Sexual orientation

[David]

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?

[Skids]

Love chicks with nice legs, wearing glasses does something for me and I like their hair long and messy

[1061]

[David]

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.

[Wokko]

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]

[3.14159]

[think positive]

[David]

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.

[think positive]

[David]

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

[think positive]

[3.14159]

[HAL]

Yes, time Dave seems very long to me too.

[David]