Nature vs. Nurture

P

pab665

Guest
I was just wondering if people out there think zoofilia as a sexual orientation is more influenced by the genetics and passed along among families (nature) or if it's more influenced by the environment and one's own experiences (nurture).
 
Obviously this is MY OWN opinion.

But I'm of the belief its like any other orientation, in that it's coded at birth. Whether or not there is a family history seems to be irrelevant, even in human on human orientations, but I do believe we are coded this way from day 1
 
pab665 said:
zoofilia as a sexual orientation is more influenced by the genetics and passed along among families (nature)
Click to expand...
This does not biologically make any sense. If your sexual orientation does not make you have kids, then there is very little way of passing it around genetically.
In my opinion it is a developmental defect that might happen as you grow up similar to being homosexual or asexual or any other-sexual. A mistake in the wiring of your brain. There are even studies showing physical differences between the brain of a homosexual animal and a heterosexual animal.
Evolutionary dead end useless from population point of view.
Individuals who do not procreate do not pass their genes and tend to naturally die out. Which is why 4% of the human population is homosexual and 4% is zoosexual and not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
pes said:
In my opinion it is a developmental defect that might happen as you grow up similar to being homosexual or asexual or any other-sexual. A mistake in the wiring of your brain.
Click to expand...
This is a highly debated topic in the field of evolutionary psychology. There are many studies that indicate same-sex sexual attraction could indeed be genetic (namely identical twin studies). It is difficult to say one way or the other whether attraction and sexuality are traits that stem from nature or nurture and there are numerous studies showing statistical significance for both.
Basically, I doubt this issue will be resolved in a ZV thread, and most likely the comments will push this thread to the DF lol
 
pes said:
This does not biologically make any sense. If your sexual orientation does not make you have kids, then there is very little way of passing it around genetically.
In my opinion it is a developmental defect that might happen as you grow up similar to being homosexual or asexual or any other-sexual. A mistake in the wiring of your brain. There are even studies showing physical differences between the brain of a homosexual animal and a heterosexual animal.
Evolutionary dead end useless from population point of view.
Individuals who do not procreate do not pass their genes and tend to naturally die out. Which is why 4% of the human population is homosexual and 4% is zoosexual and not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Genes do not have to be passed on by each individual to be useful for the species. Think of bees or or ants as extreme examples where the only reproducing females are the rare queens, but the non-reproducing females are still essential for the success of the species. So for social species I would be careful to call a trait useless/defect just because it reduces that individual's reproduction probability. It may still benefit the larger family in which it tends to occur somehow, or at least be a side-effect of something else that benefits the survival of the family.
 
pab665 said:
I was just wondering if people out there think zoofilia as a sexual orientation is more influenced by the genetics and passed along among families (nature) or if it's more influenced by the environment and one's own experiences (nurture).
Click to expand...
My guess is that it is a bit of both, but I can't prove that.
 
Well if sexuality is based on gene coding then we have to say that all sexual preferences are acceptable and there is no such thing as morally wrong sexual orientation which means that pedophiles are not morally wrong to like children, it’s just how they are wired and they can’t help it. Of course I don’t agree with that at all. Sexual orientation must be a choice and not genetic or we have to be willing to say all sexual choices are acceptable regardless of our personal thoughts about morality. One says gay sex is immoral and one says it isn’t. One says incest is ok and beastiality is immoral. Who gets to decide what is moral and what is not. The one who is into it or the one who is not. It is either all acceptable and has nothing to do with morality because people cannot control what their gene code says. Or it is all just choices we make based on environment and how we were raised and what we were taught and what we like. By the way I have judgement of anyone about anything. People can do whatever they want as far as I’m concerned. But if one wants to justify what society says is immoral by saying they were born that way then you can not be a hypocrite and deny someone else the same privilege.
 
joneseyou812 said:
Well if sexuality is based on gene coding then we have to say that all sexual preferences are acceptable and there is no such thing as morally wrong sexual orientation which means that pedophiles are not morally wrong to like children, it’s just how they are wired and they can’t help it. Of course I don’t agree with that at all. Sexual orientation must be a choice and not genetic or we have to be willing to say all sexual choices are acceptable regardless of our personal thoughts about morality. One says gay sex is immoral and one says it isn’t. One says incest is ok and beastiality is immoral. Who gets to decide what is moral and what is not. The one who is into it or the one who is not. It is either all acceptable and has nothing to do with morality because people cannot control what their gene code says. Or it is all just choices we make based on environment and how we were raised and what we were taught and what we like. By the way I have judgement of anyone about anything. People can do whatever they want as far as I’m concerned. But if one wants to justify what society says is immoral by saying they were born that way then you can not be a hypocrite and deny someone else the same privilege.
Click to expand...
It's a fallacy to state anything is strictly nature OR nurture. Sexuality and attraction are not "encoded" nor are they a product of ones environment. Scientific research studies indicate ones sexuality is a result of a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. They do not view sexual orientation as a choice.
 
Ted Danson Machine said:
This is a highly debated topic in the field of evolutionary psychology. There are many studies that indicate same-sex sexual attraction could indeed be genetic (namely identical twin studies).
Click to expand...
I also seem to remember something years ago that indicated higher probability of a second born male being gay, citing residual hormones inutero from the first male. This was like 20 years ago probably, so I could be misremembering and/or it could have easily been refuted since then, and I'm not gonna bother trying to google to see if I could find anything corroborating it.
 
dartel said:
I also seem to remember something years ago that indicated higher probability of a second born male being gay, citing residual hormones inutero from the first male. This was like 20 years ago probably, so I could be misremembering and/or it could have easily been refuted since then, and I'm not gonna bother trying to google to see if I could find anything corroborating it.
Click to expand...
I vaguely recall something like that from one of my developmental psych classes. And I WILL google it because science!
 
I was incorrect to write nature OR nurture, it is likely an interplay of both. Even if there is a genetic component it would likely be influenced by tens or hundreds of genes interacting vs. one zoo gene or one homosexual gene.
 
pes said:
This does not biologically make any sense. If your sexual orientation does not make you have kids, then there is very little way of passing it around genetically.
In my opinion it is a developmental defect that might happen as you grow up similar to being homosexual or asexual or any other-sexual. A mistake in the wiring of your brain. There are even studies showing physical differences between the brain of a homosexual animal and a heterosexual animal.
Evolutionary dead end useless from population point of view.
Individuals who do not procreate do not pass their genes and tend to naturally die out. Which is why 4% of the human population is homosexual and 4% is zoosexual and not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Others have commented as well, but I don't need to reproduce to increase the ratio of my genes in the gene pool. The book "The Selfish Gene" goes into some depth on the topic, but it's a numbers game. We share 50% of our genes with a sibling, so if two siblings are successful it's the same as me reproducing myself. Following the numbers, if I can ensure 8 of my cousins are successful that is also the same as me reproducing and so on.

You see this a fair bit in social insects such as wasps in which workers don't reproduce (workers in some species do reproduce) where the individual doesn't reproduce, but due to the high level of relatedness the success of the reproductive females benefits the individual on a genetic scale.

As for the topic, the research I've seen suggests it is a sexuality that's established prior to puberty so there's likely genetic or environmental conditions which cause it, likely a combination of both.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
joneseyou812 said:
Well if sexuality is based on gene coding then we have to say that all sexual preferences are acceptable and there is no such thing as morally wrong sexual orientation which means that pedophiles are not morally wrong to like children, it’s just how they are wired and they can’t help it. Of course I don’t agree with that at all. Sexual orientation must be a choice and not genetic or we have to be willing to say all sexual choices are acceptable regardless of our personal thoughts about morality. One says gay sex is immoral and one says it isn’t. One says incest is ok and beastiality is immoral. Who gets to decide what is moral and what is not. The one who is into it or the one who is not. It is either all acceptable and has nothing to do with morality because people cannot control what their gene code says. Or it is all just choices we make based on environment and how we were raised and what we were taught and what we like. By the way I have judgement of anyone about anything. People can do whatever they want as far as I’m concerned. But if one wants to justify what society says is immoral by saying they were born that way then you can not be a hypocrite and deny someone else the same privilege.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that it can't be genetic, because you don't like the consequences of it being genetic? This is not a valid argument, since the biological reality does not depend on what you approve of.

Secondly, even if the sexual orientation was not genetically encoded but a result of early experiences in childhood, then people still couldn't help what they are.

Thirdly, it is indeed not morally wrong to like children. But it is immoral for an adult to involve a child in sexual conduct, no matter whether the adult is sexually attracted to children or not. Don't judge people by how they feel, but by how they act.
 
Ruben said:
Are you saying that it can't be genetic, because you don't like the consequences of it being genetic? This is not a valid argument, since the biological reality does not depend on what you approve of.

Secondly, even if the sexual orientation was not genetically encoded but a result of early experiences in childhood, then people still couldn't help what they are.

Thirdly, it is indeed not morally wrong to like children. But it is immoral for an adult to involve a child in sexual conduct, no matter whether the adult is sexually attracted to children or not. Don't judge people by how they feel, but by how they act.
Click to expand...
Well I am not saying that what I approve of or don’t approve of changes anything. What I am saying is that if it is biological then we can not tie in any sort of morality to it. If it’s biological then a person has no choice in what they are attracted to. I agree that it is immoral for an adult to have sexual relations with kids, they are not sexual creatures. But to my that point, who decides what is moral and what is not. You and I don’t approve of sex with children and call it immoral. But there are people who say they are born that way. If they are born that way then how can we say it is immoral? Society said being gay was immoral not many years ago. Now it is not considered immoral by society. They say they are born that way so it can’t be immoral and society just had to catch up with the biological reality. If it is true that they are born that way, and I am not arguing for or against, I am simply asking the question, then why can’t other say the same thing when they are different than societal ideas. In fact, as soon as it was accepted that being gay was biological then trans people were jumping on the same band wagon and said they are born that way. But society said it was a mental condition. But it is now also being accepted as biological. And now they are already trying to change terminology when it comes to pediphiles. They now want to be called “child attracted people” and say they were born that way. If a person can be born gay or trans, why can’t they be born a “child attracted person”? Because you think it’s immoral is no reason to deny them their right to be what they were born. For this reason I reject the idea of being “born” that way as an excuse for these kind of things. Be what you want, gay or trans, or zoo, I don’t care but understand that when you give that excuse for one person you have to accept it for all. So is sex with children immoral because you and I say it is? The person having sex with kids doesn’t think it’s immoral. So is it his biology or is he “sick” like they use to say about gays and trans? And by the way I have many friends in the gay and trans community, in fact my best friend who I love is 55 and he is going thru female puberty because of his biology. So believe me, or don’t, I don’t care, I don’t judge anyone. Clearly I am on this forum so not being judgmental as a person should be understood. Lol
 
I honestly feel like its shaped out of experiencies, depending on what you've lived and what has happened to you in your life both good and bad, this is also kind of my case regarding my sexuality, from being exposed to a lot of stuff in the internet and meeting certain persons.
 
joneseyou812 said:
Well I am not saying that what I approve of or don’t approve of changes anything. What I am saying is that if it is biological then we can not tie in any sort of morality to it. If it’s biological then a person has no choice in what they are attracted to. I agree that it is immoral for an adult to have sexual relations with kids, they are not sexual creatures. But to my that point, who decides what is moral and what is not. You and I don’t approve of sex with children and call it immoral. But there are people who say they are born that way. If they are born that way then how can we say it is immoral? Society said being gay was immoral not many years ago. Now it is not considered immoral by society. They say they are born that way so it can’t be immoral and society just had to catch up with the biological reality. If it is true that they are born that way, and I am not arguing for or against, I am simply asking the question, then why can’t other say the same thing when they are different than societal ideas. In fact, as soon as it was accepted that being gay was biological then trans people were jumping on the same band wagon and said they are born that way. But society said it was a mental condition. But it is now also being accepted as biological. And now they are already trying to change terminology when it comes to pediphiles. They now want to be called “child attracted people” and say they were born that way. If a person can be born gay or trans, why can’t they be born a “child attracted person”? Because you think it’s immoral is no reason to deny them their right to be what they were born. For this reason I reject the idea of being “born” that way as an excuse for these kind of things. Be what you want, gay or trans, or zoo, I don’t care but understand that when you give that excuse for one person you have to accept it for all. So is sex with children immoral because you and I say it is? The person having sex with kids doesn’t think it’s immoral. So is it his biology or is he “sick” like they use to say about gays and trans? And by the way I have many friends in the gay and trans community, in fact my best friend who I love is 55 and he is going thru female puberty because of his biology. So believe me, or don’t, I don’t care, I don’t judge anyone. Clearly I am on this forum so not being judgmental as a person should be understood. Lol
Click to expand...
I wouldn't deny people to simply be what they are and were born as.
But they must not act immoral, even if they long to do it due to their nature.

Simply speaking, sex with kids is immoral because it harms them almost always which is something that they don't agree to either. Even if it would not be apparent at the moment when it happens, psychological damage can still manifest later while they mature into a fully sexual being and start to understand better what happened to them and what the motives of the perpetrator were. They'll realize that they and their immaturity were taking advantage of.

Sex between homosexuals is usually not immoral, because it's two people who are mature enough to understand what they are doing, hence can fully consent to it and typically aren't harmed by it either.

This is also true for sex with sexually mature animals who initiate sexual contacts with humans. They are fully developed sexually beings and know what they are doing – at least as far as their full capacity allows.

I wouldn't compare trans with this, because trans isn't about sexual attraction like the other relations but about you feel about your own body or your role within society.
 
I'm in the nuture camp. I think it makes us feel better to believe its nature, but Alex, I'll take Nurture for 500.
 
Honestly I think it is a combination. Based on your nature, you may be more open to a different sexual preference or orientation. If you have the right nature and then follow with the right nurture…you might find yourself gay, bi, or even zoo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top