I'm not attracted to (gender); I would never date a (gender)

[CH1YO]

lumnata

Love Muffin88

I see what you're doing here emotion_awesome Clever, clever.

I was going to post this. xd

Also, if you only date people within a certain age limit, that is age discrimination.

Within reason. There is such a thing as too old.

[Queen Regent Cersei]

lesbians are cool sometimes.

[The20]

Major Lima Charlie

Love Muffin88

Major Lima Charlie

I imagine life would be easier if I was as ******** stupid as some of the people in this thread.

Care to elaborate on why you think some of the people in this thread are stupid?

The OP alleges that racial preferences are inborn. That were he adopted by into a black society from birth, he would find the majority of people unattractive. That's jaw-droppingly moronic. Jessi Danger's a brick head, too. If you'd like, you can find evidence in the thread this one's mocking.

It's the opposite, really. Allegedly people are attracted to people who look similar to people they see a lot during their early childhood. It makes sense in a "getting used to something" way.

[Proto-Onkelos]

I'm sexist.

[walnutpooh]

Dicks look like those things from alien. Some people think they are extremely sexy, but I don't like them. I'm proud to be sexist!

[Exoth XIII]

Steam Punk Adept

I don't understand how someone could possibly state they are not attracted or would not date someone of a the same sex.

It's real easy. I'm just not attracted to it.

Quote:

how they have tried to justify not being attracted to or refusing to date someone of the same gender - and on each and every occasion I've always, regardless of the person's sex, have always called bullshit.

Kay. Calling bullshit isn't going to make me attracted to boys.

Quote:

People always claim to have a good reason as to why they refuse to date someone of the same gender, and I've always found them to be far from there.

Not having any attraction to them sounds like a pretty damn good reason to me.

Quote:

The person's reasons are always rooted in type of form of sexism ( "I'm just not attracted to d**k." "I prefer someone with boobs." )

That's not sexism. That's heterosexuality.
You can't MAKE a gay person be attracted to anyone of the opposite gender, any more than you can make a straight attracted to the same.

Quote:

or sexual stereotypes ( "I don't like guys/girls because they are masculine/feminine." "Gay girls/boys are too aggressive. I would NEVER date one!" ).

Ok, THAT is sexism.

Quote:

How someone could possibly think that it's okay or "perfectly normal" to use these as reasons to not date someone is beyond me.

Dating isn't platonic. Attraction is a necessity.

Quote:

Moreover, a lot of homosexuals (mostly men) tend to avoid navigating outside of their gender circle because a) they are afraid of being rejected (whether people want to admit it or not, a lot of straight males have a habit of telling a gay man that he is "a disturbing queer" or "if you were a woman, I would totally date you." ) and b) being judged by people, mostly males.

I'm not going to pretend to be attracted to a gay guy to spare his feelings. Not only would he be devastated if he ever found out, but he'd be kept, until then, away from searching for someone who IS attracted to him.

Quote:

(I also challenged those that DO think in the way that I have stated above to think and reconsider their beliefs; believe or not, your "preferences" are hurtful and discriminatory. And yes, it is also a byproduct of subtle and embedded sexism (and, in the case of LGBT, internal sexism).

It seems to me that you want to lift bisexuality on a pedestal, as though it were the only sexuality free from sexism, which seems to me just a bit intolerant, of both heterosexuality, and homosexuality.

[Major Lima Charlie]

Exoth, they're trying to mock others for saying that racial preferences aren't innate, as if moronic sarcasm makes them less wrong.

[Major Lima Charlie]

kixoh

Dicks look like those things from alien. Some people think they are extremely sexy, but I don't like them. I'm proud to be sexist!

If that just makes it hotter, is that wrong?

[Steam Punk Adept]

Exoth XIII

Steam Punk Adept

I don't understand how someone could possibly state they are not attracted or would not date someone of a the same sex.

It's real easy. I'm just not attracted to it.

Quote:

how they have tried to justify not being attracted to or refusing to date someone of the same gender - and on each and every occasion I've always, regardless of the person's sex, have always called bullshit.

Kay. Calling bullshit isn't going to make me attracted to boys.

Quote:

People always claim to have a good reason as to why they refuse to date someone of the same gender, and I've always found them to be far from there.

Not having any attraction to them sounds like a pretty damn good reason to me.

Quote:

The person's reasons are always rooted in type of form of sexism ( "I'm just not attracted to d**k." "I prefer someone with boobs." )

That's not sexism. That's heterosexuality.
You can't MAKE a gay person be attracted to anyone of the opposite gender, any more than you can make a straight attracted to the same.

Quote:

or sexual stereotypes ( "I don't like guys/girls because they are masculine/feminine." "Gay girls/boys are too aggressive. I would NEVER date one!" ).

Ok, THAT is sexism.

Quote:

How someone could possibly think that it's okay or "perfectly normal" to use these as reasons to not date someone is beyond me.

Dating isn't platonic. Attraction is a necessity.

