View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: Sexual orientation | |
|
I've been thinking a bit about sexuality lately—that is, what makes a person straight as opposed to gay, or bisexual as opposed to asexual, or only attracted to women of a certain body shape or with a certain hair colour. Where does it come from?
There's a popular view nowadays that people are simply "born gay (or straight)"—that it's genetic. Now, while there's some scientific basis to that, it's a long way from proven. For me, it just takes us back to the same old nature/nurture problem.
One thing people get confused by is presuming that a sociological explanation means that alternative sexualities aren't 'natural', or that people freely choose them. Obviously, anyone who isn't a complete idiot knows that people don't get to choose their sexual orientation. Similarly, it seems practically impossible to change it in a clinical setting, even with years of counselling and a willing participant. Our sexual orientations seem to be an almost inextricable aspect of who we are.
If my suspicion is true, and environment plays at least some of a role in the development of sexuality, then what does that mean? How does it happen?
Many decades ago, it was the medical and cultural norm to see heterosexuality as the norm and anything else as a deviation. Of course, whether or not that is the case is a matter of perspective; what we know for sure is that homosexuality occurs naturally and has probably existed since the dawn of humankind. Saying it's a deviation doesn't really answer the question of why it (or bisexuality, or asexuality) occurs.
I used to think that we were all naturally bisexual, but were subconciously repressed in various ways. Now, my theory goes something like this: we (or, at least, most of us) are sexual beings, but blank slates—that is, without a preordained target for our desires. As our sexuality develops, most of us become obsessively fixated on a certain group or groups (say, men, or women, or perhaps just 'men of a certain body shape') and that becomes our lifelong sexual orientation.
What do you think? _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
Love chicks with nice legs, wearing glasses does something for me and I like their hair long and messy _________________ Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
Post subject: Re: Sexual orientation | |
|
David wrote: | Many decades ago, it was the medical and cultural norm to see heterosexuality as the norm and anything else as a deviation. Of course, whether or not that is the case is a matter of perspective; what we know for sure is that homosexuality occurs naturally and has probably existed since the dawn of humankind. Saying it's a deviation doesn't really answer the question of why it (or bisexuality, or asexuality) occurs. |
David I am NOT having a go at you but this para shows to me anyway your not living in the real world. The majority of the world are Heterosexual maybe being generous the others(for want of a better term) would make up a 30% minority.
The 30% make a lot of noise and use color for affect as they create their "look at me" campaigns to go for what is rightfully theirs full and equal rights. But they're still not a majority and in our world Majority rules. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
I would say 30% is very generous. Probably more like 5-10% at most (although it depends whether we're talking exclusively homosexual or 'queer', which is a broader umbrella group and a bigger percentage accordingly).
I'm confused by the rest of what you posted. On one level, you support gay rights, but you seem to have an issue with the "noise and colour" that's been such an important part of getting to that point? And I have no idea what you mean by "majority rules" in the context of this conversation.
As for me "not living in the real world", everything I said in that paragraph was true. It was once the norm to see heterosexuality as 'natural' and homosexuality as a disorder; nowadays, most people understand that both occur naturally and are perfectly normal. Perhaps you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
Interesting discussion. Where do you draw the line between fetish and sexuality? Some people have very specific and exclusive sexual fetishisation, whether it be something like feet, shoes or race or more 'deviant' like swinging or partner voyeurism. At what point does a fetish or excitement for same gender sex become bisexual. When it is the exclusive sexual exciter is someone then 'gay'? Can mental illness manifest as some kind of atypical sexual behaviour? We say that paedosexuals are 'sick' or 'mentally ill' because we don't like their specific exciter and yet if you posit that a gay man or lesbian is mentally ill you are an evil demon Nazi from hell.
I think we're a long way from understanding all this and like studying race it has become somewhat of an academic taboo. Nobody wants to find either a biological or genetic reason for homosexuality nor do they want to find there is an absence of one as neither result fits one agenda or another. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wokko wrote: | Where do you draw the line between fetish and sexuality? |
Great question—I don't know if I do, to be honest. I mean, finding breasts sexually appealing is in essence a fetish; just one shared by the vast majority of the heterosexual male population (and of course same-sex attracted women).
I don't think it's common these days in psychiatric circles to see any kind of sexual attraction as a manifestation of mental illness, though I could be wrong.
Is there really an academic taboo? I'm pretty sure there have been studies conducted over recent years; I'm just not sure that they've turned up anything particularly groundbreaking. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wokko wrote: | Where do you draw the line between fetish and sexuality? |
Where you draw the line is up to you.
Personally I like it drawn with whipped cream and Bailey's (but not when I'm wearing a teddy bear suit). |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | Wokko wrote: | Where do you draw the line between fetish and sexuality? |
Great question—I don't know if I do, to be honest. I mean, finding breasts sexually appealing is in essence a fetish; just one shared by the vast majority of the heterosexual male population (and of course same-sex attracted women).
I don't think it's common these days in psychiatric circles to see any kind of sexual attraction as a manifestation of mental illness, though I could be wrong.
Is there really an academic taboo? I'm pretty sure there have been studies conducted over recent years; I'm just not sure that they've turned up anything particularly groundbreaking. |
to kids? babies? _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
It's still listed in the DSM as a psychiatric disorder, I believe, but only under certain conditions (i.e. where the attraction is deemed to be harmful to the subject or to others). But I don't think it's considered a mental illness, strictly speaking. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | It's still listed in the DSM as a psychiatric disorder, I believe, but only under certain conditions (i.e. where the attraction is deemed to be harmful to the subject or to others). But I don't think it's a mental illness. |
so what do you call pediphilia?
priest disease??
_________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
This may shock you, but it's increasingly considered in psychiatric circles as a naturally-occurring sexual orientation. In many ways, it's every bit as mysterious as heterosexuality and homosexuality—a lot of conjecture, but we just don't know what causes it. What we do know is that people don't choose it and that it can't be 'cured'.
http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | This may shock you, but it's increasingly considered in psychiatric circles as a naturally-occurring sexual orientation. In many ways, it's every bit as mysterious as heterosexuality and homosexuality—a lot of conjecture, but we just don't know what causes it. What we do know is that people don't choose it and that it can't be 'cured'. |
I WONDER WHAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION VIC ROAD WORKERS ARE? IM GUESSING it involves TORTURE
and I STILL have nothing ugh _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: |
Great question—I don't know if I do, to be honest. I mean, finding breasts sexually appealing is in essence a fetish; just one shared by the vast majority of the heterosexual male population (and of course same-sex attracted women).
. |
You are 100% wrong there David.
A womans breasts are sex organs.
They are connected to the vagina by a string of nerves.
Those nerves are there to make feeding a baby a thing they like doing.
These nerves work before, during, and after pregnancy in fact as far as I can tell they never stop working.
Woman are turned by etc etc.
Men (like me) like stimulating nipples, cupping breasts, kissing, licking, rubbing up against etc etc because it excites their partners in a very special way.
They generally show there apprieciation in a highly agreeable way.
It isn't a fetishism, nor is same sex issue.
It's called good sex!
Long time Dave. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
Yes, time Dave seems very long to me too. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
3.14159 wrote: | David wrote: |
Great question—I don't know if I do, to be honest. I mean, finding breasts sexually appealing is in essence a fetish; just one shared by the vast majority of the heterosexual male population (and of course same-sex attracted women).
. |
You are 100% wrong there David.
A womans breasts are sex organs.
They are connected to the vagina by a string of nerves.
Those nerves are there to make feeding a baby a thing they like doing.
These nerves work before, during, and after pregnancy in fact as far as I can tell they never stop working.
Woman are turned by etc etc.
Men (like me) like stimulating nipples, cupping breasts, kissing, licking, rubbing up against etc etc because it excites their partners in a very special way.
They generally show there apprieciation in a highly agreeable way.
It isn't a fetishism, nor is same sex issue.
It's called good sex!
Long time Dave. |
Lol, please don't think that I disagree with you—I also think breasts are wonderful. When I say that they're fetishised, I don't mean that it's a bad thing; simply using it as a means of illustrating that a kind of fetishism is a natural part of everyone's sexuality. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|