Jump to content

Sex, Love and Porn: Nature V. Nurture


Lonewing

Recommended Posts

So we got into the psychology of sex and pretty hot and heavily here in this thread:

 

 

 

We have this central popular position, the "Men are from Mars, "Woman are from Venus" model. This idea has been used to differentiate men and women for as long as we've been around, even if it was only recently published. Nature, this point says, has Hard-wired us - to be ONE WAY.

 

And now we have the new model emerging that suggests Men and Women are equally capable of all emotions, behaviors, and traits we like to think are Sex linked, but indeed, are Socially linked. Nurture, this point says, has formed us - towards ANY way!

 

Study after study has decimated the MAFM;WAFV model, and yet it persists! And while we see a large movement towards gender equality, perhaps it lags when it comes to thinking about our bodies. Men enjoy the sight of a nice pair of breasts - do women? Women enjoy the sight of a bulge, but perhaps are no so keen on a naked penis - would it be surprising to suggest men really don't like the sight of a naked vagina, hence, why so many strippers still wear G-strings? [i run into a number of men who find the natural sight Nasty...with a number of derogatory terms for hairy and meatier versions...]

 

In other words, your view of porn as a sexual mental stimulus is not determined by what you have between your legs, but by how what you have between your ears has been cultured!

 

And it is my view that If one wants to learn how to get over a partner enjoying certain things like masturbating to porn, the simplest and easiest way to bridge the culture gap is to expose oneself to the stimuli, in an open, unassuming, unjudging manner, and simply see it, enjoy it, examine it, and see what one learns what they didn't see before. This may be harder said then done, of course, because if you've spent your whole life saying "I don't like This," then your subconscious thought is, "You don't like it."

 

Men and women both have the capacity to enjoy the same experiences and even, I dare say, in the same manner; we've simply been colored from birth to favor one set of experiences over the other [pink versus blue]. Once we undo this polarized coloring scheme, then, I dare say, Equality, TRUE Equality, will be achieved! ONWARDS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's fair to the Nature AND nurture side of the debate to label it the "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" debates. I don't think sex differences are necessarily huge. I don't think all sex differences are impossible to overcome or equalize in certain circumstances.

 

I just think there Are sex differences. There are physiological sex differences - as you admitted. As all we are is physiology - and the interaction of that physiology with the environment.. well ... how can you say that there are no differences between men/women - whether they be differences in emotions or skills or lifestyle preferences? As far as those physiology differences have some input in how we think - there are going to be innate differences.

 

I don't think it's as simplistic as "women like this, men like that" - but there may be many instances where women and men are, in general, predisposed to like different things. Environmental influences may exacerbate or Negate those differences.

 

There may also be circumstances where there are NO differences in predisposition - and the differences we see in society are all environmental.

 

But surely you can agree that there are SOME aspects of life where there are innate differences between the sexes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the two genders are more alike than most people would like to admit. I've found that, if you can get women away from their "culturing", so to speak--outside of the relationship model--they can be just as casually sexual as men. And, frankly, for as much as we (and I) talk about men being commitment-challenged, the vast majority of my gender-mates are seeking long-term relationships, or at least end up in them by accident. (That's not to say they're good in those relationships, in terms of being a contributing and understanding partner, mind you.)

 

The main difference, in my view, is that testosterone physically affects men, while women are stuck thinking about the bigger picture (since they can get pregnant). Those two biological realities are what limit us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I cannot. We have too many LGBT type people who show Sex does not determine Gender.

 

There are physical differences - and a big one, we can't make go away - the period. That being said, however, how you think and view sex is not in your uterus, it is in your brain.

 

You may want to bring up Estrogen for women and Testosterone for men, but the truth is, we both have both chemicals inside of us - yes, even women have testosterone! And it 's effects are, well... link removed

 

You may want to bring up PMS - as a solely Woman issue. This being said, the way I see it [fully uneducated, of course, whereas I don't have PMS] this issue is due to a sudden rush of hormones. It is not the hormones itself that produces your moods, your emotions, or your actions; your hormones are to your emotions as alcohol is to you inhibitions. In other words, alcohol does not make you be something, it simply brings that part of you out by reducing the controls you have in place keeping that behavior under check. If you ever hang out around certain men, you may find they have emotional outbursts rivaling any PMS...one instance, when we're suffering the lose of a child.

 

Speaking of hormonal imbalances, there are these disorders like Bi-polar. They occur in both men and women; if behavioral diseases were sex linked, then we'd only see them occur in me or only in women. And yet, there's no such distinctions. What about breasts, solely a domain for women? Nope, men can get breast cancer too...and with hormone treatment, can also lactate...

 

The Nature Side IS "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus." "Nature" by definition says "Because you were born a man, you act like a man." This is not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of simple definitions. And as uncomfortable as it may be, since the 1950s, the Nature debate has been steadily losing to the Nurture debate. That being said, the general Public still holds fast to Nature Myth!

 

All this being said, as a Woman it would be wisest to become deeply rooted in the Nurture debate and leave the Nature Myth behind forever. Yes, Get rid of It!! If you look into all the claims made by Women's rights groups, and by equality groups, you may quickly see that the Old Way [men are doctors, women are nurses] is a Nature viewpoint, while the new Way [Men are doctors, Women are doctors; Women are nurses and Men are nurses] is a Nurture viewpoint. In other words, to continue promoting the Nature position, women are placing a roadblock in their very own path!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then basically - you think being LGBT is a CHOICE. Just like you think being straight is a choice. Something we are socially conditioned to be.

 

Because if we are ALL the same - our sexuality is a choice. Men do not need to be more attracted to women than to men and vice versa - it's just we are socially conditioned to be this way. And a lesbian woman does not have to be more attracted to a woman than a man - she is socially conditioned to be.

 

Is that what you are saying? That's the consequence of saying we are all the same and there are no innate differences in sexuality based on our genes.

 

My argument would be that LGBT individuals have genes/hormones/cells etc which deviate from the norm for their sex - giving rise to the opposite sexual preference to what is the "norm" given their sexual organs. I don't think it's a choice they make.

 

I think we are ALL attracted to people of both sexes - but - I do think our genes make us more attracted to one sex over another. And then I think society exacerbates that preference enormously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nature Side IS "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus." "Nature" by definition says "Because you were born a man, you act like a man." This is not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of simple definitions. And as uncomfortable as it may be, since the 1950s, the Nature debate has been steadily losing to the Nurture debate. That being said, the general Public still holds fast to Nature Myth!

 

There is nothing simple about it - and simplifying it is unfair. Defining it one way (when the people who are on that side of the debate don't define it that way) is unfair.

 

"Because you were born a man, you act like a man." - Barely anyone who believes that both Nature AND Nurture have an effect on our behaviours and emotions - thinks that it's as simplistic as that statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this being said, as a Woman it would be wisest to become deeply rooted in the Nurture debate and leave the Nature Myth behind forever. Yes, Get rid of It!! If you look into all the claims made by Women's rights groups, and by equality groups, you may quickly see that the Old Way [men are doctors, women are nurses] is a Nature viewpoint, while the new Way [Men are doctors, Women are doctors; Women are nurses and Men are nurses] is a Nurture viewpoint. In other words, to continue promoting the Nature position, women are placing a roadblock in their very own path!

 

I think that would be very foolish. It's a matter for science - not a matter for politics/policy making. I'm interested in the truth - I'm interested in what's going to help us find effective treatments for problems and understand real causes. I'm far more interested in that than in taking a position just because it's better for me social policy wise. At least when it comes to something as important as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My last ex is bisexual.

 

For a while she was a lesbian. The reason she went lesbian is because she has a friend who is lesbian who she really, really likes, on an emotional and physical level. The reason she "went back" is because girls don't ejaculate, and she likes that process too. She likes the male body, she likes the female body, and she's comfortable with that position.

 

But otherwise, she is thoroughly bisexual - as in, she makes emotional connections to People first and Bodies second. Powerful thought...

 

So with that being said, I firmly DO believe sexuality [straight or gay] is a Choice, a Choice that should be supported and protected. It doesn't need to be justified, and it doesn't need to be proven; if you like a specific body, then that's all that needs to be said. You had might as well put the Freedom to choose your gender in the same basket as the freedom to choose your terms of pregnancy!

 

No genes, just Social Conditioning. It's not a bad thought, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that would be very foolish. It's a matter for science - not a matter for politics/policy making. I'm interested in the truth - I'm interested in what's going to help us find effective treatments for problems and understand real causes. I'm far more interested in that than in taking a position just because it's better for me social policy wise. At least when it comes to something as important as this.

 

The thing is, the science itself supports the Nurture position...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you knew people who chew the skin off their own fingers because they don't want to be gay and don't know how to tell their parents - but feel they have no choice. People who get bashed up in their communities because they are gay - and yet - have no choice. People who are rejected by their parents for being gay and yet - have no choice. I think you might think differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing simple about it - and simplifying it is unfair. Defining it one way (when the people who are on that side of the debate don't define it that way) is unfair.

 

"Because you were born a man, you act like a man." - Barely anyone who believes that both Nature AND Nurture have an effect on our behaviours and emotions - thinks that it's as simplistic as that statement.

