What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

.
it is related to some anatomical different in brain


you can't teach homosexuality as you can't teach sexual preference

In ancient Greece, every man was homosexual.... this was the norme.... every boy was brought up to see gay sex as the normal thing todo....
Sexual preference can very much be taught.
You can still see in different societies where sex with animals or children is widespred.... you think it´s the genetics that determines sexual preference or is it social norms?

In American prisons, gay sex is common.... is it because of their genetics or environment that leads to this kind of activity?
 
.
Just one week after taking Severodonetsk, the Russians have quickly stormed the city of Lysychansk. The entire region claimed by the Lugansk Peoples Republic is now in the hands of Moscow and its allies.

 
Last edited:
.
In ancient Greece, every man was homosexual.... this was the norme.... every boy was brought up to see gay sex as the normal thing todo....
Sexual preference can very much be taught.
You can still see in different societies where sex with animals or children is widespred.... you think it´s the genetics that determines sexual preference or is it social norms?

In American prisons, gay sex is common.... is it because of their genetics or environment that leads to this kind of activity?
I'm more interested in the source of your claim , than the claim itself
 
.
you can't teach homosexuality as you can't teach sexual preference

Sexuality is not strictly a matter of biology but also of social conditioning. The notion that so-called sexual preference including homosexuality is determined by brain structure alone is a type of thinking typical of the 1980's. Nowadays in developed countries hardly anyone is making this claim.

Of course in Iran (and more generally across the global south) liberals will push the old narrative focused on biological determinism because that's the perfect argument to use in nations where laws are still based upon traditional religious norms i.e. stipulating for strict prohibition of homosexuality. To reverse the traditional posture of society towards homosexuality, local supporters of the globalist agenda will thus resort to the said narrative (as in "poor gays, it's not their fault since they don't really have a choice, how can our laws be so cruel and discriminate against them for actions outside their control?").

And as soon as these restrictions are lifted, liberals will then shift their discourse to constructivism in order to take aim at hetero-normativity which they'll describe as a patriarchal, machismo and homophobic order resulting from structural heterosexual bias in public and private education.

At any rate, whatever an individual's predisposition, the social and cultural context will impact their behaviour. Therefore yes, these school curriculae will have an undeniable impact on those exposed to them, in the very same way as excessive sexualization through the media, omnipresent mass pornography and so on have contributed to deregulation of people's sexuality; and in the same manner as the western world's so-called "sexual revolution" of the 1960's was not a consequence of genetic mutation but in fact of social engineering (i.e. not even of spontaneous, logical evolution and adaptation of society, but of deliberate manipulation from above).
 
Last edited:
.
unnamed.jpg
 
. .
Sexuality is not strictly a matter of biology but also of social conditioning. The notion that so-called sexual preference including homosexuality is determined by brain structure alone is 1980's thinking. Today hardly anyone is making that claim in developed countries.

Of course in Iran (and more generally across the global south) liberals will push the old narrative about biological determinism because that's the perfect argument to use in nations where laws are still based upon traditional religious norms i.e. stipulating for strict prohibition of homosexuality. To undermine the traditional posture of society towards homosexuality, local supporters of the globalist agenda will thus resort to the said narrative (as in "these poor people, it's not their fault nor do they really have a choice, how can our laws be so cruel and discriminate against individuals for actions outside their control?").

And as soon as these restrictions are lifted, they'll then shift their discourse to constructivism in order to take aim at hetero-normativity which they will describe as a patriarchal, machismo and homophobic order resulting from structural heterosexual bias in public and private education.

At any rate, whatever an individual's predisposition, the social and cultural context will impact their behaviour. Therefore yes, these school curriculae will have an undeniable impact on those exposed to them, in the very same way as excessive sexualization through the media, omnipresent mass pornography and so on contributed to deregulation of people's sexuality; and in the same way as the western world's so-called "sexual revolution" of the 1960's was not a consequence of genetic mutation but in fact of social engineering (i.e. not even of spontaneous, logical evolution and adaptation of society, but of deliberate manipulation from above).

You misunderstand what he is saying:

He is saying without the genetic pre-disposition to homosexuality, the environment stimulus is irrelevant! You cannot force someone to be homosexual based on environment alone.

Or else Iran a country that separates genders in school up till the collegiate/university level should have one of the highest homosexuality % in the world. I mean after all, most of a child’s life is spent in school (and sleeping). If you are surrounded by ONLY the same sex for that long then hypothetically if you are correct about your environment theory then homosexuality should arise at a much greater % due to the environment than co-gender schools.

Yet that DOES NOT happen. Why is that? It’s clear without a genetic predisposition to homosexuality than the environment can be simply considered irrelevant at that point.
 
.
You misunderstand what he is saying:

He is saying without the genetic pre-disposition to homosexuality, the environment stimulus is irrelevant! You cannot force someone to be homosexual based on environment alone.

I understood well, and it's incorrect. The environment can and does very well impact sexual behaviour. I cited several concrete examples and precedents to this effect. Even gave the reason why in Iran, liberals are stuck with a biological determinist take on homosexuality which has had no currency in the west beyond the 1970's-1980's (same liberals who otherwise are quick to adopt every dominant western discourse). It's all perfectly thought through by the imperial powers-to-be.

Or else Iran a country that separates genders in school up till the collegiate/university level should have one of the highest homosexuality % in the world. I mean after all, most of a child’s life is spent in school (and sleeping). If you are surrounded by ONLY the same sex for that long then hypothetically if you are correct about your environment theory then homosexuality should arise at a much greater % due to the environment than co-gender schools.

The pivotal factors in this regard (i.e. beyond biology) are education and cultural influences, not whom one is surrounded by per se. Otherwise, incest ought to be the single most widespread form of sexual activity because children spend most of the time with their close relatives, much more than they do with any single peer from school.
 
Last edited:
. . .
I understood well, and it's incorrect. The environment can and does very well impact sexual behaviour. I cited several concrete examples and precedents to this effect. Even gave the reason why in Iran, liberals are still stuck with a biological determinist take on homosexuality which has had no currency in the west beyond the 1970's-1980's (same liberals who otherwise are quick to adopt every dominant western discourse). It's all perfectly thought through by the imperial powers-to-be.



The pivotal factors in this regard (i.e. beyond biology) are education and cultural influences, not whom one is surrounded by per se. Otherwise, incest ought to be the single most widespread form of sexual activity because children spend most of the time with their close relatives, much more than they do with any single peer from school.
Pointed him to the fact that evolution and genetics are primarily influenced by the various environments, but he's skipping it, so stopped exchanging ideas, as his goal is to make a "point" not learning.

Remember, his first 2 posts I quoted, he denied completely environmental influence, ....

@TheImmortal
 
.
Pointed him to the fact that evolution and genetics are primarily influenced by the various environments, but he's skipping it, so stopped exchanging ideas, as his goal is to make a "point" not learning.

Remember, his first 2 posts I quoted, he denied completely environmental influence, ....

@TheImmortal

When it comes to countries like Iran, you can argue that the very few homosexuals there are (probably less than 1%) may have some form of biological predisposition towards it. But that's precisely because there's no public policy aimed at advertising homosexuality and other marginal sexual tendencies. Take that criterion away, start teaching kids at young age that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality like they do in the west, start intimidating parents about trying to make sure their offspring will turn out heterosexual, and then suddenly social conditioning leads to a spread of homosexualism. And the main reason will no longer be genetic but social.
 
Last edited:
.
The pivotal factors in this regard (i.e. beyond biology) are education and cultural influences, not whom one is surrounded by per se. Otherwise, incest ought to be the single most widespread form of sexual activity because children spend most of the time with their close relatives, much more than they do with any single peer from school.

Your side is contradicting yourself then. Earlier some used (I don’t know if you were one of them) the “prison example” as evidence of environment. Thus based on your words is now invalid use of evidence of environment.

The prison example has always been a stupid one. These men are usually in long term sentences or life sentences. They are straight males (usually), but due to circumstances beyond their control engage in homosexual sex. Now this isn’t ALL prisoners only some. But if you gave them a choice between a woman and a man to engage in sexual relations they would almost certainly pick a woman.

The question is: do you believe an average individual can become homosexual based off of his environment alone in the absence of any genetic factors that would predispose that individual to not being a heterosexual?

It’s a yes or no question.
 
.
Your side is contradicting yourself then. Earlier some used (I don’t know if you were one of them) the “prison example” as evidence of environment. Thus based on your words is now invalid use of evidence of environment.

The prison example has always been a stupid one. These men are usually in long term sentences or life sentences. They are straight males (usually), but due to circumstances beyond their control engage in homosexual sex. Now this isn’t ALL prisoners only some. But if you gave them a choice between a woman and a man to engage in sexual relations they would almost certainly pick a woman.

I didn't cite this example but you somehow answered your own objection: the orientation of these people didn't change, it's that they have no choice at all, which doesn't apply to everyone else for all practical purposes. However orientation can be shaped through education and culture when both options remain potentially available.

In a certain way, even with the carceral population there's a cultural dimension involved to some extent, because in Iranian prisons this is less frequent than in America for instance. Iranian prisoners will opt for abstinence more often.
 
Last edited:
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom