94 posts / 0 new
Last post
Burn Your Bible's picture
I believe sexual preference

I believe sexual preference is subjective, in some cases I'm sure there is a conscious choice and in others I believe that there is no choice it's just who someone is...

Yet when it comes to sexuality we see gay behaviors in animal species.


What does your theory say about sex in the wild? We are evolved apes so.... our sexual choices as well as animals should correlate. Let me clarify that I mean same sex vs opposite sex. (I don't think that a chicken wants to cross dress)

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Well certain things don't

Well certain things don't have to be choices, but that does not mean it comes about innately. If your culture eats cockroaches and you grew up loving them, its kind of hard to make yourself stop loving them. You can't just decide to no longer enjoy cockroaches. Likewise, I've never had cockroaches, and I never want to. I can perhaps force myself to try them, but if I don't like it I don't like it.

How do you think genes played a role here? I'd say culture played a central role.

As far as animals go, there's a lot of unknowns for me. Animals seem more instinctual than us. Many animals are born like mini-adults, already walking and doing things that takes us a decade to do. They also have a lot more cues about sexuality than we do. Fireflies blink in specific ways, birds sing, peacocks flash their feathers. We humans do almost nothing.

But as far as animal sexuality goes, I'm sure you remember that one viral video a few years ago, of a chimp masturbating with a frog. Or there's talk of dolphins "raping" divers. I'd say my theory applies to animals as well more or less, and not just for homo/hetero sexuality.

algebe's picture
@John 61X Breezy: "We humans

@John 61X Breezy: "We humans do almost nothing."

Are you sure? I think we display more than peacocks. What else are Rolexes and Ferraris good for? We congregate like birds in trees and chatter about nothing, just to reassure each other of our presence. And if you watch the stock market, you'll see great flocks of people suddenly taking flight at the slightest alarm signal. Judging from recent events in Hollywood, we also have less control than we like to think over our sexual impulses.

Burn Your Bible's picture
Yes I was going to touch on

Yes I was going to touch on this as well!!


I am confused of your world view, do you think humans are animals or do you think god created us from dust?
Your answer of humans do nothing is ludicrous, all we do is try to find a mate, we work out, but clothing, work crazy hours... etc in order to "show off" we want to be around others yet act as if we are different.
Do you sit on the couch and never move? Have you never bought a shirt that you thought looked good? How can you honestly say we do nothing? We are exactly like our animal brothers in our quest to find a mate.

There are a ton of things that only humans do, but to go parallel with your answer, instinctively we follow the same patterns as other animals when it comes to sexuality. Monkey masturbates with frog- we build sex toys instead. Dolphins rape and humans do as well.

The difference is we are able to understand as humans our actions have an effect on others. If everyone was going around raping and murdering then we would die off. This simplistic mindset that you have when it comes to evolution, sex, and religion is why you are having trouble understanding or caring what others answer.

My grandfather told me once (I will relate it to this)

If everyone around you is an asshole maybe your actually the asshole.

Excuse the language, what I mean by this is that every OP that I have seen you set strict guidelines on what can and can't be said, you ignore questions that could relate to your OP, you hold near and dear to your knowledge and are not open to others. Maybe it's not people ignoring your OP maybe you left an impression that no matter who answers you will dismiss it and add in your on presupposition apologetic answer.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I didn't say we do nothing


I didn't say we do nothing period, I said we do nothing in the context of what other animals do.

I don't have a problem with saying all we do is try to find a mate. But most animals don't have to try, they don't have to worry about which clothes work and which don't, they don't have to worry about working out their bodies, or working out their personality, or working out their wallets. Their sexuality seems scripted and robotic. A lot even have specific time of year, and specific location they know where to mate.

As for your complaint at the end. You do realize I'm mostly alone here, right? I'm just one dude, responding to ten different people, each of which wants to ask me ten different questions or make ten different comments. You learn to only respond to the things you find interesting after a while, and let the rest complain all they want.

Burn Your Bible's picture
I agree that you are one man,

I agree that you are one man, all the more reason to respond to questions! See it would make more sense if the questions you ignore were about what cheese you eat or what kind of bed you sleep on. What doesn't make sense to me is when you ignore basic god questions, or when people bring up science that goes against god claims. When you bring up evolution or sex in this case, you put narrow examples and claim to only accept answers that directly reflect your OP. You ignore facts that are laid out for you if they don't follow your exact line of thinking...

As for the first part of your response...

If you do not see how animals and humans mirror each other when it comes to finding a mate then hmmm... idk. I think that human sexuality is exactly like the animal kingdom, we all are just trying to find a frog to masturbate with.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Wasn't I the one who brought

Wasn't I the one who brought up the chimp and the frog, as an example of how my theory could apply to animals as well? What do you mean I don't see it then?

