Automatic values

[Starling]

Re: urges, I'm not sure humans choose certain preferences, like taste. If you don't like cabbage, I doubt you ever made any kind of choice to find that taste icky. But you can need/desire cabbage i.e. you want to eat it because it's good for you, despite the taste. No matter how much you choose to eat cabbage and recognize and integrate its nutrition and other values, your body won't stop tasting ickiness. Could the same thing apply to a homosexual, i.e. no matter how hard you try, you simply won't find the opposite sex sexy?

[fletch]

Could the same thing apply to a homosexual, i.e. no matter how hard you try, you simply won't find the opposite sex sexy?

I think that is right. Or, put another way, "Could the same thing apply to a heterosexual, i.e. no matter how hard you try, you simply won't find the same sex sexy?" That is the situation I find myself in. I like females, I find them sexy. I don't care how good looking a guy might be, I wont find him sexy. Now, this is not the result of some conscious choice that I have ever in my life made. It is just the way I am and always have been.

If the issue is whether or not sexual orientation is volitional or not, it seems to me that this can be proven easily enough. All we need is a volunteer. If someone who honestly believes that a person can alter his sexual orientation through his own volition would volunteer to do so, we could get to the bottom of this. That would entail someone who now finds the opposite sex to be sexually attractive to choose to find the same sex sexually attractive. I would volunteer myself, but I do not believe that sexual orientation is volitional, and there is no chance that if Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were walking toward me I could ever persuade myself to gawk at Brad Pitt. Its just not going to happen.

[EC]

No, EC you are wrong. Very young children don't have sexual awareness.

I didn't say that they did. I said that they are beginning of developing the first premises that will one day lead to awareness of their sexual orientation. It is a process that takes time, and most of it is automatized implicitly like learning to ride a bike. But it is learned over time.

I definately do have sexual urges

That is nice to know.

This is not conceptual. It is my body's physiological need.

This is not what I meant, that is physio-psycho-epistemological need enhanced by your hormones, i.e., your nature as a woman. I meant humans don't have instinctual urges such as the "urge" to fly south for the winter. In other words, it your sexual "urges" are not just a result of your hormones or your physical nature as a women, but also your automatized premises with regard to your sexual preferences; since the brain (or more precisely one's mind) is the most important sex organ in humans. But, it is always and must be a combination of your physical body and your mind since man is an integration of both due to his nature as a conceptual being.

Could the same thing apply to a homosexual, i.e. no matter how hard you try, you simply won't find the opposite sex sexy?

Yes. But it is most likely a result of accepting certain premises implicitly at a young age coupled with one's unique hormone and emotional make-up.

[EC]

I would volunteer myself, but I do not believe that sexual orientation is volitional, and there is no chance that if Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were walking toward me I could ever persuade myself to gawk at Brad Pitt. Its just not going to happen.

Has everyone here who shares this line of reasoning really thought through what it implies? It implies that in one area of man's existence he is acting essentially on an instinctual level. That one of the most important parts of a man's life is non-volitional. When it comes to this one issue it seems most here want to have their cake and eat it too. But man is a volitional being, the only time volition isn't involved in a man's life is when it comes to reflexes--such as gagging or breathing, etc. But sexual attraction is not a reflex, although ones sexual reactions may seem that way because they happen so quick and are highly automatized. The mind is the most important part of a man when it comes to his sexual identity, and anything involving the mind not just the brain involves choice. That doesn't mean that one's physical form, and things such as his hormones, ect. aren't also important, because they are--man is an integration of body and soul. But denying choice to man in even this one area implies that not everything man does is by choice. It invalidates the whole concept of volition by allowing an exception to volition in a key area of man's life. It is a direct attack on free-will.

Is sexual orientation more complicated than most choices made by man because it is directly tied to his physical being as well as his mental being? Yes. Is it more complicated than most choices because most were made implicitly at a young age and slowly automatized in combination with hormonal "feelings"? Yes. But no matter how "complicated" and implicit the choices were, they still must have been choices at some point or else the whole concept of free-will in man folds on itself like a deck of cards. But we know volition exists, and therefore it must exist in regards to man's sexual preferences too.

All human choice is open to moral evaluation, and every is implies an ought. Man is a specific entity of a specific nature. Part of that nature includes there being two different and complementary sexes. This is self-evident on a perceptual basis, even by infants. Note that they can quickly differentiate between "Ma-ma" and "Da-da". What is self-evident to them is that these two entities are different and yet alike in many ways. To say that two beings of the same species can create another similar being togetherproves that they are complementary by nature.

