Dallin H. Oaks talk

[SpiritDragon]

43 minutes ago, Vort said:

I believe myself living proof that you are mistaken. From my very early childhood, I wanted to be in love with a girl, hold her hand, kiss her, be close to her. As a four-year-old -- no lie -- I wanted to be married to a girl, to touch hands, cheeks, lips, and genitals (insofar as I understood that that's what you did to make babies). I had only the haziest and most childish idea of what constituted marriage, but I deeply felt that I wanted it. The idea of being "married" to another boy struck me as absurd, even without the feelings of revulsion toward the idea of homosexual sex relations that would arise later during puberty.

So I most strongly disagree. In my case, at least, my sexual preference was intact and well-formed by the time I was four years old, probably earlier. And though I know I am unusual in some aspects of my conscious realizations, I do not believe I'm atypical in my underlying desires.

I had a very similar experience.Although I had no idea how sex worked and it was important I liked female companionship and wanted to be married to a girl. I had crushes on girl from age five on that I can remember.

[SpiritDragon]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I completely agree. 

I have said in the past that some people are "born that way" and people immediately jump to the conclusion that I believe it to be a permanent, uncontrollable condition.  Not so.  I was "born" an angry person.  But I learned to control it.  It took a lot of effort and a lot of teaching and guidance.

If at any time I decided "that's just the way I am" or "God made me this way" then I never would have gotten a hold of it.  ANY behavior can be change through intelligent thought and action.  Some are more easily changed than others.

I also believe that people do not differentiate "reaction" and "response".  It is this distinction that says whether you "have same sex attraction" or if you "choose to be gay".  And that is an important distinction.

It sounds like we should have "attraction management" courses available to help people overcome attraction disorders like anger management supposedly helps with anger... but that would involve recognizing a disorder and not celebrating it as a unique personality trait.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, laronius said:

Agreed, but I don't think attraction can be considered a behavior. While there is much we do not understand about this subject (the Church doesn't have an official position on how SSA happens) I do think that a person can so pervert their natural affections so as to skew their attractions but for most in the Church I don't think that is the case. Perhaps nurturing has something to do with it but why does one child out of a large family experience it and not the others? I do think that many do not make a conscious decision to be gay. I personally don't have a problem with viewing it as just another thorn in the flesh some are called to bear. If that is not the case and a person through the atonement of Christ can change their attraction then I would think the Lord would be a little more forth coming in how that works. If its not a problem caused by sin then I don't think simply being righteous or obedient alone would change it.

Now, that's the other side of the argument.  While I agree with the basis of the argument, I'm not quite certain what conclusion you propose.  So, I'm not sure if I agree or not.

While the trait of "attraction" may be the initial condition, I want to be clear in my position that ANY initial condition may be changed through choice.  Choice determines whether a trait will dictate action or if it will remain a simple "inclination" as Pres. Hinckley called it.

Any behavior that would result from that initial condition can be stopped and altered by choice.  Thus, through the great gift of free agency we are allowed to change our nature through the grace of the Atonement of Christ.

It is this understanding that I believe both sides of the argument tend to miss.  One side says it's innate, so it cannot be changed.  The other side says anything can be changed so it can't be innate.  Well, I believe there is a difference between what may be called "innate" vs what I term as an "initial condition".  Initial conditions can be changed.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Guest

[laronius]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Now, that's the other side of the argument.  While I agree with the basis of the argument, I'm not quite certain what conclusion you propose.  So, I'm not sure if I agree or not.

While the trait of "attraction" may be the initial condition, I want to be clear in my position that ANY initial condition may be changed through choice.  Any behavior that would result from that initial condition can be stopped and altered by choice.  Thus, through the great gift of free agency we are allowed to change our nature through the grace of the Atonement of Christ.

It is this understanding that I believe both sides of the argument tend to miss.  One side says it's innate, so it cannot be changed.  The other side says anything can be changed so it can't be innate.  Well, I believe there is a difference between what may be called "innate" vs what I term as an "initial condition".  Initial conditions can be changed.

My official conclusion is that there are some things we just don't understand at his point. For example, while we do know that gender was part of our premortal identity we don't know how much our physical bodies play into attraction. Perhaps the seed of hetero-attraction is there spiritually but the chemical processes in some bodies or even the wiring in the brain could be skewing that divinely instilled element. If that is the case then we simply can't choose for our bodies to operate as they should. Unless we can trace the cause its only guess work as to the solution. As to your comment on changing our nature, I question the extent to which we can change our own nature. Surely God can and does but I am prone to believe that the most we can do is make ourselves available to be changed. So if you are saying God can change a person's attraction then I whole-heartedly agree. If you are saying a person can simply choose who they are attracted to I would say the evidence does not support that idea.

