Once in a while you come up with a joke that as a white, heterosexual male, you just lack the barometer to gauge if it's political or not. And you kinda have to just put it out into the world and hope that the world remains the same amount of offended as it's been all along.
Different people get offended by different things, I for one only get offended my people who doesn't follow my Twitter feed. It's because I'm a cartoonist, isn't it!?
As to the description, I agree, but think about this: Anything you do or don't say, do or don't do, or just whatever you put out there or don't put out there, someone, somewhere, will be offended by it. It doesn't make sense to bend in to political correctness when you can't not offend everyone. It makes more sense to just be yourself, state your opinions and piss other people off.
Sexual identity is a process of conscious and subconscious decisions that begin at the onset of puberty and last until somewhere between the age of 17 to 25 dependent on the person. And, yes, events in one's childhood and teenage years can affect said decisions being that anything that happens to us is filtered through the lens of our precepts and can alter (even if ever so slightly) our world views.
Psychology, telling you to own your shit and to stop trying to shirk the responsibility for your decisions.
To some degree, yes, it does. Brain chemistry and nutrition for example. Also sleep and stress. If these things are out of balance, decision making can be greatly affected. Studies tend to show that the default is straight. But since the events that happen in our lives since birth shape our precepts and worlkd views, it's pretty hard to tease out nature from nurture.
As for the claims of "gay" animals, these people have no knowledge of ethology (the study of animal behavior). Among most social mammals, humping is used as a way to establish a hierarchy of dominance. That's why getting a dog fixed won't stop it from humping someone's leg. When a dog humps you're leg, they're saying "you're my bitch." Conversely, licking another member of the social group is a sign of submission. Pretty much anything else is likely due to sexual frustration. Giraffes prideless male lions, and male dolphins are the best example of this. Though it could be argued that the male lions are also trying to determine who has the rank to challenge the king of nearest pride. Male dolphins don't hump each other, instead they frequentky form gangs and harass or kill things. Baby beluga whales seem to be a favorite target of their violence. And humans have been reporting attacks from Ganges River dolphins for decades.
Bonobo apes are especially facinating as it seems they trade sexual favors for things like food or assistance. They appear to be indiscriminate as to the sex of the other individual (but we can never really know since we aren't bonobo apes). Freud would probably love them considering that one of the ways they explore new things in their environment by humping whatever it is. Speaking of primates, those baboons in "The Rundown" (2003 film) are real, just on the wrong continent (but when has Hollywood ever bothered to get the science right).
I am sorry for this, but I have some rather pointed responses.
First, please provide a line and source for these "Studies" that "...tend to show that the default is straight". As it stands, you have pulled a study from the Aether and I am no more inclined to believe it than I am inclined to believe Scientology.
Also, are you aware that homosexual behavior has been well documented in over 500 species of animals... Let me repeat that, it has been WELL documented in over FIVE HUNDRED species. I should also note, that I am not talking about stances of dominance... and nor are the researchers who DO this research. I have personally taken part in research here for my undergrad psychology training. (I have a major in psychology and a minor in philosophy, my field is the psychology of sexuality... so I find this claim to be particularly galling)
For your third paragraph.... I am going to assume you referenced Freud here as a joke, since his claims have almost universally been proven false.
YOU CANNOT COMPARE ANIMAL BEHAVIOR TO A HUMAN STANDARD.
Go take an ethology course. First thing on the first day. DO NOT USE A HUMAN STANDARDS FOR ANIMAL BEHAVIORS.
Secondly. [link] I should rephrase what I said. The default tends to fall on the heterosexual side of the orientation spectrum/continuum.
Thirdly. Did you miss the part where humping is used to establish a hierarchy of dominance in class Mammalia? Hyenas are the most indisputable example of this as the FEMALES are dominant.
Fourthly. Yes, actually, I was trying to be humorous. Everyone knows Sigmund Freud was obsessed with sex. However, not everything Freud thought and taught was wrong. Have you looked at the work of his two star pupils, Anna Freud (his daughter) and Carl Jung?
Also remember the important part of what I said about bonobo ape behavior? "...[I]t seems they trade sexual favors for things like food or assistance. They appear to be indiscriminate as to the sex of the other individual."
First: YOU take another Ethology course, because I never once said I was using the same 'standards' for behavior.
Second: That. Is. not. A. Study. At all. You claimed that you had one that supports your case, so provide it.
Third: Why do you seems to think that "Homosexual Behavior" translates to "Humping"? In the FIELD, "Homosexual Behavior" is translated to mean "Any sexual act involving penetration or sexual arousal between same sex members of the same species, and/or the act of forming pair bonds between same sex members of the same species". Get it? We already DO NOT count acts of dominance in the findings.
Fourth: Both Anna Freud and Carl Jung are ALSO largely discredited... Mind you, just because they were discredited does NOT make their contributions mean nothing. They created important stepping stones to what we know now. In the words of Sir Issac Newton. "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
Finally: Bonobos are an outlier, they do not represent animals as a whole.
By simply calling it homosexual behavior, YOU ARE using human standards for animals. IF the term homosexual turns up in a scientific study that ISN'T psychology it's due to the lack of better terminology or because the article was written for a more general (and IGNORANT) audience.
Okay, you've clearly missed that "humping" for status happens regardless of whether it's male-on-male, female-on-female, male-on-female, or female-on-male.
That was a peer-review scientific article. There are SEVERAL studies cited in the works cited section. I was trying to save myself some time.
Homosexual = Sexual actions between two beings of the same gender.
Behavior = How a being acts.
Homosexual Behavior = Beings of the same sex acting in a sexual way together.
Please provide a more appropriate term if you have an issue with the one I am using.
You also seem to be trying to continue with your stance that all recorded instances of said behavior were actually dominance based humping... I would like to assume that was not your stance, but you have left me little room to give a more charitable interpretation. I have already made it abundantly clear that the actual researchers do not count said humping as homosexual behavior. Your stance has no grounding in reality and is at best nonsensical. There is no reason to even bring up the humping, since I never claimed it to be proof of homosexual behavior in animals.
Finally... I asked for your SOURCE. That means I want the specific 'study' that you got your claim from. Please provide it now, or admit it does not exist... whichever the case may be.
Once I was watching on NatGeo Channel (or was it Discovery Channel? I don't remember right now) a love special show, that 70% of twin children (if my memory is right), one of them would turn out to be gay, while the other will be straight. Interesting, huh?
FreckleOnMyPalmFeatured By OwnerApr 1, 2013Professional General Artist
I don't think those statistics sound right...I've known a lot of twins (many in my own family actually) who are made up of the same orientation and none who are split. I'm not saying that you don't find twins that are split orientation wise like that but I doubt the numbers are that widely gaped, I'd say closer to 50/50 or that the numbers are reversed and 30% end up having different orientation and 70% the same.
I think that those statics are a bit exaggerated too, but who knows. There are so many twins in the world, and maybe you have seen it in your family, but just think that probably they're not even a 1% (no matter how big the family is) of the twins total population. Maybe we should travel to Candido Godoy to know the truth XD
Actually, they appear to have been mistaken. The actual statistic says that when one twin is gay, 70% of the time the twin is gay as well. This is one do the reasons that a biological component is likely in homosexuality.