Burn Your Bible's picture
Yes you brought up the chimp,

Yes you brought up the chimp, sadly you ignore all else. Again your OP fails, just because you don't understand the science behind nature vs. nurture or genes doesn't mean if you say it it's true. Your theory is a hypothetical, what studies have you done to create this theory? What are you actually saying? What is the point of this post?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
How does my OP fail? The OP

How does my OP fail? The OP is not about animals. I even began my answer to your animal question thus: "As far as animals go, there's a lot of unknowns for me."

Sheldon's picture
"How does my OP fail? "

"How does my OP fail? "

The complete lack of any relevance to atheism?

Burn Your Bible's picture
Your OP fails because the

Your OP fails because the dishonesty behind your post...first is that this is your HYPOTHESIS NOT A THEORY.

"Genes are redundant, functional vs nonfunctional, etc"

You cite no scientific studies to back up your assertion that genes are redundant.

Who are you to say what is functional vs nonfunctional when it comes to sexuality?

You say the "reproduction" is the functional aspect yet I say you are leaving all the other reasons why "humans" have sex,
Pleasure, love, orgasms, visual stimulation etc...

The reasons I bring up animals is because they also show signs of this, not every animal has sex in order to reproduce, hint -we are animals-
So by you throwing out all these topics of discussion to only focus on reproduction as the sole function of sex is dishonest. If you did not mean to leave these out or have not brought them up "yet" then your hypothesis is unfinished.

Sexuality is a topic that even professionals don't have every answer, my opinion is people can be born gay or it can be a conscious choice, it depends on the person. I believe that if I didn't live in a society that demonized gays people would still be gay, straight, bi, trans and whatever else, the only major difference would not be in how many people ARE gay, but how many people open up about being gay.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
1. Theories seek to explain

1. Theories seek to explain any body of information, which my OP attempts. Hypothesis are the things you test. My OP doesn't really have any hypothesis. When Nyar asked what my theory predicts, that's when I posed a hypothesis: new paraphilias will eventually rise.

2. I don't recall saying what is or isn't functional sexuality, only that its a distinction I find important. Love, orgasms and pleasure all seem to make up the essence of sexuality, not its acts and behaviors. For example, blowjobs can be pleasurable, visually stimulating, love-inducing, and orgasm-producing, but I would consider blowjobs as nonfunctional in terms of reproduction. If you wish to change what qualifies as functional go for it, it makes no difference to me or my OP.

Sheldon's picture
Well that's not remotely what

Well that's not remotely what a scientific theory does, and your prediction was no more than a guess or a hunch, so not what was being asked at all, as real scientific theories make predictions that if wrong will falsify that theory or some aspect of it. You have no research published or otherwise to support it. What methods have you designed to falsify your idea? What tests have you conducted to try and falsify it? When you have done all that and gathered and tested proper evidence you can try and get it all peer reviewed and published. Until then it's no more compelling than conspiracy theories that deny the moon landings took place.

Some of our claims are particularly poorly conceived, take this analogy "Hunger is a biological need, much like sexuality." Really? Can you go without food in the same way you can go without sex, and suffer no lasting ill effects?

"that does not mean its impossible to binge eat, or become anorexic, or go on unhealthy diets. Some people eat things that are clearly not food, such as paint, or rocks. Some people eat food, but its clearly unhealthy. Other’s don't eat unhealthy, they just don’t eat the optimal....Sexuality is the same."

While sex can be pernicious of course, if it disregards the rights of others, but to imply deviating from procreational sex is comparable to an eating disorder is an absurdly simplistic generalisation. Eating disorders an seriously affect your health and even be fatal, masturbating (for example) has no lasting ill effects at all. A better topic for an OP would be to study why religions generally have such an unhealthy negative obsession with human sexuality and desire.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
1. I'm not aware of any

1. I'm not aware of any theories that accounts for the rise of new paraphilias. As far as I'm aware of they're merely documented, and if prevalent enough given their own name. Mine would not only account for them, but would expect to see more. As far as what would falsify it, I'm not sure. I have to finish developing it first, before I look into that. I have no reason to suspect it wouldn't be falsifiable.

2. It doesn't matter if we can't go without food, since I'm only interested in the drive, the need, the desire for it.

3. You seem to just be repeating what I said.

Burn Your Bible's picture
It does matter if we can or

It does matter if we can or cannot go without food if you care about the "NEED"
Some people have no need, desire or drive to procreate. Some also don't even want sex.

Now if you stop eating, because you have no drive or desire, you will die. So with hunger there is a need.

Sexuality doesn't parallel hunger.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I can see why you're confused

I can see why you're confused, but I'm referring to need in the sense of desire: I need love, I need sex, I need a Big Mac. I also already accounted for the different intensities experienced by different people.

Sheldon's picture
"I can see why you're

"I can see why you're confused, but I'm referring to need in the sense of desire: I need love, I need sex, I need a Big Mac. "

The confusion appears to be yours, since you don't 'need' sex, you may want or desire it but can live without it, food as you have been shown, more than once by more than one poster, is a necessity but sex isn't. It's a poor analogy. You also never addressed my point that non-procreational sex was ostensibly harmless, whereas eating disorders are not, so again a poor analogous comparison, especially since you're comparing a pernicious disorder with non-procreational sex, as this isn't pernicious per se.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I've explained things to a

I've explained things to a reasonable extent. Your posts and questions are due more to a lack of comprehension, than a serious objection.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
My distinction was in terms


My distinction was in terms of instincts. I can expect all peacocks to ruffle their feathers in the exact same way when looking for a mate. Most species have something unique that they do without thinking; it comes to them naturally. Some have a dance, or they build something, or they sing something. Its all very mathematical.

We don't have that. We have to put thought into our sexuality. We have to figure out what works and what doesn't. Type "how to get a girlfriend" on google, and you'll come up with a thousand sources with a thousand different approaches. Odds are none of them will work on the girl you like.

Peacocks don't have to think. They all know to fluff up their feathers in the exact same way, and wait for a match that knows what she's looking for in the exact same way. For us its a journey of discovery, trial and error, and luck.

Armando Perez's picture
I disagree. Animals are far

I disagree. Animals are far more complex than that. They are not robots. From the level of fish and ants, scientists have been able to identify individual personalities in animals. They do not behave exactly the same way when courting and that what females look for to choose a mate. Besides, courting displays in individuals change with experience too. It is true that the general courtship maneuvers are scripted for each species, (although there are variations between populations). In humans, there is a much stronger cultural effect (that makes that in some human cultures there is no courting really, men go and buy the female they want to marry to) but animals are not robots.

Burn Your Bible's picture
It comes to them naturally...

It comes to them naturally... or it's learned from the others around them!

Armando Perez's picture
In the case of people,

In the case of people, probably there is an epigenetic mutation (when certain genes are activated or deactivated) what causes homosexuality. If we recall that most gays come from heterosexual parents and heterosexual homes, the position that homosexuality is acquired by education is not very strong. However, children raised by homosexual parents are possibly more prone to express their sexuality freely which will make people think they "become" gay, when what may be happening is that many of those raised by heterosexuals in a homophobic society stay forever in the closet.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Perhaps, but a prerequisite

Perhaps, but a prerequisite to conducting these sorts of studies is ensuring anonymity and privacy are protected. There are guidelines in place which unless accounted for, the research won't be approved. Not only that, but participants need to give their informed consent, that means they understand they are protected by confidentiality.

Obviously we can't ignore societal factors, but typically researchers account for that when looking at these sorts of questions. So we have to assume participants know their confidentiality is protected, and have no reason to hide.

Armando Perez's picture
Many people do not recognize

Many people do not recognize themselves as gay or bisexual although they carry out homosexual activities. It is much more prevalent the more "machista" is the society, so heterosexual homes are more prone to produce people that do not even recognize themselves their feelings and live as a hetero. They will not reveal them in an interview because in many cases they do not tell that even to themselves.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I see. So if the person doesn

I see. So if the person doesn't know, and the researcher doesn't know, then how would you know?

Armando Perez's picture
I do not say I know, I say

I do not say I know, I say that it is a possibility that could bias these studies, also based on the non-uncommon occurrence of married "heterosexual" men surreptitiously carrying out homosexual activities.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Perhaps, but it sounds very

Perhaps, but it sounds very Freudian to me. Having a sexuality that's tucked away beneath the subconscious; which not even the person is aware of.

Nyarlathotep's picture
aperez241 - Many people do

aperez241 - Many people do not recognize themselves as gay or bisexual although they carry out homosexual activities.

Oh for sure. I've known lots of people who occasionally engage in what others might consider homosexual activity, and when asked about it they will say something like: "oh I'm not gay/bi, I just like to do X once in awhile".

My guess is that the religious nuts have demonized those words (gay, homosexual, whatever) to the point that people are unwilling to use them to describe their own behavior. Not unlike the friend (when they found out I was an atheist who said) something to the effect: "I understand why you don't believe in god, I don't believe in god. But why are you an atheist of all things?!?"


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.