Who chooses their sexual orientation?

[pubic_assistance]

30 minutes ago, Rudynate said:

you have chosen a lifestyle that is congruent with your sexual orientation.

Yes. You've made your point previously.

You view sexual orientation as biological and lifestyle as a choice.

But others disagree. "Sexual Orientation" has dimensions of reality beyond biology:

The dimensions consist of sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual fantasies, emotional preference, social preference, lifestyle preference, and self-identification,

 

[+ sniper]

Seems like a tautology: of course if you're bisexual you have a choice to settle down one way or the other. But as bisexuals for the most part settle down with partners of the oppostie sex(in no small part because that greatly facilitates a host of other lifestyle choices in a heteronormative if not actively gay-hostile society), that's not who the people who call homosexuality a choice are complaining about,  nor is it who the people who say homosexuality is not a choice are talking about. So what's your point here? You're knocking down a strawman.

[pubic_assistance]

Seems like a tautology

2 minutes ago, sniper said:

what's your point here?

I don't understand why this is complicated.

I asked who on the site has made a choice. Some of the gentlemen answered that for them, there was no choice. That is a valid answer. Others told their story of it being a journey. That journey is what I'd like to hear about, and it's also interesting to understand the proportion of men here who do feel there was never a choice. I find the subject interesting, as society is shifting once again to make room for people who have evolving viewpoints on self identification.

The narrative of "Born this way" is outdated psychology so it's rather shocking to me how many gays cling to that like a life raft on the Titanic. It's just not that concrete for everyone with homosexual tendencies.

From The American Journal of Psychotherapy  Brad Bowins, M.D., F.R.C.P.(C)

Published Online:30 Apr 2018https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2016.70.3.251

While it appears that sexual orientation is dimensional, the question arises as to how many dimensions apply? Although appealing for its simplicity, a single dimension ranging from homosexual to heterosexual, as for example used by Kinsey (1948, 1953), presents some major conceptual and practical problems (Muscarella, 1999; Shively & DeCecco, 1977; Storms, 1980). To start, homosexual and heterosexual motivation must represent a tradeoff, with more of one meaning less of the other. Consequently, a bisexual individual is less hetero than a strictly heterosexual orientation, and less homo than a fully homosexual orientation. Clearly this is not the case, as many bisexuals report urges for both sexes of comparable or greater strength than strict heterosexuals and homosexuals (Shively & DeCecco, 1977; Storms, 1980). It also implies that strict homosexuals and heterosexuals must have powerful urges towards their respective sex of attraction, not accounting for a range of sexual motivation in both groups.

[pubic_assistance]

Modern Psychology defines sexual orientation as fluid and environmental, not merely biological -

Adolescent boys in same-sex boarding schools partake in more homoerotic relationships than those in mixed-sex schools, but do not demonstrate higher rates of homoerotic behavior as adults (Bell et al., 1981; Money, 1988). The same phenomenon at all-female colleges is common being known as “lesbian until graduation” (Diamond, 2006). In prisons women have been found to bond sexually based on the need for friendship and a relationship that is supportive and not hostile (Maeve, 1999). In settings other than forced ones such as prisons, this occurrence might partly be explained by selection (homosexual individuals might unconsciously or consciously seek such settings). However, “selection” cannot account for the observed shift to more heteroerotic behavior in other-sex settings (Bell et al., 1981; Diamond, 2006; Maeve, 1999; Money, 1988). A viable alternative explanation is that the same-sex setting activates the homoerotic dimension resulting in its expression, at least when there is significant level of motivation on that dimension. As pertains to the heteroerotic dimension, triggers such as a reproductive opportunity or alliance formation can activate this dimension. The notion that sexual orientation dimensions can be activated or deactivated aligns with research indicating that homoerotic behavior can be elicited by circumstances (Easpaig et al., 2014; Iasenza, 2010; Kennedy, 2010; McKenzie, 2010; Pedersen & Kristiansen, 2008).

[CuriousByNature]

I'm certainly no expert here, but could it be that it is the ability to choose one attraction or another that is based on genetics?  If sexuality is a spectrum, which I believe it is, then there are those at either end who are strictly heterosexual or homosexual.  These people biologically do not feel they have a choice either way, no matter what environmental influences are exerted upon them.  For others more in the middle of the spectrum due to genetics, they may have the inborn ability to choose who they are more attracted to in a given situation.  In this sense environment influences the choice they make, but the ability to make that choice was set in utero through genetics.  Therefore, a person who is completely bisexual (exactly midpoint on the sexuality spectrum) has the most genetic freedom in choosing who they may be attracted to, and those choices might be influenced by surroundings, upbringing, or even moment by moment interactions.  The further away from the midpoint a person may be, might mean that they have correspondingly less inherent ability to choose who they are attracted to.

I'm kind of thinking along the lines of right-handedness versus left handedness - though I know it is not a perfect analogy.  There are those who are born either one way or the other, and there are those who are born ambidextrous and have an ability to choose between the two.  There are varying degrees of ambidexterity and a person might favour one hand over the other in a given situation or based on the activity being undertaken.  Where this analogy seems to fail is that people can be trained to use one hand over the other without it creating emotional and mental anguish, unlike those who are 'trained' to express themselves sexually in a way that is contradictory to their nature.

Anyway, just some thoughts to consider....

[pubic_assistance]

19 minutes ago, CuriousByNature said:

If sexuality is a spectrum, which I believe it is, then there are those at either end who are strictly heterosexual or homosexual.  These people biologically do not feel they have a choice either way, no matter what environmental influences are exerted upon them. 

I believe what Brad Bowens is postulating in his article is that his observations are that humans ( amongst many other mammals ) are innately sexually fluid and that there is a genetic predisposition toward a degree of homosexuality that environmental stimuli can trigger.  So yes....some people are high on the scale and given an environment where they can act upon their homosexual tendencies they choose a homosexual lifestyle. This also goes for a-sexual people who ultimately choose a non sexual lifestyle, when they are low on the scale of both homosexual or heterosexual interest.  The scale is NOT as rigid as the "born this way" theory purports. But that we start out on a scale toward one end or the other, and events can affect where we end up on that scale. The likelihood of going from one end of the scale to the other is the most uncommon...but moving along the middle of the scale most common. No one is assigned a sexuality that can't be affected unless they find themselves born at the far ends of that spectrum.

[CuriousByNature]

46 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

I believe what Brad Bowens is postulating in his article is that his observations are that humans ( amongst many other mammals ) are innately sexually fluid and that there is a genetic predisposition toward a degree of homosexuality that environmental stimuli can trigger.  So yes....some people are high on the scale and given an environment where they can act upon their homosexual tendencies they choose a homosexual lifestyle. This also goes for a-sexual people who ultimately choose a non sexual lifestyle, when they are low on the scale of both homosexual or heterosexual interest.  The scale is NOT as rigid as the "born this way" theory purports. But that we start out on a scale toward one end or the other, and events can affect where we end up on that scale. The likelihood of going from one end of the scale to the other is the most uncommon...but moving along the middle of the scale most common. No one is assigned a sexuality that can't be affected unless they find themselves born at the far ends of that spectrum.

This seems to support the idea that I raised - that perhaps it is our ability to choose that is most determined by genetics?

[Guest]

13 hours ago, NJF said:

The exact gene or genes have not been identified yet. However, the genetic factor is undeniable based on multiple studies of the sexuality of identical twins.

Hmmm, every scientific resourse I’ve found indicates markers that “may explain” and that it’s only valid for a portion of the universe.  If you have a source indicating “undeniable” causation, I think many here would love to see it. 

Edited January 12, 2023 by BnaC

[Rudynate]

2 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

Yes. You've made your point previously.

You view sexual orientation as biological and lifestyle as a choice.

But others disagree. "Sexual Orientation" has dimensions of reality beyond biology:

The dimensions consist of sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual fantasies, emotional preference, social preference, lifestyle preference, and self-identification,

 

Those are associated with sexual orientation, but they are not sexual orientation.  Much like a phenotype is a function of the genotype, but it is not the genotype. 

[pubic_assistance]

7 minutes ago, Rudynate said:

Those are associated with sexual orientation, but they are not sexual orientation.  Much like a phenotype is a function of the genotype, but it is not the genotype. 

Again.

You've made your opinion heard.

Unfortunately the professional psychological community doesn't appear to agree with your opinion. 

 

[pubic_assistance]

13 minutes ago, CuriousByNature said:

This seems to support the idea that I raised - that perhaps it is our ability to choose that is most determined by genetics? 

Where you fall on the scale is determined by biology.

Research shows that the majority of humans fall somewhere floating in the middle. 

This allows for the existence of a few 99% gay and 99% straight and most everyone else can be had after three strong cocktails. 😉🍸

[Jamie21]

Just now, pubic_assistance said:

Where you fall on the scale is determined by biology.

Research shows that the majority of humans fall somewhere floating in the middle. 

This allows for the existence of a few 99% gay and 99% straight and most everyone else can be had after three strong cocktails. 😉🍸

I agree with this, we exist somewhere on a spectrum. I think you’re born that way and depending on your openness to new experiences, the extent to which you are compliant to society norms and the degree of opportunity you experience then it’s your choice about whether or not you act on your position on the spectrum. Someone in the middle who is open to exploring, is independent minded and has the opportunity will have relationships with both sexes. Someone else in the middle but who is very compliant, conforms to norms and has very little opportunity to explore will probably have relationships only with the opposite sex. 
So to that extent I believe you do make a choice, but it’s a choice made within the boundaries of how you’re born. Born 100% on the gay or 100% on the straight end it will feel like you have no choice. 

[pubic_assistance]

58 minutes ago, Jamie21 said:

Born 100% on the gay or 100% on the straight end it will feel like you have no choice. 

The researcher uses 99% instead of 100% because he believes there is no absolute in human sexuality. Using the example of very heterosexual oriented men adapting to environmental issues like jail time. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by pubic_assistance

[Rudynate]

2 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

Where you fall on the scale is determined by biology.

Research shows that the majority of humans fall somewhere floating in the middle. 

This allows for the existence of a few 99% gay and 99% straight and most everyone else can be had after three strong cocktails. 😉🍸

The Kinsey scale.

[Rudynate]

2 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

Again.

You've made your opinion heard.

Unfortunately the professional psychological community doesn't appear to agree with your opinion. 

 

Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically based theories.^[13] There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males.^[17][18][19]  From wikipedia.

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

I choose my sexual orientation.

I choose to have sex in a north/south orientation, because it has better natural outdoor lighting than east/west orientation.

[musclestuduws]

Trans, gender-fluid, and non binary people are living proof that gender and sexuality are not determined exclusively by your genetic code. The latest and most reliable scientific research on the subject overwhelmingly disregards the twin devils of genetic determinism and biological essentialism as politically regressive and therefore based on faulty, biased scientific research. 

Edited January 12, 2023 by musclestuduws

[+ Charlie]

I think the question of choice has a lot to do with whether one exists in a context in which choice is possible. I was aware during puberty that I was sexually attracted to males. I was never sexually attracted to a woman, but I have always had close emotional friendships with women, and I could have chosen to spend my life with a female partner--probably in a non-sexual relationship, because I have never tested my ability to function in a heterosexual relationship. I would have relieved my sexual desires with fantasies and masturbation rather than in actual sex with other men. Social and religious conservatives would probably have found my "lifestyle choice" acceptable. Even in sexually conservative cultures, one can usually have a homosexual orientation as long as you channel it into certain acceptable non-sexual activities.

However, I discovered at an early age that my environment allowed me to have sex with the men I was attracted to, as long as I was discreet about my "lifestyle." As my environment became more openly liberal, my "lifestyle" opportunities broadened, and I took advantage of them to exercise more "freedom of choice." I also took advantage of living in a society in which I could safely question and challenge what was considered "normal." I chose to have romantic as well as sexual relationships with other men, and eventually married a man, something that would have been an unthinkable lifestyle choice when I was young.

[pubic_assistance]

12 minutes ago, Charlie said:

As my environment became more openly liberal, my "lifestyle" opportunities broadened, and I took advantage of them to exercise more "freedom of choice."

Thank you for sharing @Charlie . I love hearing stories of people's journey to love.

[pubic_assistance]

48 minutes ago, Rudynate said:

Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically based theories.^[13] There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males.^[17][18][19]  From wikipedia.

Again...thank you for trying to promote your ( out of date ) opinion.

By the way...the world is round and the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around.

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by pubic_assistance
grammar

[pubic_assistance]

58 minutes ago, Rudynate said:

Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically based theories.^[13] There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males.^[17][18][19]  From wikipedia.

From the SAME Wikipedia page that you CHOSE TO IGNORE (I will assume - to further your point...not because you forgot to include it.)

"Scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental influences.;

Edited January 12, 2023 by pubic_assistance
spelling

[Rudynate]

44 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

From the SAME Wikipedia page that you CHOSE TO IGNORE (I will assume - to further your point...not because you forgot to include it.)

"Scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental influences.;

The operative language is "they theorize."

OTOH, my quotation is evidence-based.

[Rudynate]

5 minutes ago, Rudynate said:

The operative language is "they theorize."

OTOH, my quotation is evidence-based.

You know you have lost when you go ad hominem.

[musclestuduws]

Just one example of recent research involving a large and reliable sample. A few relevant excerpts: 

“ the results published Thursday in the journal Science hint at the complex blend of factors that influence human sexuality, including society and the environment.”

"The findings themselves reinforce this idea that diversity of sexual behavior across humanity is really a natural part of our overall diversity as a species," said Benjamin Neale, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and one of the study's senior authors. "That's a really meaningful and important result."

“The researchers found two significant spots in the genome that were linked to same-sex behavior across people of both sexes. And when they analyzed male and female genomes separately, they found three more — two specifically for men and one specifically for women — bringing the total number of significant genetic markers up to five. 

Nonetheless, when taken all together, these five locations on the genome could account for much less than 1% of same-sex osexual behavior on a population level, the researchers said.“

https://www.baltimoresun.com/there-is-no-single-gay-gene-story.html

Edited January 12, 2023 by musclestuduws

[+ sniper]

5 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

The researcher uses 99% instead of 100% because he believes there is no absolute in human sexuality. Using the example of very heterosexual oriented men adapting to environmental issues like jail time. 

And only like a third of them do that...