But, as has been pointed out, since man does possess volition he does not necessarily have to only have sex to reproduce, nor is this usually even the reason why he does. But, because the mind is the most important part of a man's sexual being choice must have been involved at some level of consciousness, otherwise choice doesn't exist. Since choice must have been involved at some point, and all human choice is open to moral evaluation, and it is perceptually self-evident that man and woman are beings of a complementary nature, then it follows that it is in man's nature for men and women to have sexual relations for any reason, either for purely reproductive reasons, for pleasure, or for bonding on the highest of intimacy levels. This is man's nature and it must be adhered to by choice. When one makes the choice to live as one's nature prescribes, one is making a moral decision and it is good, because it enhances his life and happiness in a positive way that conforms with his nature as a man. When one chooses homosexuality, he is choosing to live in contradiction with his self-evident nature, even if this choice was formed implicitly during childhood. Maintaining a contradiction is always immoral, albeit it is an extremely minor one immorality in this case since the incorrect sexual orientation was established and automatized implicitly during childhood.

Edited July 24, 2008 by EC

[~Sophia~]

I didn't say that they did. I said that they are beginning of developing the first premises that will one day lead to awareness of their sexual orientation. It is a process that takes time, and most of it is automatized implicitly like learning to ride a bike. But it is learned over time.

I think we are loosing track of what this particular argument was about. I said that researchers found actual physical brain differences. You then suggested that perhaps these differences can be a result and not the cause. To that I replied that that does not seem to be the case because it has been observed in some very young children that their thinking is different which leads to differences in their activity preferences (non sexual activities) and abilities. Something already happened at that stage which later seems to correlate with their sexual preference.

A biological component can not be ruled out at this point.

This is not what I meant, that is physio-psycho-epistemological need enhanced by your hormones, i.e., your nature as a woman.

Hormones are the source of that physiological need and it would have been there even if I lived on a deserted island. Are you suggesting that if I grew up in isolation I would be as equally attracted to females as to males or not sexually attracted to anyone? Certainly if sexual preference is learned then I would not have had anyone to learn it from.

[EC]

Something already happened at that stage which later seems to correlate with their sexual preference.

A biological component can not be ruled out at this point.

Well to that all I have say is that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Maybe some of the neural pathways used for each of these things is the same, but that doesn't imply that the two have the same causes or effects. Two vehicles can use the same highway at the same time to traverse two totally different routes, they could be coming from and going to two very different places, but happen to use the same major highway at the same time for part of their mutual journeys.

Hormones are the source of that physiological need and it would have been there even if I lived on a deserted island. Are you suggesting that if I grew up in isolation I would be as equally attracted to females as to males or not sexually attracted to anyone? Certainly if sexual preference is learned then I would not have had anyone to learn it from.

I think that you would not be sexually attracted to others at all because you never would have known of their existence to begin with--male or female. But, you would still have purely "hormonal sexual urges" that you may learn to use as a source of "self-love", i.e., you would probably become attracted to yourself in a way.

[~Sophia~]

Well to that all I have say is that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Maybe some of the neural pathways used for each of these things is the same, but that doesn't imply that the two have the same causes or effects.

My point was that a difference is observed before sexual awareness/maturation and therefore it is not a result of sexual choices (as per your suggestion). Based on what we know today biological component can not be ruled out and that is where your mistake lies.

I think that you would not be sexually attracted to others at all because you never would have known of their existence to begin with--male or female.

I meant at a point of meeting another human being - let's say both a female and a male. Would my sexual responses be indiscriminate? I don't think so. Nothing that we know suggest that. We have evolved in a way which assures propagation of our species which means we have to be attracted to the opposite sex as a default position. Biologically that what sexual drive is for - 1) wanting to do it 2) wanting to do it with the right sex. There will be some deviations as there always are in nature but overall this can not be and it is not left biologically speaking to chance (that we randomly make a right decision). Control/biologically directing of our sexual responses is crucial when it comes to our species because 1) we don't produce a lot of offspring in our lifetime and 2) it takes a long time for our offspring to reach maturation (especially in the past survival rate was very low - low chance of further offspring). There is a reason why sexual urges are the strongest and most frequent during the time when a woman is the most fertile. There is a reason why most women (by far) are sexual attracted to men.

Edited July 24, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[KevinDW78]

But man is a volitional being, the only time volition isn't involved in a man's life is when it comes to reflexes--such as gagging or breathing, etc. But sexual attraction is not a reflex

Ok so let's go back to the point I brought up earlier which nobody responded to: is left-handedness (a condition resulting from specific configurations in the brain existing at birth) a reflex, a volitional choice, or something else? If it's a reflex, then what makes left-handedness a reflex and not sexual orientation? What differentiates them? If left-handedness is a volitiotnal choice, well then, I just won't go there cuz it's absurd. If it's something else then there is a whole new area to argue.

The reason I bring this up is because, as Sophia keeps arguing, if science shows that sexual orientation is the result of neurological conditions existing at birth, then my question becomes very relevent.

The premise of all your egruments EC is that sexual orientation is NOT a neurological condition at birth. You may be right. But, there is no sound premise that that is the case. Science could also show that you are wrong. And this I think is where people disagree. Your argument is based on this assumption. If this premise of yours is proven to be wrong, then the rest of your argument can't follow. YES your argument is valid but your premise is an arbitrary assumption that is currently not supported as sound. If you want instead to rest your argument on a default that the burden of proof is on the premise that sexual orientation IS genetic, then I would be willing to accept that point.

Edited July 24, 2008 by KevinDW78

[~Sophia~]

It implies that in one area of man's existence he is acting essentially on an instinctual level. That one of the most important parts of a man's life is non-volitional.

The desire to want to engage in a sexual activity is biological. There is no question about it. It is driven by our hormones. This can be clearly observed in females as their sexual drive is variable. Also, in the absence of an adequate level of testosterone sexual drive disappears. When it does - there is nothing that a person can do to mentally will themselves to have a sexual response. (they would be able to do it - if your theory was true).

What is volitional is our standards - with what kind of person (in terms of values) we want to have sexual experiences with. That is all life happiness requires - that we make rational choices in terms of seeking (and being attracted to) the right values in others.

Sexual drive and attraction for a heterosexual man to the opposite sex is to a large degree biologically automatized but his sexual attraction toward a particular woman is not - that is his choice and morally reflects on him.

But no matter how "complicated" and implicit the choices were, they still must have been choices at some point or else the whole concept of free-will in man folds on itself like a deck of cards.

It does not. There is no contradiction. We operate within the context of our biological bodies. We have to make right choices with what he have been biologically given.

All human choice is open to moral evaluation, and every is implies an ought.

All you have given us is assertions. You have not proven that sexual preference is a conscious choice. At the same time you have been provided with evidence which strongly points out to the existance of a biological component.

Part of that nature includes there being two different and complementary sexes.

Yes when everything works precisely according to what the nature intended. However, deviations in nature exist in all species. And who knows maybe this actually serves some type of useful biological purpose that we don't know about, yet.

If you want instead to rest your argument on a default that the burden of proof is on the premise that sexual orientation IS genetic, then I would be willing to accept that point.

Genetic is not the only possible alternative because our brain when it develops (according to our genetic blueprint) is subjected to enivronmental influences in mother's womb.

Edited July 24, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[JASKN]

Sexual drive and attraction for a heterosexual man to the opposite sex is to a large degree biologically automatized but his sexual attraction toward a particular woman is not - that is his choice and morally reflects on him.

And any man can relate to this. It is when one wants a sexual relationship with someone else, but the options presented are not good enough, so a relationship is not pursued.

[KevinDW78]

Genetic is not the only possible alternative because our brain when it develops (according to our genetic blueprint) is subjected to enivronmental influences in mother's womb.

I agree, I am just trying to find terms that can imply any reason that constitutes an "at birth" concept.

[fletch]

Is sexual orientation more complicated than most choices made by man because it is directly tied to his physical being as well as his mental being? Yes. Is it more complicated than most choices because most were made implicitly at a young age and slowly automatized in combination with hormonal "feelings"? Yes. But no matter how "complicated" and implicit the choices were, they still must have been choices at some point or else the whole concept of free-will in man folds on itself like a deck of cards. But we know volition exists, and therefore it must exist in regards to man's sexual preferences too.

At what age do you suppose that the implicit choice of sexual orientation is made? Does this choice that you suggest must have been made at some point bind us as adults, or can we choose to act contrary to this 'chosen' sexual orientation? It would seem almost deterministic to suggest that we as adults are bound to some implicit choice we made as children that has since 'automatized' what we do today.