• 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

Muse
Bad Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
606
I guess this is a social issue, what with the furror over the "homosexuality is a lifestyle choice" opinion and the fact hardly a day passes without some state declaring same sex relations criminal (Nigeria) or legalising same sex marriage (Australia).

Somebody posted in another thread that people don’t choose who they’re attracted to, but I would argue people make a choice circa:

Appropriate target for sexualisation or Inaproppriate target for sexualisation

This results in people growing attracted to others in a sexual way; not simply riding their visceral desires. Not being attracted to the spouses of friends and family would be another example.

The APA states:

"some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime".

Working on the level of individuals attractiveness, a scenario where some features are attractive, but because the “appropriate target for sexualisation” button isn’t pressed a person is not fully attracted to that person.

I saw a documentary on bestiality in the UK a few years ago. These two blind men got off with ponies. One of them said:

“I thought, human pussy…horse pussy…pussy!”

They really seemed to love those ponies. Another lady said her Labrador got frisky one day and just took her; she let it and they’ve been doing that stuff ever since; never been closer. We love our dogs, right? If it is accepted that people can enjoy sex/intimacy with non-human animals (illegally, whatever) then surely it is absurd to think that sexual orientation between the genders is stringently inflexible. Then there’s the guy who went "gay" while in prison and the tortoise that got turned on by his owner’s shoe. A shoe sexual? Surely not; just a potential polysexual like the rest of us. Ford ka anybody? Or is a pulse required at least.

I’m tired of sexual orientation change being rubbished and glossed over just because of the political environment (ie. if people can change then Christians/Muslims/homophobes might force their kids through ill conceived sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) or make homosexuality illegal). It’s just wrong and unscientific, given the available evidence.
 
Last edited:
Well, my position on this is very much the same as it is vis a vis the question of nature vs nurture as regards homosexuality.

I only know with a high degree of certainty, my own experience as regards sexuality.

I know that my own sexuality has not changed, nor has it been 'fluid' throughout my some 40 years on the planet. That said, I also appreciate that a) the science and study of human sexuality is in many ways nascent and we're understanding more and more every day, and b) everyone has a different set of genes & environment that make up their experience - leading to a hugely different array of sexualities, some conventional, some unconventional.

So - on the OP - is human sexuality 'fluid' - it probably is in many cases, and may not be in others. It hasn't been to this point for me, but I certainly know people whose tastes have changed over the course of their life.
 
Antiquehunter said:
Well, my position on this is very much the same as it is vis a vis the question of nature vs nurture as regards homosexuality.

I only know with a high degree of certainty, my own experience as regards sexuality.

I know that my own sexuality has not changed, nor has it been 'fluid' throughout my some 40 years on the planet. That said, I also appreciate that a) the science and study of human sexuality is in many ways nascent and we're understanding more and more every day, and b) everyone has a different set of genes & environment that make up their experience - leading to a hugely different array of sexualities, some conventional, some unconventional.

So - on the OP - is human sexuality 'fluid' - it probably is in many cases, and may not be in others. It hasn't been to this point for me, but I certainly know people whose tastes have changed over the course of their life.
Click to expand...

My bold: That's the thing, people have been studying sexuality scientifically for a very long time now, trying to identify a gay gene etc. I don't think it can be called nascent really. There's tons of evidence now that homosexuality isn't largely genetic, for example, and yet this information is not publicised because it contradicts the "pro gay liberal democratic" ideals in that it implies a person can be made gay or straight simply by adjusting their information/environment.
 
The scientific books aren't closed on any topic, to my understanding. We expand our knowledge in all kinds of areas of research - as we do with human sexuality.

The most lucid discussions I've seen regarding homosexuality suggest that there is likely a combination of genetic and environmental factors that combine to 'cause' homosexuality. And we'll continue to learn more. Its not really a major issue as far as I'm concerned.

The issue of the existence of a 'gay gene', or the lack thereof, will be an axe to grind both for the 'pro-gay' camps and the 'anti-gay' camps.
 
Antiquehunter said:
The issue of the existence of a 'gay gene', or the lack thereof, will be an axe to grind both for the 'pro-gay' camps and the 'anti-gay' camps.
Click to expand...

And the most irritating part of that is that both sides, by so arguing, are buying into the same underlying premise: that there is an ethical valuation to sexuality. I would say rather that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is neither good nor bad, and therefore the cause is irrelevant.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I would say rather that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is neither good nor bad, and therefore the cause is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yup, it's almost 2012 and who, except for the very religious, cares who is sleeping with whom?
 
Sure - homophobia is a problem. But is good science going to solve what is an otherwise irrational problem? If so, then why do we still have religion?
 
Antiquehunter said:
Sure - homophobia is a problem. But is good science going to solve what is an otherwise irrational problem? If so, then why do we still have religion?
Click to expand...

I should have known this thread would move on to homophobia. I forgot to add tags when creating - is there a way to add tags later do you know perchance?

Anyway, I dispute the notion that homophobia can be dismissed as being irrational; it exists, there must be rational behind it. Just because it's called a phobia it should not be dismissed from examination. Would not a sewer by any other name smell as pestilential?

One reason we have bloody stupid religion is that homophobes often hide behind it in order to discriminate against homosexuals...who can say to what extent homophobia supports religion.
 
Antiquehunter said:
Sure - homophobia is a problem. But is good science going to solve what is an otherwise irrational problem?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think it can, in part at least.
If so, then why do we still have religion?
Click to expand...
The trend is that religion is on the decline and tolerance for gays and lesbians is on the increase.

When you can inform people that there beliefs are irrational then reason can win out. I mean, if science could overturn our intuitions about the earths place in the universe and geocentrism then yeah, I think it can help solve this problem.
 
So what? Are my comments not part of the thread? Why does it matter who first metioned homophobia?

The point is it's all very well to say "I'ts not an important issue" and "homophobia is less of a problem these days" but it's a simple fact that homophobia is a big problem in many parts of the world and the myth that sexual orientation is fixed (and not fluid) is a central feature of that dialogue.

Much homophobia flies below the radar these days because, to admit to being homophobic, is interpreted as meaning that person is in fact a repressed homosexual. I think there's probably more homophobia in the world than there's ever been...hell, the term was only invented after the USA decriminalised homosexuality following the stonewall riots in the 70s.
 
Bad Lieutenant said:
Anyway, I dispute the notion that homophobia can be dismissed as being irrational; it exists, there must be rational behind it.
Click to expand...

I'm not following. Why does the mere existence of a belief mean it must be rational? Racism and sexism both exist, must there be a rationale for them as well? Can't they simply be irrational?

Humans innately seek out group affiliation. A side effect of that is the "I'm not X, therefore X is bad" mentality. If we don't hate other based on gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, religion or political party, we just fall back on what sports teams we support, or what kind of smartphone we use.
 
It's definitely true that if we can identify environmental factors that can influence a child's attraction, folks like me will take steps to make sure those environmental factors point the child toward heterosexual attraction.
 
Ray Brady said:
I'm not following. Why does the mere existence of a belief mean it must be rational? Racism and sexism both exist, must there be a rationale for them as well? Can't they simply be irrational?
Click to expand...
Overall something can be irrational, but there is an etiology and so some sort of rationel (spelling? : / ) behind such things...some component of rationality, at that time, in the mind which believes those things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom