Who chooses their sexual orientation?

[pubic_assistance]

Just now, Unicorn said:

At a certain point, however, there are certain matters which are accepted as established for any given question. 

Unfortunately this isn't one of them.

Human sexuality is not Mineral Sciences. Perspectives on sexuality and sociology are an evolving subject.

It was previously accepted that you're either gay or straight and a few people wander around the middle for a while until they accept they are actually gay. 😜

Now sociological studies show an increasing number of people who dwell in the middle for decades, and go back and forth between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. Once social pressures for heteronormative behavior are relaxed, you see an increase in homosexual experimentation and it is only when one decides to settle down with a single partner does the event called CHOICE now supersede the "born this way" theory of being trapped in one's sexuality.

 

[musclestuduws]

On 1/23/2023 at 7:50 PM, pubic_assistance said:

I was a wrestler in High School. I wanted to fuck most of the guys on the team. But in my mind - sporty guys aren't gay...so.i never dreamed of making a move on one of them.

Many years later one of my team mates came out of the closet and declared himself  "gay" after being married to a woman for decades and raising two kids. 

I asked him how long he felt he was gay...He answered "since high school". I questioned that response saying I would have never guessed ! He said "oh yeah, I hooked up with a lot of guys in high school". Again I found this surprising and asked "with who"? He answered me and said he'd sucked off half the boys on the wrestling team !!! 😱

I hear you. So sorry for all the opportunities you missed in high school !  Did you share with this guy how much you wanted to fuck most of your teammates, maybe including him? Did he suspect you were into guys too? 

[musclestuduws]

Beyond anything else, I will always choose freedom over determinism, and that includes sexual orientation, sexuality, and gender. Science has being wrong many times in the past when it comes to human sexuality. So ultimately, I’d rather err on the side of choice and freedom and avoid forcing people into the neat taxonomies of  traditional natural sciences. 

[+ José Soplanucas]

6 minutes ago, musclestuduws said:

Beyond anything else, I will always choose freedom over determinism, and that includes sexual orientation, sexuality, and gender. Science has being wrong many times in the past when it comes to human sexuality. So ultimately, I’d rather err on the side of choice and freedom and avoid forcing people into the neat taxonomies of  traditional natural sciences. 

The very issue is that there is no choice. Confronting nature vs nurture does not reflect the human experience, where nature and nurture live together and interact. 

[pubic_assistance]

34 minutes ago, musclestuduws said:

So sorry for all the opportunities you missed in high school !  Did you share with this guy how much you wanted to fuck most of your teammates, maybe including him? Did he suspect you were into guys too? 

Ha. Thanks. I can't tell you how I wanted a time machine after that sentence ! ha

Sure..he had come to me for some advice knowing that I am actively bisexual and very experienced having identified as gay in my twenties. So, he's known that I am bisexual for years....but never offered ME a blowjob in High School...so I am going to guess he assumed I was straight. ( which technically at that juncture of life, I was ).

Edited January 26, 2023 by pubic_assistance
grammar

[pubic_assistance]

23 minutes ago, musclestuduws said:

I’d rather err on the side of choice and freedom and avoid forcing people into the neat taxonomies of  traditional natural sciences.

Bravo. 👏

[musclestuduws]

2 hours ago, José Soplanucas said:

The very issue is that there is no choice. Confronting nature vs nurture does not reflect the human experience, where nature and nurture live together and interact. 

I completely disagree. But you did not get my point. It’s a philosophical one with vast political implications. And it acknowledges the historical relativity of all science against both positivism and determinism. 

Edited January 27, 2023 by musclestuduws

[+ José Soplanucas]

9 hours ago, musclestuduws said:

I completely disagree. But you did not get my point. It’s a philosophical one with vast political implications. And it acknowledges the historical relativity of all science against both positivism and determinism. 

Naw. I think is just delusional. Of course, it makes you feel great about yourself to think that you are making the options.

Edited January 27, 2023 by José Soplanucas

[pubic_assistance]

11 minutes ago, arnemgreeves said:

I don't think many people actively choose their sexual orientation though. I don't think there are many cases of a person once they reach puberty or in adulthood literally deciding to be gay or bi. Granted, it could happen, but it's very anecdotal. 

What's anecdotal is your opinion. It's just your opinion, you're not looking at the data.