Quote:

Moreover, a lot of homosexuals (mostly men) tend to avoid navigating outside of their gender circle because a) they are afraid of being rejected (whether people want to admit it or not, a lot of straight males have a habit of telling a gay man that he is "a disturbing queer" or "if you were a woman, I would totally date you." ) and b) being judged by people, mostly males.

I'm not going to pretend to be attracted to a gay guy to spare his feelings. Not only would he be devastated if he ever found out, but he'd be kept, until then, away from searching for someone who IS attracted to him.

Quote:

(I also challenged those that DO think in the way that I have stated above to think and reconsider their beliefs; believe or not, your "preferences" are hurtful and discriminatory. And yes, it is also a byproduct of subtle and embedded sexism (and, in the case of LGBT, internal sexism).

It seems to me that you want to lift bisexuality on a pedestal, as though it were the only sexuality free from sexism, which seems to me just a bit intolerant, of both heterosexuality, and homosexuality.

Actually, I was mocking This thread

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Really?

You think that having a different skin color is as big a difference as being say, a different gender? stare


Scientifically speaking, 1 chromosome difference is about a 4.34% difference, while a gene for skin color is 2 out of 3 billion genes.

So yeah.

[Exoth XIII]

Steam Punk Adept

Exoth XIII

Steam Punk Adept

I don't understand how someone could possibly state they are not attracted or would not date someone of a the same sex.

It's real easy. I'm just not attracted to it.

Quote:

how they have tried to justify not being attracted to or refusing to date someone of the same gender - and on each and every occasion I've always, regardless of the person's sex, have always called bullshit.

Kay. Calling bullshit isn't going to make me attracted to boys.

Quote:

People always claim to have a good reason as to why they refuse to date someone of the same gender, and I've always found them to be far from there.

Not having any attraction to them sounds like a pretty damn good reason to me.

Quote:

The person's reasons are always rooted in type of form of sexism ( "I'm just not attracted to d**k." "I prefer someone with boobs." )

That's not sexism. That's heterosexuality.
You can't MAKE a gay person be attracted to anyone of the opposite gender, any more than you can make a straight attracted to the same.

Quote:

or sexual stereotypes ( "I don't like guys/girls because they are masculine/feminine." "Gay girls/boys are too aggressive. I would NEVER date one!" ).

Ok, THAT is sexism.

Quote:

How someone could possibly think that it's okay or "perfectly normal" to use these as reasons to not date someone is beyond me.

Dating isn't platonic. Attraction is a necessity.

Quote:

Moreover, a lot of homosexuals (mostly men) tend to avoid navigating outside of their gender circle because a) they are afraid of being rejected (whether people want to admit it or not, a lot of straight males have a habit of telling a gay man that he is "a disturbing queer" or "if you were a woman, I would totally date you." ) and b) being judged by people, mostly males.

I'm not going to pretend to be attracted to a gay guy to spare his feelings. Not only would he be devastated if he ever found out, but he'd be kept, until then, away from searching for someone who IS attracted to him.

Quote:

(I also challenged those that DO think in the way that I have stated above to think and reconsider their beliefs; believe or not, your "preferences" are hurtful and discriminatory. And yes, it is also a byproduct of subtle and embedded sexism (and, in the case of LGBT, internal sexism).

It seems to me that you want to lift bisexuality on a pedestal, as though it were the only sexuality free from sexism, which seems to me just a bit intolerant, of both heterosexuality, and homosexuality.

Actually, I was mocking This thread

Oh. Silly me.

[Exoth XIII]

Suicidesoldier#1

Really?

You think that having a different skin color is as big a difference as being say, a different gender? stare


Scientifically speaking, 1 chromosome difference is about a 4.34% difference, while a gene for skin color is 2 out of 3 billion genes.

So yeah.

Sexual attraction isn't measured in genes.

[redroosters]

Steam Punk Adept

I don't understand how someone could possibly state they are not attracted or would not date someone of a the same sex. I've seen many discussions (a few on Gaia, most outside of Gaia) in which people have shared their views on "preferential" dating, and how they have tried to justify not being attracted to or refusing to date someone of the same gender - and on each and every occasion I've always, regardless of the person's sex, have always called bullshit.

If being not gay is being sexist now, I'm cool with being sexist.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Exoth XIII

Suicidesoldier#1

Really?

You think that having a different skin color is as big a difference as being say, a different gender? stare


Scientifically speaking, 1 chromosome difference is about a 4.34% difference, while a gene for skin color is 2 out of 3 billion genes.

So yeah.

Sexual attraction isn't measured in genes.

Um...

You know ignoring the obvious thing about...


It's not as big a difference- it's like stating that only liking someone with certain facial features (still shallow) is the same as being a completely different gender.

Which it's not, at all.

[Omorose Panya]

lumnata

Homosexuality is genetic

Have fun demonstrating that:

Omorose Panya

Oblivion Blades

True that, I was more of addressing the nurture part. I've never seen a study on how nurture potentially affects homosexuality, and I'd like to see one, since the nature+nurture seems to be the most accepted idea currently, but I've only seen the nature part studied.

The "nature part" doesn't have much of a leg to stand on:

Omorose Panya

The problem with all these such studies is that they test adults, and you can't assume that a common factor amongst adults implies genetics or that they were "born that way."

Wikipedia

Neuroplasticity refers to the susceptibility to physiological changes of the nervous system, due to changes in behavior, environment, neural processes, or parts of the body other than the nervous system.[1] The brain changes throughout life.[2]

Neuroplasticity occurs on a variety of levels, ranging from cellular changes due to learning, to large-scale changes involved in cortical remapping in response to injury. The role of neuroplasticity is widely recognized in healthy development, learning, memory, and recovery from brain damage. During most of the 20th century, the general consensus among neuroscientists was that brain structure is relatively immutable after a critical period during early childhood. This belief has been challenged by findings revealing that many aspects of the brain remain plastic even into adulthood.[3]

Hubel and Wiesel had demonstrated that ocular dominance columns in the lowest neocortical visual area, V1, were largely immutable after the critical period in development.[4] Critical periods also were studied with respect to language; the resulting data suggested that sensory pathways were fixed after the critical period. However, studies determined that environmental changes could alter behavior and cognition by modifying connections between existing neurons and via neurogenesis in the hippocampus and other parts of the brain, including the cerebellum.[5]

Decades of research[6] have now shown that substantial changes occur in the lowest neocortical processing areas, and that these changes can profoundly alter the pattern of neuronal activation in response to experience. Neuroscientific research indicates that experience can actually change both the brain's physical structure (anatomy) and functional organization (physiology). Neuroscientists are currently engaged in a reconciliation of critical period studies demonstrating the immutability of the brain after development with the more recent research showing how the brain can, and does, change.[7]

Not to mention that there are many problems with trying to compare the brains of different social groups, given the already vast difference between any two brains. (It's an issue we keep running into with gender studies.)

Someone else got it right: Given how differently sexuality is expressed across time and place, along with how artificially and rigidly we [Westerners, Americans in particular] conceptualize it in the first place, it is probably more nurture than nature (same with any sexuality), though that does not make it a choice.

The bold is an important point. The common understanding of heterosexuality and homosexuality used to be different in America and Europe as recently as a century ago-- homosexuality's bad rep seems to have resulted in people self-identifying in extremes that likely only a very small fraction of the population would actually fall under. In addition, it is expressed in so many different ways that it is unlikely to be mostly genetic.[x]

Omorose Panya

Robot Macai

People have asked where I get my information about the psychological dogma of all behavior being societal rather than genetic, and I must admit that I was intending this as a jab against Meroko Love and Blind Guardian, and their supporters, but I guess I failed to make it obvious enough.

I can't speak for Meroko_Love's position, but you have got BG's incorrect. He doesn't say that nature plays no part; what he says corresponds with current neuroscience-- that "nature" needs to be activated in a sense by "nurture," thus making "nurture" the bigger component.

I think I already went over this with you but I'll give you the short version (again?): Humans have the largest fully developed brains, brains so large that they cannot pass through the average female's pelvis. The evolutionary trade-off is to a smaller extent larger pelvises, but mainly humans being born more prematurely than, IIRC, any other mammal. In most instances it takes more than 25% of a human's lifespan for its brain to fully develop, and elsewhere and in the past, it took around and well over 50%. That leaves humans far more vulnerable to the "nurture" end of the spectrum than almost any other animal. (It is also probably the main the problem with comparing homosexuality in other animals with homosexuality in humans.) It should also be noted that we are far less vulnerable to the effects of "nurture" once our brains develop fully.

In short, it's not that nature plays no part, but that, at least for things like this, nurture appears to play the bigger role.[x]

lumnata

while I don't believe racial preference cannot be (and is not) influenced by society, I find it difficult to believe that there is not some innate preferences that come into play.

ORLY?

1) List specific genetic markers of various races that must first be identified in order to make such an argument, and finally put the centuries' old exploration to rest.

2) Relate that to a concept in the discipline of genetics to convince me that the argument holds water. I am particularly interested in hearing about how that is "genotypically advantageous," considering that we cannot figure out genotypes (which is what matters when it comes to these such arguments) from simply.observing phenotypes.

3) Explain that in the context of evolutionary biology. How is the arbitrary narrowing of the list of potential mates in such an artificial manner advantageous to the survival of our species?


Or in simpler terms, upon which specific concepts in the relevant fields are you basing the belief that there must be some degree of "innateness" (i.e. genetic predisposition) to racial preference? Not to imply that there absolutely cannot be, but that is different from implying that there absolutely must be. My point is that so many people jump on the "This must be genetic!" bandwagon without having a real reason to do so, which is dangerous and generally leads to the obscuring of social responsibility and ultimately social justice.