Sexual Orientation is not a Choice

[glassjester]

A study conducted by researchers at the University of Wisconsin - Madison found the following:

We examined reports of sexual orientation identity
stability and change over a 10-year period drawing on data from
the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United
States (MIDUS I and II) and tested for three patterns: (1) heterosexual
stability, (2) female sexual fluidity, and (3) bisexual
fluidity. Fifty-four percent of the 2,560 participants were female
and the average age was approximately 47 years.

Overall, 55 (2.15%) participants
reported a different sexual orientation identity at Wave
2 compared to Wave 1. Among women, 1.36% with a heterosexual
identity changed, 63.63% with a homosexual identity
changed, and 64.71% with a bisexual identity changed. Among
men, 0.78% with a heterosexual identity changed, 9.52% with a
homosexual identity changed, and 47.06% with a bisexual identity
changed.

Link to the research - Published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior (2011) - http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1153.pdf

 

[glassjester]

The stuff you've quoted makes no reference to homosexuality being under any sort of conscious influence or control.

So, unless I've missed something you are claiming that since sexuality develops over time then it is a choice. Is that what you're saying?

If it is, then you will need to provide at least a tiny bit of evidence to support your position. Because at the moment you have given none.

I am saying sexual orientation does not exist. It's an illusion.

There is only who you choose to sexually interact with at any given time. That's it. That's all there is. There's no innate, fixed "orientation," - just your sexual habits.

Your own thoughts, decisions, beliefs, and actions shape your sexual habits.



Orientation Essentialism is completely unsupported by science, sociology, and anthropology.

 

[gcthomas]

I am saying sexual orientation does not exist. It's an illusion.

There is only who you choose to sexually interact with at any given time. That's it. That's all there is. There's no innate, fixed "orientation," - just your sexual habits.

Your own thoughts, decisions, beliefs, and actions shape your sexual habits.



Orientation Essentialism is completely unsupported by science, sociology, and anthropology.

You haven't supplied any evidence that choice can change someone from hetero- to homosexual, or vice versa.

That all attempts to develop a therapy to change gays to straight have failed, despite plenty of funding and effort, is evidence that orientation exists and it resistant to conscious influence.

You have presented nothing but assertion, so time to offer evidence.

 

[PureX]

I am saying sexual orientation does not exist. It's an illusion.

There is only who you choose to sexually interact with at any given time. That's it. That's all there is. There's no innate, fixed "orientation," - just your sexual habits.

Your own thoughts, decisions, beliefs, and actions shape your sexual habits.

Orientation Essentialism is completely unsupported by science, sociology, and anthropology.

It's amazing how foolish a person will become when stuck in an 'auto-defend' mode by their own ego.

This post is patently absurd. If our own thoughts, decisions, beliefs, and actions shape our sexual habits, and nothing else, then most animal species would be incapable of sexual interaction, because they are not capable of generating complex thoughts, making conscious decisions, holding conscious beliefs, or acting with conscious fore-thought. And yet not only do all animal species engage in sexual interactions, but they do so in an overwhelmingly heterosexual manner. Which to anyone with a functioning intellect, would indicate that both the desire for sex and the desire for heterosexual sex is biologically innate, by way of genetic coding. And we humans, being animals as well, are also just as predisposed to sexual activity, and to overwhelmingly heterosexual activity, and other animal species.

We are capable of more complex thought than most other animal species, and we are more capable of conscious self-awareness and any other animal species we know of, though, and so it is not surprising that our behavior, sexually and otherwise, would be effected by these human traits. So that it is reasonable to assume (and the facts bare this out) that there will be more human beings representing sexual extremes than in any other animal species: such as non-sexual, homosexual, psycho-sexual, and auto-erotic sexual behaviors. These occur in some other animal species, but to a minimal degree, as the mental capacity generally associate with them is not present.

 

[glassjester]

It's amazing how foolish a person will become when stuck in an 'auto-defend' mode by their own ego.

This post is patently absurd. If our own thoughts, decisions, beliefs, and actions shape our sexual habits, and nothing else, then most animal species would be incapable of sexual interaction

I didn't say that the desire for sexual interaction is chosen (that is inborn - otherwise, like you said, there'd be no animals at all!). But our sexual habits are chosen. We choose with whom to satisfy the physical desire for sex. These choices (not only choices resulting in actual sexual activity, but any desires we decide to encourage or discourage in ourselves) determine our taste in partners.

