50% gay, 50% straight?

If you're going to pretend that your argument is rooted in physiology and human psychology, could you provide us with a side order of references to go with your otherwise unfounded musings?

If by the "you're not the boss of me," you refer to DC's implication that you're arrogant to describe him in ways that you can't begin to confirm or disconfirm ... well, I think DC is telling you something you need to hear, Phil. (Now please understand, I think in some ways we are all rife with arrogance.)
I don't think DC is being childish at all.

I certainly can see very little intersection between homophobia and a claim that one doesn't find something attractive.
One involves a repulsion away; the other merely says there is no attraction towards.

Homophobia also generalizes on one's own response to a claim about a class of beings; the homophobe usually thinks there is something wrong with the homsexual.
You're not saying, I hope, that DC is making any such claim about women.
He has many women friends and seems to be attracted to them on a number of levels, excepting, as he says, the sexual.
His interaction with a number of women on the board confirms this.

We're all invested in belief systems more than we realize, Phil.
But we forget that.
Don't we?

Golly gosh this thread is such a great YAWN. Possibly PhilAysheo is practicing his broken logic to explain all things neatly for his universe in anticipation of auditioning as a meat puppet for FOX Not The News Network. I dunno. But he certainly believes in his heart he has human sexuality figured out. I believe he believes he is sincere and thoughtful. If no one heart, I will gladly inform him he is living in a solipsistic bubble. With luck, it will float away and eventually pop, allowing his sweet self to tumble back down to earth.

Actually... I mean to suggest that anyone refuting an argument from the perspective of "not me" is fostering a weak argument.

Midlifebear ought to able to discern that the solipsitic argument is the one that states "I know myself", or, "my personal experience is the rule"... which is the entire content of the argument that's been offered in disagreement with what I am suggesting.

Senor... 'arrogance' is to claim that your opinion of your own experience is undeniably accurate and reflective of a wider truth.
DC did not offer any argument in counter other than to state that I must be wrong because he thinks I am wrong about him.

But what i keep seeing is knee jerk reactions that show no real attempt to even understand the argument I am making...
Its like he thinks I am saying he's not gay....

As to heterophobia... a good working definition of hetero or homophobia would be any statement that you would find it impossible to receive pleasure from Gender X.... it doesn't matter if you are violent or outspoken about this or not... iuts all an outgrowth of thinking of such attraction as OTHER, and thence Out group.



Rationalizations about our own biases are not good argument if they fail to explain the variety of personal stories thus far expressed.

A good argument will explain the entire gamut of varied sexual interests and preferences with a single model. Just as a single model explains all of evolution.

btw- as I stated... its an ARGUMENT ( not something established as fact)... An hypothesis, unproven, predicated upon what I have been able to glean from a lot of scientific sources... as well as lots of personal histories that seem to be in support.
I already admitted that its an argument and I am sorry if folks here don't comprehend the provisional nature of an argument.

Its open for debate... but do try and come up with an actual point other than "not me", or ad hominem.

I am eager to hear someone come up with an actual argument showing analogy or evidence that human sexuality is not a combination of genetic AND imprinted inputs.

Given the scope of childhood sexual experiences, expressed preferences, and changing preferences that are revealed by reading this very forum... it seems to me that this is strong evidence for what I am arguing to be the case.


I am arguing that our sexuality... with all its variations, must be the expression of a very simple set of genetic rules.
Here's an analogous example:

We all may speak different languages, yet ALL human beings are primed for learning language at a very specific age...
Your genes make your brain develop in a way that makes it open for language acquisition in a very narrow window... and if it doesn't happen by then... you will never master language as long as you live.

Thus... I argue that your genes cause you to go thru a phase of sexual sensitivity where experience will imprint upon you certain specific variations on whatever your developmentally inborn pre-disposition may be.

In this period... and to a lesser extent later on in life... you can learn to find pleasure in experiences that are varied.


Or- here's more evidence...

Its already been shown that your chances of being gay increase with each older brother you have.

This proves that being Gay is not specifically genetic, but is developmental... something in the mother's womb changes over the birth of several sons to result in increasing influence on subsequent male fetuses. An influence that results in greater likelihood of homosexuality.

But it is not set in stone... there is no specific number of older brothers that makes you gay. Rather.. it may appears to be a spectrum of influence.

So if you have 4 older brothers are you twice as gay as if you have two older brothers?

Or does this pattern have some correlation to the percentages we see under the avatars here?

IF even those who self-identify as straight have often had experiences of homoerotic experimentation... and, seemingly, most at very early ages... that is evidence in support of my postulate...that we have a developmental pre-disposition...yet go thru a period of plasticity in our youth where our experience can crystalize our sexuality more clearly.

There must be something about sexuality that is true of us as a species.
It seems to me that the developmental inclination is one part of the puzzle.
And that early childhood experience is a large component as well...

And that, just as with language, where, once we have acquired one language in childhood... we can, with difficulty, learn others as adults.
I conclude that we also, having established a sexuality early on, can learn to enjoy other sexual experiences as adults.


More to the point...

I am arguing on the basis of ALL the varied experiences cited here and in other threads.... not just my own experience.

I must seriously doubt that the most extreme opinions, at either end of the spectrum, are likely to reflect the simple reality that must underlie human sexuality.


But, unlike some folks here... I CAN be convinced otherwise, if someone can offer a genuine argument and back it up with something other than their own personal biases.

I am unmoved by childish taunts and the "whatever" response that seems the default for those with no real argument.

I have stated my suggested hypothesis.

Come up with a cogent counter...

OR don't.


But don't come at me with the religion of YOU... telling me how bad a person I am because I don't agree with YOU.

That response is solipsistic.

Phil, I don't pretend to know all the answers. But I know a boor when I read the first few lines of his or her "touching" reasoning. Again YAWN! Have you ever considered that just possibly no one cares about what you seem so relentless on theorising and possibly you would do better to pay someone, such as a mental professional, to hear you drone on?

And, "Good luck with that."

Aren't you asking others to do something which you are not willing to do? See below:

Phil, you baffle me so much that I just can't pretend to have a coherent response. But just grabbing a few graphs at random:

No. You're not arguing it. You're just asserting it. Do you know the difference between an argument and a mere assertion?

Nothing analogous about it, Phil.

Phil, where the phukh does the word 'thus' come from. You have no right whatsoever to use the word 'thus.' You have not carried us to this point.
This is quite of a piece with virtually everything you ever post.
Even the most elementary rules of logic seem to be completely absent in every statement.

Don't argue it. Argument has nothing to say here.
(In fact, you don't even truly argue. You just given pointless assertions drawn from the void. Can you really be this intellectually incompetent? One's patience runs out, Philster.)
Can you give us some experiments? Data?
The mad maunderings that sprout from the forehead of mad loopy Phil are not in themselves all that interesting.
Do better.
Do much better.
Or confine yourself to the Count to 25,000 thread.
Or maybe find your proper place at the 22nd percentile of Karla Kramer's Kindergarten Kastle. A toddler heaven, among equals, awaits you, Phil.
It also wouldn't hurt to learn how to type.
<rant>

Wow some good reading here. You guys are very interesting. :)

Right now, I have 80% gay and 20% straight on my profile. It wasn't like that yesterday. I'm steadily changing it just because. If they're gonna have 50% gay, 50% straight, what is the rest for anyway? Either you like one or the other or both. I like both; just a freak nature, damnit! According to my mood, I'm going change it again. What you will never see on my profile is 100% straight because that a bold-face lie.