SA - where you born with it?

[iTz0kt0Bu]

Originally Posted by surelynot

'Tell'? What's to tell? Babies don't have social disorders. Why would a baby be born fearing people when there are no people in the womb? Sa is classed as a disorder and treated with the assumption it is a behaviour which was learned in response to outside forces, which it is.
As for LGBT people, it.s way too simplistic to say, imo, that the answer is that children are born that way. There may or may not be a brain chemistry component with trans people specifically, no idea, but there.s a huge cutural/social influence in sexual orientation - I don't believe all the bisexual males running around Ancient Greece and Rome had genetics to thank when it was legally and socially encouraged behaviour xD I'm trans myself and I think it's extremely dangerous to diagnose a pre-pubescent child with the disorder, so that's a bad example.
How would you tell a little baby had a 'disorder', to turn the question around.

It just seems buck-passing to me *shrugs*

Hormones levels In the womb do actually have an influence on your sexual orientation. This comes from research on mice.

[The Pigeon]

Originally Posted by surelynot

How do you think this would affect treatment for afflicted children? Do you think treatment should be purely drugs-based for them, as opposed to behavioural type treatment? Do you think we should be diagnosing earlier?

I think to treat a problem, you need to understand it.....and we are just not there yet with anxiety issues of all types, and thats why conversation like this are so interesting!

I'm far from a fan of drugging anyone needlessly, or purely to treat a symptom, be they a child OR an adult.

But I don't see any disadvantages of early diagnosis/detection of genetic markers, if that is the case.

None of the successful behavioural type treatment I have experienced has been about curing, its been about managing.

Originally Posted by retep

Sex orientation is very different to hating ppl.
Would you say someone can be born racist?

WOW.....My SA has never had anything to do with hating people?????? its always me much more about me than "them".

Originally Posted by retep

Hormones levels In the womb do actually have an influence on your sexual orientation. This comes from research on mice.

So can gin levels in your tonic <-----double sausage dance....see what I did there to lighten the mood!

[iTz0kt0Bu]

Originally Posted by surelynot

How do you think this would affect treatment for afflicted children? Do you think treatment should be purely drugs-based for them, as opposed to behavioural type treatment? Do you think we should be diagnosing earlier?

As for the gay thing, I, think it was Ulrichs and people like that who started making the cqse around the time medicine started to take a great interest in sexual behaviour that gay people were born that way undeniably, and that was to counter the really harmful attitudes to homosexuality around then, and that genetic approach has dripped down, its far more tolerant in society now. A lot of people born gay now mightve been something else else back then.

I really favour behaviour/mind based treatment over drug treatment. Drugs play around with how your brain works which has side effects sometimes.

[Concept]

I wish they'd been properly able to determine by autism early on via genetic testing of some kind (I don't know if they're there yet). I didn't start speaking until well into my third year and I can't help but feel that it had an effect on my language development/expression.

[Olly.]

Pretty much yes to the question, its only really got particularly noticeably bad as a result of uni, but looking back I was always very shy, even in playgroup/nursery I think I was very shy. Had a few friends at primary school age, both at school and on my street, though when I moved school at year 3 I had a terrible time making friends and suffered from awful anxiety when I started there for the first few weeks and while I did make friends again when I was moved back to the state school system several years down the line, I've never been the life and soul of the group and have never found it easy making friends really.

[iTz0kt0Bu]

Originally Posted by The Pigeon

I think to treat a problem, you need to understand it.....and we are just not there yet with anxiety issues of all types, and thats why conversation like this are so interesting!

I'm far from a fan of drugging anyone needlessly, or purely to treat a symptom, be they a child OR an adult.

But I don't see any disadvantages of early diagnosis/detection of genetic markers, if that is the case.

None of the successful behavioural type treatment I have experienced has been about curing, its been about managing.


WOW.....My SA has never had anything to do with hating people?????? its always me much more about me than "them".

Oh yes, I was probably referring a bit to my SA, I don't literally hate them but I see myself as different to them, like I wouldn't click with most ppl but I think this mindset is constructed as I didn't use to be like this as a child. I think my SA is definately environmentally influenced.

Drugs are also about managing symptoms though through changing some brain activity.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Pigeon

So, these were the very assumption about homsexulity!

Not one of my gay friends has ever expressed that it was a environmental response to outside forces, but all have said they were born that way. (I will take your word for the trans part, as I don't know anyone socially who is transgender)

My friends say they were born to rock but i take that with a pinch of salt (just because you aren't aware of environmental factors, that does not mean they were not there)

Sexual preference is entirely cultural. There is no such thing as straight, gay, bi or transgendered as far as nature or genetics are concerned. Nature only provides an instinct for sex but humans analyse and interpret it which leads to the idea of sexual prefence and sexual identity. Genetically, animals simply have an urge to fvck things and nothing more. Put a man in a room with supermodels and he'll fvck them, put the same man in a prison with big hairy men and he'll fvck them too. Put the same man in a room with his hand and he'll fvck that too......Like so many today, you are over egging the genetic pudding

[PussyRiot]

Now for a completely different perspective/take on the whole nature v nurture discussion. This post might be slammed down because a lot of the discussion so far has been scientific, so if you are not interested in a spiritual perspective then, move on, but I always think it is good to throw an idea out there just to shake things up a bit.

When I lived in Oxford, the Dalai Lama came to the Oxford Union and he said that if you only focus on this life to find answers/meaning, it was like searching for something in only one room of a very big house. To him, the house represents your eternal journey, and all the rooms represent your past lives and that all our current experiences/character/qualities/people we meet etc have been shaped by our experiences in each life, and each life influences the next one and so on and so forth. Now this could be controversial, I know that karma has been misinterpreted a lot and could be suggesting that your troubles in life are because of actions you took in a previous life etc, but I just listened to the way he was speaking and although I have made a pretty lousy attempt at trying to get his views across, I just thought it would be nice to quote a respected spiritual person, just to try and extend the argument a bit. I just love debate such as this - keeps every one feeling alive, and passionate. Don't like it when people disagree on posts with loads of exclamation marks or capital letters when they respond to other peoples views because it comes over as really angry and aggressive, and we are all here to support each other at the end of the day - I just love hearing different views. But come on guys - can't we discuss things nicely? No more exclamations marks going in.

[Hindsight]

Originally Posted by surelynot

'Tell'? What's to tell? Babies don't have social disorders. Why would a baby be born fearing people when there are no people in the womb? Sa is classed as a disorder and treated with the assumption it is a behaviour which was learned in response to outside forces, which it is.
As for LGBT people, it.s way too simplistic to say, imo, that the answer is that children are born that way. There may or may not be a brain chemistry component with trans people specifically, no idea, but there.s a huge cutural/social influence in sexual orientation - I don't believe all the bisexual males running around Ancient Greece and Rome had genetics to thank when it was legally and socially encouraged behaviour xD I'm trans myself and I think it's extremely dangerous to diagnose a pre-pubescent child with the disorder, so that's a bad example.
How would you tell a little baby had a 'disorder', to turn the question around.

It just seems buck-passing to me *shrugs*

Totally agree with you surelynot.

All the research says SA begins in mid to late teens. They haven't pinpointed one thing that causes it...they say it could be a bereavement, bullying, childhood trauma ,so just guessing no facts.Also say you can't get SA after 25.

I had none of these probs but still "caught" SA at 15 in drama class, thought I was a weirdo or sumut after that....b4 that I had loads of friends, messed about in class(sometimes)went to Saturday morning football practice, basically I was a normal kid until that dreadful drama class ruined my entire life.

[iTz0kt0Bu]

Originally Posted by hux

My friends say they were born to rock but i take that with a pinch of salt (just because you aren't aware of environmental factors, that does not mean they were not there)

Sexual preference is entirely cultural. There is no such thing as straight, gay, bi or transgendered as far as nature or genetics are concerned. Nature only provides an instinct for sex but humans analyse and interpret it which leads to the idea of sexual prefence and sexual identity. Genetically, animals simply have an urge to fvck things and nothing more. Put a man in a room with supermodels and he'll fvck them, put the same man in a prison with big hairy men and he'll fvck them too. Put the same man in a room with his hand and he'll fvck that too......Like so many today, you are over egging the genetic pudding

Yeah, I can see ur point of view, I'm 19 and sexually confused on whether I'm just a bi-curious heterosexual or really bisexual.

[iTz0kt0Bu]

^I guess SA develops at different times for different ppl and has different triggers. I got SA at around 12 years old.

[pinkwafer]

Let me just check my DNA :P

Seriously, how do we know for sure? Probably combination of things, nothing is ever clear cut or simple. But that is life.

[iTz0kt0Bu]

^I agree

[pinkwafer]

Originally Posted by Geddalexneil

So much more succinct than my waffling post, in which I was trying, in my clumsy way, to say the same thing!

My personal opinion (and I stress that it is purely a personal opinion - why spoil a good argument by introducing scientific research or medical opinion, which to be honest I'm too lazy to look up) is that we may have a genetic predisposition or pick up signals from our parents' behaviour in early life; from this time, we are "time bombs" (for want of a better phrase) awaiting the trigger which causes our SA to manifest itself - I notice, from above posts, some people mentioning the time in their lives when they "got" SA, I would suggest that this was the time in life when SA manifested itself?

Triggers can happen at any time in life, for some it's very early (as with myself) and for others, considerably later, as with ThePigeon (sorry to single you out, but from all those who posted in this thread, you appear to have been the one whose SA showed at the latest age). In a society which expects us to conform to certain norms, is it possible that we repress our anxieties until they build to a point where they become too apparent to ignore? For most people, this seems to be in pre-pubescent or adolescent years, possibly because this is the time when social interaction and attraction become most important?

Again, this is purely my personal opinion and I look forward to discovering to what extent others agree or disagree.

I think like you, too.

Same goes for other mental illnesses. Then BOOOM, mental breakdown, crying on the floor covered in tears and snot wondering why it never happened before.

I think most scientists would agree really, it's wrong to just look at genetic factors ignoring environmental triggers and vice versa. Can't always just look at parents and siblings either, sometimes two things come together from both sides not visible in either.

For me, puberty brought out my true madness. Of course it did. My womb grew and eggs and blood fell from me. Hormones. Yeah. Also, as kids grow become more perceptive of what a horrible world we live in. Ability to think and reason improves and we become more crazy.

Sorry I probably not making much sense and don't write in full sentences much these days. Too much hassle.

[pinkwafer]

Cool yay hehe.

Nah that's fine

Sometimes when I'm actually talking, I'm that lazy I just say random words - it's amazing how many people actually get what you mean

[VO2]

Originally Posted by hux

My friends say they were born to rock but i take that with a pinch of salt (just because you aren't aware of environmental factors, that does not mean they were not there)

Sexual preference is entirely cultural. There is no such thing as straight, gay, bi or transgendered as far as nature or genetics are concerned. Nature only provides an instinct for sex but humans analyse and interpret it which leads to the idea of sexual prefence and sexual identity. Genetically, animals simply have an urge to fvck things and nothing more. Put a man in a room with supermodels and he'll fvck them, put the same man in a prison with big hairy men and he'll fvck them too. Put the same man in a room with his hand and he'll fvck that too......Like so many today, you are over egging the genetic pudding

A study of gay sheep appears to confirm the controversial suggestion that there is a biological basis for sexual preference.

The work shows that rams that prefer male sexual partners had small but distinct differences in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, when compared with rams that preferred to mate with ewes.

But Larkin suggests there may also be the influence of genes at work, at least in predisposing the animals to homosexuality. This is because selective breeding seems to have been responsible for the high proportion of gay sheep compared with other animals.
Link

Now say sorry to all the sheeps for saying that above

[pinkwafer]

You can't really compare sexuality to mental illness

I don't get how this thread got onto that.

[Duke of Prunes]

It's not as simple as nature versus nurture – there's proof for both. There's no single cause for SA that fits everybody.

Whether you like it or not, some people really are born predisposed to SA (obviously not WITH, because a newborn obviously doesn't have the mental capacity to experience it, but they most likely will eventually because their brain is predisposed to developing that way), just like some people are traumatised into it in their childhood.

Stop arguing about which box we all fit in, and concentrate on what we all actually have in common, which is our symptom of SA.

[The Pigeon]

Originally Posted by hux

Sexual preference is entirely cultural. There is no such thing as straight, gay, bi or transgendered as far as nature or genetics are concerned.

Sorry, but the vast majority of scientific research point to Sexual orientation being genetics or in utero epigenetics.

Originally Posted by hux

Put a man in a room with supermodels and he'll fvck them, put the same man in a prison with big hairy men and he'll fvck them too. Put the same man in a room with his hand and he'll fvck that too

I'm not sure you understand what 'preference' means, your analogy only holds up if this prison is full of both supermodels, and big hairy men and still the self proclamed hetrosexl men still go for big hairy men.

I have a preference for cake, but if there is no cake I will eat bread......My preference has not changed by the absence of an option!

Originally Posted by pinkwafer

You can't really compare sexuality to mental illness

Of course you can, we are talking about being genetic predisposition.

[pinkwafer]

^

Genetic predisposition? how can you apply that to sex?

Well I was around a lesbian when i was 12 then it brought out the lesbian in me

and what are you saying, that being gay is some kind of affliction?

sex = pleasurable. People have sexual preference mostly based on gender, which is a social construct.

Mental illness = hurt, painful.

[girlinterrupted]

No,although I may well have a genetic predisposition to mental illness of many kinds as there is history of depression,various anxiety disorders and nervous breakdowns in my family. I don`t really care either way,it makes no odds to the situation and the me I have to deal with now.

The SA itself was very definitely learned,I can remember from long before I started school picking up on behaviours my parents had (anxiety or stress),and taking my cue from that. I was also a very friendly,chatty child,and again can remember specific instances from playgroup etc where I would be shocked if someone was horrible to me etc,and the fact that each time this happened through life it made me shrink into myself that little bit more.

[The Pigeon]

Originally Posted by pinkwafer

^

Genetic predisposition? how can you apply that to sex?

Well I was around a lesbian when i was 12 then it brought out the lesbian in me

and what are you saying, that being gay is some kind of affliction?

sex = pleasurable. People have sexual preference mostly based on gender, which is a social construct.

Mental illness = hurt, painful.

WTF to all of that!

But, gender is a social construct......sorry you really lost me there.....how good of all plants and animals to conform to our social construct! (even prior to our existence)

[Spock]

Originally Posted by VO2

Now say sorry to all the sheeps for saying that above

No....the study showed a controlled preference (and was then interpreted based on that control) and this preference was based on how often a ram preferred another ram but did not prefer rams exclusively - dogs regularly try to hump peoples legs but there is no urgent political need to do a study to support the theory that dogs prefer legs in the current climate (that may change if legs ever get organised)

study

A ram may prefer another ram....but it doesn't make the ram gay (an entirely human concept that doesn't apply to any creature other than those with thought, culture and language) Ducks regularly gang rape but that doesn't mean ducks are immoral (it is a human concept!!!)

Originally Posted by The Pigeon

Sorry, but the vast majority of scientific research point to Sexual orientation being genetics or in utero epigenetics

the vast majority of research points to ginger haired people liking chutney....but fortunately that isn't how science works......scientists tried to find a gay gene but couldn't...they have now moved on to the womb but the evidence is still not conclusive...the same thing has happened with the fictional bio-chemical explanation for mental illness which is also utterly without scientific foundation but that hasn't stopped it's incessant march towards the promised land of "accepted fact" which will also no doubt happen with the gay gene idea

Originally Posted by The Pigeon

I'm not sure you understand what 'preference' means, your analogy only holds up if this prison is full of both supermodels, and big hairy men and still the self proclamed hetrosexl men still go for big hairy men.

the analogy proves that there is a genetic need for sex...not for a sexuality...it also highlights that any controlled environment can produce results that suit the outcome which is most desired .....preference in this context means prefers in a given situation which is the point i'm making about the biased involved in most studies that actively try to claim a gay gene or counter a gay gene

Originally Posted by The Pigeon

I have a preference for cake, but if there is no cake I will eat bread......My preference has not changed by the absence of an option!

your missing the point....you have a preference for food (but experience taught you to prefer cake)

[black_mamba]

I was not born with SA but I had certain traits that probably made me more susceptible to it than most. My father has pretty bad agoraphobia and I take after him in many many ways, so it's not much of a stretch to think I inherited at least some of his nervy nature. But I developed SA because of my upbringing (where I was not socialised at all for various reasons) and also due to being almost mute (this originated from dental surgery that went wrong when I was a kid, leaving me with fugly teeth).

[The Pigeon]

Originally Posted by hux

the vast majority of research points to ginger haired people liking chutney....

And this is where I realise anything i say in response to your post is a total waste of time.

[Duke of Prunes]

Originally Posted by hux

the same thing has happened with the fictional bio-chemical explanation for mental illness which is also utterly without scientific foundation but that hasn't stopped it's incessant march towards the promised land of "accepted fact"

Except that there are a billion (okay I made that number up) known genetic variations that are reliably correlated with particular psychiatric symptoms. This doesn't mean that all mental illness is biological, but it does mean that it CAN be biological. The bullshit explanation they use to market SSRIs has never been true, but the fact is, symptoms such as SA (or at least predispositions to them) can be caused by genetic abnormalities (usually ones which result in neurological dysfunctions that are near-impossible to identify without having a dissected brain in a lab setting, hence why neuropsychiatry is so limited in clinical applications right now).

Read some some journals (not just the abstracts – find somebody with accounts for the major publishers and borrow them, or pay for your own access, so that you can read them properly) from time to time before dismissing things...

[VO2]

Originally Posted by hux

No....the study showed a controlled preference (and was then interpreted based on that control) and this preference was based on how often a ram preferred another ram but did not prefer rams exclusively - dogs regularly try to hump peoples legs but there is no urgent political need to do a study to support the theory that dogs prefer legs in the current climate (that may change if legs ever get organised)

study

A ram may prefer another ram....but it doesn't make the ram gay (an entirely human concept that doesn't apply to any creature other than those with thought, culture and language) Ducks regularly gang rape but that doesn't mean ducks are immoral (it is a human concept!!!)



the vast majority of research points to ginger haired people liking chutney....but fortunately that isn't how science works......scientists tried to find a gay gene but couldn't...they have now moved on to the womb but the evidence is still not conclusive...the same thing has happened with the fictional bio-chemical explanation for mental illness which is also utterly without scientific foundation but that hasn't stopped it's incessant march towards the promised land of "accepted fact" which will also no doubt happen with the gay gene idea



the analogy proves that there is a genetic need for sex...not for a sexuality...it also highlights that any controlled environment can produce results that suit the outcome which is most desired .....preference in this context means prefers in a given situation which is the point i'm making about the biased involved in most studies that actively try to claim a gay gene or counter a gay gene

your missing the point....you have a preference for food (but experience taught you to prefer cake)

Your just playing with words.. the mere fact that one ram in ten prefers to mount other rams rather than mate with ewes, does not suggest they just shag anything.. and comparing it with dogs humping is not going to gain any ground..

[pinkwafer]

Originally Posted by The Pigeon

WTF to all of that!

But, gender is a social construct......sorry you really lost me there.....how good of all plants and animals to conform to our social construct! (even prior to our existence)

If you cannot understand the concept that people mostly are attracted to gender, not sex, then I needn't bother explaining it to you - besides, I is the faggot here, not you.


Anyway to my original point then I cba with this - genetic predisposition - individuals more likely to develop certain disease etc.

My gayness - was not brought out by the environment, it'd have existed regardless, if that might've just being fantasising about women while some slob were giving it to me. So no, can't be compared to environmental factors influences individual's mental health, because I am gay no matter what. If that makes sense. It should do.

[The Pigeon]

^ ....no offence but its a really struggle deciphering your comments?

First, you seem to be referring to 'gender' in a feminist theory contest, Im however using it in a biological sex context, and this is a whole different topic for another thread!

Originally Posted by pinkwafer

My gayness - was not brought out by the environment, it'd have existed regardless, if that might've just being fantasising about women while some slob were giving it to me. So no, can't be compared to environmental factors influences individual's mental health, because I am gay no matter what. If that makes sense. It should do.

This is the very point I was making, homosexulity is not enviromtail or worse still a Hux would have us think, a choice!

In the same way its possible that people are predisposed to mental health issues.

This in In now way implying that homsexuality is a inless, just a preordained part of who we are!

[PussyRiot]

Originally Posted by Geddalexneil

is that we may have a genetic predisposition or pick up signals from our parents' behaviour in early life; from this time, we are "time bombs" (for want of a better phrase) awaiting the trigger which causes our SA to manifest itself - I notice, from above posts, some people mentioning the time in their lives when they "got" SA, I would suggest that this was the time in life when SA manifested itself..

Good point and no mention of sheep