• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The understating of the fluidity of sexual orientation

Bad Lieutenant said:
This is getting really boring now. You're the one sticking their head in the sand and/or attempting to pass off your perception of the gay rights movement's agenda as science/logic/reason. The studies show people aren't born gay so it must be due to later environmental influences; 1+1=2. All I've done is put forward one hypothesis that could explain some homosexuality; you've done nothing but pretend the study by Bailey et al in 2000 never took place. Pathetic.

Ironically enough, by accusing me of being old fashioned when it is in fact you who are refusing to acknowledge contemporary studies, you are demonstrating projection, first formally identified by Sigmund Freud.


~Bailey, Michael J., Michael P. Dunne and Nicholas G. Martin (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 3, 524-536.
Click to expand...

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...453HMj&sig=AHIEtbQG95CsB7Y0PFO2o-DnMs_p3BYY5A

I see nothing in this paper to confirm your assertion ("The studies show people aren't born gay"), the study says that genetic correlations are weak, but none of this addresses in utero environmental conditions which would definitely happen before birth, but are not genetic, mutable or the result of decisions made by individuals later in life.

In fact, if I am reading the study's findings correctly they acknowledge and accept the utero hormone exposure as a strong influence on potential later sexual oreintation issues:
...This is consistent on a general level with the results of a recent study of women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a condition in which females are exposed to high levels of androgens prenatally. This condition has been hypothesized to be a model for some biological influences on female sexual orientation, and if so, women with CAH should have elevated rates of bisexuality and homosexuality. Women with CAH were more likely than controls to have Kinsey scores of 1 (Zucker et al., 1996)...
Click to expand...

The primary problem is in trying to treat sexual orientation as an overly simplistic, personal, conscious decision, or the result of a deliberate decision, rather than as a rare combination of mostly genetics (more of the mother's genetic tendencies and variances than the zygote's), and the prenatal developmental environment. I'm sure there are a host of other factors that influence the actual expression of sexuality, just as there are in heterosexuals, but this isn't orientation.
 
Trakar said:
The primary problem is in trying to treat sexual orientation as an overly simplistic, personal, conscious decision, or the result of a deliberate decision, rather than as a rare combination of mostly genetics (more of the mother's genetic tendencies and variances than the zygote's), and the prenatal developmental environment. I'm sure there are a host of other factors that influence the actual expression of sexuality, just as there are in heterosexuals, but this isn't orientation.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear.

I may be a little late to this party, and I may have stated something that was said, but I think the topic is incorrect. There isn't a "fluidity of sexual orientation", there's a "fluidity of sexual fantasy". Just because a homosexual man has sex with a woman doesn't mean his orientation has changed, it's just a different fantasy.
 
JFrankA said:
Hear, hear.

I may be a little late to this party, and I may have stated something that was said, but I think the topic is incorrect. There isn't a "fluidity of sexual orientation", there's a "fluidity of sexual fantasy". Just because a homosexual man has sex with a woman doesn't mean his orientation has changed, it's just a different fantasy.
Click to expand...

And anecdotally at least there is the possibility that male and females differ in the fluidity of their orientation.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And anecdotally at least there is the possibility that male and females differ in the fluidity of their orientation.
Click to expand...

I feel that, even anecdotally, (well, my anecdotes anyways), that it's not the orientation that is fluid, that remains the same.

It's the fantasy, which includes who is involved, the situation that it is presented, the reasons behind doing it, the state of mind the people involved are in, the looks of the people involved, the age of the people involved, the personalities and confidence of the people involved, even the social ramifications of performing the act are all fluid. No matter what, the orientation stays the same. A heterosexual woman maybe more likely to have a homosexual encounter, (anecdotally speaking, of course) but that doesn't change her orientation.
 
JFrankA said:
I feel that, even anecdotally, (well, my anecdotes anyways), that it's not the orientation that is fluid, that remains the same.

It's the fantasy, which includes who is involved, the situation that it is presented, the reasons behind doing it, the state of mind the people involved are in, the looks of the people involved, the age of the people involved, the personalities and confidence of the people involved, even the social ramifications of performing the act are all fluid. No matter what, the orientation stays the same. A heterosexual woman maybe more likely to have a homosexual encounter, (anecdotally speaking, of course) but that doesn't change her orientation.
Click to expand...

And if a homosexual woman now wants relationships with men and no longer with women what would that mean.

This may not be common but through anecdote it seems to happen to women much more than men.

Of course the counter argument is that they are always bi and just changing which way they lean. But I feel that telling others how they should identify is counter productive.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And if a homosexual woman now wants relationships with men and no longer with women what would that mean.
Click to expand...
It could mean any number of things. First off you are trying to make sense of a complex issue with a simplistic designation. Sexuality is a complex dynamic.

In regards to your question, there are three separate aspects of sexuality: sexual orientation, sexual identity, and sexual behavior. To understand the complex nature of these aspects we need to consider that there are three needs and/or drives. Lust, romantic attractions, attachment. Each of these take place in different parts of the brain and can contribute to one's orientation, sexual identity and sexual behavior in different ways.