Current sociological research is showing a significant increase in people who identify as bisexual.

This runs concurrent in countries with a relaxed attitude toward social acceptance of such behavior.

So the obvious conclusion is that Bisexuality is a far more common state of being than past research identified.

Your biology may determine where you fall on the scale of bisexuality but when you decide to settle down with ONE partner you're going to need to make a choice.  Bisexuals can choose to gay or choose to be straight in their relationships, but they will always remain bisexual.

 

 

[musclestuduws]

3 hours ago, José Soplanucas said:

Naw. I think is just delusional. Of course, it makes you feel great about yourself to think that you are making the options.

Thanks for dismissing my point of view and calling me delusional. That’s how great minds operate , right? The funny thing if you didn’t even bother to think through what I explained. As I said, it’s in the end a political position. By so arrogantly dismissing mine, you show how totalitarian and dogmatic yours is. Thanks for proving my point. I rest my case, your Honor. 

[Rudynate]

Yes, my statement needs a little qualification.   It depends on the area.  There was one field I follow that experienced a flurry of publication in the mid-90s to the early oughts and nothing significant since then, so that is the current state in that particular field.  OTOH, I have biotech clients who are working at the bleeding edge and haven't published yet.  In that area 2 or 3 year -old references are dated. It doesn't mean that the information is useless, just that the field has moved on. 

I don't have any feel for how fast-moving the field of gender and sexual orientation is.  So it is hard to say what is current and what is dated.

I have a friend who is a mental-health professional.  When he was fishing for a topic for his thesis, he said he was thinking about something related to the cause of homosexuality.  I said, "Why would you do that?  Studying the 'cause' of homosexuality is premised on the idea that it is something abnormal or exceptional and it isn't.  You don't see anybody studying the cause of heterosexuality." He agreed with me and kept looking. 

15 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Not really. At some point, certain matters become settled. Science can open new questions, and take questions to another direction. Obviously, if studies are continuing in one subject matter, more recent studies need to be taken into account. At a certain point, however, there are certain matters which are accepted as established for any given question. 

 

[pubic_assistance]

38 minutes ago, musclestuduws said:

The funny thing if you didn’t even bother to think through what I explained.

There are certain people here who never consider that someone else may have a valid point, so they don't even bother reading what you wrote before they respond.

[pubic_assistance]

14 minutes ago, Rudynate said:

Studying the 'cause' of homosexuality is premised on the idea that it is something abnormal or exceptional and it isn't.  You don't see anybody studying the cause of heterosexuality."

Heterosexuality in animals is a reproductive process. Homosexuality is a process whereby two animals go through the actions of reproduction but while being fully aware that no reproduction is possible.  So heterosexuality is easily explained but homosexuality not. I think studying the cause of homosexual behavior in animals would certainly be an interesting subject because homosexuality IS the exception, not the norm. There is no reproductive goal in homosexual activity, so the sexual activity lies outside nature's norm, for every species, which is reproduction.

[+ José Soplanucas]

1 hour ago, musclestuduws said:

Thanks for dismissing my point of view and calling me delusional. That’s how great minds operate , right? The funny thing if you didn’t even bother to think through what I explained. As I said, it’s in the end a political position. By so arrogantly dismissing mine, you show how totalitarian and dogmatic yours is. Thanks for proving my point. I rest my case, your Honor. 

I am glad I made you happy. I see you are easy to please.

[Rudynate]

15 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Heterosexuality in animals is a reproductive process. Homosexuality is a process whereby two animals go through the actions of reproduction but while being fully aware that no reproduction is possible.  So heterosexuality is easily explained but homosexuality not. I think studying the cause of homosexual behavior in animals would certainly be an interesting subject because homosexuality IS the exception, not the norm. There is no reproductive goal in homosexual activity, so the sexual activity lies outside nature's norm, for every species, which is reproduction.

[Rudynate]

Just now, Rudynate said:

16 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Heterosexuality in animals is a reproductive process. Homosexuality is a process whereby two animals go through the actions of reproduction but while being fully aware that no reproduction is possible.  So heterosexuality is easily explained but homosexuality not. I think studying the cause of homosexual behavior in animals would certainly be an interesting subject because homosexuality IS the exception, not the norm. There is no reproductive goal in homosexual activity, so the sexual activity lies outside nature's norm, for every species, which is reproduction.

You've said what it is but not how it happens.  Big difference. 

[pubic_assistance]

1 minute ago, Rudynate said:

You've said what it is but not how it happens.  Big difference. 

? huh ?

Don't understand your comment.

[Rudynate]

Just now, pubic_assistance said:

? huh ?

Don't understand your comment.

That's OK. Others will understand.  I think it's funny that, upthread, you were all about designing your own sexual orientation and not being a slave to biological determinatism, etc., etc, and now you're saying that homosexuality is an abnormal phenomenon that should be studied.  

[+ José Soplanucas]

31 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Heterosexuality in animals is a reproductive process.

I think it much more than that, but let's accept it is. Why only in animals?

32 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Homosexuality is a process whereby two animals go through the actions of reproduction but while being fully aware that no reproduction is possible.

Fully aware? I did not know animals are "aware" of the purpose of their existence or their actions.

33 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

So heterosexuality is easily explained but homosexuality not. I think studying the cause of homosexual behavior in animals would certainly be an interesting subject because homosexuality IS the exception, not the norm.

I understand that is the old understanding. Last research shows that homosexual behaviors are present in all the animal kingdom and are not exceptional at all.

 

34 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

There is no reproductive goal in homosexual activity, so the sexual activity lies outside nature's norm, for every species, which is reproduction.

Nothing that happens in nature is out of nature's norm. 

[pubic_assistance]

9 minutes ago, José Soplanucas said:

Nothing that happens in nature is out of nature's norm. 

You are arguing over the term norm, because you're misdirecting it's target.

I am saying norm in terms of biological reward for sex.  Obviously I'm not saying homosexual activity is not normal.

It's "normal" in the sense that it's always present.

Edited January 27, 2023 by pubic_assistance

[Rod Hagen]

19 hours ago, José Soplanucas said:

Do you not think all generations did the same? I mean, pretending to invent something they were just reinventing? Like the sexual revolution from the 60s? the post modernism from the 80s?

This conversation has much of another pattern. Older generations complaining about the youngins. A classic.

As far as I know, we, Gen X and Baby Boomers, are the first generation to complain that two generations after us are jarringly boring rather than jarringly disruptive.  So there's that :-)

[+ José Soplanucas]

9 minutes ago, Rod Hagen said:

As far as I know, we, Gen X and Baby Boomers, are the first generation to complain that two generations after us are jarringly boring rather than jarringly disruptive.  So there's that 🙂

Good point. 🤣

[+ José Soplanucas]

16 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

I am saying norm in terms of biological reward for sex. 

Do you not think there is a biological reward for homosexual conducts? Do you think reproduction is the only biological reward? Do you not think homosexual acts trigger biochemical processes that provide a "biological reward"?

[+ José Soplanucas]

Let's suggest a different approach to "choice". You can choose to try to understand human sexuality. Sciences mostly do that. In the process, they impoverish the potencial of human sexuality through generalizations and categorizations (like homo, hetero, or bisexuality). I am not saying that you cannot explain human sexuality, but that you can choose a different approach.

Instead of explaining and analyzing and regulating human sexuality, you can choose exploring and describing the very diverse and always evolving field of sexual behaviors and preferences. The first think to do is moving away from sexual "identities", towards sexual behaviors. (I am not inventing nothing here, talking about reinventing the wheel)

I think it is a much more fruitful approach, at least it has worked great for me. I am much more happier and open to try new things now that I was until 10 years ago, when I was still trying to explain and analyze.

 

[TonyDown]

Sexual orientation, at least for me, is not a choice.

 

There is a segment of society that is certain sexual orientation is a choice.

I have a hunch that some of those folks who profess "being gay is a choice" are themselves bisexual. 

Why do I say this?

Those folks are a little bit too sure of themselves, as if they speak from personal experience.

How can that be?

If they desire both traditional and non-traditional relationships but made a concious choice not to pursue, for example, same-sex "gay" desires (at least not when anyone is looking) then they are able to frame being "gay"  as a choice, a choice they did not make. 

So perhaps they assume we all must somehow fit that model, where  I ultimately chose to be sexual with men and they didn't.

I know the above is a generalization and not based on anything academic.  It is based on me trying to piece together what I've experienced, friends that wanted to be sexual with me and even loved me but also loved women and ultimately married a woman and had a traditional family.