 

Keep the two ideas separate, for the sakes of debate, because for a long time Nature has been used to excuse a number of ideas when in reality, it is Nurture that has been responsible for, well...everything...

 

When Social Behavior leads to a specific reaction based on your sex, that isn't nature, that's nurture. From the moment you are born, you enter into the "Pink' or "blue" chute, and it guides you from that point for the rest of your life, unless you have very enlightened parents! Go ahead, think about it for a moment how you might interact with a toddler who is a girl, versus a toddler who is a boy. How might you dress each one? What gift might you get each one? Do you realize how many of these decisions are socially geared towards the pink and blue positions, subconsciously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nature Needs Nurture: The Interaction of Hormonal and Social Influences on the Development of Behavioral Sex Differences in Rhesus Monkeys" by Kim Wallen, published in Hormones and Behavior, Volume 30, Issue 4, December 1996, Pages 364–378

 

"Nature and nurture: Genetic contributions to measures of the family environment. Plomin, Robert; Reiss, David; Hetherington, E. Mavis; Howe, George W. Developmental Psychology, Vol 30(1), Jan 1994, 32-43"

 

I could pick out a Gazillion of these, Lonewing. The truth is - the issue is undecided. There is some research that claims it's all nature, some that claims it's all nurture - MOST of it these days claims it's a combination of the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep the two ideas separate, for the sakes of debate, because for a long time Nature has been used to excuse a number of ideas when in reality, it is Nurture that has been responsible for, well...everything...

 

When Social Behavior leads to a specific reaction based on your sex, that isn't nature, that's nurture. From the moment you are born, you enter into the "Pink' or "blue" chute, and it guides you from that point for the rest of your life, unless you have very enlightened parents! Go ahead, think about it for a moment how you might interact with a toddler who is a girl, versus a toddler who is a boy. How might you dress each one? What gift might you get each one? Do you realize how many of these decisions are socially geared towards the pink and blue positions, subconsciously?

 

I can't keep the two ideas separate because science has moved on. It is no longer a simple debate between nature v nurture. Most people now accept that it is both. The two interact, to varying degrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you knew people who chew the skin off their own fingers because they don't want to be gay and don't know how to tell their parents - but feel they have no choice. People who get bashed up in their communities because they are gay - and yet - have no choice. People who are rejected by their parents for being gay and yet - have no choice. I think you might think differently.

 

You find the same stance in religions. The Jews of Germany, for instance - why didn't they just stop being Jews? The Christians who are persecuted in Africa - why can't they just Stop being Christians? The Muslims, why can't they just convert to something else? If it was so simple [convert and escape persecution or even death], don't you think they all would?

 

That is who they are, at their very root. Now I do believe you and I can both agree that religious affiliation is not something we are born with, and yet, by legal age it becomes something some of us will fight to the death to retain.

 

It's all in the brain - that Choice, however it was made, is who they are and who they will be. Or they may change later in life, one way or another, you see it happen all the time. At this point, I dare say the rigid stance "No, it is NOT a choice" is a stiff response to the side that refuses to recognize our rights to choose life partners as we see fit, instead of how They see fit. In other words, at this point in history, it's a necessary social political stance because anything less would not be taken seriously by the macro culture; Anything less, and you would NOT see the strong movement that we have today. If that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you don't hear people saying "I can't help being religious.. this is just how I am". They know they are making a choice. They know they choose to believe.

 

Not so with sexuality - at least, not all the time. Many (not all) people feel they don't have a choice with their sexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look into all the claims made by Women's rights groups, and by equality groups, you may quickly see that the Old Way [men are doctors, women are nurses] is a Nature viewpoint, while the new Way [Men are doctors, Women are doctors; Women are nurses and Men are nurses] is a Nurture viewpoint. In other words, to continue promoting the Nature position, women are placing a roadblock in their very own path!

 

Isn't this contradicting the original point you were making about how we're all really the same...that the only variances come from the ''polarized color scheme''? How is the ''old way'' any more NATURE than the ''new way''? Isn't that just your own polarized color scheme coming out in the form of your firm opinion?

 

I think in terms of the big picture...we're all essentially alike. We all share a basic humanity. But...when it comes to the more real world picture, I think there are far too many variations in experience to attempt to paint all people with the same sort of brush. It may be true that the only difference between ''this way'' and ''that way'' is a matter of perspective. So, how can you discredit another person's experience without discrediting your own as well? Polarized color scheme.

