Freud has been proven wrong for quite a while, but even so, how can you jump from this:
Psychoanalysis
libido:
Freud conceived of the mind as having only a fixed amount of
psychic energy, or libido. Though the word libido has since acquired overt
sexual implications, in Freud's theory it stood for all psychic energy. This
energy fueled the thought processes, perception, imagination, memory, and
sexual urges. In Freud's theory, the mind, like the universe, could neither
create nor destroy energy, but merely transfer it from one form or function to
another. (...)1
To this:
Libido is the primeval energy which drive the sexual desire towards an
object.
What you quoted basically says that Freud's theory is that there is psychic energy that cannot be destroyed, merely transferred depending on what the mind is doing. That has NOTHING to do with with what you said.
And then you jump from this:
(...) 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.4
]
To this
The primeval energy cannot be directed controlled by conscious thoughts, but
it can directed from one object to another. In contrast, the libido can also
be fixed in a special object and it will persist during the entire life of an
individual.
First off, let's forget that Freud was completely wrong. Second, where did you get the word "primeval"? That wasn't in there at all. You added it. Thirdly, you got his wrong hypothesis wrong! The libido can be controlled by conscious thought! It says so it the first quote you posted:
Freud's theory it stood for all psychic energy. This
energy fueled the thought processes, perception, imagination, memory, and
sexual urges.
Forth, where the hell did you get "libido can also
be fixed in a special object and it will persist during the entire life of an
individual"? Again, you missing your own first quote completely when it says that the libido is simply psychic energy that gets transferred depending on what the mind is doing.
Also, you are basing this entire stance on a hypothesis is that has been wrong, and further, have completely got the wrong conclusions from a hypnotesis that has been wrong for a years!
.....poison, or snake oil?
JFrankA said:
Oh, so how long is the time limit on research? Ten years? Really? If something is not proven in ten years, that's it, it's scientifically correct to stop?
Yes, that is it.
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.
The conclusion of the Drosophila Melanogaster research was that a defective
gene is the cause of an abnormal male reproduction behaviour. It is not any
indication of sexual behaviour equivalent to the Homo Sapiens sexual
behaviour:
(...) Uncovering the fru distal breakpoint with deletions usually
led to males with two of the fru courtship abnormalities: no copulation
attempts with females (hence, behavioral sterility) and vigorous courtship
among males, including the formation of "courtship chains". However, certain
genetic changes involving region 91B resulted in males who formed courtship
chains but who mated with females.
(...)2
There is no proof that a gene can influence the human sexual orientation.
Let's look at what you said:
The conclusion of the Drosophila Melanogaster research was that a defective gene is the cause of an abnormal male reproduction behaviour.
and then in the next paragraph:
There is no proof that a gene can influence the human sexual orientation.
Looks like one little gene in one little fruit fly did something to them. I'll agree that it's not a definitive proof that one gene can influence human sexual orientation, but it does show that one gene can influence sexual behavior. If one gene can do that, think of what a combination of genes can do. Maybe a combination of genes that haven't been altered can cause influence in human sexual behavior. They'd have to study more and see how a group of genes (and maybe other factors) can influence human sexual orientation.
Oh wait. Those findings came out a few years ago. They've only got now...what...five more years to research this?
'Sides, if an altered gene made a fruit fly go after members of their own sex, that means the flies had no choice, did they?
Further, you do know that altered genes, in other words, mutations, are
natural. They have to mutate (or alter) in order for evolution to work.
JFrankA said:
You keep asking for examples and you keep rejecting them. That was an example of how, for hundreds of years, we hypothesized that something existed, but could not prove it or find it. We finally found it to be true several years ago.
I'm speaking in this example of scientific study, how is this different from that?
You are comparing a perversion of the human sexuality with planets and stars.
Sexology and astronomy are very different subjects.
A) You missed my point completely. I was giving an example of scientific
research that took hundreds of years to prove. According to your rules, we
should've given up looking for planets outside our solar system decades ago.
and
B) You are being a hypocrite. You yourself tried to use math to show that homosexuality is not natural.
It is no defined process of human sexuality.
Sexual behaviour it is not an unchangeable process.
Behavior, no, I'll go along with that. Behavior can change. But basic desires never ever changes.
The neurons are wired after birth and brain plasticity proves that such
phenomenon occurs in accordance with our life experience.
Scientists have not been able to find clear gender-related
structural differences between the brains of boys and girls at birth. At that
stage of life their properties and functions overlap almost entirely. The same
is true for behaviors. Male and female behavior - let alone homosexuality and
heterosexuality - is apparently not hardwired into the brain at birth. In
fact, only one quarter of the brain is formed in a new-born child; the rest is
developed through learning and experience (environmental input). We can be
confident that whatever male/female differences exist in adult brains (and, no
doubt, more will be found at some stage), they will be largely shaped by
learning and behavior. But what learn ing and experiences do to the brain is
not set in concrete either. Brain cells are replaced in roughly seven year
cycles, meaning that new neuron pathways can be formed and old ones reshaped.
Intensive exercise, training or imagination changes the brain microstructure.
We are not victims of our biology or the experiences which shape the detail of
our brain. Anatomy is not destiny; change is always possible. The brain is
plastic and is in a constant state of change. Indeed the question is rather:
what change is not
possible?3
You know, I didn't agree that it was exclusively brain placisty. That's your
view, and it hasn't been proven that it is. My view is that it's a culmination of several factors. You are resting your view on one thing only and that hasn't been proven.
Maybe a person who was homosexual has started behaving heterosexually. That doesn't mean that person's basic desires changed, it only means that the person is acting in accordance to a behavior that is preferable to that person (whatever the reasons are), but it does not change the basic desire for the same gender.
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.
Oh sure, they 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?
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.
Besides:
"Because we know that performance on these cognitive tests depends on the integrity of specific brain regions, the differences implicate robust differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men and women and suggest that hormonal factors early in development (probably during the 1st trimester of pregnancy) produce these differences." - Interview, Irish Examiner, Mar. 25, 2003 -Qazi Rahman, PhD
"There is no one 'gay' gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression.
Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation.
Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual." - Jan. 27, 2005 - Brian S. Mustanski, PhD
I'll post the reference later.
The definition of the sexual orientation is not a choice.
But she's attracted to men, more often would be with men. So is she bi or slightly bi or a little bi or...?
What is your intention when touching another man in the hypothetical example above?
So if touch the male with the intention of turning on my girl more, which in turn turns me on more, then...? But if it's to help the guy stay aroused, so that he continues to do what he's doing to my girl, which turns me on more, then it's...?
Yourself had agreed with the definition:
JFrankA said:
This is the crux of your major mistake. Again, a person is basically attracted to something. Whatever caused it, genes, pre-birth fluids, brain shape, neuron mapping, a mixing of all that plus upbringing whatever, it doesn't matter. A person is basically attracted to a gender or a type of person. Just like one person love chocolate ice cream and another hates it.
SnakeTongue said:
All right, a person is basically attracted to something.
Good start. Now the argument is can that basic attraction be chosen?
Can you prove that it is?
It is not
sexual orientation equivalent to the
libido oriented
towards a object?
Libido means in psychoanalysis in the first instance the force
(thought of as quantitatively variable and measurable) of the sexual instincts
directed towards an object - "sexual" in the extended sense required by
analytic theory. (...)4
Nope. It has been shown that Freud was wrong. There is no such thing, except for Freud's wrong hypothesis, as "libido oriented".
JFrankA said:
So what if she found females attractive yet never ever has sex with any of them, is she still bisexual?
Yes, the definition of bisexual is based in attraction, not in sexual intercourse.
....basic attraction, huh?
JFrankA said:
Going with the analogy, an asexual person wouldn't like any fruit. But still my point remains. I do like banana bread but still doesn't like bananas. The basic like and dislike does not change. The only reason why I like banana bread is because of the other ingredients, (or circumstances, if you will) that allows me to like the bread. It does not mean I have made the choice to like bananas now. I still wouldn't eat one.
What would you do if the only food available are just bananas?
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 would do a person which dislike bananas at all (asexual) when bananas are the only food available?
If they want to survive, they'd do what I said above. If they'd rather die, then they'd stave to death.
The point is that the behavior may change, I may grow to tolerate bananas, but I would never ever desire them. My basic likes do not include bananas, even if there was nothing else.
Pre-natal fluids were already refuted.
No, you just dismissed it without a dispute.
Neurons are wired after birth.
That's wrong. Neurons are wired during birth as well. They just don't instantly connect when a baby is born.
No combinations of genes exist for human sexual behaviour.
That statement hasn't been proven.
The environmental factors are the only explanation with a solid scientific base.
That statement hasn't been proven either.
The last three statements are just assertions. Nothing in the last three statements, especially since the first one is out and out wrong, has no conclusive evidence to it.
