• 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

Arcade22 said:
I've always wondered how many supposedly 'straight' men would be able to resist a beautiful, pretty and feminine youth.
Click to expand...


Or a rugged, studly, masculine youth.

Far more 'straight' guys have had sex with a guy than is commonly imagined.
 
Bad Lieutenant said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not as much as you might think. The problem is that genetic vs cultural is a false diacotomy. There are plenty of biological explanation that do not equate to genetics.
 
TragicMonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem with this, is that it is in no way convincing to someone who accepts that underlying premise. So one tactic is to show that it is not a choice. Ideally the causation of homosexuality this would be a boring dry academic matter.
 
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?

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.
Click to expand...

This would first require an accepted definition of rational. It can be logically consistent, but is that rational or not?

Calling a belief irrational only means that you can not imagine how someone can believe it.
 
Bad Lieutenant said:
They didn't say they had an idea what factors they might be.

A strong piece of evidence which leads me to conclude that it is the environment which overwhelmingly directs sexual orientation is that there is only a 20% concordance for monozygotic twins and homosexuality. The study was conducted in 2000 using the Australian twins registry, in order to avoid selection bias. No surprises that this study is not detailed on the primary researcher's wikipedia page as it is not compatible with the prevailing, politically motivated zeitgeist that homosexuality is not determined through environmental forces. An earlier, biased study which found a 50% concordance is detailed on the wikipedia page instead. Disgraceful really.

~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...

The thing is that just infers about genetics, it does not mean that it is not a biological factor that differentiates them.
 
I would hate to think that the fundies are right, that one's sexual orientation really could be changed (without a stroke). I suppose it's possible, even they can't be wrong all the time, but I'll wait for the evidence.
 
Bad Lieutenant said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sexuality does not have to be genetic to be beyond an individual's ability to control or determine. The most compelling evidences I've seen, revolve around hormone levels at particular times while infants are in the womb. Too much or too little at different times in fetal development seem to strongly correlate to mental gender development. While this seems to be more a "propensity" issue than clearly definable, the correlation is strong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
 
Perhaps there's a bias one way or the other when we're born, but maybe experience can rewire our preferences, as it does with food.
 
ponderingturtle said:
The problem with this, is that it is in no way convincing to someone who accepts that underlying premise. So one tactic is to show that it is not a choice. Ideally the causation of homosexuality this would be a boring dry academic matter.
Click to expand...

That's unscientific, though. As rational beings, (some of us) assume that every action has a cause. Homosexuality exists, therefore something causes it. What if it is a choice? Does that make it automatically a bad choice? I would say no.

It actually boils down to a religious premise: sin is only possible if you have a choice in the matter. If you are forced to do something sinful, the sin is not yours--you are absolved of responsibility. So both sides are arguing about causes because they believe if they "win" that battle, they automatically score a victory on the "okay to be gay" or "it's a sin" battle as well.

I think that whole argument is foolish. There is nothing good nor bad about sexual orientation. Whether liking the same sex is "wrong" is as ridiculous a question as speculating about whether liking strawberry ice cream is "wrong". There is no ethical valuation to be made in the matter, therefore no question of right or wrong, therefore no moral weight to the question of cause. It doesn't matter whether orientation is a choice or not.
 
It's been a long time since I did any serious reading on human sexuality, and much of that was by late researcher John Money, who had some problems on his own...
Still, many of his ideas seem to remain in the paradigm, at least so far as I can tell by Googling...
One of the primary notions is that of the "lovemap". This is a psychological construct of an idealized mating partner. It's formed very early in life, based on parents, caregivers, siblings, etc.
It's no secret that men "marry their mother" and that women "marry their father" to a degree that's noticeable. Sometimes more than once...
We all seem to be attracted to a "type", and to find certain characteristics more attractive than others.
The same applies to "alterations" of the lovemap that go outside what most would consider normal and are classified as paraphilias. (Homosexuality is not considered a paraphilia)
People who have become inclined to "fetishes" (to use the common layman's term) are so inclined from an early age, and often will exhibit behaviors even though they do not recognize them as sexual. It's usually with the onset of puberty that these attractions become sexualized.
Money's idea was that one's sexuality is essentially in place by age three, and that it is pretty much fixed.

