Gay by choice?

[Dessi]

The assertion has been repeatedly made in this thread that by claiming choice, Ms. Nixon is wrong and more specifically that she must be bisexual because no true gay person would say what she says.

People are stating Cynthia Nixon is bisexual because, in her own words, she states unambiguously that she's bisexual:

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. But I do completely feel that when I was in relationships with men, I was in love and in lust with those men. And then I met Christine and I fell in love and lust with her. I am completely the same person and I was not walking around in some kind of fog. I just responded to the people in front of me the way I truly felt.

No one in this thread is using a "no true gay" argument, there's no point criticizing people for things they've never said.

 

[Ausmerican]

[Edited] Somewhat more seriously, I am convinced most people are least somewhat bisexual. If you make a scale with 0 meaning "totally gay, cannot possibly have sex with opposite sex", and 100 meaning the opposite, most people would fall somewhere in between. But if you fall anywhere above 50 on that scale, it is exceedingly unlikely for you do engage in same-sex relationship. Why would you? It is not your first choice, and there are large social drawbacks. OTOH, if you are at 40-45 on that scale, being "straight by choice" is a real possibility. Even though it is not their first choice.

/\ This is how I have always looked at it. A sliding scale not separate points. Much like everything else that we argue about on here like there is only two points, right and wrong. Capitalism/socialism? Sliding scale. Liberal/conservative? Sliding scale. Theist/atheist? Same thing. Many of us are towards one end or another on these scales but that doesnt invalidate the large center areas we often ignore.

 

[Marduk]

Are anyone but the religious conservatives or the deeply ignorant (they may overlap) still seriously arguing that sexual orientation is a choice?

I used to identify as gay, nowadays I identify as pansexual
by choice

 

[Psi Baba]

My issue with this, is that she seems to have purposefully chosen a word that is particularly 'loaded' in the broader GLBT areana. Largely because of the nonsense that gay people are believed to be 'broken' and 'fixable' by certain idiots - 'fixable' through therapy etc...

If she's trying to state that she is attracted to both sexes, and actively CHOOSES to be in relationship with another woman, then sure - she is making a 'choice'. That is a bit foreign to me, because I'm not bisexual - not the least bit.

Its unfortunate she didn't find a better way to describe this, because I do expect this quote will be abused by those who are trying to turn back the clock on GLBT rights.

Exactly. I don't think anyone would have a problem with her saying that she would prefer to be thought of as gay, but claiming to be "gay by choice" carries implications that she probably isn't intending to make. It's not that she suddenly went to play for the other team, but that she's a switch hitter who has decided that she would rather be thought of as a lefty.

No idea who he is but I did a quick Wiki look-up and he went to "College of William and Mary" - how much gayer can you get than a college named "College of William and Mary"!

Ball State? Moorehead?

 

[katy_did]

People are stating Cynthia Nixon is bisexual because, in her own words, she states unambiguously that she's bisexual

Of course, she also says:

If anybody, prior to my meeting and falling in love with Christine, had asked me about what I think about sexuality, I would have said I think we're all bisexual," the actress says. "But I had that point of view without ever having felt attracted to a woman. I had never met a woman I was attracted to [before Christine]. And maybe if I'd met her when I was 20, I would have fallen in love and only dated women. But maybe if I'd met her at 20, I wouldn't have responded at all. Who knows?"

So I'm not sure she's using the word 'bisexual' in the same way that others are when they use it to describe her.

 

[Dessi]

Maybe the takeaway from all of this is, **** labels.

 

[katy_did]

Maybe the takeaway from all of this is, **** labels.

I'll drink to that.

 

[Crossbow]

Maybe the takeaway from all of this is, **** labels.

Indeed! That is a good takeaway.

However, I think a better one is that there are some posters who over-personalize things and that makes is rather difficult to have good communication with them.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Maybe the takeaway from all of this is, **** labels.

Absolutely.

 

[sadhatter]

He's one of the regular fourth guests on the US Whose Line Is It Anyway. Always struck me as far camper than any of the other performers.

I still can't get over the idea that someone is being criticised for how they perceive their own sexuality. It seems like everyone should be free to be what they want, as long as what they want is something we agree with.

I don't think it is that, that people have a problem with.

A description is something meant to make people understand something. If your description is so odd, and using language in a way that is not consistent at all with common usage, it is simply not useful as an explanation. She would have done better to just say " It's complicated."

I mean hell, i am in the same boat. Do i go into a long tirade about exactly who , why , when and where i bang? No, i realize that if it does come up people simply want to know , in broad strokes what i am about in that regards, so i say " Bisexual" as i know people take that meaning to mean one that has sex with both genders.

People put way too much focus on trying to manipulate the english language and meaning of words to their exact flavor of sexuality. The way i see it, broad strokes, and if the person knows you well enough to make the minutia matter, they will pick up on it by knowing you. Giving an explanation that damn near takes a professional tolerance speaker to explain, just isn't helping anyone.

 

[sadhatter]

Absolutely I do. There are some foods that I've liked since I was little, because of my environment growing up. There are other foods I have chosen to learn to enjoy since then. Ever heard the term "acquired taste"? This is a real thing.



Exposure, acclimation, and patterning.
What I'm attracted to changes over the years through repeated exposure in media and in person. Although a lot of my sexual "tastes" were impacted by upbringing and chidhood experience, over time what is liked and disliked can change signficantly by choosing to focus on certain elements, through reward/punishment, and by associating elements with individual traits.
I'll admit that it continually surprises me that it doesn't seem to work this way for everyone else. Gender and gender ideals are culturally defined; our personalities are crafted through years of experiences; what's the problem with recognizing that orientation is an interaction of personality with culture, and therefore certainly changable over time?

Someone could quickly curb your d and d loving by appropriate punishment, does that mean that it is right?

Forcing someone, through punishment or reward does not mean that an attraction, whether it be sexual or otherwise is a choice. It simply shows that the person in question has a brain and wants to avoid unpleasantness.

And again, like always in this debate your confusing homosexual sex, with homosexuality. Sure you can stop having gay sex, but you can't stop being gay. Think of if suddenly you were no longer able to play d and d. You would still be a d and d player, simply not one in an active game.

By saying someone choosing to not have gay sex means that they are not gay , makes about as much sense as saying because someone can choose not to eat meat, humans are not omnivorous.

 

[sadhatter]

Heterosexual people in certain situations choose to do gay sex fairly often. Especially in prison where its gay sex or no sex. I've also known gay men and women who have kids so you can choose to do straight sex if your gay.

I have to bring this up when i see it, but prison sex is used as a weapon and a punishment, not akin to eating McDonalds when you really want a steak. Sure there are homosexuals in prison who are in homosexual relationships, but the majority of prison sex is about shame and punishment, not taking what one can get.

 

[sadhatter]

You think a guy engaging in some bi-curious experimentation to see whether he likes it or not is "crazy" and "strange"? May I suggest going out more?

How else would one know?

I mean if you never had an urge to "See one up close." i can see that, but coming from experience, a lot of folks just get curious. And an interesting situation happens ever so often, i find.

An otherwise straight gent may, for some reason or another give a watch of porn involving gay activity. They may dig this, but not actually dig actually doing it, its one of those things like a swordfight ( speaking of a literal swordfight.) it looks really cool on film, but in real life, its a lot different.

So how does this guy find out without experimenting a bit?

"Crazy"? No, just the same premise as trying a new food, maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't but if you never try it, you'll never know.

 

[sadhatter]

I would not phrase it that way, but Cynthia Nixon apparently does.

More interestingly, if someone is bisexual, but they have a higher attraction to the opposite sex and decide to pursue it indefinitely rather than the other, isn't that straight by choice? To the best of my knowledge, nobody ever uses "straight by choice" in that context (and hardly ever at all).

[Edited] Somewhat more seriously, I am convinced most people are least somewhat bisexual. If you make a scale with 0 meaning "totally gay, cannot possibly have sex with opposite sex", and 100 meaning the opposite, most people would fall somewhere in between. But if you fall anywhere above 50 on that scale, it is exceedingly unlikely for you do engage in same-sex relationship. Why would you? It is not your first choice, and there are large social drawbacks. OTOH, if you are at 40-45 on that scale, being "straight by choice" is a real possibility. Even though it is not their first choice.

I applaud your try, but as a bi guy, with a preference for females, i'll shine some light on the subject.

It is not a matter of what is easier, since we are going with food analogies , i'll put it this way.

Ever want a steak? Why though? Its more expensive, takes longer to make, and can go bad much quicker than rice. Rice, is by far the easier option to take if you want to eat, but even if you like rice, you will still find yourself wanting a steak now and again, despite the drawbacks.

Sometimes i feel like a male, sometimes i feel like a female, hell sometimes i feel like both. And the social stigma attached to two of those options, has nothing to do with it, it is, for lack of a better term "the cost of doing business."

And it isn't just sex, relationships with females and males are extremely different, they both have their perks, they both have their detriments, it is essentially a matter of taste, the same way the rice and steak issue is.

A lot of factors influence my choice of who i am going after. Availability, situation, person, relationship, physical attraction, mental attraction, but no where in there is "What other folks think.".

 

[sadhatter]

People are stating Cynthia Nixon is bisexual because, in her own words, she states unambiguously that she's bisexual:


No one in this thread is using a "no true gay" argument, there's no point criticizing people for things they've never said.

I think folks are getting confused because of the fact that the way bisexuals are treated, by both sides of the fence, is not really well known. And as such, the impetus to wriggle out of calling one's self bisexual is rather high.

 

[AlBell]

Re title: Is there someone somewhere who isn't gay by choice?

 

[sadhatter]

Re title: Is there someone somewhere who [b[isn't[/b] gay by choice?

Gay porn stars seem to have the market cornered. Your telling me someone who gets stuck with the name Randy Dicksin, or Roger Johnson, has any other choice of career?

 

[Antiquehunter]

I'm pretty confident there is no choice involved to my gayness.

And no, I'm not a porn star.

^{Although I'm damn good.}

 

[Marduk]

Maybe the takeaway from all of this is, **** labels.

yup, that and if you feel you are being discriminated against for your sexuality
sue them

 

[AlBell]

I applaud your try, but as a bi guy, with a preference for females, i'll shine some light on the subject.

It is not a matter of what is easier, since we are going with food analogies , i'll put it this way.

Ever want a steak? Why though? Its more expensive, takes longer to make, and can go bad much quicker than rice. Rice, is by far the easier option to take if you want to eat, but even if you like rice, you will still find yourself wanting a steak now and again, despite the drawbacks.

Sometimes i feel like a male, sometimes i feel like a female, hell sometimes i feel like both. And the social stigma attached to two of those options, has nothing to do with it, it is, for lack of a better term "the cost of doing business."

And it isn't just sex, relationships with females and males are extremely different, they both have their perks, they both have their detriments, it is essentially a matter of taste, the same way the rice and steak issue is.

A lot of factors influence my choice of who i am going after. Availability, situation, person, relationship, physical attraction, mental attraction, but no where in there is "What other folks think.".

Are your same sex partners steak or rice?