[Digital Sid]

Originally Posted by AndrewPd

In human history and cultures it varies as to which gender or sex is considered more attractive.

At one stage it was men and then women dominated especially fat women. Then it was men acting like fops and wearing wigs and painting their faces. Now big busted but slim women are in and men are in if muscly, boyish or foppish. Androgyny and gender bending appeared in the 80's.

But I don't think heteronormativity has ever being thoroughly challenged.

Again, no it doesn't, most men have always been more attracted to women and most women have always been more attracted to men.

[AndrewPd]

Originally Posted by Digital Sid

No they didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ancient_Greece

[AndrewPd]

Originally Posted by Digital Sid

Again, no it doesn't, most men have always been more attracted to women and most women have always been more attracted to men.

That wasn't what that post was about at all.

We were discussing the claim earlier that women were considered more attractive than men aesthetically.

This includes representations in paintings and other cultural artefacts.

Thanks for not following the thread with any consistency.

[Digital Sid]

Originally Posted by AndrewPd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ancient_Greece

It's a myth. Homosexuality was frowned upon in Ancient Greece.
http://www.sydneyline.com/Myths%20of%20Eros.htm

[whydoiwatch]

Originally Posted by AndrewPd

Adrienne Rich devised the term in an essay in a book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compuls...bian_Existence

She's out of her goddamned tree. I'm a strident feminist, but the idea of sex with another woman leaves me colder than the North Pole. I like men.

[Digital Sid]

Originally Posted by AndrewPd

That wasn't what that post was about at all.

We were discussing the claim earlier that women were considered more attractive than men aesthetically.

This includes representations in paintings and other cultural artefacts.

Thanks for not following the thread with any consistency.

It's not true aesthetically or sexually.

[AndrewPd]

Originally Posted by Digital Sid

It's not true aesthetically or sexually.

What's not true

What are you on about?

Do you carry the consensus on the historical role and depiction of the genders?

[Digital Sid]

Originally Posted by AndrewPd

What's not true

What are you on about?

Do you carry the consensus on the historical role and depiction of the genders?

There has never been a universal consensus on which gender is more aesthetically attractive.

[Snozzcumber]

Originally Posted by Jackboy18

If you look at all animals, including humans, the males are always the more impressive looking. For example:

• Ostriches: The male stands tall, dark and handsome, while the female is grey and dowdy.
  
• Ducks: The male is multi-coloured and attractive, while the female is frumpy.
  
• Lions: The grand male has a flowing mane, while the lioness is bland in comparison.
  
• Turkeys: The male is grander here too.
  
• Peafowl: The same is true here.

The list can go on and on.

In these species, males develop elaborate phenotypic ornaments in order to appear more attractive because the females get to be choosy over which males they want to breed with. Why do they get to be choosy? Because they are wanted by so many different males, i.e. the females are very attractive in the eyes of the males. In birds, it's true that sexual selection tends to adhere that pattern.

However, there are plenty of examples in insects where the reverse occurs and the female develops the physical ornaments - compare the elaborate striped patterns on a female wasp spider vs. the drab appearance of a male wasp spider, for example.

In mammals, the dimorphism is usually less pronounced. Male dolphins look basically like female dolphins, a male horse basically looks like a female horse, and so on - including humans. I daresay an alien visitor to this planet would struggle to tell human males and females apart.

It's also reflected in the considerable variety and complexity of our mating rituals. Sometimes women get traded from male to male like animals, sometimes women get to be extremely choosy, sometimes men get to have their pick of women, and sometimes men and women get together because of that weird thing called love.

This complexity is probably due to human intelligence - we simply have a greater ability to reason, to come up with alternative ways of doing things.

[AndrewPd]

Originally Posted by Digital Sid

There has never been a universal consensus on which gender is more aesthetically attractive.

I agree.

However there have been predominant cultural depictions and rules concerning the issue.

Look at Muslim countries in which women are considered to be too attractive to men to be allowed freedom to wear and do what they like.

Clearly the Islamic view of women and mens attractiveness is different to western and other ideals.

[SillyBillyGoat]

Some men are better looking than some women, and vice versa.

Seriously, the amount of opinions being disguised as facts in this thread is almost anger-inducing.

[Jackboy18]

In answer to the original post, I will repeat what I have said many times on this forum; We are all born bisexual, however, childhood experiences, life experiences, social conditioning, religion, family, peers, smells etc all influence the level of our attraction to people of the same and opposite sex.

As has been discussed in this thread, part of that conditioning includes having young children pair off with the opposite sex. This shouldn't be promoted. Children should be left to find their own way in life. They shouldn't be raised believing that heterosexuality is the default over any other type of attraction, especially when this orientation is based on self-hatred (or self-disgust), which is unhealthy.

[AndrewPd]

I can sense on this thread that people are trying to assert the dominance of heterosexuality or heteronormativity.

But that is not an explanation for sexual attraction.

I don't Know why I am not attracted to women or why I should be just because I was born male.

However to me being attracted to a man (or the same gender) is easier to explain because I know my own masculine erogenous zones and what male sexual pleasure is like. Heterosexuality involves creating attraction to biologically differing entities with differing bodies and sexual experiences.

[vanzandtfan]

Originally Posted by AndrewPd

I can sense on this thread that people are trying to assert the dominance of heterosexuality or heteronormativity.

But that is not an explanation for sexual attraction.

I don't Know why I am not attracted to women or why I should be just because I was born male.

However to me being attracted to a man (or the same gender) is easier to explain because I know my own masculine erogenous zones and what male sexual pleasure is like. Heterosexuality involves creating attraction to biologically differing entities with differing bodies and sexual experiences.

The reason people are trying to assert the dominance of heterosexuality is because heterosexuality has been dominant in human society throughout history as well as in the animal kingdom. The reason is rather obvious, heterosexuality leads to reproduction, homosexuality doesn't (at least not until recently). I suspect that this appears quite obvious to most people which is why many seem to be having a tough time taking your argument seriously.

[Digital Sid]

Originally Posted by AndrewPd

I can sense on this thread that people are trying to assert the dominance of heterosexuality or heteronormativity.

It doesn't need to be asserted, it speaks for itself. Our continued and thriving existence is a testimony to it.

[Fizgig]

Originally Posted by AndrewPd

I can sense on this thread that people are trying to assert the dominance of heterosexuality or heteronormativity.

But that is not an explanation for sexual attraction.

I don't Know why I am not attracted to women or why I should be just because I was born male.

However to me being attracted to a man (or the same gender) is easier to explain because I know my own masculine erogenous zones and what male sexual pleasure is like. Heterosexuality involves creating attraction to biologically differing entities with differing bodies and sexual experiences.

It's usually decided by nature - the instinct to procreate, like a male cat going in search of a female in heat & sitting in her garden all night incase she gets out (which she will try to do). The cat hasn't been brought up playing with cars and having dolls taken off him.

Nature. Breeding. I couldn't fancy someone with the same body as my own.

[AndrewPd]

Originally Posted by Digital Sid

It doesn't need to be asserted, it speaks for itself

That doesn't prove anything really.

Alot of people having the most children live in societies with the least acceptance of homosexuality, the most oppressive views of women, the least education levels.

None of this explains heterosexuality anyhow it just indicates its popular. This thread was asking for a causal explantion.

There clearly isn't one. Pointing out the predominance of heterosexuality doesn't answer the thread titles question it is a side show.

Also behaviour that millions of people are involved in (The slave trade/genocide) are not all natural or biological.

[AndrewPd]

Originally Posted by Digital Sid

Our continued and thriving existence is a testimony to it.

Since mass extinctions have been common (95-99% of all species have gone extinct) I wouldn't count on our continued thriving.

Your posts and attitude are an example of enforcing heteronormativity.

[Digital Sid]

Originally Posted by AndrewPd

That doesn't prove anything really.

Alot of people having the most children live in societies with the least acceptance of homosexuality, the most oppressive views of women, the least education levels.

None of this explains heterosexuality anyhow it just indicates its popular. This thread was asking for a causal explantion.

There clearly isn't one. Pointing out the predominance of heterosexuality doesn't answer the thread titles question it is a side show.

Also behaviour that millions of people are involved in (The slave trade/genocide) are not all natural or biological.

The UK population has gone up 20 million, it's entire population in the 1850s, since 1951.

Originally Posted by AndrewPd

Since mass extinctions have been common (95-99% of all species have gone extinct) I wouldn't count on our continued thriving.

Your posts and attitude are an example of enforcing heteronormativity.

Mass extinctions caused by this sort of thing:
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...images/kt3.jpg
not homosexuality.

[Stever7]

Originally Posted by AndrewPd

Since mass extinctions have been common (95-99% of all species have gone extinct) I wouldn't count on our continued thriving.

Your posts and attitude are an example of enforcing heteronormativity.

Why are you pushing hate on people?

I honeslty think some people have such a big chip on their shoulder they WANT others to be racist, sexist, etc.

[AndrewPd]

Originally Posted by Stever7

Why are you pushing hate on people?

I honeslty think some people have such a big chip on their shoulder they WANT others to be racist, sexist, etc.

I am not pushing hate..what has this thread got to do with racism or sexism?

I am arguing that heterosexuality is taken for granted whilst homosexuality is pathologised.

It seems noone is that interested in the origins of heterosexual attraction.

There are too many people on the planet. The human condition is not pleasent. Lets not encourage this mindlessly cycle of unreflective reproduction.

[Digital Sid]

Originally Posted by AndrewPd

I am not pushing hate..what has this thread got to do with racism or sexism?

I am arguing that heterosexuality is taken for granted whilst homosexuality is pathologised.

It seems noone is that interested in the origins of heterosexual attraction.

There are too many people on the planet. The human condition is not pleasent. Lets not encourage this mindlessly cycle of unreflective reproduction.

Because everyone already knows what it is.

[d'@ve]

Originally Posted by AndrewPd

It seems noone is that interested in the origins of heterosexual attraction.

Occam's razor.

Originally Posted by Digital Sid

Because everyone already knows what it is.

Yep, it really is that obvious. To most people, anyway... but some seem to think too hard.

[AndrewPd]

Originally Posted by Digital Sid

Because everyone already knows what it is.

What does that mean?

I am asking about the causes of attraction not a dictionary definition of heterosexuality.

What causes a woman to be attracted to a man and vice versa?

The answer?

[Chester666666]

Originally Posted by AndrewPd

That doesn't prove anything really.

Alot of people having the most children live in societies with the least acceptance of homosexuality, the most oppressive views of women, the least education levels.

None of this explains heterosexuality anyhow it just indicates its popular. This thread was asking for a causal explantion.

There clearly isn't one. Pointing out the predominance of heterosexuality doesn't answer the thread titles question it is a side show.

Also behaviour that millions of people are involved in (The slave trade/genocide) are not all natural or biological.

I agree
It's predictable some heteros just don't get it