However, it's pretty obvious that it's more fluid than that. Obviously, on a level below that of clinical paraphilia, the things that we find attractive and interesting sexually may change with experience and time.
We know that many who are perhaps technically homosexual will drift back and forth over time and will "experiment" with the opposite sex. We had the acquaintance of an apparently-committed homosexual couple. One partner overtly effeminate, the other a "bear" as they say, an outwardly-masculine fellow.
That partner abruptly terminated the relationship and took up with a woman, even getting her pregnant. He told his estranged partner that he "wanted to feel like a man."

As noted above, there is a thriving "commercial" trade in highly-effeminate "T-Girl" prostitution... And most of the customers identify as straight. Hollywood stars have been caught up in such affairs, and will usually deny knowing that the T-girl was actually a man... Though it's glaringly obvious.

Money didn't address homosexuality to a large degree, but he thought pretty much as is apparently the current paradigm... That causation involves a genetic factor, certain hormonally-influenced changes in the fetus at critical developmental stages, and also environmental factors "as yet unknown".
Many homosexuals report knowing that they were "different" at an early age, often 6-7. Interestingly this is also the age when people report their initial attraction to the fetish items or scenarios they enjoy.
 
Pup said:
You mean a male youth that resembles a female youth as much as possible?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I think that's the whole point of those who say that sexual desire is more hardwired than fluid.
Click to expand...

Uncertain what you mean by 'hardwired', but i have a hard time picturing humans being specifically sexually attracted towards one sex or gender (or both). I find it to make more sense that people are sexually attracted towards certain traits, physical features, situations and so on. Muscles, wide hips, body hair, breasts, 'prettiness' and etc.

Are such attractions something that you are born with or developed later? Possible, if not very likely. Since it's evident that people can stop being attracted to one thing and start being attracted to another it seems to be 'fluid' as well.

Sure, at some point there has to be some basic attraction towards the opposite sex in order to make sure that humans actually procreate and breed. So sex and gender might play a greater role than i think.

Why would the youth need to seem feminine, for a straight man to find him attractive, if the straight man wasn't hardwired to be attracted to a fairly narrow range of people, i.e. feminine-seeming ones?
Click to expand...

Well again it seems to make more sense for me to consider human sexuality to be less about 'gayness' or 'straightness' and more about specific stimulus than turns people on. Sex and gender might be included but I'm uncertain to which degree it's of real importance to people.

As I've heard many people say: "It doesn't matter if it's a guy or a girl. If it's pretty **** it. There is no gay".
 
Arcade22 said:
Yes.

As I've heard many people say: "It doesn't matter if it's a guy or a girl. If it's pretty **** it. There is no gay".
Click to expand...
If someone says that, it just means that they are bisexual. I don't buy the premise that any male will be attracted to another male if they look the right way. Those politicians and celebrities who like trannys but deny knowing they were men are simply covering their asses for the most part. There are those rare individuals who can actually pass as a woman, if they are not examined too closely.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Calling a belief irrational only means that you can not imagine how someone can believe it.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that. I would use the word "irrational" to refer to any belief that cannot be supported by reason. There are plenty of things that I can understand people choosing to believe, even if they're not supported by reason. Most of them fall in the category of wishful thinking.

The notion that "Bob is a floob and I am a flurg, therefore flurgs must be better than floobs" is irrational, but I can definitely imagine why someone would choose to believe it.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Perhaps there's a bias one way or the other when we're born, but maybe experience can rewire our preferences, as it does with food.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I doubt it, at least in my case.

Look - I am a bit of an anomaly, in that I am what some people call a 'purebred'. I have only slept / had sex with people of one gender. That gender also happens to be my own. I went to a lot of trouble to make sure that is what I indeed wanted. I visited the Mustang Ranch and (unsuccessfully) tried to make sure I didn't indeed, just need to try it just once. I have had many opportunities to go home with women, I have been to any number of stripper bars, my boat simply isn't floated by women. I appreciate beauty, I can offer a witty commentary on footwear selection made by strippers who are splaying themselves wide open in front of me in gynocelogical row. But ain't nothin' happening down there.