 

It's like the idea of utopia. One person has an idea of utopia, and the next person has another idea, and the next person yet another. What kind of utopia would it be if three people with three different ideas of what utopia was supposed to be, each attempted to make their idea of utopia the TRUE idea of utopia. What about the others? There are as many ideas of what IS, as there are people in this world. Believing strongly in something doesn't make it so. What's true for you won't be true for the next guy or girl. I don't think there are any absolutes in this realm of thinking, and to me, that was the point you were making in your original post. Polarization. Learned behaviors...thoughts...actions...opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nature Needs Nurture: The Interaction of Hormonal and Social Influences on the Development of Behavioral Sex Differences in Rhesus Monkeys" by Kim Wallen, published in Hormones and Behavior, Volume 30, Issue 4, December 1996, Pages 364–378

 

"Nature and nurture: Genetic contributions to measures of the family environment. Plomin, Robert; Reiss, David; Hetherington, E. Mavis; Howe, George W. Developmental Psychology, Vol 30(1), Jan 1994, 32-43"

 

I could pick out a Gazillion of these, Lonewing. The truth is - the issue is undecided. There is some research that claims it's all nature, some that claims it's all nurture - MOST of it these days claims it's a combination of the two.

 

Look for newer reviews that synthesize a larger body of research - it's important to look at the points where it is nature, and the points where it is nurture.

My two ready references:

Ceci & Williams, The Mathematic of sex; how biology and society conspire to limit talented women and girls. [2010]

Rivers & Barnett, The Truth About Girls and Boys: Challenging Toxic Stereotypes About Our Children [2011]

 

Ceci and Williams finds that men and women are equal pound for pound, inch for inch in EVERY WAY every step up to the point where women decide to have children. At that one moment, women lose 18 months per child in the labor force, thus removing them from STEM career considerations. Did having a child make them less intelligent? No, but it did remove them form the social climate at least 6 months, and then it reduces their available time for research at least 40 hours a week, though this 40 hours can be shared with a partner [because parenting is a full time job]. Is that Nature, or Nurture? I say it's another case of causation versus correlation, whereas the correlation only occurs as a consequence and due to a direct impact [Logical fallacy demonstration: Ice cream cone sales go up and sun burns increase; therefore, ice cream must therefore cause sunburns]

 

Rivers and Barnet is an interesting read. They basically find that children's behavior is entirely guided by the approval/disapproval of the parents, by how the parents and surround entities raise them. The simple act of giving a girl a doll and a boy a truck was one example, whereas in the absence of parents they found girls playing with trucks and boys playing with dolls with equal ease, but once the parents were present, they migrated towards the "encouraged" gender role.

 

What is Nature, and what is Nurture - it's worth taking a second look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look for newer reviews that synthesize a larger body of research - it's important to look at the points where it is nature, and the points where it is nurture.

 

Seriously? The absolute NEWEST position - is that it's both. The idea that it's one or the other is very old. SOME researchers still cling to it - the vast majority do not. Yes, nurture makes a HUGE contribution - but it interacts with nature and nature does play some role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where everything is tied together is in Social Upbringing - we are equal in that we all have a social upbringing [or an absence of one] - even though every one of those social upbringings is different. Hence, every idea of utopia is also different, but that's because how we think and act is determined by our experiences and the knowledge we've gained from them. No matter what happens, every one of our experiences will be different - even for Twins raised in the same environment, you can expect different opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously? The absolute NEWEST position - is that it's both. The idea that it's one or the other is very old. SOME researchers still cling to it - the vast majority do not. Yes, nurture makes a HUGE contribution - but it interacts with nature and nature does play some role.

 

That's kind of the point here. The way you're saying it, Nature and nurture are equal. But lest us Suppose 0s are Nurture, and Os are nature...

 

The way this is carrying on, what you are saying is more akin to

 

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

In which case both elements play almost equal parts.

 

Now in this statement:

 

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000OOOOO000000

 

Nurture is a "Huge contribution," while Nature "does play some role."

 

Does nature play a large enough role in this statement to be as notable as it might otherwise seem?

 

By the first statement, if your Os are XX, then you will be one way, and if your Os are XY, you're a different way. Reality? In more ways than we assume, the biological differences aren't as pronounced as perhaps we've been led to believe. If you are XX, you can be the latter profile, and if you are XY, you can also be the latter profile.

 

This latter statement is where things have been going since the 1950s, where we see the passing of ideas rooted in biology[segregation, suffarage, bigotry], and the coming of ideas rooted in humanology [equal opportunity, equal rights].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's kind of the point here. The way you're saying it, Nature and nurture are equal.

 

Lonewing, I have NEVER said that the two are equal. In fact, I have said over and over and over that I believe nurture plays a HUGE role - but nature plays some role - implying that I think nurture is a far larger contributor to most differences than nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...