File :-(, x, )
Intro to Shooting Zoos NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Equipment

Bring
Telephoto: Faster is better, longer is better. I’ve found that good shots happen between 220-300 on my 30D. You want a long lens so you can blur out enclosures via the small depth of field achievable with it. Quick review for those of you who are new, the more open the aperture is, the lesser the dof, closer the subject, the lesser the dof.

Monopod: Must for indoor shooting allowing you get shots that would otherwise be difficult to handhold. Monopods with mobile heads are the best.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:08:12 02:40:43Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length300.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width983Image Height655RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Don’t
Tripod: Too large and will obstruct other people. While some places do still allow these I’d steer away from them. Often there isn’t the room and people will trip on it’s legs no matter obvious and close they are too you. In a zoo environment a mono would serve best.

Polarizer: Often advertised as a great way to remove reflections on glass it is detrimental in my experience in a zoo by causing you to loose too much light in the conditions you want to be shooting in. There’s other, better ways to get around glare in a zoo environment.

Questionable:
A strong flash: Yes these things are god sends for open enclosures and can get you the photo you want more easily, but is right to use strong strobe an animal that most certainly has had a lot of it is up to you. It’s also rather rude to other zoo guests.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
When and Where

Time of the week: Mondays and Thursdays have always been the least busy. Tuesdays and Wednesdays seem to be a popular day for schools, camps, and daycares to bring kids in and should be avoided with the weekend. Open is the best time to get to the zoo. A lot of zoos tend to feed their animals right around open and the hour so after open meaning the animals are awake and active and not in the dreaded midday stupor. It’s also less busy in the mornings.

There are two big categories of exhibits, and time of day affects when you want to shoot at what.

Outdoor exhibits are best shot in the mornings, and then evenings. Morning light provides a nice subdued and even lighting with a little bit of warmth to it that can compliment tones well while providing side lighting for better shadow placement.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Evening light is harsher but often nearly as good. 11-4 o’clock are your dead times for shooting outdoors, the animals are asleep, it’s hot out, and the lighting is garbage.

Indoor exhibits are best shot in the outdoors’ dead period, especially for indoor exhibits that utilize natural and artificial light. The midday light provides the most natural light somewhat alleviating the terribly low light that plagues indoor zoo shooting.

Procedure

Monopods shine at zoos in usefulness, small, compact and easy to use. Lean your monopod against any rail or fence you can find to steady it and you’re set. Fixed head monopods are not as good because you can’t lean them, but are still useful.

Procedure differs by type of exhibit, of which there are three categories of: Open, glass, and fenced.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Open: there’s no real trick besides any normal ones you’d use while shooting.

Glass: Here is why you brought a lens hood. Place your lens right up to the glass and steady your lens with your hand in a way that you can cover any gaps formed by tilting your lens. This removes most reflection problems and will blur out a lot of the garbage on the glass.

Fenced: You can blur out almost any fence by placing your subject as far from it as you can and by placing yourself as close to it as you can to the fence. The only time where you’ll have trouble with shooting through fences is if it is in direct light or if you’re using a flash.

Most importantly, pick 2-3 exhibits to spend the day with. Don’t wander through the zoo, stand at an exhibit for 5 minutes and expect to get a good photo. Sit down and watch the animal and learn when it tends to do the kind of action or pose you want to capture.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Here's for hoping for more nature photographers. Intro to mountains next if this does well.
>> Anonymous
NatureGuy, what lens do you typically use for shooting zoos, a prime or zoom?

I've seen your stuff around here and I enjoy it. I'm new to photography but every time I go out I find myself being drawn more and more to nature photography.
>> Anonymous
great stuff! wish i had some of this stuff when i went to the zoo, though it was right in the worst lighting time (around 11 or 12?), it was hot as fuck, and there were 3000000 people for some reason.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>233512
Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM

It's dirt cheap and surprisingly effective for 220$. Still saving for a 100-400.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=17&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

The best part of nature photography is that you gives you a good reason to get and enjoy the world and then best of all you get to share what you saw with other people. Go for it man, it's very rewarding.
>> Anonymous
>>233515

And here I was thinking you used a 300 f/4 or 2.8 or something. That's definitely an interesting lens and really reasonably priced, I'll have to look into it.

I currently have no super-telephoto lenses (cap out at 85) and all of mine are primes. Do you think that the zoom is better overall for that type of work than a prime lens would be, were price not an issue?
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>233518
Yes, even more so in a zoo environment where you have to work the animals and the enclosure and separate the two. Further with a decent range on a zoom you can change compositions dramatically based on what animal is doing faster and more easily. You may be focused on that deer over there, but 3 more pop up out of the grass to give you the perfect shot you have the option to zoom out and use it. There's a stigma against zoom quality from the EOS FD days, but technology has closed the quality gap between a zoom and prime. Primes still have better image quality but the flexibility provided in a zoom makes up for it now.
>> Anonymous
bumping for delicious info.. thanks =)
>> Anonymous
Awesome info good to know. Thank you.
>> Anonymous
>>233520

Thanks a lot for the info, it's been really helpful!

I think I'll look into the new 55-250 IS as a good starter, that is if I can get a good deal on it used or through my company's Canon Program, but that will have to wait a few more months. I've played with that lens a few times (we always have them in stock) and I am pretty impressed with what it can do.
>> Anonymous
Bump for win
>> Anonymous
bump
>> Anonymous
Nice info, thank you
>> Anonymous
neat, thanks
>> Anonymous
thanks
>> Anonymous
interesting and helpful thread in /p/, wow thanks man,
>> Anonymous
What is this alien being? A helpful thread, not full of trolls? Bump for superiorty.
>> Anonymous
zoos are a wonderful place to catch the empty dead look of the animals inside. ops pic is a great example. thanks, "nature" guy....
>> Anonymous
>>233802
>>233776
>>233727
>>233697
>>233684
>>233672
>>233535
>>233523
>>233522
>>233520

Same person.
>> Anonymous
>>233831
I'm glad someone brought this up. Anyone who passes off zoo pictures as "wildlife" or "nature" pictures are morons. Real wildlife photography takes unbelievable patience and plenty of luck. Sitting at a zoo taking pictures of depressed animals than calling yourself the nature guy? Lol.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>233835
"depressed"?
I love animals, but you do realize that a lot of species aren't even self aware right? saying animals there are "depressed" is anthropomorphism and not much more.
>> Anonymous
>>233836
you obviously havent been to many zoos
>> Anonymous
>>233836
While serving in africa with the peace corp, I went for a week long safari and got to see a huge group of elephants. Their happiness was so evident, the way the younger ones played and the adults kept a watchful eye. You couldn't help but be overcome by their happiness. Flash forward a year later at the san diego zoo. the look in the eyes of the elephants was misery. until you can see the two in person, dont pull this anthropomorphism bullshit.
>> Anonymous
>>233838
you obviously have been to too many peta meetings.
>> Anonymous
>>233848
oh please, very clever im sure you put a ton of thought into that one.
>> Anonymous
>>233836

Since when does something have to be self aware to be unhappy/annoyed/frustrated with being kept in an entirely unsuitable environment?

I agree that "NatureGuy" is a huge faggot for passing off Zoo photos as "wildlife photography." I used to wonder how the fuck he had time to go to so many different places to shoot wildlife until I realize he was just some fag whose mom had bought him a free pass to the local Zoo.
>> Anonymous
ive never heard him say anything about his zoo pictures being nature, you fags are obviously new.
hes posted many of the best wildlife pictures ive seen here.
going to the zoo is a way to get picture of animals, thats it. if you dont want to do it than dont fucking do it, and if you think the animals are unhappy (many of which do seem to be) than dont go to the fucking zoo.
you new retards need to lurk more before you start judging people because of their names
maybe his name has nothing to do with his pictures? maybe he likes nature?

in b4 you must be new
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>233838
I've been to plenty of zoos, thanks.

>>233845
I didn't say that there weren't animals that could display and express emotion, the more intelligent species can obviously. Monkeys and apes are very good at it, so are elephants, but you can't say you know what the animal feels by the look in its eyes. We evolved to empathyze with humans and we recognize human emotions, not animal emotions. You're no different than the 60 year old lady that says her cat talks to her.

>>233852
Do you know what self-aware means when youre talking about animals? If they lack self-awareness, they lack the ability to understand that they're not in their natural environment and they don't recognize it the same way you do. Have you ever seen a bird look "sad"? I definately haven't, and my uncle raises and sells all kinds of birds. I'm not saying they're stupid, and I'm not saying that zoo conditions are always ideal for the animal, but I am saying that we aren't elephants, tigers, or birds and we don't process things the same way they do.

this thread is really really making me lose faith in the intelligence of /p/'s Anon posters. I'm a huge animal person, but yes...you guys are basically attributing human emotions to animals. Flawed logic in every way guys.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>233863
also this. A lot of people posting in this thread make it seem like this is the first time they've ever seen Natureguy post, it's not like there's been some sudden revelation here; he talks about shooting at zoos a lot.
>> Anonymous
>>233869
well thats fine, but dont call yourself the natureguy. I can just picture him stalking a caged zebra next to a pizza kiosk. really getting to know nature, eh?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>233874
he can call himself whatever the hell he wants to call himself. I almost never sage, but I still use it as my name.

I can just picture you being new to /p/, seeing a post by NatureGuy, and then attacking it because you think his name automatically relates to his pictures and you think its a good opportunity to quasi-establish yourself here.

o wait.
>> Anonymous
>>233881
i love how you keep saying his name has nothing to do with the pictures he takes. Thats what you are saying right? I just want to make sure you really are that dense before I make anymore judgement. And no I'm not now, and I don't have much interest in establishing my faceless self with a bunch on anon and tripfags.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
     File :-(, x)
bwahahahahahahahaghargbl

ya'll are a good laugh
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>233883
okay, keep telling yourself that.

What I'm saying is that whining because his name is NatureGuy when his pictures dont fit your definition of "wildlife photography" is moronic.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
natureguy is now officially even more awesome
>> Anonymous
>>233867

Are you fucking retarded?
Did you fucking read what I wrote?
>Since when does something have to be self aware to be unhappy/annoyed/frustrated with being kept in an entirely unsuitable environment?

If your uncle really raises birds and you've never seen a bird frustrated at being in too small of a cage then HOLY FUCK CALL THE GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS BECAUSE HE MUST HAVE THE BIGGEST FUCKING CAGE IN THE GODDAMN WORLD.

Tigers pacing back and forth, animals gnawing at the edges of their enclosures, etc etc etc. Except for a select few zoos in very large cities that excel at taking care of animals, most Zoo animals are kept in enclosures that are far too small to allow them their full range of natural movement.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
also sage you're awesome for defending me
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>233896
btw at whoever was bitching about the owl, it lives in Omaha's famous desert dome, in fact it has free range of most of the upper level.

quote from their website
The world's largest indoor desert, the Desert Dome, located under the world's largest glazed geodesic dome has become a landmark of Omaha. The Desert Dome features plant and animal life from three deserts of the world: the Namib Desert of southern Africa, the Red Center of Australia and the Sonoran Desert of the southwest United States. The Desert Dome contains 84,000 square feet on two levels (42,000 square feet on each level). Located beneath the Desert Dome exhibit is the Kingdoms of the Night, the world's largest nocturnal exhibit.
>> Anonymous
>>233906
thanks to all my tripfag friends for defending my honor fap fap slurp slurp
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>233896
Read what I wrote, genius. If you're not self-aware, you don't appreciate happiness versus sadness. Hurr.

Animals will gnaw at any cage, too small or too large the second they realize they're encaged, that's instinct. That's not them being unhappy and crying inside because "baww Im in a cage", it's because they instinctively try to escape from any situation they view as a trap. Tigers pace back and forth for a number of reason, be it too small of a cage or just that they would really kill (literally) for a steak.

The last statement sounds like someone who's forgetting that this is 2008. I don't know about where you are, but the _only_ zoos around here are those 'major' zoos that take very good care of their animals. Have you completely ignored the fact that zoo reform has happened on a national level?

But whatever. Go ahead and keep going on about how "sad" and "frustrated" the animals look, since your primate eyes clearly evolved to understand tiger and bird emotions, not the emotions of other primates in your society. That's very logical, and I'm sure science backs you 100% because that tiger looks like he's crying right?
>> Anonymous
1) There's nothing wrong with taking pictures of animals in even the worst zoos.

2) Lurk fucking more. NatureGuy does not just shoot zoos. He shoots out in real nature, too. He doesn't have a contract with NatGeo or Michael Reichmann's money, so he probably just can't up and go into the wilderness on a whim.

3) There's nothing wrong with zoos. They serve a vital educational purpose.

4) Nonetheless, for the sake of the animals and for the sake of that very purpose, they ought to as closely replicate the conditions of nature as possible, and not be shitty cages.

5. Again, nevertheless, it does not reflect poorly on NatureGuy or his work that the photographs were taken in zoos. It's like bitching at Doisneau for staging "Kiss by the Hôtel de Ville."
>> Anonymous
>>233912

Read what I wrote, genius.
>Since when does something have to be self aware to be unhappy/annoyed/frustrated with being kept in an entirely unsuitable environment?

>unhappy/annoyed/frustrated

>unhappy (or)
>annoyed (or)
>frustrated

But, you know, I'm sure that an animal "instinctively try to escape from a situation they view as a trap" is TOTALLY not frustrated. Oh fuck no!

Christ, I can't tell if you're a troll, an idiot, or a child.
Probably all three.
>> Anonymous
>>233912
Emotion goes beyond awareness of it, Sage. They're wrong for going after NatureGuy on this, but sentience and sapience are two very different things.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>233925
the "emotion" that these people are talking about is just people blindly labelling an animals reactions based on the way a human expresses emotion. There is nothing at all credible about saying "elephant A lives in the wild and has bright eyes, elephant B lives in a zoo and has gloomy eyes therefore he must be mistreated/live in too small of a cage/be unhappy", that's just anthropomorphism.

>>233924
They become frustrated because instinctively they want to explore beyond the reaches of their habitat. It doesn't gnaw because the cage is too small necessarily, it gnaws because it realizes that there is a cage and the animal instinctively wants to see what is on the other side.

Your example situation is basically a strawman argument anyway though, because I don't see any pictures of tigers gnawing on bars in here and you can't say for sure how well the tigers at all zoos are treated because it's an individual basis. I've personally never seen a tiger "gnaw" at anything trying to get out because many animals in zoos were raised in that environment; that's all they know and they're perfectly comfortable with it. If anything it is dangerous for the animal to be released from that environment.
>> Anonymous
>>233936
look at what i wrote about the elephants. it wasnt just their eyes it was how they acted. until you see them in the wild, in person, you really dont know what youre talking about. way to take a snippet of what i say and base an entire arguement around it.
>> Anonymous
>>233936
No, there is something credible. You don't think it's possible to tell how an animal is feeling?

Now, they're painting a ridiculously rosy view of the life of wild animals, but that's a side point.
>> Anonymous
>>233940
I think i'd rather pay $30 to see an elephant in the zoo, than $2000 to go on an african safari.

Who cares if it's miserable. I'm i'm sure cows are much more miserable of us eating them.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>233940
Probably because they were WILD elephants, not semi-domesticated elephants. Saying it acted differently wouldn't be a lie, but saying it was unhappiness and that it was due to being a zoo is just speculation on your part. It's entirely subjective.

>>233941
I didn't say you can't tell, to a degree, what an animal is thinking by how it acts. I'm saying that you simply can't tack a human emotion or condition to it because the animal you are looking at is not human, they think and function on a different level and the only animals that we can truly connect with on a level of empathy are humans and some other members of the primate family. Again, we've evolved to read the emotions on primate faces, not tiger and elephant faces. We _can_ to a degree guess what they're feeling, but we're not capable of understanding them to a deep level because we have little in common; ours eyes function differently and look different, our faces have different lines and physiology. We might see a dog that looks like its smiling, but it may not actually be happy; that's just what we think a dog would look like if it was happy because _we_ smile when happy.
>> Anonymous
>>233962
protip : they dont "feel"
>> Anonymous
protip: this thread went from awesome to dumb.

you bicker like bitches.
>> Anonymous
>>233936
>They become frustrated because instinctively they want to explore beyond the reaches of their habitat. It doesn't gnaw because the cage is too small necessarily, it gnaws because it realizes that there is a cage and the animal instinctively wants to see what is on the other side.

So it gnaws the cage because it instinctively is driven to do so because, by nature, it wishes to escape/explore.
Which means its natural drive is being thwarted by its captivity.
Which means that it is unable to do the thing that it wishes to do.
Which is basically the fucking definition of being frustrated.


>Your example situation is basically a strawman argument anyway though, because I don't see any pictures of tigers gnawing on bars in here and you can't say for sure how well the tigers at all zoos are treated because it's an individual basis. I've personally never seen a tiger "gnaw" at anything trying to get out because many animals in zoos were raised in that environment; that's all they know and they're perfectly comfortable with it. If anything it is dangerous for the animal to be released from that environment.

And suddenly we are ONLY talking about tigers.
And suddenly we are ONLY talking about captive-raised animals.
And suddenly captive-bred animals can NEVER be bred specifically for release.

Christ, you're dumb.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
     File :-(, x)
I dunno guys monkeys seem to enjoy themselves at the zoo.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>234127
....I'm speechless....that is so wonderful...
>> Anonymous
>>234127
"Mommy, what are they doing?"
"He's... he's... he's cleaning it honey. Now come on, let's go look at the lions!"
"But Mommy, I wanna watch the monkey get cleaned!"
>> Anonymous
>>234127
Just when I lost faith in /p/.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>234127
oh myyy. naughty, naughty monkeys!
>> Mr. Higgzbuffonton !!Xsltv1VWxZT
     File :-(, x)
>>234149
>>234135
>>234132
>>234128
>>234127
>>234091
>>234016
>>233963
>>233962
>>233955
>>233941
>>233940
>>233936
>>233925
>>233924
>> Anonymous
>>234152

GTFO much?
>> Anonymous
>>234127

wow, monkeys going gay in captivity because they're so bored/stressed/sad/etc.

Hey Sage, why don't you come in here and say that lower primates don't have self awareness, you stupid shit. I mean, never mind that there's fucking DECADES of research proving that they're self aware and all, fucking allmighty Sage knows better because he heard once in a Freshman survey class that animals mimic human emotions so clearly it's all bullshit.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>234259
determined aren't we?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>234259
you realized I explicitly stated that primates and other higher animals _are_ self aware and that we _can_ empathize with primates, right? or are you just trying to make a ridiculous strawman argument against me so you can tell yourself you won?

Thank you for making yourself look like an idiot, holmes. =]

Oh and for the record...monkeys go gay in the wild to, as do other animals, and I highly doubt their little...*ahem* encounter is the zoo's fault. There's tons of research on same-sex relationships in animals as well, but clearly in all of your "researching" you never noticed that.
>> Anonymous
>>234322
>Oh and for the record...monkeys go gay in the wild to, as do other animals

Bullshit.
Link to source showing that Chimps in the wild go gay.
>> Gay necrophilic ducks makes Christ sad NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/08/highereducation.research>>234322
>> Anonymous
>>234328
>Gay necrophilic ducks makes Christ sad

christ cant be sad thats a human emotion
>> Anonymous
>>234328
WAT? HOMOSEXUAL ANIMALS? MUST BE THE ZOO'S FAULT! WAT?! THEY'RE NOT IN A ZOO?! OMG LIAR ZOO'S FAULT
>> Anonymous
>>234337

1) Duck ? higher primate.
2) Domination rape ? consensual gay sex.

THANK YOU COME AGAIN
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>234327
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS286&q=homosexual+chimpanzees

Take your own pick of articles and feel stupid while doing so.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
it's my understanding that most of the animals you see in a zoo these days were either a) born in a zoo or b) injured in the wild and are usually incapable of being self-sufficient with said injuries, or c) rescued from the circus or are confiscated pets.

the polar bears at my zoo, for instance, were born in cincinnati. the male lion was someone's pet until he got too big.

either way, it's a simple fact that some animals adapt very well to zoos, and some don't. reptiles? great. small mammals? great. ground dwelling birds? great. free-flight birds? not so great, though all of the raptors at my zoo fall into the B category (broken wings).

mammals that typically range several miles in a day do poorly in zoos. elephants, antelope, gazelle, and pretty much all of the african plains mammals belong in wildlife parks, not 3 acre enclosures.

big cats do surprisingly well, since all they do in the wild is sleep and lounge around.

but, yeah. zoos can be very depressing. i went to the san diego zoo three weeks ago and had mixed feelings. 8000 animals on a hundred acres? really? on the other hand, they do have that wildlife park where they let big mammals roam free.

at least it's not sea world..

also, no one let me forget to post the photo i took of a woman shooting photos of the pandas at the SDZ with a Super 1-2-3.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>234346
I just wanted to say this is the post I saw on the front page of 4ch when I logged on this morning.
>> Anonymous
>>234346
LOL

99% of those are about Bonobos, not proper chimps.
Good try though.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
oh, and jesus christ. read up on the fucking bonobo, will you? gay chimps are like, a high school level basic fact.
>> Anonymous
That bird does not look impressed with your shit.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>234349
did you laugh heartily?
>> Anonymous
>>234351
bonobos arent your standard chimp retard
and the ORANGUTANS shown in the photo in>>234127
are not bonobos
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>234353
It was quite a knee-slapper, that's for sure.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>234349
>>234357

hows ur ugly gf doing, dc?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>234355
Oh, orangutans huh? Well, if that's the game you want to play, sure...

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/F/200115938.html

>>234349
>>234127would have been better
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>234359
which one?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
"The Bonobo (IPA: /b?'no?bo?/[3], Pan paniscus), until recently usually called the Pygmy Chimpanzee (and less often the Dwarf or Gracile Chimpanzee),[4] is one of the two species making up the chimpanzee genus, Pan."

you're wrong. and even if a bonobo isn't a "proper" chimp (whatever that means), it's still a gay great ape (gaype?).
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>234363

this one
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>234370
Ah ... that old chestnut ...
>> Anonymous
>>234376

WOOF WOOF!
>> Anonymous
if an animal goes 'gay' its usually a result of a hormonal imbalance.
>> Anonymous
>>234405
Didn't scientists say this about people in the 1950s?

Fact: hormone levels don't affect sexual orientation.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>234427
They say 70% of gay people are born into it.

The other 30% are ... sucked into it.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
As I recall it turned out the percentage of people normally would some be some degree of bisexual but social morays and teachings prevent such.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>234455
this is true
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>234447
"They"?
>> Anonymous
>>234427
lol take a human sexuality class you dumb ass
you are totally wrong
>> Anonymous
>>234463
Look up David Reimer and then shut the fuck up.
>> Anonymous
>>234466
perfect example
that his hormone levels were not right
besides GENDER CHANGE and being a FAG are not the same
you stupid fucking shit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>234467
Uh...the deal with Reimer was that, at birth, his penis was mutilated by a botched procedure. His parents and doctors opted to change his genitals and raise him as a female. He rejected and eventually killed himself.

it's not the same, obviously, but both gender and sexual identity come at birth, hormones AFTER birth have nothing to do with it, it's hormonal imbalances in the womb that cause both gender identity disorders and possibly homosexuality. Saying homosexuality is caused by hormonal imbalances means it could be "cured" by hormone treatments (which is erroneous, it's not a disorder anyway...you don't need to cure it)

It's the same logic Reimer's doctors and parents followed in thinking they could make him identify as female by giving him female hormones and raising him as female.
>> Anonymous
>>234471

no, ass, it is proff that they did not give him enough hormones
hell they kept his mangled penis on instead of giving him a vagina

one half-assed botched sex reassignment ? evidence
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>234475
>>they did not give him enough hormones
I lol'd. 10/10, great trolling.

If you weren't trolling...holy shit, you're stupid. David Reimer's case went a long way towards proving that hormonal imbalances do not affect gender identity (after birth). That's the entire reason transsexuals take hormones of the sex opposite their birth sex, to change their body to fit their mind, not the other way around.

Sexual orientation cannot be changed with hormonal treatment, imbalances or not. That's common knowledge that ANY credible doctor could tell you. What's up for debate is whether or not hormonal imbalances IN THE WOMB, before birth is the cause.

In short; lolurdumb
>> Anonymous
>>234475
you stupid shit, giving someone too much of a hormone = CANCERCANCERCANCER
if they gave him more he would have had like a 1/5 chance of dying from breast cancer.
>> Anonymous
>>234479
oh ok i guess 'cause you said so it must be true too bad you can only pull out ONE EXAMPLE you fuck

>>234484
same to you
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>234490
my one example and the very fact that homosexuality exists despite society trying to "cure" it for several hundred years VS your lack of examples and fit-throwing.

You're right. Definately.
>> Anonymous
>>234492
You know the Nazis tried to cure homosexuality by killing them... a shit I brought up the Nazis.

/thread end