We, as a species, physically hunger for sex. It's an appetite. But we choose how to satisfy that appetite. Just like hunger for food.

This does not imply that we choose to hunger for food. But we absolutely shape our own eating habits and our eating preferences. Ultimately, our tastes and desires for certain foods will change and increase/decrease based on our habits.

Again - I'm not saying we choose to want or not want sex, in itself. It is a physical appetite. We choose what actions to take in response to this appetite. These actions form patterns of behavior (habits). These habits then lead to certain preferences (taste), and increases/decreases in sexual appetite.

We have all sorts of natural, inborn desires - we naturally desire sex, food, rest, social interaction, physical activity, etc.

The desires themselves are most certainly inborn, and necessary for survival. How we go about satisfying those desires is a matter of choice. Habits form over time. Based on our actions - which we choose.

I don't choose to desire food, in itself.
But I do choose how much to eat, when to eat, and what to eat.

I don't choose to desire sex, in itself.
But I do choose how much to have sex, when to have sex, and with whom.


Of all the innate desires human beings have, why is sex the only one which is put on this imaginary pedestal that transcends choice and will?

We are capable of more complex thought that most other animal species, and we are more capable of conscious self-awareness and any other animal species we know of, though, and so it is not surprising that our behavior, sexually and otherwise, would be effected by these human traits. So that is is reasonable to assume (and the facts bare this out) that there will be more human beings representing sexual extremes than in any other animal species: such as non-sexual, homosexual, psycho-sexual, and auto-erotic sexual behaviors. These occur in some other animal species, but to a minimal degree, as the mental capacity generally associate with them is not present.

I totally agree!

 

[glassjester]

It's amazing how foolish a person will become when stuck in an 'auto-defend' mode by their own ego.

If attempting to insult me helps you to become more the person you wish to be, then have at it, Brother. :thumb:

 

[PureX]

I didn't say that the desire for sexual interaction is chosen (that is inborn - otherwise, like you said, there'd be no animals at all!). But our sexual habits are chosen. We choose with whom to satisfy the physical desire for sex. These choices (not only choices resulting in actual sexual activity, but any desires we decide to encourage or discourage in ourselves) determine our taste in partners.

There have been many studies done showing that sexual "choices" (of partners and behaviors) are based as much on chemical interactions and biological responses to visual stimuli as they are on "habit" or conscious deliberations. Your theory is bogus, but your ego is not going to let you let it go.

We, as a species, physically hunger for sex. It's an appetite. But we choose how to satisfy that appetite. Just like hunger for food.

All animals hunger. Few of them "choose" to satisfy that hunger. They satisfy it automatically relative to opportunity, habit, and to a great degree, by genetically transferred 'instinct'. These have been studied in many species, and documented. But are just as obvious to anyone with an observant eye and a reasonable mind.

This does not imply that we choose to hunger for food. But we absolutely shape our own eating habits and our eating preferences. Ultimately, our tastes and desires for certain foods will change and increase/decrease based on our habits.

"Shaping" existing conditions through choice is not what you were originally touting. You were originally proclaiming that: "… sexual orientation does not exist. It's an illusion", and that: "Orientation essentialism is completely unsupported by science, sociology, and anthropology", which is patently untrue in both cases.

Again - I'm not saying we choose to want or not want sex, in itself. It is a physical appetite. We choose what actions to take in response to this appetite. These actions form patterns of behavior (habits). These habits then lead to certain preferences (taste), and increases/decreases in sexual appetite.

You're still wrong. We want sex in all kinds of ways, different at different times relative to conditions and circumstances, some of which we are conscious of, and many we are not. We cannot make choices about those desires of which we are not even aware. So we cannot "shape" those desires by the choices we don't make. We are not only driven to want/not want sex. We are driven to want/not want certain kinds of sex, based on certain kinds of stimuli, most of which is sub-conscious and circumstantial. None of which we can consciously control through choice.

Give it up, Dude, you lost this argument a long time ago. Reality is not on your side.

