustrating in that way.

It's nice when I can actually talk with feeling and not have to groom everything I write to appeal to my audience, including disclaimers, and other aspects of my own insecurity, to protect myself from being hated for my beliefs.

I've already made myself many enemies because of the coronavirus >_>....Making enemies is my speciality. It sucks, because I'm trying so hard to be a sociable, enjoyable human being. I've started talking to a typology counselor with this objective in mind.

Anyways. It's nice to have some people who I can't offend, so I can just say what's on my mind. And, in particular, people who won't judge me if I change my mind when they prove me wrong. I like to be proven wrong. Sometimes, I actually run around "asking for it" in weird little psychological ways, but people have an annoying habit of agreeing with me without providing reasons for their beliefs. Few people cooperate with my mental idea of the role I want them to play in our interaction. -_- .......It's my fault. I don't always get how they work.

Thanks for being difficult to offend! It suits me. Gives me the freedom to speak. I rarely feel free to speak.
 

Grayman

Team Ignorant
Local time
Today, 10:46
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,247
Location
US of A
Some people simply don't reason it out. Their morals are strictly programmed into them society and upbringing. The complex reasons listed are way more advanced than the thought processes actually taking place. In fact it isn't really a thought process but instead a knee jerk feeling.
 

byhisello99

Redshirt
Local time
Today, 12:46
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Messages
17
If there were no sexual confusion in children, there would be few if any successful serial pedophiles. There is no necessity to understand it; there is a necessity to accept it if you're going to live in objective reality.

My youngest daughter had a medically-necessary hysterectomy; my eldest daughter has chosen not to have children. My genetic compulsion to ensure survival of my genes should be controlling my life. It's not. I want my children to be happy, healthy and successful. If one of my children were anything other than a Kinsey Scale Zero I could not be disappointed. If one of my children felt sexual attraction to snakes or major household appliances, I would do what I could to get them therapy because either is dangerous to one's physical health. If either was sexually attracted to violence against herself or others the same would apply. If either was sexually attracted to another adult human, I would be pleased.
 

Morrow

Dragonmaster
Local time
Today, 12:46
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
27
Location
Wisconsin
If one of my children felt sexual attraction to snakes or major household appliances, I would do what I could to get them therapy because either is dangerous to one's physical health. If either was sexually attracted to violence against herself or others the same would apply. If either was sexually attracted to another adult human, I would be pleased.
Your child might need something more then just therapy if they are sexually attracted to household appliances. Most of those appliances tend to bite back, and a lot harder.
 

peoplesuck

caretaker of machines
Local time
Today, 12:46
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
1,622
Location
only halfway there
I searched for sexy vacuum as joke....I found this...a penis stretcher...ouch
1587091923925.png


(1) If your heterosexual child is attracted to a peer, you don't call it sexual confusion. It's likely that if it's a male child, it's "funny" and the reaction is "Good on you" or "That's my boy". If it's your female child, you're likely to think "That's cute" or "How sweet". Yet if the child is a homosexual child its "wrong" and "you're just confused".

(2) It's absolutely none of your business what sexually stimulates your child. Stop being gross by grooming them to have the same sexual preferences you do. It's straight up creepy.

(3) For all those pigheaded males out there who want their boy to be "tough" and won't accept a gay son. Guess what? Nothing makes you tougher than learning how to cope with bullying in a healthy fashion. Teach your kids to conquer the world by having the skills necessary to deal with its challenges, not by rolling over and being the person everyone else feels like they should be.

(4) If your worried that your child's sexual identity reflects badly on you, you're a narcissist. Get help.

(5) If you're worried that your child won't produce children to satisfy your own desires, you're probably a sociopath who thinks it's okay to breed humans for your pleasure. Get help.

(6) If you worried because "times are changing" and you think homosexuality is "on the rise" and you think it's going to bring abut the end of the world...please study history, evolutions, and bonobo behavior. You are suffering from ignorance. Help yourself.

(7) If you're worried that your child will be alienated for being anything except for heterosexual, and you're concerned that it will be hard for them to find love and create a happy, emotionally and psychologically healthy home for themselves and their adopted or biologically birthed children in a homosexual marriage, for instance...then congratulations. You're a good parent, and those are real fears.
YES, all of this. The grooming your kids to have same sexual interests is so true, yet so fkn normal.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 13:46
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
761
I searched for sexy vacuum as joke....I found this...a penis stretcher...ouch

(1) If your heterosexual child is attracted to a peer, you don't call it sexual confusion. It's likely that if it's a male child, it's "funny" and the reaction is "Good on you" or "That's my boy". If it's your female child, you're likely to think "That's cute" or "How sweet". Yet if the child is a homosexual child its "wrong" and "you're just confused".

(2) It's absolutely none of your business what sexually stimulates your child. Stop being gross by grooming them to have the same sexual preferences you do. It's straight up creepy.

(3) For all those pigheaded males out there who want their boy to be "tough" and won't accept a gay son. Guess what? Nothing makes you tougher than learning how to cope with bullying in a healthy fashion. Teach your kids to conquer the world by having the skills necessary to deal with its challenges, not by rolling over and being the person everyone else feels like they should be.

(4) If your worried that your child's sexual identity reflects badly on you, you're a narcissist. Get help.

(5) If you're worried that your child won't produce children to satisfy your own desires, you're probably a sociopath who thinks it's okay to breed humans for your pleasure. Get help.

(6) If you worried because "times are changing" and you think homosexuality is "on the rise" and you think it's going to bring abut the end of the world...please study history, evolutions, and bonobo behavior. You are suffering from ignorance. Help yourself.

(7) If you're worried that your child will be alienated for being anything except for heterosexual, and you're concerned that it will be hard for them to find love and create a happy, emotionally and psychologically healthy home for themselves and their adopted or biologically birthed children in a homosexual marriage, for instance...then congratulations. You're a good parent, and those are real fears.
YES, all of this. The grooming your kids to have same sexual interests is so true, yet so fkn normal.
Oh. My God. I can't believe that penis stretchers exist. That is frankly horrifying! Maybe we should have a thread about whether or not "size matters". Lol!
 
Top Bottom