I get it from the Oxford Dictionaries.
primeval
of the earliest time in history: mile after mile of primeval forest
(of emotion or behaviour) strongly instinctive and unreasoning: a primeval desire1
Where it affirms that it can be consciously controlled?
This energy fueled the thought processes, perception, imagination, memory, and sexual urges.2
Fueled is not equivalent of
controlled.
Fuel
a thing that sustains or inflames passion, argument, or other intense emotion: the remuneration packages will add fuel to the debate about top-level rewards1
A characteristic of the libido which is important in life is its mobility, the facility with which it passes from one object to another. This must be contrasted with the fixation of the libido to particular objects, which often persists throughout life. (Sigmund Freud: An Outline of Psychoanalysis, 1938.)3
I did not miss the first quote. It is correct and it do not contradict any another quote.
All of it mental masturbation on your part. (If you pardon the pun). This whole tirade is moot because Freud was wrong. You are defending something that is based on something that is wrong in the first place. I merely pointed out how you made it...uhm...wronger....by injecting your own interpretation to fit your ideals and morals.
Just one big dish of wrongness served with a side dish of wrong with a glass of red wrong and for dessert, a big piece of wrong dripping with with wrong and a cherry on top.
All right. What better theory do you have to support your basic attraction example?
I'm sorry. I don't do this often but that statement has forced me to do this to you.
Realllllly? That is your defense? "Well, we know Freud's hypothesis was wrong, but do you have anything better?" Reeeeeaaaaaalllllllly?
Might want to learn the difference between poison and snake oil.
JFrankA said:
Really? So we have a universal time limit to find scientific discoveries. If in ten years we don't prove something, give up.
Sorry, science doesn't have a time limit. Oh, wait. Let me rephrase that:
Sorry, science doesn't have a natural time limit.
Yes, really.
Congratulations. You have caused me to repeat myself.
Do you even know what the scientific process is? Giving a time limit on proof is like saying that since it took centuries between the hypothesis and proof that the planets revolve around the sun, and not proven within ten years, the Earth must be the center of the solar system.
There it is a gene in the Drosophila Melanogaster. It has nothing to do with the Homo Sapiens genetic code.
Ah, but it is a gene that can alter sexual behavior in animals....
Yes, the flies did not have choices inside a vial of laboratory.
See? No choice. Thank you.
Do you like to compare the instinct of a fly with the intellect of a human?
It's an experiment in genetics, gene change affects the organism. It is not an experiment in intellect.
In another words, artificial intervention.
Re-read what I said:
Altered genes, in other words, mutations, are natural. They have to mutate (or alter) in order for evolution to work.
It is natural occurrence when a gene somehow gets altered from generation to generation. The scientist in the lab did this one, but just for experimentation purposes, but in the real world, in nature, gene mutation is natural and happens quite a bit without any intervention at all.
The research did not present any conclusion about the evolutionary process of the specie and its gene mutation.
But it did produce a result. It did show that one little bitty gene can make a difference in this fly's behavior. If one little bitty gene can make a difference in this fly's behavior, the next step is to see what would happen if a whole mess of genes get altered.
And it didn't present a conclusion. Welcome to science: the place where an answer raises more questions.
Try to use numbers in language de-construction is not equivalent to compare astronomy with failed researches of homosexual behaviour.
You are either uncomprehending what I am trying to say or you are purposely twisting it.
Again, the example about astronomy is about your declaration that science has a time limit of ten years. That is absurd. If science actually had a time limit, as you say, then we would be saying things like the Earth is the center of the solar system.
Your "language de-construstion" is nothing but a ploy. It's a way to manipulate the language and math so that you get the results you want. Here, I'll show you:
A characteristic of the libido which is important in life is its mobility, the facility with which it passes from one object to another. This must be contrasted with the fixation of the libido to particular objects, which often persists throughout life. (Sigmund Freud: An Outline of Psychoanalysis, 1938.)
"mobility"
the ability to move or be moved freely and easily
"libido"
So since the libido is sexual desire, and must be able to move freely and easily, it is a force that passes from object to object.
Now let's throw in your word:
"Primeval"
strongly instinctive and unreasoning: a primeval desire
Since the libido is a primeval force, and is "instinctive and unreasoning", then the libido will lock on to something for sexual desire without any choice, and further that lock on to that desire will "persists throughout life".
Therefore, according to Freud and language de-construction:
The libido is what causes basic sexual desire and it is something that is uncontrollable and instinctive and never ever leaves that object. So there is my guess as to where sexual orientation comes from and why it doesn't change though the behavior might.
There, see? I can do it too. I didn't even break out a sweat.
It was fun (mental) masturbating with you.
If a person had a basic desire for children during its childhood, that person will be attracted to children forever?
Yes. That person's behavior might change, but the desire never leaves.
What has not been proven? Brain plasticity?
What has not be proven is that Brain Plasticity is the exclusive and only reason for a person's sexual orientation. Again, that's your view and there is no proof that it is the only thing.
Brain plasticity proves that behaviour can change.
Behavior can change. Fine. Desire cannot.
The behaviour is the reflection of a person's desires.
If you really believe that in every case, then you are very gullible. Desires are complicated things and though the behavior has changed, the desires has not. It will always be there. Always.
Personal antidote: In 2002, I was 320 pounds. I lost 120 in three years by going to the gym and using Weight Watchers. Now going to gym is something I do three times a week and I go for two hours. I rarely miss going to the gym. I used to go at 7am before going to work, but my hours changed last year and now I have to go to the gym at 3:30am. I still go, like I have been for over 8 years now, faithfully. My behavior is that of someone who loves going to gym. People that I talk to about going to the gym tell me, with confidence, that I must love working out and going to the gym.
I hate it.
I hate going. I dread the night before because I have to get up early. I hate being there. I much rather go home and sleep or watch tv or play World of Warcraft or something else. I do my business and get out.
But to someone who is observing my behavior, I must basically desire and enjoy going to the gym. I'm there at 3:30am, I'm there for two hours, I rarely miss a day and when I do, I feel incredibly guilty and horrible. So my behavior wrongly reflects my desire.
So why do I go if I hate it so much? Because I keep reminding myself that if I don't go, I won't be thin anymore. Again, I KEEP REMINDING THAT TO MYSELF. If I didn't, the desire to stay home would overrun my desire to go to the gym with ease. Only the reminding of my desire to stay healthy keeps me going. Yes, the basic desire to stay healthy in me overrides my basic desire to stay home and that basic desire to stay healthy works only if I remind myself of it.
That is a change in behavior, but not desire. Ask anyone trying to give up anything: the desire is there. Always.
See how complicated this gets?
JFrankA said:
You say that looking at animals performing homosexual behavior does not prove that the animal has a sexual desire for the same gender. Fine. I'll go along with that provided that you have to admit that you cannot prove that a homosexual person, doing heterosexual behavior after some kind of treatment, does not still have a sexual desire for the same gender.
I will not admit anything under your terms.
Fine. Let me put it this way:
If you say that scientist can observe homosexual behavior in animals but cannot know that the homosexual behavior is sexual desire and not some kind of gender mistake or show of power or something else in every case, then you have to say that a scientist can observe homosexual behavior in animals but cannot know that the homosexual behavior is some kind of gender mistake or show of power or something else, and not out of sexual desire in every case.
It works both ways, kid.
JFrankA said:
Oh sure, (homosexual people who have claimed to have changed to heterosexual) may claim that they are heterosexual now. But do you really know that they are or are they claiming that because their desire to fit in or whatever is so strong that they are lieing to themselves and the world.
How do you know?
How do I know what?
Exactly.
JFrankA said:
Hey, if you can't prove that two animals having homosexual sex don't really desire the same gender, you can't prove that two humans having heterosexual sex don't really have desire for the opposite gender either.
Your conclusion is fallacious because you are comparing animals instincts with human emotions.
Really? You're going to make me do this a third time? I'm sorry.....
That is what I've been saying this entire thread!!!! In fact, YOU are the one who has been comparing animals instincts with human emotions the since you've joined in on the conversation. In fact, every time I or anyone else on this thread has said that you can't compare animal instincts with human emotions, you go a pull some "evidence" to prove that animals are "natural".
Sheesh. You didn't just move the goalposts, you moved the entire stadium!
What every neuroscientist knows: the brain changes with its use.
The hormonal factors are already refuted:
The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) argues same sex attraction (SSA) results from maternal immune attack on fetal male-specific brain structures and involves the previous biological influence of elder brothers. One of the surveys supporting this is shown to be based on an unsuitable sample and to contain some strong contrary evidence. The hypothesis relies on at least four speculative ideas and there is evidence against each.4
Did you even read that? First off that's a study of
The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) argues same sex attraction (SSA) results from maternal immune attack on fetal male-specific brain structures and involves the previous biological influence of elder brothers.
That's just ONE hormonal factor during pregnancy. Just one. There's plenty more to study. Also the hypothesis involves the question of birth order. That's not a clear disproving of hormonal factors during pregnancy.
What is your guess? My guess is that homosexual genes do not exist.
*sigh* I hate to repeat Myself.
My guess is that you are correct. It's not one gene. It's a bunch of genes, that may have a side effect, combined with hormonal pre-natal fluids, combined with environment and upbringing (brain plasticity, if you will) and whole bunch of other factors.
My guess is that it's waaaaay more complicated than you give it credit for.
Please, a reference to anyone read and verify the methodology of the research.
I do not know. It is your girlfriend. Ask her.
I have. I know how she feels. I know what she thinks. I'm asking your opinion because I don't know you and I want to see the way you think.
Appears that you are a voyeuristic, not a homosexual.
...voyeuristic for homosexual acts? hmmmmm......
All right. Freud was wrong. Which better scientific model you have to support your basic attraction hypothesis?
.....must...resist...urge....to......post......laughing....dog...must ..resist....urge.....resist....
JFrankA said:
I would have to eat the bananas to prevent starving of course, that doesn't mean I'm going to actually like them. I will tell everyone around, though, that I love bananas because they keep you fit, they have potassium, they are good in foods like...banana bread and sing it's praises.
But I would not ever enjoy them. Given the chance to get my hands on some grapes, I'd drop the bananas in heartbeat.
What if a person which do not like to eat bananas, it like grapes?
Don't know about other people. I like grapes a lot. I don't think I understand your question.
A person which do not like to eat bananas (sexual desire) is equivalent to an asexual. But an asexual have the absence of sexual desire. That means the person do not practise sex at all (to eat bananas). It not like to eat bananas (sexual desire) at all, but it like grapes (?). What the grapes mean?
Okay, no, that's not what I mean at all. Once again, you're going too simple with this.
There's a whole bunch of fruits out there. There are some people who like bananas, love them, and enough people like bananas enough so that it can be considered "natural" to like bananas.
However, there are people, like me, who don't.
What would be the another sexual desire of a person which do not have a sexual desire at all?
I'm not sure I am understanding your question here, either, sorry.
So basic likes include more than just one option?
Yup. It could be more than one option or it could no option at all.
In your analogy, hunger is equivalent to sexual desire or sexual orientation?
Hunger is a sex drive.
What fruits one likes is sexual orientation/desire.
Dispute:
The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) argues same sex attraction (SSA) results from maternal immune attack on fetal male-specific brain structures and involves the previous biological influence of elder brothers. One of the surveys supporting this is shown to be based on an unsuitable sample and to contain some strong contrary evidence. The hypothesis relies on at least four speculative ideas and there is evidence against each.4
I've already said that only looks at one hormone, and looks also at birth order. It doesn't count for all of them. You just dismissed the point.
Neurons are wired after birth is wrong? Are you affirming that neurons are not wired after birth?
I disagree with you.
Hold the phone. First off, here is the original exchange about that:
SnakeTongue said:
Neurons are wired after birth.
JFrankA said:
That's wrong. Neurons are wired during birth as well. They just don't instantly connect when a baby is born.
First off, I must apologize. I made a mistake in what I meant to say. What I meant to say was this "Neurons are wired
before birth as well." So I apologize for that.
Please notice the "as well" at the end of that statement. In other words, I agree that neurons are wired after birth. But, as I meant to say, neurons are wired before birth, too.
Of course, this dispute doesn't matter considering your own quote below shows you must agree with me that the brain is wired after AND before birth.
A brain is not a computer. The brain begins working long before it is finished. And the same processes that wire the brain before birth also drive the very rapid growth of learning that occurs immediately after birth. At birth, a baby’s brain contains 100 billion neurons, roughly as many nerve cells as there are stars in the Milky Way. Before birth, the brain produces trillions more neurons and “synapses” (connections between the brain cells) than needed. During the first years of life, the brain undergoes a series of extraordinary changes. Then, through a process that resembles Darwinian competition, the brain eliminates connections that are seldom or never used.5
So yes, the neurons get wired after birth, but, as you have just proven, neurons get wired before birth as well.
I did not understand your contradiction:
So neurons are wired during birth but don't instantly connect when a baby is born?
As I said, my mistake. I didn't mean to type the word "during" I meant to type the word "before". I hope that clears that up because it seems we agree that neurons are wired before and after birth.
Not also the negative statement. The burden of proof stay on the hypothesis theorized: combinations of genes exist for human sexual behaviour?
If has not been proven true, it do not exist.
It has been proven true?
I admit the hypothesis is out there and hasn't been proven, however, it stands to reason. There are so many genes and each affect and have side effects on the final living organism.
The research on this is ongoing and MUST be ongoing, not cut off because of some silly "ten year limit" on research.
Brain plasticity have solid scientific bases in neurology.
Yes, I'll agree with that, however, that does NOT prove that it is EXCLUSIVELY the only thing that affect sexual orientation or basic desires.
Where are yours conclusive
evidences?
All in good time. But then again, you have not provided any conclusive evidence that sexual orientation is a choice, either.
pissing is unnatural?