In short, the question can't be easily answered with straight, gay or bi. These are human constructed categories to assist us in understanding human behavior but they are woefully incapable to adequately categorize the multidimensional nature of human sexuality. To try to force everyone into a neat and tidy box to suit our demands for a simplistic world view is unrealistic.

This may not be common but through anecdote it seems to happen to women much more than men.
Click to expand...
There is statistical data to support that (see Prop 8 trial).
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
And if a homosexual woman now wants relationships with men and no longer with women what would that mean.

This may not be common but through anecdote it seems to happen to women much more than men.

Of course the counter argument is that they are always bi and just changing which way they lean. But I feel that telling others how they should identify is counter productive.
Click to expand...

With relationships it could be any number of things. Someone might not be comfortable living as homosexual in today's social climate. They may feel that being in a straight relationship will make their children's lives easier. They want companionship and settle. They fall in love with a good friend. They move back to a small backwards town to take care of an ailing parent who is not aware that they are gay. They were faking gay the whole time to fool their wacky landlord.

One could postulate all sort of things but a single cause is highly unlikely.
 
JFrankA said:
I feel that, even anecdotally, (well, my anecdotes anyways), that it's not the orientation that is fluid, that remains the same.

It's the fantasy, which includes who is involved, the situation that it is presented, the reasons behind doing it, the state of mind the people involved are in, the looks of the people involved, the age of the people involved, the personalities and confidence of the people involved, even the social ramifications of performing the act are all fluid. No matter what, the orientation stays the same. A heterosexual woman maybe more likely to have a homosexual encounter, (anecdotally speaking, of course) but that doesn't change her orientation.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that 'fantasy' and 'orientation' are quite so easily separated, nor that orientation is anywhere near as fixed and immutable as you're suggesting here. As Randfan said above, 'gay', 'straight' and 'bi' are human-constructed categories we use to understand sexuality and, well, to categorize people. I think it's over-simplistic to assume an individual's sexual orientation will neatly fit into those categories (obviously, sexual behaviour is a different question entirely).
 
To be perfectly blunt...

Lets say that a man who only sleeps with women is straight.

Now - if you're a guy who only sleeps with women, but has had sexual fantasies about men and has pleasured themselves with fantasies about men, you're starting to slide up the scale from straight to 'straight with a twist'. Maybe this only happened once in your youth. Maybe it happens very rarely. Maybe its a once a month sort of scenario. From the perspective of orientation, there are countless gradations of where one could fall from 'gay' to 'straight' to 'in between' to 'something else'.

Now, lets move out of the realm of fantasy. Lets say that one time, at band camp, you fooled around with another guy. Lets say you were both over the age of say... 16 at the time, so it doesn't fall in the category of childhood play. If this happened once, then you're only very slightly 'straight+' Maybe you fooled around with a couple of guys over the course of your life. So you're 'straight ++'. Maybe you are like Ted Haggard and you go away for meth & rentboy infused weekend trysts. You're probably less straight, and more heading towards a definition of 'bi' or 'flamboyantly gay and in denial about it'

My 'grading' system for the squillions of different scenarios, is going to differ with everyone else's. I daresay, my personal opinion of someone like Ted Haggard I'm SURE differs very much with how he perceives himself.

And long story short - does it really MATTER? How did Ted get to be the way he is? Well, a lot of self-loathing and denial I'm sure had a part in it. However I'm also pretty sure he isn't 'choosing' to make a public fool of himself, tear apart his professional and personal reputation, and make all of his pulpit rantings appear to be utterly hypocritical. While I find his belief system to be utterly repugnant, I can only wish that he figures this crap out and gets his head put on er... straight (or 'gaily forward'. Or whatever). And that as people we just recognize that this is a person who has gone to extreme lengths to conceal and suppress something that has most likely existed in some form or another, from when he began to develop self-awareness as a child. Most likely as a combination of natural/genetic and environmental/societal factors.

It really isn't that difficult or contentious, when you get down too it.
 
katy_did said:
I'm not sure that 'fantasy' and 'orientation' are quite so easily separated, nor that orientation is anywhere near as fixed and immutable as you're suggesting here. As Randfan said above, 'gay', 'straight' and 'bi' are human-constructed categories we use to understand sexuality and, well, to categorize people. I think it's over-simplistic to assume an individual's sexual orientation will neatly fit into those categories (obviously, sexual behaviour is a different question entirely).
Click to expand...

Thanks. It is simple for me. Some men I find to be attractive and some are disgusting. The same with women. It may be appearance and it may be other things. To say I am attracted to men or women is not correct. I am attracted to who I am attracted to. When I was younger I Just ignored certain feelings. I have come to accept who I am and who I find attractive or desirable does not bother me. How is this different for people just attracted to the opposite sex? It is just a matter of what society frowns on, imo.
 
katy_did said:
I'm not sure that 'fantasy' and 'orientation' are quite so easily separated, nor that orientation is anywhere near as fixed and immutable as you're suggesting here. As Randfan said above, 'gay', 'straight' and 'bi' are human-constructed categories we use to understand sexuality and, well, to categorize people. I think it's over-simplistic to assume an individual's sexual orientation will neatly fit into those categories (obviously, sexual behaviour is a different question entirely).
Click to expand...

