- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 82,104
- Reaction score
- 19,742
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Observation. There is much that we learn through our senses, especially in our early years, and we are not even conscious of it. We will know things and never ever remember "learning" it. Do you remember learning to walk? Even as adults, we take in input without realizing it that can affect out thoughts, idea, decisions and choices. If you want a better word than "learned", which might imply being taught to you, I'm open to suggestions. But hopefully I've gotten my concept across, yes? Not asking if you agree with it, just was it delivered clearly enough?
Imnukingfutz brings up a very interesting point. If homosexuality is learned why is it only learned by a few people? In the case of siblings, let's say both siblings are boys why is it that if one is homosexual the other is not? If they learned it, from where did they learn it?
This really plays more at a disposition than a learned behavior.
A disposition might also be learned. I will say up front that I believe there are all manner of predispositions, and I'm not sure any one knows for sure why some are predisposed to certain behaviors, but I do not believe all predispositions are immutable traits. With learned behavior the key is attention. Exposure isn't sufficient to strengthen neurological pathways, exposure plus attention is. With sexuality it's much tougher to expect that change in preference is possible, but the development of the preference one way or the other was strengthened and set with experience and attention.
There have been studies going back decades where researchers could predict whether a kid would end up gay, with high accuracy (about 75%), by age 6-7. So where is a kid that age "learning" to like people of either sex exclusively, when they aren't even attracted to anyone yet?
Do you have any proof?
There are tons of psychology books that discuss this. Try a book with the psychology of learning as it's subject.
I Have a masters in psychology.
We have many competing theories as to the origin of sexuality, to me they are all relatively equally valid. So a positive answer doesn't exist I think any reputable psychological analysis of this subject would render a similar conclusion.
It could be a learned behavior, it could be something else. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but there are no factual conclusions that support it.
I agree and I have said "I believe" attraction it is learned behavior. If you have a masters in psy, you know it's a valid theory. If applied to any other subject besides sexuality, attraction to other subject matter or style, learned behavior as the cause of attraction is not controversial at all.
I thought this was a discussion about sexual orientation, of course attraction can be learned behavior. Sexual orientation is not the same thing.
Didn't say it was an invalid theory, just that it isn't proven.
I was informed by others on the thread who said that homosexual behavior is a choice but the attraction is not. I replied attraction is learned behavior. the topic of sexuality inflames passions and causes some to reject certain ideas that do not fit their predetermined notions. I admit we don't know for sure.
I thought this was a discussion about sexual orientation, of course attraction can be learned behavior. Sexual orientation is not the same thing.
Didn't say it was an invalid theory, just that it isn't proven.
I was informed by others on the thread who said that homosexual behavior is a choice but the attraction is not. I replied attraction is learned behavior. the topic of sexuality inflames passions and causes some to reject certain ideas that do not fit their predetermined notions. I admit we don't know for sure.
I'm not familiar with these studies, How do the formulate their predictions?
I don't really know how attraction is or can be learned. It's kind of like "desire". Either it exists...or it doesn't. Attraction is still one of the great mysteries in human relationships. Don't know of anybody who as yet been able to figure out, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Our notion of beauty is influenced by our perception of it. If you loved in a nation where fatty women with mustaches were thought to be beautiful than you would limey think that fatty women with mustaches were beautiful. It may not be a choice, but it comes from somewhere.
Therein lies the mystery of the mind. And while you are applying an environmental element...I still don't know if I can agree with that. The sizes of fat may differ and the shapes of mustaches my vary.
So two boys observe the same thing, one is gay and the other is not, what gives?
Also what is observed to make him gay?
I thought this was a discussion about sexual orientation, of course attraction can be learned behavior. Sexual orientation is not the same thing.
Didn't say it was an invalid theory, just that it isn't proven.
Attraction may indeed and is often times a learned involuntary behavior. That says nothing of sexual orientation however and therefore says nothing about homosexual orientation being a learned behavior. You are talking about attraction.
Address orientation, because i do accept that attraction can be learned.
Our notion of beauty is influenced by our perception of it. If you loved in a nation where fatty women with mustaches were thought to be beautiful than you would limey think that fatty women with mustaches were beautiful. It may not be a choice, but it comes from somewhere.
Therein lies the mystery of the mind. And while you are applying an environmental element...I still don't know if I can agree with that. The sizes of fat may differ and the shapes of mustaches my vary.
