Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yeah, the gist I got from it is it's the same old debate we've known forever: nurture vs nature. I didn't think I needed to read another article about it.

It doesn't really matter that much, I just find it interesting how people become who they are, and how a lot of things we assume to be just natural are socially/culturally created. It was also well-written so I thought I'd share because hey, it's the spam can.

I didn't say they weren't an improvement. I think I've made it clear that the whole game is an improvement, in my mind. On a game I already loved.

I don't think adding new tools to your belt in an adventure puzzle game is gimmicky, not by default anyway. I mena the tools that are added can be. Maybe dark moon suffered because it gave away too many of it's essential tricks too soon. I doubt it, because the pacing of the first level felt choice. I think that the game simply needs more environmental challenges, like how they introduce using fire, and then give fire another use in ice zones. If you fought the 4th level boss then you know about portals Those were another thing that got fleshed out better over time, becoming more necessary to puzzle solving in the next level.

I just think there could have been more elements floating around. The second level, introduced bubble plants but they felt underused in general. The the same might be said with the explosive robots in the next level. which also felt barely used at times.

The pacing in the game far outshines most games. Especially the first, but It's just so good at the beginning that it feels weird in the middle.

It's not like sonic syndrome, though, god no. (I'm not talking about the sonic cycle, I'm talking about the steep drop off in quality in many modern sonic games after the first level or 2)

Well, it WOULD be nice if people could just not have a problem with it, but with the way things are there is a little bit of a need to find an explanation. It is so frustrating to people when we can't even understand ourselves.

What in the actual ******** with this explanation:
- You determine your favorite games, food, etc. by experiencing them. There are individuals who figure out that their orientation after sex. A considerably larger amount of people "just know" what gender(s) they're attracted to without having sex, and often at a very young age.
- There are gay and lesbian individuals that get married to someone of the opposite sex for whatever reason, but later divorce and enter a relationship with someone of the same sex. If orientation is a taste you acquire over time, then why don't these individuals become straight as a result of the marriage?
- On a similar note, attempts to change one's orientation have been overwhelming failures. Go look into ex-gay camps or something.
- Homosexuality and/or bisexuality have been documented in numerous animals, so there's definitely evidence of it being naturally-occurring, and possibly biological in origin.
- That really lovely part where you said that orientation is a taste developed over time and that heterosexuality is common because of socialization, but then follow it up with an assertion that heterosexuality is completely normal and homosexuality is actually super unnatural.
- I would really love a link about the study with the kid being raised by wolves, especially since wolves are pretty reliant on their sense of hearing. Completely ignoring loud unfamiliar noises seems like a terrible instinct for a wild animal (or someone raised by wild animals) to develop.

I could buy the idea that orientation isn't 100% determined by genetics, but 'it's a taste you develop like your favorite game' is one of the stupidest arguments I've heard outside of anti-gay groups insisting that homosexuality is a choice.

You can develop it as a little kid, just as you can develop straight feelings that early? It may not be true, but it's an interesting thought. You don't really choose who you like. You don't really choose what you like in general, you just do. You can only pretend not to like something you really like. You don't develop a lot of likes and dislikes until you age (to became a kid rather than a baby), which is also when you develop sexual feelings. You develop all likes and dislikes within a society, and that has an immense influence on how you turn out. I can see it and one's personal life experiences influencing what kind of people they get attracted to. For example, my boyfriend is repulsed by the idea of getting a professional massage from another man - but where does this repulsion come from? It's obviously not something he was just born with - he was socialized to fear being in any sort of "gay" situation, as I'm sure were all his male peers. What if they were taught that being feminine or gay was perfectly fine for either gender? Maybe a lot more of them would actually be gay, let alone more tolerant of "gay" situations.

I have a hard time understanding "just knowing" because I have had feelings for women from a young age, but because I started dating ONE guy I've felt straight and I only experience sexual desire for the male body, but I almost feel that I could go either way depending on the circumstances. I almost wish I just always preferred one gender over the other so it made more sense. x_x It makes me wonder how other people think like that. How do they not just like people because they like them, not because some biological law is saying that they will like only one gender?

The raised by wolves thing was said my professor. I can't really find a link to just that, but apparently these things come from this film. I need to watch it sometime.

One thing I don't like about the article is that she kind of says that homosexuality is a choice, and that she just "chose" to be a lesbian after taking a women's studies course... I don't get that at all. You can't choose who you're attracted to, that's for sure. Maybe she chose to embrace what was already there. And I know you can't change your orientation, and that homosexuality is natural in other animals. Of course it's not unnatural, but that's how it's sometimes treated. And getting married wouldn't change that either. By personal experiences I meant all personal experiences - even very small ones. Every tiny experience changes and shapes you just a little.

People believe that heterosexuality is the norm and that homosexuality is kind of a weird thing that only some people have. I didn't mean to say that I personally believed it wasn't normal. I'm interested in how much homosexuality is potentially repressed because of the way we're socialized, because there have been cultures where homosexuality was the norm (at least between men). I also find it hard to believe that they had a completely different gene pool than people in our society, in those cultures.

That' a good way to win your argument, just shove it down someone's throat. It's open to discussion and by acting like people that think it might be a choice (as is heterosexuality) we make somewhere along the lines in our lives are close-minded just makes YOU come off as close-minded.

When someone says "I think being gay or straight might be up to preference, not genetics," gay-right activists act like we're saying the equivalent of "I think black people are genetically slavemen." Don't abhor an opinion that hasn't just been reinforced to strengthen your viewpoint on an issue that's close to you. Try to consider it. We're all considering it MIGHT be genetic.