[Rob Osborn]

It seems obvious to me that this problem in society with gender confusion and attraction is the effect of a much larger problem. Last weekend I was able to visit my inlaws in West Valley Utah. We took some time Saturday afternoon to visit downtown, go to a few stores and also visit temple square. I had a hard time trying to put a finger on it but needless to say that old familiar feeling was gone that used to inhabit downtown. The problems with the breakdown of the family coupled with pride created this void. To fill in the void we now see the side effects. some of those effects are in how people present themselves. SSA and homosexuality is just one of the many side effects that arises. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

If you are saying a person can simply choose who they are attracted to I would say the evidence does not support that idea.

What evidence?  The previous quotes refer to evidence that says there is a high percentage of success in such attempts.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I believe myself living proof that you are mistaken. From my very early childhood, I wanted to be in love with a girl, hold her hand, kiss her, be close to her. As a four-year-old -- no lie -- I wanted to be married to a girl, to touch hands, cheeks, lips, and genitals (insofar as I understood that that's what you did to make babies). I had only the haziest and most childish idea of what constituted marriage, but I deeply felt that I wanted it. The idea of being "married" to another boy struck me as absurd, even without the feelings of revulsion toward the idea of homosexual sex relations that would arise later during puberty.

So I most strongly disagree. In my case, at least, my sexual preference was intact and well-formed by the time I was four years old, probably earlier. And though I know I am unusual in some aspects of my conscious realizations, I do not believe I'm atypical in my underlying desires.

What you are describing is not a sexual preference, imo. I would expect that your desires stemmed from what you learned based on your environment, etc. That isn't abnormal. It's difficult to discuss ideas that have become so muddled -- but when I say "sexual preference" I'm literally talking about sex drive that a 4 year old does not have.

Say we're talking food preference and, for the sake of argument, a child had no taste-buds or desire to eat anything until a certain age. They might well develop an ideal of what they want to eat someday based on their environment, etc., but they cannot have a preference for taste when they have no taste or a preference for food when they have no interest in eating.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I believe myself living proof that you are mistaken. From my very early childhood, I wanted to be in love with a girl, hold her hand, kiss her, be close to her. As a four-year-old -- no lie -- I wanted to be married to a girl, to touch hands, cheeks, lips, and genitals (insofar as I understood that that's what you did to make babies). I had only the haziest and most childish idea of what constituted marriage, but I deeply felt that I wanted it. The idea of being "married" to another boy struck me as absurd, even without the feelings of revulsion toward the idea of homosexual sex relations that would arise later during puberty.

So I most strongly disagree. In my case, at least, my sexual preference was intact and well-formed by the time I was four years old, probably earlier. And though I know I am unusual in some aspects of my conscious realizations, I do not believe I'm atypical in my underlying desires.

Another response: I do think your comment here is insightful and matters. I do think we can formulate ideas and concepts early that directly influence who we become even in sexual matters. And I do think that certain things that are born within us can influence how we formulate those ideas. So don't get my above reply wrong. I'm not blowing off the point entirely.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

but when I say "sexual preference" I'm literally talking about sex drive that a 4 year old does not have.

I agree that "sexual preference" is not a sufficiently precise term to be using here.  But to say "a 4 y.o. does not have any sex drive" is incorrect -- at least in my case.  I can't speak for Vort.  And I believe your assessment is correct based on the wording of his previous post.  And he can complement his explanation if he so desires.  But I'll explain more fully what it was like for me:

While I may not have had the vocabulary (at 4 years old) to describe it, or even known much of the difference between sexes, I certainly had A) Attraction B) Excitement C) Desire to do things with and be close to girls that I did not have with boys.  It was a very stark contrast.  The feelings moved me in a way that I simply was not moved with boys.  And while some functions weren't there, the feelings were identical to what I feel as an adult when I describe sex drive.  And certain bodily motions almost happened.  To be honest, I can't remember if I actually acted them out or if I only felt the urge to do so. 

But any way that I describe sex drive as an adult, the same physical feelings and desires were there as a 4 y.o.  And I knew and recognized that they automatically occurred when I was around a pretty girl.  It wasn't a choice.  They simply happened.  And it simply did not happen around boys.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I agree that "sexual preference" is a vague term to be using here.  But to say "a 4 y.o. does not have any sex drive" is incorrect -- at least in my case.  I can't speak for Vort.  And I believe your assessment is correct based on the wording of his previous post.  And he can complement his explanation if he so desires.  But I'll explain more fully what it was like for me:

While I may not have had the vocabulary (at 4 years old) to describe it, or even known much of the difference between sexes, I certainly had A) Attraction B) Excitement C) Desire to do and be close to girls that I did not have with boys.  It was a very stark contrast.  The feelings moved me in a way that I simply was not moved with boys.  And while some functions weren't there, the feelings were identical to what I feel as an adult when I describe sex drive.  And certain bodily motions almost happened.  To be honest, I can't remember if I actually acted them out or if I only felt the urge to do so. 

But any way that I describe sex drive as an adult, the same physical feelings and desires were there as a 4 y.o.  And I knew and recognized that they automatically occurred when I was around a pretty girl.  It wasn't a choice.  They simply happened.  And it simply did not happen around boys.

What you had was a learned response to cultural affectations that you understood, at some level, to be categorized differently than another category to which you belonged. You likely had no concept of actually "female vs. male" (unless you were somehow abused by a female or otherwise involved in inappropriate situations) but, rather, the feminine and the masculine, which are, at many levels, cultural affectations (long hair, dresses, bows, dolls, etc), because if you take that away and put all the 4 year old girls in boy clothes, cut their hair, etc., and raise them as boys, you wouldn't have known the difference. Note as well that some boys who are drawn to females instead of men react psychologically to that when puberty kicks in by turning to homosexuality because it is the male that is different than them and they relate more to the female who is drawn to that difference. (I can't site anything to support this, but beyond stating that I have read of it, it strikes me as quite obvious that different people react differently to the same stimuli in various cases, etc., etc).

Of course our psychology is related to sexual preference -- and I do not deny that those things, and in some cases, very specifically, as in your case, play a role in what we become. But they are cultural, not sexual, and being aware that girls are different or mysterious or cool or whatever a 4-year-old thinks when reacting as you did does not indicate an inclination to hetero or homo sexuality, despite the fact that the path you ended up taking in that regard naturally continues to feel similar. There are too many other factors at play to link the one to the other as evidentiary. 

Edited October 5, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What you had was a learned response to cultural affectations that you understood, at some level, to be categorized differently than another category to which you belonged. You likely had no concept of actually "female vs. male" (unless you were somehow abused by a female or otherwise involved in inappropriate situations) but, rather, the feminine and the masculine, which are, at many levels, cultural affectations (long hair, dresses, bows, dolls, etc), because if you take that away and put all the 4 year old girls in boy clothes, cut their hair, etc., and raise them as boys, you wouldn't have known the difference. Note as well that some boys who are drawn to females instead of men react psychologically to that when puberty kicks in by turning to homosexuality because it is the male that is different than them and they relate more to the female who is drawn to that difference. (I can't site anything to support this, but beyond stating that I have read of it, it strikes me as quite obvious that different people react differently to the same stimuli in various cases, etc., etc).

Of course our psychology is related to sexual preference -- and I do not deny that those things, and in some cases, very specifically, as in your case, play a role in what we become. But they are cultural, not sexual, and being aware that girls are different or mysterious or cool or whatever a 4-year-old thinks when reacting as you did does not indicate an inclination to hetero or homo sexuality, despite the fact that the path you ended up taking in that regard naturally continues to feel similar. There are too many other factors at play to link the one to the other as evidentiary. 

I'm afraid we're at an impasse.  You are trying to give a description/explanation that simply isn't accurate.  None of that actually explains what I experienced.  Does long hair and differing clothing actually explain the physiological reactions that I experienced that you say doesn't exist in a 4 y.o.?  If they simply don't exist in a 4.y.o. how did any amount of social pressure or aspects even motivate something THAT STRONG in a 4 y.o. if such a thing didn't exist?

No, I sexual abuse was not a factor.  No one showed me sexually explicit images.  No one told me about sex.  And it wasn't about sexual organs either.  I and other kids my age bathed in public (sort of an alleyway between homes in a compound of about 8 to 12 homes -- as small as they were).  I never felt anything different towards others simply because we were unclothed.  But I did feel a small level of what I term now to be "embarassment" or what Genesis refers to as "shame".  But we didn't have much of a choice when it came to bathing.  We didn't have tubs or showers inside.

The bottom line is that no one taught me to be this way.  I simply was that way for as far back as I can remember.  And no amount of others talking about it could create the strength of motivation and drive and excitement at a whim that these feelings were.

My brother was never an effeminate man.  He was by most accounts a very masculine man.  But he simply never "looked" at girls -- even as a child.  As a child, he knew he liked "looking" at boys differently than he looked at girls.  I don't know the level or strength of any feelings of physiological response since he didn't remember such things.  But he was not attracted to boys because they were different.  That simply isn't true.  He liked boys because they were boys.  He saw something that he liked differently than he liked girls.

Today he has been in partnerships with effeminate gay men and fairly masculine gay men.  So, the difference was not what was attracting him.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

I'm afraid we're at an impasse.

I believe that is because you do not understand what I'm saying.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 But he was not attracted to boys because they were different.  That simply isn't true.  He liked boys because they were boys.  He saw something that he liked differently than he liked girls.

This statement makes no sense. He didn't like them because they were different, just that they were different?

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The bottom line is that no one taught me to be this way.

Do you really believe that the only way we learn is if someone sat down and taught us something?

[Traveler]

7 hours ago, laronius said:

Agreed, but I don't think attraction can be considered a behavior. While there is much we do not understand about this subject (the Church doesn't have an official position on how SSA happens) I do think that a person can so pervert their natural affections so as to skew their attractions but for most in the Church I don't think that is the case. Perhaps nurturing has something to do with it but why does one child out of a large family experience it and not the others? I do think that many do not make a conscious decision to be gay. I personally don't have a problem with viewing it as just another thorn in the flesh some are called to bear. If that is not the case and a person through the atonement of Christ can change their attraction then I would think the Lord would be a little more forth coming in how that works. If its not a problem caused by sin then I don't think simply being righteous or obedient alone would change it.

 

Rather than use the label cognitive behaviors I should have used the terminology “cognitive responses”.  Actually, we have a great deal of knowledge of the various “levels” of cognitive learning.  I would reference what is called the lowest cognitive level of learning and the research of Pavlov and Skinner.  Another researcher in this arena is the notorious Joseph Goebbels of Nazi fame.   Part of the problem is that cognitive response conditioning related to sexual behavior has become politically incorrect to research or publish since 1974.

The closest we have come is researching what happens to the brain in the process of cognitive learning.  Some may recall a few years ago, when it was discovered that areas of the brain of homosexuals are different than heterosexuals.  Several studies were published until someone pointed out that the area of the brain that was different is only made different from cognitive learning – like learning to play a musical instrument or to read brail.

I have my own theories concerning SSA but these are not scientific and could be colored with my prejudice in the matter; so I avoid the temptation to imply I know any more than suspicions of likely learning conditioning.   One thing for sure; all scientific processes and publications since 1974 have been politically tainted and hijacked.   But anyone can study condition responses and habitual substance addictions (including natural dopamine during sexual activity) – to draw their own conclusions.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I agree that "sexual preference" is not a sufficiently precise term to be using here.  But to say "a 4 y.o. does not have any sex drive" is incorrect -- at least in my case.  I can't speak for Vort.  And I believe your assessment is correct based on the wording of his previous post.  And he can complement his explanation if he so desires.  But I'll explain more fully what it was like for me:

While I may not have had the vocabulary (at 4 years old) to describe it, or even known much of the difference between sexes, I certainly had A) Attraction B) Excitement C) Desire to do things with and be close to girls that I did not have with boys.  It was a very stark contrast.  The feelings moved me in a way that I simply was not moved with boys.  And while some functions weren't there, the feelings were identical to what I feel as an adult when I describe sex drive.  And certain bodily motions almost happened.  To be honest, I can't remember if I actually acted them out or if I only felt the urge to do so. 

But any way that I describe sex drive as an adult, the same physical feelings and desires were there as a 4 y.o.  And I knew and recognized that they automatically occurred when I was around a pretty girl.  It wasn't a choice.  They simply happened.  And it simply did not happen around boys.

I agree with this 100%. That has been my life experience, as well. As a four-year-old, I had a strong desire to bond with a female. Had I understood what sex really was, I may well have tried it (so it's a very good thing I didn't know exactly what it was, because I certainly experimented as a four-year-old with the amount I thought I knew). I agree that, for lack of a better term, there is a strong, physical, carnal, "animalistic" component to the adult sex drive that I don't think was quite there in my early childhood. But desire for females? Longing for physical touch and bonding, including in the bodily "private places"? Attraction toward girls in a completely different manner than toward male friends? Check, check, and check.