We have all sorts of natural, inborn desires - we naturally desire sex, food, rest, social interaction, physical activity, etc.

The desires themselves are most certainly inborn, and necessary for survival. How we go about satisfying those desires is a matter of choice. Habits form over time. Based on our actions - which we choose.

I don't choose to desire food, in itself.
But I do choose how much to eat, when to eat, and what to eat.

Well, you think you do. But to what degree? In truth, you only choose when you are aware of more than one option. Which is not the case a lot of the time. And even then, choosing to forgo a food you're genetically predisposed not to like isn't really even a choice, is it? It's just you following a genetic directive. You just THINK it's a choice.

I don't choose to desire sex, in itself.
But I do choose how much to have sex, when to have sex, and with whom.

The truth is that you almost never really choose any of that. But your ego is telling you that you're "in charge", and so you imagine that you are doing all this choosing.

Of all the innate desires human beings have, why is sex the only one which is put on this imaginary pedestal that transcends choice and will?

It's not. It's just the one we're talking about, today.

 

[CabinetMaker]

People have been known to act against their natures. Some times for years. They may even start families and rise to promenant positions before their true nature finally asserts itself. Ask Ted Hagger.

 

[glassjester]

"Shaping" existing conditions through choice is not what you were originally touting.

You just made that up. Hopefully it's an inadvertent lie.

From the opening post: "Our tastes are shaped by our own choices and actions. Taste in partners is no exception. We choose what music to listen to, what books to read, and what food to eat."

You were originally proclaiming that: "… sexual orientation does not exist. It's an illusion", and that: "Orientation essentialism is completely unsupported by science, sociology, and anthropology", which is patently untrue in both cases.

Orientation essentialism is unsupported by science, sociology, and anthropology. If not, then support it. Go ahead.

We are not only driven to want/not want sex. We are driven to want/not want certain kinds of sex

You just made that up.

In truth, you only choose when you are aware of more than one option.

And by convincing people that they have an innate, immutable orientation (not scientifically supported), they become less aware of their options to change. And so, less able to change.

The fact is, many people do change their orientation. A significant portion of homosexuals do so. (See University of Wisconsin study)

And even then, choosing to forgo a food you're genetically predisposed not to like isn't really even a choice, is it? It's just you following a genetic directive. You just THINK it's a choice.

This makes no sense. Example: People can love the taste of sugary foods. People can crave sugary foods. Become addicted, even. Then decide to give them up completely, and eventually come to hate the taste of sweetened foods. This happens. That's reality.

The truth is that you almost never really choose any of that. But your ego is telling you that you're "in charge", and so you imagine that you are doing all this choosing.

Excellent psychoanalysis. You just made that up.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ok. So we assume it's "hardwired" for anyone that doesn't ever change their orientation.

And when people do change their orientation, then it's only them for whom orientation is not "hardwired." Had they not changed, we would still assume it was "hardwired."

In other words, you have a belief - namely, that orientation is innate and does not change. When evidence contradicts your belief, rather than admit your belief was wrong, you simply claim those people are the exception to your infallible belief.

How many exceptions must their be for the rule to be wrong?



Based on your knowledge of the topic:
What percentage of people with a homosexual orientation have it "hardwired"?
Is it possible that, of the non-hardwired variety of homosexual, some decide not to change it? In this case, how would you ever know it wasn't "hardwired"?

It's hardwired for me as I've explained to you several times already, as have plenty of others but you just don't listen as it crumples your own "infallible belief".

I saw girls in a different way to boys from being a toddler. I may not have been particularly aware of why at such a young age but it soon became obvious and that was simply innate. Any sexual attractions I had through puberty were towards women only and that was not a choice. That stuck. All of my romantic/sexual feelings have always been towards the opposite sex and I didn't choose any of it.

Now if I go with your "theory" then theoretically I should be able to start liking the same gender if there's no innate orientation but as I've told you before, the chances of that happening percentage wise is any number multiplied by zero.

Now unless you're going to be arrogant enough to try and tell me what I can and cannot choose then that's your case blown out the water. I can choose to act on impulses but I can't choose what those impulses are. Now some people may not have an inbuilt hardwired orientation which I could find feasible, but your notion that nobody has one is just total baloney.