• 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.

Gay by choice?

Lisa Simpson

Unregistered
L
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
21,960
Sex and the City co-star Cynthia Nixon has said she's "gay by choice".

"For me, it is a choice," Nixon is quoted as saying in a New York Times magazine profile. "I understand that for many people it's not, but for me it's a choice, and you don't get to define my gayness for me." The 45-year-old actress is engaged to long-time partner Christine Marinoni, who gave birth to their son Max last year. Prior to their relationship, Nixon, who is currently sporting a bald head for a Broadway role, was in a 15-year relationship with Danny Mozes, with whom she Has two children.
Click to expand...

Critics are saying she's playing into the hands of conservatives and I agree. Why not just call yourself bisexual? I admit, I'm not gay, so maybe I'm missing out on some idea.
 
Being sexually active is a choice.
I just do not believe being gay can be chosen or unchosen. You either are or you are not
 
Are anyone but the religious conservatives or the deeply ignorant (they may overlap) still seriously arguing that sexual orientation is a choice?
 
Last edited:
I think the research shows that it's somewhere between the invisible points of "born this way" and "developmental/experiential" factor.

Then again, most psychology research is a little...what's the word?
 
This has been making the rounds, and it is quite irritating. Basically she is conflating identity with orientation. She is bisexual in orientation, but claims choice in her "gay identity".

It’s so not fudging. It’s so not. I think for gay people who feel 100 percent gay, it doesn’t make any sense. And for straight people who feel 100 percent straight, it doesn’t make any sense. I don’t pull out the “bisexual” word because nobody likes the bisexuals. Everybody likes to dump on the bisexuals.

But it is the “B” in LGBT.

CN: I know. But we get no respect.

You just said “we,” so you must self-identify as one.

I just don’t like to pull out that word.
Click to expand...

Linky.

But this debate is really very dull. The only reason people are so hard up about it not being a choice is in reaction to homophobes relying on it being a choice to call it immoral. Outside of that context, saying that I was "born this way" is an impotent argument.

Anyway, there are people who claim fluid sexuality, but this person isn't one of them. She has internalised bi-phobia. She claims that sticking to "it's not a choice" is caving to bigots.

Reading the comments on the gay sites I frequent is quite depressing. There seems to be a movement afoot that we "can't define other's sexuality". Whatever the hell that means in this context. It is like Nixon has crafted the most misunderstand-able way she could image to call herself bisexual. Sure, she has "the right to define her sexuality as she sees it", but the rest of us are using a different dictionary.

This debate usually comes up in Queer discussions, and whether a straight person could be queer. I say, "No, WTF are you talking about?" But apparently there is some philosophical stuff about identity behind it.
 
Last edited:
I find nothing wrong with Cynthia Nixon speaking about the subjective experience of her own sexuality for herself. I see no reason that some people couldn't experience their sexuality as being easily manipulated by personal will or something, depending on the parameters used for the definition of "choice" in this context. But why is everyone always in such a rush to generalize from personal experiences, to assume that their experience is in any way universal? At least she added the caveat of "for me" and "I understand that for many people it's not."

There is no reason to suppose, in my view, that Cynthia Nixon's views of her own sexuality are in any way more valuable anecdotes or data points than mine or yours or anyone else's.
 
TheAnachronism said:
I find nothing wrong with Cynthia Nixon speaking about the subjective experience of her own sexuality for herself. I see no reason that some people couldn't experience their sexuality as being easily manipulated by personal will or something, depending on the parameters used for the definition of "choice" in this context. But why is everyone always in such a rush to generalize from personal experiences, to assume that their experience is in any way universal? At least she added the caveat of "for me" and "I understand that for many people it's not."

There is no reason to suppose, in my view, that Cynthia Nixon's views of her own sexuality are in any way more valuable anecdotes or data points than mine or yours or anyone else's.
Click to expand...

Do you choose to like [insert favourite food]? How does one choose an orientation? And of course there is the majority of scientific research on the matter and the statements of numerous psych association. I have heard of a few reports showing a few cases of fluidity, but there just hasn't been enough. Also, fluidity =/= choice.
 
Gazpacho said:
Because that wouldn't communicate what she means to say.

The presentation of sexuality as necessarily inborn plays into the hands of conservatives. It encourages them to discuss homosexuality in terms of biological degeneracy.
Click to expand...

But it counters the "choosing sin" argument, so you really get nowhere no matter which is true :p .

And I'm not sure she knows what she is communicating herself. She is intentionally choosing an identity that is not congruent with her personal experience of orientation, and doing a very poor job of explaining.
 
Here is something the APA noted when it was looking into re-orientation therapy:

The task force also drew a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity, said Glassgold, noting that some people who are attracted to members of their own sex choose to identify themselves as heterosexuals.

"There really is no evidence that orientation can change, [or that you can change] who you're attracted to or who you fall in love with," she said.
Click to expand...

Linky.

I think this is the key here. People choose identities that don't fit their unchosen orientation.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Do you choose to like [insert favourite food]? How does one choose an orientation? And of course there is the majority of scientific research on the matter and the statements of numerous psych association. I have heard of a few reports showing a few cases of fluidity, but there just hasn't been enough. Also, fluidity =/= choice.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand my perspective. I have stated elsewhere that I am in a same-sex relationship, and I would consider myself gay or homosexual if pressed. I could not, under any of the definitions of "choice," say that I chose to be attracted to other men and not to females; indeed, Cynthia Nixon's perspective on "choice" with regards to her sexuality is not one that I share, and I am inclined to believe that however CN experiences sexual or romantic attraction, choice does not play as large a role as she seems to express. However, my point is just that such a statement should not be damning to people who do experience same-sex attraction or even opposite-sex attraction; Cynthia Nixon cannot experience anyone else's sexuality and is therefore no more an authority on how other people feel than she is on what sorts of foods I enjoy.
 
Last edited:
I don't see any reason teh gay people can't have shallow opportunist publicity seeking actors to call their very own jes like us straights. :) Hug them and love them and make them your very own!
 
Lisa Simpson said:
Sex and the City co-star Cynthia Nixon has said she's "gay by choice".



Critics are saying she's playing into the hands of conservatives and I agree. Why not just call yourself bisexual? I admit, I'm not gay, so maybe I'm missing out on some idea.
Click to expand...

The thing here is that calling someone gay means many different things. It is a label for behavior, for attraction and for identity. So while a bisexual attraction pattern might fit her she might be uncomfortable with a bisexual identity.

Of course we do not say people who realize they are gay after they are married to an opposite sex partner are really bi.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
But it counters the "choosing sin" argument, so you really get nowhere no matter which is true :p .

And I'm not sure she knows what she is communicating herself. She is intentionally choosing an identity that is not congruent with her personal experience of orientation, and doing a very poor job of explaining.
Click to expand...

And here you seem to be making assumptions about her personal experience that may or may not be true.
 
I'm sure that some people who are already bisexual or bicurious can choose to enter into a same sex relationship. I know I did.

In the end it didn't work out for me, but I'm still open to the possibility.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Here is something the APA noted when it was looking into re-orientation therapy:



Linky.

I think this is the key here. People choose identities that don't fit their unchosen orientation.
Click to expand...

The issue here is how broad is bisexual. It can be defined so narrowly that no one fits into it or so broadly that just about anyone does. I do not think that either extreme is useful in describing people.

Do you call Dan Savage a lier when he calls himself gay as he admits to heterosexual acts in his sexual history. This reminds me of the arguments about Willow on Buffy being bi or gay.
 
If someone is bisexual, but they have a higher attraction to the same sex and decide to pursue it indefinitely rather than the other, does that constitute gay by choice?

Doesn't ruin the show for me either way :o
 
The idea of choice is an interesting one as two of my daughter's friends have just 'decided' they're bi-sexual and the view of my daughter and her friends is that this is now a common thing amongst their generation and is generally done in an attempt to be 'more interesting'. It's almost a fashion thing now - in their minds.

NB Anecdotes are not evidence etc, I just find it interesting how, in the space of a couple of generations, homo / bi sexuality has seemingly gone from stigma, to accepted, to desirable. Obviously with these particular individuals it may just be the flowering of previously suppressed inclinations but they had no reason to suppress them previously and, knowing the individuals I tend to side with my daughter's interpretation.
 
We may have our tastes and be born with them, but we may also have the power to choose to modify them.

Most people might agree with this proposition if we were talking about food and drink. Why might it not apply to sexual tastes as well?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom