The understating of the fluidity of sexual orientation

[RandFan]

Something else, predominantly.

It is my experience as derived through the anecdotal evidences of the last 5-6 decades of life experience. I didn't mean to imply that all feel the same way, in fact I thought I was clear that these are my perspective, though discussions and observations over time have led me to believe that I am not unique in these feelings. I am of the considered opinion that cuddling behavior is the adult manifestation of the parent-child bonding processes that most all adults evolve and adapt into mate bonding as they sexually mature, and some, evidently, manage to keep distinct from the sexual aspects of mate bonding. As you say, I can't speak much to this latter aspect as I don't experience it in that way.

Then again, I don't associate sex iself with any especially deep or strongly emotional connection, it is predominantly a physical experience that is enhanced by (or sometimes complicated and distracted by) emotional flavors, but these aren't required for the experience.

Thanks, got it.

Part of the reason I asked was the result of AIDS transmission research I mentioned earlier (haven't been able to locate the study as yet). IIRC, there was a disparity of behavior between men who frequented bathhouses and men who frequented gay bars. There was a statisticaly greater number of men at the bathhouses who were married and self identified as either straight or bi. Of note was the lack of the type of intimacy such as kissing, holding hands, etc. There seemed to be a different perspective. In interviewing these men there emerged the view that many of these men did like to kiss, hold hands and snuggle but they fulfiled these needs/desires primarily with women.

This would seem to be buttressed by the "Bi the Way" study that seemed to show 3 distinct areas of sexuality that were each linked to 3 discrete areas in the brain. Lust, romantic love and attachment. The cuddling, hand holding, kissing primarily stimulating the region of the brain for "romantic love" ( and also associated with oxytocin and vassopressin chemicals associated more with a sense of "well being" and bonding, particularly important also in parental bonding). Intercourse, oral sex, etc stimulating the "lust" region of the brain (epinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine which are more associated with euphoria). These are from my recollection and I might have gotten some of my details wrong.

In any event, I think most people experience some of the romantic love aspects even if they don't like to cuddle. But I could be wrong.

 

[Trakar]

Thanks, got it.

Part of the reason I asked was the result of AIDS transmission research I mentioned earlier (haven't been able to locate the study as yet). IIRC, there was a disparity of behavior between men who frequented bathhouses and men who frequented gay bars. There was a statisticaly greater number of men at the bathhouses who were married and self identified as either straight or bi. Of note was the lack of the type of intimacy such as kissing, holding hands, etc. There seemed to be a different perspective. In interviewing these men there emerged the view that many of these men did like to kiss, hold hands and snuggle but they fulfiled these needs/desires primarily with women.

This would seem to be buttressed by the "Bi the Way" study that seemed to show 3 distinct areas of sexuality that were each linked to 3 discrete areas in the brain. Lust, romantic love and attachment. The cuddling, hand holding, kissing primarily stimulating the region of the brain for "romantic love" ( and also associated with oxytocin and vassopressin chemicals associated more with a sense of "well being" and bonding, particularly important also in parental bonding). Intercourse, oral sex, etc stimulating the "lust" region of the brain (epinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine which are more associated with euphoria). These are from my recollection and I might have gotten some of my details wrong.

In any event, I think most people experience some of the romantic love aspects even if they don't like to cuddle. But I could be wrong.

Sounds very much in accord with my considerations, if you locate the study, or recall any more specifics that would help in locating it, please pop it up here (or PM), I would be very interested in reading it. I suspect that a lot of the variences in sexual expression/behavior are the result of varying levels of crossover and interference between these seperate areas regardless of overall orientation issues.

 

[RandFan]

Sounds very much in accord with my considerations, if you locate the study, or recall any more specifics that would help in locating it, please pop it up here (or PM), I would be very interested in reading it. I suspect that a lot of the variences in sexual expression/behavior are the result of varying levels of crossover and interference between these seperate areas regardless of overall orientation issues.

Will do, BTW: Did you see the "Bi the way" trailer video? It deals with part of that. I read an abstract on the study a couple of years ago. I'm going to order the DVD or download the complete video. I believe it is a meta-study and might actually contain the one in question.

 

[katy_did]

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.

Thanks, yes, it does!

I guess the only area where I differ is with your suggestion that there's a basic and unchanging attraction which can be categorized as straight, bi or gay, and particularly with the theory that people themselves can be categorized in that way. I think sexuality has to be more complicated and dynamic than that, all the various influences and experiences constantly interacting rather than there being a 'basic attraction' to men and/or women and everything else influencing that after the fact. That isn't to say that people don't have preferences, obviously (and like anything else, I'm sure those preferences are shaped by both genetic and environmental factors).

For instance, in your fantasy scenario I think that having a sexual experience with your girlfriend and another man probably would affect how you think of men sexually (depending obviously on the sort of interactions going on!). Associations would be created between men, sex and pleasure which perhaps weren't there before, and which would influence (even subtly) the kinds of things you're attracted to.

I guess in some respects my view is the reverse of yours (or the inverse?!), in that I don't think desire and attraction can be easily categorized as gay/straight/bi, and so using those terms as if they were fixed identities which can be applied to people seems too simple to me as well. And self-perpetuating, in that once you establish the three categories of people, the categories become identities and the chances of people moving between those groups lessens.

Hope that makes some kind of sense too (it's such a complicated subject; I always feel like I'm struggling to untangle my thoughts when I write about it!).

 

[Trakar]

Will do, BTW: Did you see the "Bi the way" trailer video? It deals with part of that. I read an abstract on the study a couple of years ago. I'm going to order the DVD or download the complete video. I believe it is a meta-study and might actually contain the one in question.

Actually, I missed that link, thank-you for bringing it to my attention, I will give it a look!

And thank you for the pleasant and educational exchange today, an unfortunately all too rare occurence in the wilds of the intertubes!

 

[RandFan]

Actually, I missed that link, thank-you for bringing it to my attention, I will give it a look!

And thank you for the pleasant and educational exchange today, an unfortunately all too rare occurence in the wilds of the intertubes!

Oh tell me about it. Sadly, I have myself to blame for much of my recent drama here.

 

[katy_did]

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.

That pretty much describes me too, I guess (in that I'm attracted to who I'm attracted to, regardless of sex). I think that's another problem with labels: that people are attracted to individuals and their quirks rather than to an entire sex. It isn't as if a woman who identifies as straight will be automatically and irresistibly attracted to anyone in possession of a penis!

 

[RandFan]

It isn't as if a woman who identifies as straight will be automatically and irresistibly attracted to anyone in possession of a penis!

Not every truth need be stated.

 

[katy_did]

Not every truth need be stated.

You wouldn't be saying that if you'd been down my local pub on a Friday night. Needs stating all the time.

 

[Dessi]

I've never met a male who had physical or personality traits that I found physically or mentally attractive. I'm not saying that such is impossible, merely that after more than a half century and exposure to people and cultures the world over, I have yet to meet a man that struck up even a "passing fancy" in my imagnation.

Andrej Pejic.

 

[Alan]

He spent a few years living around where I do. Yay!

 

[RandFan]

Andrej Pejic.

Very pretty. Not my type though.

Nong Poy Harisu

 

[Dessi]

I've never met a male who had physical or personality traits that I found physically or mentally attractive. I'm not saying that such is impossible, merely that after more than a half century and exposure to people and cultures the world over, I have yet to meet a man that struck up even a "passing fancy" in my imagnation.

Andrej Pejic.

Very pretty. Not my type though.

Nong Poy Harisu

Of course, Nong Poy and Harisu are transgender women, Andrej Pejic is a cisgender male, or certainly has a very fluid gender identity for the purposes of his career In his own words:

'I know people want me to sort of defend myself, to sit here and be like, "I'm a boy, but I wear make-up sometimes." But, you know, to me, it doesn’t really matter.

'I don’t really have that sort of strong gender identity - I identify as what I am. The fact that people are using it for creative or marketing purposes, it’s just kind of like having a skill and using it to earn money.'

'I guess professionally I’ve left my gender open to artistic interpretation.'

 

[RandFan]

Of course, Nong Poy and Harisu are transgender women, Andrej Pejic is a cisgender male, or certainly has a very fluid gender identity for the purposes of his career In his own words:

I understand and perhaps I'm being a bit unfair to Nong Poy and Harisu. It's just that many men would consider them (Nong and Harisu) to be men since they were both born with an X chromosome. For me I accept that they are women and very attractive women at that, plain and simple (okay, perhaps not exactly plain and simple as I'm not entirely free of my inculcation). I wish I had been born without religion and in a different generation.

