Are homosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia and other deviant sexual

File: 1500889392279.jpg (231KB, 1292x848px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1292x848px

>>9067819
We are born pure.

Bump for interest. And also how to increase my executive function enough to escape the horsepussy

A little bit of both. Humans can learn to associate literally anything with sex and get turned on thanks to conditioning.

>>9067819
3rd option: environmental
As far as I know the fraternal birth order effect is the biggest known causal factor in homosexuality. Homosexuals and pedophiles are both more likely to be left handed than normal (which is why you never trust a lefty) and handedness is partly genetic.
Probably genetic potential for abnormal development + relevant environmental factors = deviant phenotype, like for everything else.

>>9067819
Its a developmental things, so a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental factors

>>9068162
Good thing we're saturated with xenoestrogens

>>9068162
do you have any evidence to suggest that?

>>9068240
Suggest what?
If you can tell me specifically what you want to know about you could just tell google instead and cut out the middleman.

>>9067819
Why is homosexuality deviant?

We enjoy the songs and voice of both men and women.
We enjoy the companionship and friendship of both sexes.
Why is it such an alien concept that some people might enjoy the beauty of both sexes too? It's logical.

>>9068367
>>>reddit
go back

File: Maki Nishikino- zero1510 (Love Live).jpg (6KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 100x100px

Depends what you mean by "deviant".

Pornography has several running themes:
>1. Star breaking taboo
>2. Power over the star
>3. Violence toward the star

2 and 3 have obvious evolutionary roots (wish fulfillment of control, which is key to reproductive success), but 1 is less straightforward.

Nudity is prized because it is taboo. Homosexuality is taboo for some men, but the shape of a man is appealing to straight women. I assume some men seek out images of men to jack off to because a woman's face kills the mood for them, just as a straight man doesn't want to see another man's face. And I assume some people switch on for both, or neither, or only for kids, or only for old people, based purely on innate brain chemistry.

On the other hand, cartoon animals are a very specific thing to jack off to. And I assume they are not doing it not because they hate human faces or hands or feet, but rather because the taboo difference is alluring. I don't know if there guys who get hard only if they're looking at a long snout, and their bodies don't switch on otherwise. Someone confirm with me on this?

>>9068745
>kills the mood for them, just as a straight man doesn't want to see another man's face

You skipped a step. Is this a learned response or an innate one?

>>9067819

Like most things, they're probably a combination of the two. I'm not familiar with any specific studies on sexual fetishes but I can say that there have been twin studies on transsexuals and cases in which both twins identify as transgender are a little less than 30%. So there's likely some biological tendency for specific sexual fetishes and gender identity and the like but environment determines the extent to which those traits will be expressed.

>>9068745
One alternative is that men dislike seeing a guy's face while jacking off because "enjoying that would feel gay". If there's lady parts you like onscreen, you might ignore the dude onscreen with them, but it would still feel like a small downer for either the genetic reason or the learned one...or it might not feel like a downer because it is ignored. Or, it might feel like an upper for aesthetic or story reasons, or because his look titillates you.

OP, your question is way too difficult to answer through pornography alone.

>>9068334
A peer reviewed article would be best.

>>9068367
Shut up. Faggots are disgusting freaks, period. It may be the case that you have rational reasons to believe the opposite: I don't care, nor does the majority of human people. They will never be accepted, they will always be monsters to the eyes of humans, regardless of what "society" wants you to believe.

>>9067819
They're not genetic. Identical twins are discordant.

A bit of both, I'm sure.

Either way, "homosexuality" and similar labels are so simplistic they really have no place in science.
If you wanted to describe someones sexuality accurately, you'd need a huge list of (not necessarily physical) features, each rated for attractiveness on a scale of 0 to 10 or something.

>>9068780
http://bfy . tw/D5Kv