Instigator / Pro
6
1492
rating
332
debates
40.66%
won
Topic
#5075

The science of sex appeal documentary does not make sense of homosexuality.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Mall
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
4
1319
rating
260
debates
41.35%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Questions on topic, drop a comment.

Round 1
Pro
#1
According to the documentary "Science of sex appeal" which I don't know where someone can find a viewing of to see for themselves, it makes no room to give a consistent biological basis for homosexual attraction.

I had this topic in the past and many just filibustered with the excuse of not doing the research themselves on the documentary.

The documentary comprehensively explains hormones between the opposite sexes. It explains a biological scent that attracts one sex to the other that is apparently detected under radar. It is not a scent that is a full blown regular aroma likened to roses or anything strong. It's a scent that is there to trigger a signal causing movement in pursuit of physical contact but it is by no means a conspicuous sense.

Aside from this, the documentary breaks down the attractions of bodily parts. The male is attracted to the female breasts. This is because the female breasts serve a function of offspring nourishment. Get this. The larger the mammary glands, the more attractive. I had a debate topic on this regarding the voluptuous size of a female affects the attraction of a male.

This is why a male experiences arousal to a genital erection when contacting the mammary glands.

Just as a side note, during sexual activity, the female receives reward from nipple stimulation and is interconnected with sexual arousal.

How does this link back to offspring?

Nipple stimulation can also help increase your breast milk. This is especially helpful if you are having trouble with the “let-down reflex,” which releases the milk into your nipple. By stimulating the nipples, you are signaling to your body to release prolactin and produce more milk.

The male is attracted to facilitate all of this by just at the start of the physical appearance. 

It's not just in superficial terms the male is attracted to the female because the female just simply looks good. That's circular. The appearance of a bodily feature has its structure based on a function. It is that deep rooted function that biologically is channeling a sex to another. It may be unbeknownst to us why at a certain age we develop physical interest. It's almost like subliminal or subconscious. But there's actually a biological science behind all of this. The science of sex appeal or interest .

It's physical appearance to ultimately at an end of some sort of functionality.

The male is wired to accomplish this functionality by physical signals.

This is also true with the physical appearance the male is compelled to of the other anatomical features such as female buttocks, thighs, etc. The few areas where excess fat or tissue is gathered. The male is attracted to all this and experiences arousal to erection due to this indicating that the female is built to store excess nutrients for the offspring she carries.

Next up is still in relation to the buttocks. The attraction to the buttocks stems from the outline of the arch of the back. Along with that comes the attraction to the bodily feature of the wideness of the hips. Yes those "child bearing" hips.

All of these elements trigger arousal in the rise to penile erection. The link is more and more consistent. The male is being triggered by prenatal reproductive elements to then himself transmit reproductive material to .

Where does homosexuality fit into all this?

Perhaps the opposing side can enlighten us with more research. I believe they have said before in so many words that research and education is not really their thing. I believe they said they reject truth. When you research and learn the truth that doesn't favor what you prefer, what are you going to do but reject or dismiss it?

How does homosexuality connect in all this?

We can see why the male penile erection would occur based on the explanation between male and female.

It has to erect in order to eject or ejaculate sexual reproductive material .

Take a homosexual male. Why would this male experience an erection in attraction to ultimately to eject reproductive material with another male whom does not have prenatal reproductive elements to receive transmission?

Let's think of it. The homosexual male is triggered by another individual who does not possess these elements to transmit their material to.

Why does the physique of a male arouse another male to erection to ultimately ejaculate seed in which that male they're attracted to cannot be planted with?

We understand with the help of the documentary to explain why a female will have physical attraction to the male physique. 

Going back to the documentary, they point out the musculature of a male is of sex appeal to the female. Just as the female's shape is giving indication for physical qualification of motherhood, it is likewise with the male.

The physique of the male , the musculature signals the amount of strength and protection provided by the male over the female's offspring. The female anatomy can provide only but so much protection.

Both the male and female physical bodies tell about their health which is also a crucial qualifier in attraction of pretty much establishing the parental process. That's pretty much what this is. 

Like food that has a biological metabolic function, not just solely recreation or one or the other but sexual engagement has its biological function and process.

The physique of a male helps identify his standing in health including the quality of his genes. This is consistent because as you guessed it, these genes will be passed on in consummation.

You have the musculature, jaw line, the broadness of shoulders, the chest to waist ratio. All of the secondary sexual traits aside from the obvious private ones. All of these traits indicate masculinity and the level of testosterone which is key in fertility.

So in summary there is really not much to explain how homosexuality makes sense from this documentary. Maybe the opposing side can present counter material.

Con
#2
The attraction is not just to reproduction.

One can be attracted to non-reproduction as well.

I dont think documentary said how you have to be attracted to reproduction.

One can be attracted to anything, really.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I don't think the opposing side had much to say about what was said which was a mouth full elaborated in detail .

I'll continue on in discussing that we are physically attracted to one another. But there's an underlying cause to a function involved. When you're ignorant and have not spent much time learning why these attractions exists, you look at the surface level of everything thinking I just like something because it just looks good and that's it. So because that's it in my mind, you like something that looks good to you regardless of what it is , it's just the same and looks good all around.

Let's look at food for a moment. A double greasy cheesy cheese steak or burger with greasy salty fries, double decker icing sugary cake and whatever you can imagine of unhealthy proportions looks good to consume. Looks appetizing, looks attractive and appealing.

But when the research is learned about nutrition, vitamins, minerals, electrolytes and certain essential fuels needed for consumption, the science behind it, it makes inconsistency for doing otherwise.

It is because the science of nutrition explains why any person has to engage and or is attracted to consume food in the first place. It is likewise with consummation and the opposing side mentioned "not just to reproduction".

If we go back to what I said, I touched on this. If alllll I have said has been read , the opposing side may have much less to say than two sentences.

"Like food that has a biological metabolic function, not just solely recreation or one or the other but sexual engagement has its biological function and process."

There's no one or the other. The "recreation " that people are attracted to or are seeking is the reward for fulfilling the function of bodily biological process.

In a person's mind, are they thinking about this process going to the dinner table? Are they thinking about this process going to the bedroom?

I guess the ones that are informed have it in mind. But even if you don't, you don't have breathing in mind. You don't think to breathe. You don't think to pump your heart to beat. These are involuntary responses.
You're doing all these things and you have these attractions due to innate underlying biological processes.

On the surface I'm thinking and feeling I just want to go lay down with this person as I'm physically attracted to touching and feeling on them. I'm not looking to impregnate. Regardless of any of that, my attraction to her is there due to the biological signals and triggers as described last round which explains heterosexuality, the science of its sex appeal.

Now to make homosexuality make sense, we have to just look at this on the surface level stripping away any root causes of biological survival.

The problem just comes in when we get to those questions I asked . But many people, maybe not many, but there are those that give an answer in just simply a lais·sez-faire  response.

That is, so what? Who cares? Who cares what function is for what to do what and why?

We are people that do what we do. No harm to me or you, drop it and move on.

This doesn't change the basis of every function and active stimuli reaction. But it covers it up or subverts any attention in caring to address what that comprehensive documentary has reported.



Con
#4
Just because something has certain function doesnt mean that certain function is all that matters.
Homosexuality has a function of causing pleasure, because it feels good to suck dick.
As we can see, things have use, so I am not even sure what are we debating here.
Round 3
Pro
#5
"Just because something has certain function doesnt mean that certain function is all that matters."

But the function indeed matters basically what you're indicating.

It's like saying just because I'm skilled at dribbling a basketball, I'm good at shooting a ball, those things are not all that matters. They do matter but they're not the only things that matter.

Well regardless, they're still essential and the documentary discusses the essentials. Now perhaps in another documentary, other essentials can or will be discussed. 

In this particular one I'm referencing, they discuss these particular essentials I've been talking about all debate long. 

Also it's not either or. That's another issue that people misunderstand . It's a package deal.

It's not some dribble a ball and that's what playing ball is . It's not just one can shoot a ball. You got to have a team, use your team, have gameplays, exercising all player positions. It's all of that in a package.

In that documentary, you get the package of sex to where the question is asked how does homosexuality fit into it?

It can only fit if you break that package deal up, stripping it, delineating it, dissecting it .

"Homosexuality has a function of causing pleasure, because it feels good to suck dick."

Yes see this is dissection. Going back to your point , that certain function "doesnt mean that certain function is all that matters."

It obviously isn't all that exists.
This is what the documentary sets out to do. It explains the reason behind these things. Why is there pleasure? What purpose does it serve?

What does it lead to ? Why does it surround the causation or stimulation of releasing reproductive material?

In the case of homosexuality, why would this be done with another homosexual person?

It doesn't make sense.

Just concede. All you can say is"so what if it doesn't?".

That's all you can do. That's as far as you can go with it .


"As we can see, things have use, so I am not even sure what are we debating here."

I'll just reiterate this .

Why is there pleasure? What purpose does it serve?

What does it lead to ? Why does it surround the causation or stimulation of releasing reproductive material?

In the case of homosexuality, why would this be done with another homosexual person?

It doesn't make sense.

Now you can try to argue the use of sexual reproductive material stimulated to be release with while engaging in a stimulative activity with another person that isn't meant to use it.

It's like placing an electrical plug with another. Another plug has no use for it .
Con
#6
Alright, I will concede.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Many will not concede to my point here. Again there are those that do so indirectly by saying "so what?"

They say "it all doesn't have to make sense. Love doesn't have to make sense."

Ok well at least we understand that much. Now of course Pandora's box is open where "love is love" goes on and on.

I believe in your case you already embrace that with the pedophilia. I'm not sure about bestiality. If you are on board with that, we can have a topic on that.


Con
#8
I think beastality is not wrong. Yes, we can debate it if you want.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Well done and case closed on this topic. Thank you for joining me once again.
Con
#10
Case closed.