But for those men who would say that another "man" could never turn their heads I wonder. For those who would say "yes" to Nong and Harisu but point out that they are women then I would accept that.

That said, yeah, Andrej Pejic is a better example.

 

[Marcus]

Very pretty. Not my type though.

Nong Poy Harisu

Nong Poy is amazing, probably the first transgender person who I would really consider to be pretty. I would be attracted to her right up to the point that I found out she was really a man, just can't change those pesky chromosomes I'm afraid.

There a lot more of us without fluidity or flexibility in our sexual orientation than people think.

 

[JFrankA]

Thanks, yes, it does!

I guess the only area where I differ is with your suggestion that there's a basic and unchanging attraction which can be categorized as straight, bi or gay, and particularly with the theory that people themselves can be categorized in that way. I think sexuality has to be more complicated and dynamic than that, all the various influences and experiences constantly interacting rather than there being a 'basic attraction' to men and/or women and everything else influencing that after the fact. That isn't to say that people don't have preferences, obviously (and like anything else, I'm sure those preferences are shaped by both genetic and environmental factors).

For instance, in your fantasy scenario I think that having a sexual experience with your girlfriend and another man probably would affect how you think of men sexually (depending obviously on the sort of interactions going on!). Associations would be created between men, sex and pleasure which perhaps weren't there before, and which would influence (even subtly) the kinds of things you're attracted to.

I guess in some respects my view is the reverse of yours (or the inverse?!), in that I don't think desire and attraction can be easily categorized as gay/straight/bi, and so using those terms as if they were fixed identities which can be applied to people seems too simple to me as well. And self-perpetuating, in that once you establish the three categories of people, the categories become identities and the chances of people moving between those groups lessens.

Hope that makes some kind of sense too (it's such a complicated subject; I always feel like I'm struggling to untangle my thoughts when I write about it!).

No, you're making sense as well.

Honestly, I don't think it can be categorized as well. I just think there's a "base" for lack of a better word. I honestly do not think that one person can "change" someone heterosexual from homosexual or vice versa, you know. There's a basic attraction ...thing... that works for each individual person, through a mix of genetics, development in the womb, early life, etc.

And I relate that to all tastes: early in life a baby will clearly like one voice over another, or one type of stuffed animal over another or one type of food over another. If sounds, textures and taste preferences are seen in such a young age, surely what that future adult will find sexually attractive is there too. But this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

However, I do not disagree that even though there is a "base", that shouldn't be the same thing as a "label".

 

[Trakar]

Andrej Pejic.

Well, I can't say for certain, as I can only go by photographs and I generally need to actually be physically in someone's presence before I know if I am physically attracted to them. Photos from a skilled photographer are like carefully selected, out of context instants. While Andrej is of pleasant feature, just going by the pictures, I don't notice any physical attraction.

As I said, it isn't that I find it impossible to consider that I might find myself physically attracted to a male, merely that I have never found a male that I was physically attracted to. THis really isn't that big of an issue, there are plenty of women that I am not physically attracted to either. Part of the problem with Andrej, as I look at more of the photos, is the boyishness, or sexual immaturity of his female portrayals. I generally don't even find women particularly attractive until they are in full bloom, there are exceptions but they are rare. Again this is my personal set of expressions not something that should be looked at as a broad, across the board pronouncement.

 

[Trakar]

Very pretty. Not my type though.

Nong Poy Harisu

They are definitely not ugly, nor masculine, but very adolescent in appearance. I would have to see their living features and mannerisms, but in general I'm not attracted to that degree of youth.

 

[Jono]

The idea that homosexuality is not rested in nature but heterosexuality is, would be (imo) as difficult to believe as if left-handed people were as so by mere choiceful circumstance while 'righties' were not.

 

[RandFan]

They are definitely not ugly, nor masculine, but very adolescent in appearance. I would have to see their living features and mannerisms, but in general I'm not attracted to that degree of youth.

Interesting perspective. I don't find them remotely adolescent in appearance. I've never been sexually attracted to children. For all of my flaws, thankfully that is not one of them.

ETA: I'm NOT saying that you think someone attracted to them would be attracted to children... I think, right? I'm confused.