True, but the decision on which one is better looking isn't cosmic. Most people know why they are attracted to the type they are attracted to.
So experience is the only factor? Personality plays no role?Age, previous experiences, different interactions with different people. You cannot tell me, even with twins, even early on in their lives, that they will both experience all the exact same things. There will be variations. These variation can possibility make the difference.
Finally you are making sense. We don't know, that was my only point. Some obscure occurrence in childhood seems highly unlikely.Who knows? If indeed homosexuality is learned in the early years when we won't have memories of what it was that influenced in one direction or another, do you really think that there is any true way to be able to test that and control all aspect of the subjects lives to ensure control groups and variable groups? It could be various combinations of things. For that matter it may require a certain genetic disposition along with some kind of environmental trigger, be it something physical or something "learned". The possibilities are endless and we don't know enough about us to even begin eliminating even a small fraction of them. For everything we learn more newer questions come up.
I'm not sure that any of us has put this forth as a given/proven, not even Ram or Onto. They would just go straight choice and not even consider it a non-choice regardless of the actual cause. We're just noting that this is still a possibility and is going to be damn hard to prove OR disprove. There are simply too many variables to control.
or bisexual, precisely. That is what that word means. If you are sexually attracted to members of your own gender you are homosexual or bisexual. That is what it means. Otherwise those words mean nothing.Please explain the difference between attraction and orientation in this context. Are you saying that I can be sexually attracted to my gender without being homosexual?
I don't. I know I'm attracted to Redheads, East Asian women, older women, and women who have at least enough meat on their bones that I'm not counting ribs. And while I can look at Playboy Bunny types as wank fodder, I really don't have much attraction to them. I know what I am attracted to, I just don't know why. And I really doubt that most people know why. Do you know why you are attracted to the type of person your husband is?
Well just because you are not very introspective doesn't mean most people aren't.
I know exactly why i am attracted to my husband. I have no type, my various past lovers have very little in common. I am not attracted to a "type", i don't believe there is a type of people. People can have similar characteristics, but I don't buy a such thing as a type.
True, but the decision on which one is better looking isn't cosmic. Most people know why they are attracted to the type they are attracted to.
or bisexual, precisely. That is what that word means. If you are sexually attracted to members of your own gender you are homosexual or bisexual. That is what it means. Otherwise those words mean nothing.
attraction is desire of appearance, personality, other things of such. Orientation is the position of something or someone especially oneself.
Age, previous experiences, different interactions with different people. You cannot tell me, even with twins, even early on in their lives, that they will both experience all the exact same things. There will be variations. These variation can possibility make the difference.
True, but the decision on which one is better looking isn't cosmic. Most people know why they are attracted to the type they are attracted to.
But the studies on identical twins suggests as high as a 50% correlation, so that's clearly a biological component. I'm not sure what the significance is of claiming something as "learned" at an early age (5 years at latest, if you consider the studies). In my experience with this topic, when people start throwing around "learned," "choice," "environment," it's about assigning blame and saying it can be "unlearned" - as johndylan1 has been doing for a while now.
Age, previous experiences, different interactions with different people. You cannot tell me, even with twins, even early on in their lives, that they will both experience all the exact same things. There will be variations. These variation can possibility make the difference.
Who knows? If indeed homosexuality is learned in the early years when we won't have memories of what it was that influenced in one direction or another, do you really think that there is any true way to be able to test that and control all aspect of the subjects lives to ensure control groups and variable groups? It could be various combinations of things. For that matter it may require a certain genetic disposition along with some kind of environmental trigger, be it something physical or something "learned". The possibilities are endless and we don't know enough about us to even begin eliminating even a small fraction of them. For everything we learn more newer questions come up.
I'm not sure that any of us has put this forth as a given/proven, not even Ram or Onto. They would just go straight choice and not even consider it a non-choice regardless of the actual cause. We're just noting that this is still a possibility and is going to be damn hard to prove OR disprove. There are simply too many variables to control.
Please explain the difference between attraction and orientation in this context. Are you saying that I can be sexually attracted to my gender without being homosexual?
And indeed, you can obtain that particular attraction outside of a place where such women abound and/or are considered an ideal of beauty. Anything learned will be an "environmental" factor, RM. I can't see how it would be anything else. It doesn't matter whether it's learned consciously or unconsciously.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?