So - in MY case, I'm very sure that my sexuality isn't 'fluid', nor does it look likely that its going to change. And - I don't care. I have been in a happy relationship for 16 years, and I don't see any reason to change. It is possible I simply haven't met the right woman, but I genuinely doubt it.

This also is MY experience. I know people who have lived heterosexual lives and come out as gay in their 70s. I know people who have lived homosexual lives and gone out and switched to heterosexual (sort of) relationships after extensive 'therapy' in the ex-gay movement. I know people who will pretty much shag anything that moves, assuming the other party is willing, gender be damned.

There simply isn't a cookie-cutter mould into which we can place human sexuality. It is as varied as we are as individuals. So why the hell do people care so much about it? We more or less, generally accept people of different races in today's day and age. It seems to me that the next logical step is simply to accept that people like to schtup other people. And so long as everything is consensual, legal, and within socially accepted norms, who the hell cares?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Not as much as you might think. The problem is that genetic vs cultural is a false diacotomy. There are plenty of biological explanation that do not equate to genetics.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember that some studies suggest that the hormone levels of the mother during gestation play a role. But I didn't follow that too much.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Not as much as you might think. The problem is that genetic vs cultural is a false diacotomy. There are plenty of biological explanation that do not equate to genetics.
Click to expand...

I wrote information/environment, not culture. I wrote "information" first and separately, despite the fact it is covered by the "environment" label, as that is the usual first port of call when dealing with psychological constructs. That's not to say that other mechanisms involving particles of ingested matter may not cause homosexuality.

I actually think there are several highly plausible main causes of homosexuality. One theory theory is that a male may receive less testosterone dosing in the womb, leading to feminised appearance and manner. Note at this junction that there is only a 20% concordance for monozygotic twins and homosexuality, so it is just a predisposing genetic effect, but that's a starting point.

This "feminised" male may then identify with the mother more than the father, causing gender role model identity confusion. The Oedipus complex develops unusually, and that causes the homosexuality. It may be the case that people can identify primarily with the opposite sex, instead of the same sex, at later points in life, causing their libido to switch at that time. Drinking excessive quantities of alcohol had been shown to result in reduced testosterone levels for males (perhaps leading to their identifying with the opposite sex) and causing homosexuality that way. The reverse effect would be if an average in-uterine-testosterone-dosed male had a feminine father and a masculine mother, leading to their identifying with the mother instead of the father.

Homosexuality in Iran is allegedly non-existent and it seems obvious they enforce rigid gender roles there. Men are macho and women are feminine perhaps more frequently than in the post feminism liberal West, and so less gender role model identity confusion occurs. Maybe I'madinnerjacket was telling the truth...that'd be a first.
 
Bad Lieutenant said:
Homosexuality in Iran is allegedly non-existent and it seems obvious they enforce rigid gender roles there. Men are macho and women are feminine perhaps more frequently than in the post feminism liberal West, and so less gender role model identity confusion occurs. Maybe I'madinnerjacket was telling the truth...that'd be a first.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned in another thread, homosexuality is alive and well in all Islamic countries I've lived and worked in.

Afghanistan for 7 years - I would say no more or less homosexuality than most Westernized places. And indeed, a lot of what goes on in Afghanistan is not homosexuality, but pedophilia/rape.

As for Iran, having visited Tehran & Qom, and while I haven't slept with any Iranians, I have first hand experience that homosexuality is far from non-existent in that country.
 
Antiquehunter said:
As I mentioned in another thread, homosexuality is alive and well in all Islamic countries I've lived and worked in.

Afghanistan for 7 years - I would say no more or less homosexuality than most Westernized places. And indeed, a lot of what goes on in Afghanistan is not homosexuality, but pedophilia/rape.

As for Iran, having visited Tehran & Qom, and while I haven't slept with any Iranians, I have first hand experience that homosexuality is far from non-existent in that country.
Click to expand...

Just because you were able to find some homosexuality does not mean it is present at the levels in the West. Sorry, but your anecdotal evidence doesn't carry much weight. Also, homosexuality which came about because of diminished in-uterine testosterone dosing would still occur in societies with strict butch/fem gender roles so there would be some homosexuality in those societies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom