Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helm
The supposedly mystified concept of 'beauty' can - somewhat unfairly, I give you that - be broken down to biological aspects where facial symmetry suggests the lack of disease and certain prominent characteristics suggest racial traits which are considered by our biological memory compatible with oneself. Instinct is one eugenic, racist motherfucker.
|
Emmanuel Kant would love this if you threw God and some kind of metaphysical matrix in the mix somewhere.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helm
From a sociological and psychologic standpoint, things are more complicated. Homosexuals who have no genetic leaning towards finding same-sex partners attractive (and it is my oppinion that most people that claim to be gay nowdays are of this sort, rather than hopeless biological cases) have chosen a different 'club' to belong in than most, but still, they long for belonging all the same.
|
So if one were isolated from society for all his/her life, would genetic or societal forces be stronger in making their decision for them? Would their decision have been made during isolation? Assuming they were genetically heterosexual? Assuming they were genetically homosexual? I do agree that both environment and nature each have an effect on one's decision but was just not clear on just what percentages each has in deciding. I've never thought of it in terms of needing to belong or needing a label. It's an interesting idea that I'll have to give more thought to.