By the way, and for the record: The idea that a four-year-old boy is incapable of orgasm is simply false. Period. No truth to it. There may not be any ejaculation in a prepubescent boy, but all the basic equipment is in place and fully functional. I have it on excellent authority that the same is true with little girls.

[The Folk Prophet]

@Vort and @Carborendum,

I can acquiesce (aware of the very ambiguous definitions of what we each mean) that a younger child can have a sexual preference, though I feel strongly that my explained meaning has been ignored. I do not relinquish the idea that the concepts are learned.

I believe we must account for the realities of learning and how ubiquitous that learning is when it comes to sexuality. We are bombarded by the reality of sexuality everywhere, constantly. It is modeled in our family lives, our basic knowledge about our existence, our TV shows, our books, our interactions with family, friends, neighbors, etc., etc. Everything we do from day one teaches us this. We are a product of a mommy and a daddy. They had a mommy and a daddy. Etc. We see them interacting together as a couple in a sexual relationship. We don't know about the "sex" itself. But the nature of the relationship is modeled for us everywhere.  Mommys and daddys have a special relationship. They touch differently than daddy and uncle do. They interact differently one to another than daddy and daddy's buddies. Even if we don't have a daddy and mommy in our lives we still are surrounded by the results of sexuality constantly. We learn this from day one from everything that surrounds us.

We do not realize we are being taught this. We just exist with it planted into our brains from day one. Something about our experiences teaches us what sexuality is. Now how we react to any given thing may be born in us, true. But the sexuality itself must be taught. If we lived isolated in a world such as the mythological Wonder Woman Amazonian one we would not understand what we do or even have the ability to. A young enough child (I'll back off the specific age because it isn't meaningful) can only understand the differences in boy/girl because those differences are modeled to them. If there were no girls around, we couldn't, literally, possibly draw the same conclusion because the model would not be in place. Sexuality is a learned behavior, any way you cut it. Someone unaware of the same sex could not possibly learn to be homosexual because it is contingent upon the very understanding that there is a same and opposite sex. You cannot prefer donuts to cookies if you've never heard of a donut. You must see, smell, taste, etc., in order for formulate the idea.
 

[Vort]

I don't disagree with any of that. But whatever the witch's brew of events that led to my state of mind, I was "heterosexual" long before I was consciously aware of sexuality. I do not see why the same might not be true of some homosexuals. That doesn't justify homosexual activity, any more than a natural tendency from infancy toward aggressive physicality justifies temper tantrums or bullying later in life. But to dismiss the idea that homosexuality has any inborn component seems unwise and probably unfair to those who claim such a link, especially those who feel they struggle with the topic.

Now, I don't know that you have claimed that. Honestly, I'm not following the discussion very closely. My comments were made in response to very specific statements, largely ignoring the overarching themes. In this case, my remarks might better be understood in the very narrow context in which they were offered rather than in the wider contexts of this thread.

[The Folk Prophet]

34 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't disagree with any of that. But whatever the witch's brew of events that led to my state of mind, I was "heterosexual" long before I was consciously aware of sexuality. I do not see why the same might not be true of some homosexuals. That doesn't justify homosexual activity, any more than a natural tendency from infancy toward aggressive physicality justifies temper tantrums or bullying later in life. But to dismiss the idea that homosexuality has any inborn component seems unwise and probably unfair to those who claim such a link, especially those who feel they struggle with the topic.

Now, I don't know that you have claimed that. Honestly, I'm not following the discussion very closely. My comments were made in response to very specific statements, largely ignoring the overarching themes. In this case, my remarks might better be understood in the very narrow context in which they were offered rather than in the wider contexts of this thread.

The context isn't important other than the fact that I think claims that people were just born one way or another is dangerous. Before that context was so neatly undermined (thank you very much  ), the point was significantly more related to the learning factor than the age at which one develops interest in the opposite (or same) sex.

To put a finer point on the matter: I consider the idea that it doesn't matter if we let our kids watch Will and Grace or not faulty. (Note: Will and Grace, apparently having been rebooted, is now a current reference again. Yay! )

Edited October 5, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

13 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@Vort and @Carborendum,

I can acquiesce (aware of the very ambiguous definitions of what we each mean) that a younger child can have a sexual preference, though I feel strongly that my explained meaning has been ignored. I do not relinquish the idea that the concepts are learned.

I believe we must account for the realities of learning and how ubiquitous that learning is when it comes to sexuality. We are bombarded by the reality of sexuality everywhere, constantly. It is modeled in our family lives, our basic knowledge about our existence, our TV shows, our books, our interactions with family, friends, neighbors, etc., etc. Everything we do from day one teaches us this. We are a product of a mommy and a daddy. They had a mommy and a daddy. Etc. We see them interacting together as a couple in a sexual relationship. We don't know about the "sex" itself. But the nature of the relationship is modeled for us everywhere.  Mommys and daddys have a special relationship. They touch differently than daddy and uncle do. They interact differently one to another than daddy and daddy's buddies. Even if we don't have a daddy and mommy in our lives we still are surrounded by the results of sexuality constantly. We learn this from day one from everything that surrounds us.

We do not realize we are being taught this. We just exist with it planted into our brains from day one. Something about our experiences teaches us what sexuality is. Now how we react to any given thing may be born in us, true. But the sexuality itself must be taught. If we lived isolated in a world such as the mythological Wonder Woman Amazonian one we would not understand what we do or even have the ability to. A young enough child (I'll back off the specific age because it isn't meaningful) can only understand the differences in boy/girl because those differences are modeled to them. If there were no girls around, we couldn't, literally, possibly draw the same conclusion because the model would not be in place. Sexuality is a learned behavior, any way you cut it. Someone unaware of the same sex could not possibly learn to be homosexual because it is contingent upon the very understanding that there is a same and opposite sex. You cannot prefer donuts to cookies if you've never heard of a donut. You must see, smell, taste, etc., in order for formulate the idea.
 

I believe I'm falling victim to the inaccuracies of language again.  I'm not sure what you mean by "the idea that the concepts are learned."   Which concepts?  How are they learned.  Depending on the answer I'm not sure if I agree or disagree.

While you may be correct about being constantly bombarded in today's society, it was not so in earlier decade of South Korea.  We had no magazines, no TV, no movies.  My mother left our home when I was not quite weaned.  I was not old enough to go to school.  So, where did I learn such behavior?  I had one friend from the neighborhood who was in the same condition I was.  So, where did I learn any of the inclinations I had at that age?  Even if learned, could they have been so ingrained into my mind that they would happen reflexively as they did with such intensity?

I just don't see it.  And I'm going to pull the experience card on this one.  I was there to have the experience.  You were not.  I remember those feelings.  You do not.  Barring the common referent, I don't see how we're going to see eye-to-eye on this one.

I get the doughnut / cookie analogy.  But if that is so, how do you explain how animals mate?  Some only mate once and then die.  What drives them?  It isn't previous experience.  It is that same instinctual drive that drove me at 4 years old.  I didn't understand it.  And I couldn't explain it with my limited understanding.  But there is no mistaking that the feelings and desires were there.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Guest

[zil]

I'm not sure, and I honestly don't care, but I think maybe part of @The Folk Prophet's point was that the only way a four-year-old boy knows the gender/sex of another four-year-old (assuming the other is fully clothed) is by the cultural norms for girl-clothes and girl-hair-styles as contrasted with the cultural norms for boy-clothes and boy-hair-styles.  A four-year-old girl doesn't have breasts yet, she's not all curvy yet, and if she's clothed, you can't see genital differences...

I'm having a hard time remembering yesterday.  I most definitely don't remember anything about being four years old.

[The Folk Prophet]

Ah, the experience card. Proof of all things. Because, of course, our own self assessment our our own four-year-old experiences couldn't possibly be errant.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Ah, the experience card. Proof of all things. Because, of course, our own self assessment our our own four-year-old experiences couldn't possibly be errant.

Yeah, it's a Korean superpower. 

No, actually, I was pointing out that since the verification of the experience is purely experience based we really won't be able to come to agreement.  I was not saying that I am "more right" than you are on this topic.  Only that we can't see eye-to-eye without similar experiences on this matter.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Yeah, it's a Korean superpower. 

No, actually, I was pointing out that since the verification of the experience is purely experience based we really won't be able to come to agreement.  I was not saying that I am "more right" than you are on this topic.  Only that we can't see eye-to-eye without similar experiences on this matter.

You are assuming my experiences, which I have not shared.

[Guest]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

You are assuming my experiences, which I have not shared.

Yes, I am.  I don't see how that changes anything.