Actually, I agree.

The way I see it, sexual attraction to someone is a taste, such as a taste in food. I mean, sex is drive, just like hunger is a drive. However, just because you like one kind of food doesn't mean you'll only eat that food. I feel sex is the same way.

I like to put it like this: I love peanut butter. I can eat vast quantities of peanut butter, especially chunky kind. However, put peanut butter on a banana? No. Yuck. Eww. On the other side of this, I hate raw tomatoes. Couldn't eat one if it was the last food on Earth. But, put it in a sauce with pasta and meatballs, or, better yet, on a pizza - yum yum!

I see sexual attraction as kind of the same thing: there are basic attractions, but that can easily be overridden by so many different circumstances, environments, personalities, situations, etc.

So I may be straight, but if my girlfriend wants me to partake in a fantasy in which I interact with her and another guy, I wouldn't have any qualms. That doesn't make me gay or bi, it doesn't change my basic attraction to women, it's just a different "flavor of sex", (to keep up with the food allegory).

To me, this explains why someone who is gay can marry someone of the opposite sex and have children, etc, but still be gay: their basic likes never, ever, changed; the circumstances, situation, etc, is enough to keep that person in that relationship.

...I hope that makes sense.
 
JFrankA said:
Actually, I agree.

The way I see it, sexual attraction to someone is a taste, such as a taste in food. I mean, sex is drive, just like hunger is a drive. However, just because you like one kind of food doesn't mean you'll only eat that food. I feel sex is the same way.

I like to put it like this: I love peanut butter. I can eat vast quantities of peanut butter, especially chunky kind. However, put peanut butter on a banana? No. Yuck. Eww. On the other side of this, I hate raw tomatoes. Couldn't eat one if it was the last food on Earth. But, put it in a sauce with pasta and meatballs, or, better yet, on a pizza - yum yum!

I see sexual attraction as kind of the same thing: there are basic attractions, but that can easily be overridden by so many different circumstances, environments, personalities, situations, etc.

So I may be straight, but if my girlfriend wants me to partake in a fantasy in which I interact with her and another guy, I wouldn't have any qualms. That doesn't make me gay or bi, it doesn't change my basic attraction to women, it's just a different "flavor of sex", (to keep up with the food allegory).

To me, this explains why someone who is gay can marry someone of the opposite sex and have children, etc, but still be gay: their basic likes never, ever, changed; the circumstances, situation, etc, is enough to keep that person in that relationship.

...I hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...

The other thing is that orientation is not just about sex but things like who you want to cuddle up with and watch a movie.
 
ponderingturtle said:
The other thing is that orientation is not just about sex but things like who you want to cuddle up with and watch a movie.
Click to expand...
Yes.

  • Sexual orientation.
  • Sexual identity.
  • Sexual behavior.
Moderated and motivated by

  • Lust.
  • Romantic attractions.
  • Attachment.
And bear in mind it's a bit of "chicken and egg" thing. A dynamic (feedback loop). Behavior can alter and or reinforce perceptions and drives and perceptions and drives clearly reinforce behaviors (this isn't to say a person can pick a sexuality, change behavior and voila. No.

Ramachandran likens bran wiring to water flowing down the side of a cliff. First small gullies form and over time they get deeper (neural connections strengthen) however small changes could divert the water to another gully or create a new one all together. IOW, Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems.


One last thing as to categories and to address the question you first posed. In an attempt to better categorize Kinsey created a scale. The scale is "an attempt to describe a person's sexual history or episodes of his or her sexual activity at a given time." It's not perfect by any means. But it can give you an idea of the complexity of the problem. And to be sure it addresses behavior which again, is not necessarily indicative of orientation and identity.
 
Last edited:
How many "straight" guys could admit that some guys they meet have attractive personalities, and they'd happily cuddle up on the sofa with them if it weren't for the homophobia hahahahahaha I mean I cuddle up on the sofa with my pet dalmation so what's the problem?! Where's my bestialphobia? Oh yeah, that's right, bestiality isn't considered a valid love/lifestyle so there's no chance of getting irrevocably sucked into the vortex.
 
Bad Lieutenant said:
How many "straight" guys could admit that some guys they meet have attractive personalities, and they'd happily cuddle up on the sofa with them if it weren't for the homophobia hahahahahaha I mean I cuddle up on the sofa with my pet dalmation so what's the problem?! Where's my bestialphobia? Oh yeah, that's right, bestiality isn't considered a valid love/lifestyle so there's no chance of getting irrevocably sucked into the vortex.
Click to expand...
I find the attempt to disparage gays and lesbians by associating them with bestiality simply an appeal to preconceived notions of morality, disgust or the discomfort of certain ideas and concepts. I'm more than happy to consider your arguments but you will need something more than empty rhetoric and fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom