Who chooses their sexual orientation?

[pubic_assistance]

Outside of humans, Dolphins, and Bonobos two of the major groups that are generally bisexual creatures.

Their bisexuality doesn't prevent them from mating, but some members of the group do prefer their same sex partner for cuddles.

I find the subject interesting, to continue to study how much of this is biology, how much is psychology and how much is sociology.

Clearly the new batch of American 20 somethings weren't BORN more bisexual than their parents. Social acceptance has allowed the natural biology and psychology to perform naturally. It will be interesting to see the proportion of homosexual and heterosexual relationships as these young people mature. Will it settle back in to the often quoted 10% gay ?

 

[pubic_assistance]

3 minutes ago, TonyDown said:

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

That's what we're discussing.

That segment who are bisexual.

Obviously some people never have same sex attractions and some never have heteronormative attractions.

But I am saying far more people are making choices today, than what the old research showed was possible.

[wsc]

A few years ago, I attended a presentation on Fermi's Paradox, a question posed by physicist Enrico Fermi that asked: considering the size of the universe and the likelihood of lifeforms other than human having developed elsewhere, why have we not encountered them or at least found evidence of their existence, past or present?

I recently viewed a YouTube video entitled "Born This Way: The Science Behind Being Gay."

Predictably, [spoiler alert] the final conclusion is that there are a lot of factors, and no one knows for sure. But the research was interesting to see. The connection in my mind to the Fermi Paradox is from the way the presenter first formed the question: if homosexual people have existed in every society and generation of humankind, but are, by-and-large, unlikely to reproduce, why are we still here? Wouldn't evolution have dispensed with an element that contributed virtually nothing to the human gene pool generation after generation? I found the postulated possibilities interesting.

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours 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 🙂

I feel a song coming on....

 

[NJF]

1 hour ago, wsc said:

A few years ago, I attended a presentation on Fermi's Paradox, a question posed by physicist Enrico Fermi that asked: considering the size of the universe and the likelihood of lifeforms other than human having developed elsewhere, why have we not encountered them or at least found evidence of their existence, past or present?

I recently viewed a YouTube video entitled "Born This Way: The Science Behind Being Gay."

Predictably, [spoiler alert] the final conclusion is that there are a lot of factors, and no one knows for sure. But the research was interesting to see. The connection in my mind to the Fermi Paradox is from the way the presenter first formed the question: if homosexual people have existed in every society and generation of humankind, but are, by-and-large, unlikely to reproduce, why are we still here? Wouldn't evolution have dispensed with an element that contributed virtually nothing to the human gene pool generation after generation? I found the postulated possibilities interesting.

 

 

There is a school of thoughts that argue there is an advantage for homosexuality in  natural selection. I can only vaguely remember the details. Basically, you need to step back from individual level and consider the familial group. A gay uncle is advantageous for propagating the familial genetic heritage.

[TonyDown]

1 hour ago, wsc said:

A few years ago, I attended a presentation on Fermi's Paradox, a question posed by physicist Enrico Fermi that asked: considering the size of the universe and the likelihood of lifeforms other than human having developed elsewhere, why have we not encountered them or at least found evidence of their existence, past or present?

I recently viewed a YouTube video entitled "Born This Way: The Science Behind Being Gay."

Predictably, [spoiler alert] the final conclusion is that there are a lot of factors, and no one knows for sure. But the research was interesting to see. The connection in my mind to the Fermi Paradox is from the way the presenter first formed the question: if homosexual people have existed in every society and generation of humankind, but are, by-and-large, unlikely to reproduce, why are we still here? Wouldn't evolution have dispensed with an element that contributed virtually nothing to the human gene pool generation after generation? I found the postulated possibilities interesting.

 

 

Interesting video!

I don't understand how the researcher would comment the fraternal birth order affected only 15% of gay men as a factor contributing to them being gay.  Of course there must be other factors, but the fraternal birth order factor would always be present unless no older brothers exist.  I doubt if 85% of gay men have no older brothers.  Besides, that would be counter to the original hypothesis.

 No matter where in the birth order, the probability of self identifying as straight remains much higher.   So one might wonder what measure he used to reach this 85% are not birth order related comment.

The vlogger might have asked for clarification what the researcher meant. 

 

 

 

[Thelatin]

Mine was chosen in 1980 by Bo Duke.  Daisy just wasn’t doing it for me.  I was like crap….now what.

[pubic_assistance]

2 hours ago, wsc said:

If homosexual people have existed in every society and generation of humankind, but are, by-and-large, unlikely to reproduce, why are we still here?

We are getting way off topic.

No one is questioning whether homosexuality exists.

The thread is about people who have had heterosexual relationships in the past but decided that a homosexual relationship ( or single homosexual lifestyle ) better suited their needs.

[+ José Soplanucas]

@musclestuduws, I saw your rolling eyes reaction to my post, and I want to apologize. That response was pity. Sometimes I enjoy being a bitch, I recently promised that I would try harder to be more constructive and less confrontative, and that post is just evidence of how hard it is for me. Indeed, it is a low point and I apologize.

Instead of writing that bitchy response, I should have clarified the post that you understood as a personal attack. It was not intended as such. I use "you" as the impersonal you, not as targeting you as an individual. Instead, I should I have used "we", because what I meant is that we all feel great about ourselves when we feel like we are in control, even when it is delusional.

Once again, my apologies.

I could have deleted/edited my misstep, but I do not mind documenting my flaws.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

....The thread is about people who have had heterosexual relationships in the past but decided that a homosexual relationship ( or single homosexual lifestyle ) better suited their needs.

Now you're the one changing the topic again. I'm sorry, but you specifically titled the string "Who chooses their sexual orientation?" and asked "I would like to ask how many members ultimately felt they CHOSE their sexual orientation as opposed to having it assigned ?," not "...Who had heterosexual relationships in the past but decided that a homosexual relationship ( or single homosexual lifestyle ) better suited their needs?". Those are entirely different questions. You are now taken aback and feel flustered when people give you answers you don't like, and you're obviously uninterested in the tons of research which has been done in this area, all of which point to sexual orientation being determined by birth, by a combination of genetic and epigenetic (womb/uterine environment) factors (at least for gays and straights).

It is true that among the massive number of studies that have been done, it doesn't seem any attention has been paid to bisexuality, so that aspect of human sexuality remains scientifically unexplored. However, to answer your more recent question, if a man had a relationship with a woman in the past and then with a man later, I can think of only three possibilities. The first and most obvious is that he's bisexual, and can enjoy relationships with either. The second is that he's gay and lied to the woman, and the third that he's straight and lied to the man (obviously the least likely of the 3 possibilities). 

I was heartened to see that one of the researchers in @wsc's video defined sexual orientation by changes of blood flow into the penis and by MRI changes in the limbic system in response to photos of handsome men vs women, not to "self-identification." All normal men know which sex we'd rather bang. We can feel it in our organ. How men "self-identify" is a whole other subject. 

[+ José Soplanucas]

7 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

Now you're the one changing the topic again. I'm sorry, but you specifically titled the string "Who chooses their sexual orientation?" and asked "I would like to ask how many members ultimately felt they CHOSE their sexual orientation as opposed to having it assigned ?," not "...Who had heterosexual relationships in the past but decided that a homosexual relationship ( or single homosexual lifestyle ) better suited their needs?". Those are entirely different questions. You are now taken aback and feel flustered when people give you answers you don't like, and you're obviously uninterested in the tons of research which has been done in this area, all of which point to sexual orientation being determined by birth, by a combination of genetic and epigenetic (womb/uterine environment) factors (at least for gays and straights).

+1

[pubic_assistance]

49 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

Now you're the one changing the topic again

No. I'm not 

I simply tried to rephrase the same question in a different way since some people are going off track and talking about other stuff.

Like you.

You've made your point multiple times.

But it has nothing to do with what I'm asking.

Your gay / you've always been gay. We get it. Congratulations.🎉But it doesn't work that way for everyone. I'd like to hear from other members now. Especially those who had more of a journey in deciding their sexuality but if someone felt it was never a choice then that's their answer.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

No. I'm not 

... I'd like to hear from other members now. Especially those who had more of a journey in deciding their sexuality but if someone felt it was never a choice then that's their answer.

Yes, you are. If you'd like to hear more about the journey of bisexuals, start an appropriately-titled string on that subject. Then, weeks after you started this string, maybe you'll get some responses in the subject that interests you. 

[pubic_assistance]

1 minute ago, Unicorn said:

Yes, you are. If you'd like to hear more about the journey of bisexuals, start an appropriately-titled string on that subject. Then, weeks after you started this string, maybe you'll get some responses in the subject that interests you. 

Please stop hijacking this thread.

Plenty of other people understood the question and answered it.

 

[+ WilliamM]

15 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Now you're the one changing the topic again. I'm sorry, but you specifically titled the string "Who chooses their sexual orientation?" and asked "I would like to ask how many members ultimately felt they CHOSE their sexual orientation as opposed to having it assigned ?," not "...Who had heterosexual relationships in the past but decided that a homosexual relationship ( or single homosexual lifestyle ) better suited their needs?". Those are entirely different questions. You are now taken aback and feel flustered when people give you answers you don't like, and you're obviously uninterested in the tons of research which has been done in this area, all of which point to sexual orientation being determined by birth, by a combination of genetic and epigenetic (womb/uterine environment) factors (at least for gays and straights).

It is true that among the massive number of studies that have been done, it doesn't seem any attention has been paid to bisexuality, so that aspect of human sexuality remains scientifically unexplored. However, to answer your more recent question, if a man had a relationship with a woman in the past and then with a man later, I can think of only three possibilities. The first and most obvious is that he's bisexual, and can enjoy relationships with either. The second is that he's gay and lied to the woman, and the third that he's straight and lied to the man (obviously the least likely of the 3 possibilities). 

I was heartened to see that one of the researchers in @wsc's video defined sexual orientation by changes of blood flow into the penis and by MRI changes in the limbic system in response to photos of handsome men vs women, not to "self-identification." All normal men know which sex we'd rather bang. We can feel it in our organ. How men "self-identify" is a whole other subject. 

Or for men who live  in reprepesive  countries , such as Russia and Iran,  one may be beaten up or killed even if his wife  or relatives know about his actual sexuuality.   

[musclestuduws]

2 hours ago, arnemgreeves said:

We are biological beings and thus ruled by genetics. The issue is to what extent genetics rules us. Some genetic expressions are hard coded yet others are activated by experiences. We also live in a universe governed by physical laws which affects all matter, including humans. 

We’re not “ruled” by genetics. If you bother reading the massive amount of recent serious research on the subject, some of it shared on this thread, genes are only part (sometimes even a small part) within a complex, unpredictable, and highly dynamic network of multiple environmental factors, social norms, and individual behaviors, among other items. I myself shared one of the most important research reports involving the largest samples ever, you’ll find it a few pages ago in this thread. The findings are conclusive in showing how the role of genes has been grossly overestimated. Genetics certainly does NOT “rule” when it comes to human sexuality. And apparently not even in animals, as recent research also show how reductive and deterministic our understanding of their sexuality has been. 

[musclestuduws]

On 1/27/2023 at 11:53 AM, José Soplanucas said:

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.

 

Thank you for your apologies in the later posting. And I am pleasantly surprised reading this one. Now we’re actually talking and having a meaningful conversation. This is exactly what I meant in positioning the issue as a philosophical and political one, above all. You captured the spirit of it very well with your examples and suggestions. That’s what I meant. Let’s explore and favor perspectives that allow us to “open up” to and embrace the endless multiplicity of individual, changing behaviors. Human nature is defined by change and constant evolution. It’s just fruitless to try to encapsulate it with definitive explanations and absolute truths based on positivist, reductive science. As the history of science shows, those hard definitive truths were always proven wrong later. I believe that our capacity to go against that which is preordained and given to us defines the human condition and ultimately, what makes life worth living. 

Edited January 28, 2023 by musclestuduws

[pubic_assistance]

2 hours ago, musclestuduws said:

We’re not “ruled” by genetics. If you bother reading the massive amount of recent serious research on the subject, some of it shared on this thread, genes are only part (sometimes even a small part) within a complex, unpredictable, and highly dynamic network of multiple environmental factors, social norms, and individual behaviors, among other items.

THANK YOU.

Sadly there are a couple members here who will NOT read this because they hopelessly cling to their antiquated "born this way" narrative.

None the less if someone feels they never could have considered a heterosexual relationship than that is their journey and no one needs to question its authenticity.

I am however more interested in hearing about how the process of deciding went for others.

I identified as  straight in High School and early college years... Gay in my 20s then bisexual in my 30s until today. But all of those labels were primarily a matter of who I was in relationships with not necessarily following my sexual habits.

In the end I have always been bisexual..and we are seeing more and more young people identify based on a bisexual starting point not heteronormativity.

 

[musclestuduws]

30 minutes ago, arnemgreeves said:

Yes since the environment can control how genes are expressed. I did not say otherwise. Genetics can be influenced by the environment. You mentioned determinism and every organism has a defined genome.,

But the genome by no means determines sexual orientation. Genetic determinism is precisely saying that your genome defines your orientation (and anything else). 

[musclestuduws]

On 1/26/2023 at 6:55 PM, pubic_assistance said:

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 ).

Yeah, I also so wish we had a time machine to go back and make good on all the opportunities for hot sex we missed because we were not out yet or just shy, or else! 😁Wouldn’t that be something?  On the other hand, I might never return to the present… haha. 

[wsc]

On 1/27/2023 at 4:11 PM, pubic_assistance said:

We are getting way off topic.

No one is questioning whether homosexuality exists.

The thread is about people who have had heterosexual relationships in the past but decided that a homosexual relationship ( or single homosexual lifestyle ) better suited their needs.

I'll try not to beat the dead horse too hard but do wish to clarify my point in the previous post.

Neither my question, nor the video, sought to question the existence of gay people, but rather sought to explore their perpetuation and survival in the face of a threat posed by evolutionary processes, particularly if transmission of the orientation is biologically based. I thought this to be a reasonable and insightful line of enquiry.

The video -which I assume you did not watch- looks at multiple avenues of research which, as a whole, identify a number of biological factors (as in DNA and in-utero environmental) that could influence an individual's orientation. I thought the explanation of exclusively homosexual rams to be especially revealing.

The general gist at the end is that there is no single "gay gene" but there are numerous biology-based markers which may influence orientation or, in certain unidentified combinations, may even be determinative of orientation. And since there are degrees of "completeness" in those combinations, this may account for a range or scale of orientations.

I thought exploring this line of research served your interests and objectives as stated in the original post [edited by me]:

"I would like to ask how many members ultimately felt they CHOSE their sexual orientation as opposed to having it assigned?   It's interesting to me that so many gays are in complete denial of the ability to choose.   WHO ELSE CHOSE THEIR LIFESTYLE?"

I agree the lifestyle is a choice, but the basis for that choice -the orientation- is a more complex question.

A bird cannot choose to be a bird; it was born that way. But the choice of taking flight is only possible if it was born a bird in the first place, and that was not a choice but a gift of nature.

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by wsc

[Guest]

4 hours ago, musclestuduws said:

We’re not “ruled” by genetics.... individual behaviors...

You're being misleading. I don't think a single person on this string (certainly not myself) stated that sexual orientation was determined by genetics alone. There are obviously other factors involved, including well-identified maternal antibodies to which fetuses are exposed. Biological explanations go way beyond genetics. Also, you're confusing sexual orientation with "behaviors." Obviously a person can behave any way he likes, regardless of what he might prefer to do. I suppose if I lived in Iran or Saudi Arabia, I suspect I might prefer marrying a woman than risk being stoned to death and hooking up with a man (though I'd probably try to flee to the US, Europe, or other Western country to get asylum). We can all decide how we want to behave. We cannot, however, "decide" to be attracted to someone we're not attracted to, any more than we can "decide" to change our eye color or skin color. 

[musclestuduws]

42 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

You're being misleading. I don't think a single person on this string (certainly not myself) stated that sexual orientation was determined by genetics alone. There are obviously other factors involved, including well-identified maternal antibodies to which fetuses are exposed. Biological explanations go way beyond genetics. Also, you're confusing sexual orientation with "behaviors." Obviously a person can behave any way he likes, regardless of what he might prefer to do. I suppose if I lived in Iran or Saudi Arabia, I suspect I might prefer marrying a woman than risk being stoned to death and hooking up with a man (though I'd probably try to flee to the US, Europe, or other Western country to get asylum). We can all decide how we want to behave. We cannot, however, "decide" to be attracted to someone we're not attracted to, any more than we can "decide" to change our eye color or skin color. 

To compare sexual orientation with eye color only exposes how dogmatic your understanding of genetic determinism is. It’s a reductio ad absurdum that reveals the contradictions in your argument.  To claim that by saying “biological” instead of “genetic” you are contemplating environmental and sociocultural factors only shows how little you know about current evolutionary and performative notions of behavior, among other things. The examples about Iran and Saudi Arabia are just ridiculous insofar as what we discussed in regards to choice but they do expose how white, racist, and Eurocentric your political views are. As I said, the defenders of genetic/biological determinism, which are btw one and the same, are themselves unaware of how close their views align with the racial eugenics of fascism. Your comments and the racially loaded examples you chose conclusively prove this point.

Edited January 28, 2023 by musclestuduws

[+ nycman]

If you choose not to decide,
You still have made a choice.

- Rush

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, musclestuduws said:

... align with the racial eugenics of fascism...