Kevin's Watch

I think the purely erotic/desire aspect is biological period...but that the biology is not purely yes/no [homo-hetero]. Just like eye color is strictly bio-determined, and yet its expression in the color of a particular pair of eyes is almost infinitely flexible.
Later learned things can and do affect what happens/what we choose to do about it, of course. But I also think there is a cultural structure enforcement that confuses the issue, and forces choices with wide ranging, mostly bad, effects. For example, the strictures on males and emotions, personal tale:
From early high-school until my middle 20's, I had a male friend I, almost literally, couldn't have lived without. I was an emotionally extravagant person [still am, sometimes, but back then it was always]...but not what peeps like to call "fragile" or "emo" nowadays. You might catch me crying, but picking on me for it was more likely to make me try to beat you bloody than cringe or hide or run. Now, this closeness brought out the "they're gay" judgement in almost everyone, friends as well as enemies, some supportive, some otherwise. In a way, the appearance made the judgement seem valid, by cultural rules. But here's the thing: Any pretty girl, no matter how well or little I knew her, could potentially get me immediately all het up. And, no matter how much he and I soothed/supported each other, over all those years, I never got turned on.
Point being: we have created a system that functions as if emotion/sex were connected with massive chains when the actual relationship between them is far more loose, free, and fluid...not a necessary connection at all, simply that, when aligned [I love the person I'm sleeping with] the two enhance each other.
Which is why I laugh my butt off whenever some dork says football is really just an acceptable homo-erotic activity.
The rules for women aren't quite as narrow, they have a wider field of play...but when you reach the boundaries, it's just as rigid.
But the conflation of emotion and sex is, all in all, a really nasty piece of work.

I tend to agree.

As far as other circumstances affecting your decisions, Cambo, that's true.. however, I don't think social prowess has to have anything to do with it. Being accepted is important to some people, but not to others. Some derive their identity by doing the opposite of what's socially acceptable.

Very true Orlion, but I'm still kind of sceptical about just how much choice we can exert over our sexualities. I'm just trying to follow your line of thought and suss out the possible implications, so bear with me if I don't fully grasp some things

Yeah, I think I agree with Cambo there. You don't wake up one day and decide to start a fetish for high heels or whatever.

Now environment and history may well lay the foundations of some sort of paraphilia, but I don't think anybody consciously chooses what turns them on.

--A

From what Orlion has said it seems like he thinks we DO choose what turns us on, maybe even unconsciously, very early on, and that choice becomes ingrained over time until we see it as part of our nature.

That makes it sound like a habit. Habits can be broken, no matter how strong they are. People quitting smoking often use the technique of doing something else pleasurable when they would usually smoke, like having a snack or, um doing yoga or something (making this shit up as I go along).

Orlion, do you think if every time I found myself thinking sexually about a woman, I deliberately thought about sex with a man, I could become gay?? I know you've said there's no reason for people to change their sexualities, but under your theory wouldn't that be theoretically possible?

I find the idea of choosing to be heterosexual laughable. It was not in any way a choice for me. And I saw plenty of attractive guys as I grew up in movies, tv, and ads. Being attracted to women instead of men was not a choice, and I couldn't have chosen to be attracted to men instead.

I agree Fist, and I think the vast majority of prejudice and oppression directed at gay people arises from the assumption that it IS a choice, and the further belief that the choice is a reprehensible one.

This is completely off topic, but what does your avatar depict? I assume it is one of the Haruchai, but what is he doing? Heh. I mentioned in another thread here how curious I am. Getting my labels ready...

My av is the cover of the book Gilden-Fire. It was originally a chapter in The Illearth War, but SRD took it out for various reasons. Still, he liked it enough to have it published on its own, and it's in his collection called Daughter of Regals. Go read it, and tell me which Haruchai it is, and what he's doing!

Try The Illearth War, Fist

Cambo wrote:I agree Fist, and I think the vast majority of prejudice and oppression directed at gay people arises from the assumption that it IS a choice, and the further belief that the choice is a reprehensible one.

Yep, but the mistake in this view (IMO, of course) is the assumption that homosexuality is reprehensible and that it's a choice easily reversible. Like you said, Cambo, it kinda becomes a "habit"...only much, much, stronger. Some people might find it "easier" to reverse than others, others nearly impossible. To use the smoking example, I've known people who've quit with some effort, and I've known people who can't seem to quit no matter what they do.

Not trying to convince you guys otherwise... it seems we hold our beliefs for much the same reason: as proof that there's nothing reprehensible about homosexuality.

Thank you. Can't imagine how I did that.


(Now I have to edit your post, so there's no evidence that I did it in the first place. Ah, being a mod is fun!)

Orlion wrote:Not trying to convince you guys otherwise... it seems we hold our beliefs for much the same reason: as proof that there's nothing reprehensible about homosexuality.

That is the most important thing. However, many won't think it is anything other than reprehensible/a disease on society/disgusting. And part of the reason for that is that they see it as a choice. I actually do know a woman who chose to be homosexual. And she gave it up eventually. I think extreme anger at the opposite sex, because of abuse, is usually the reason for this.

But not nearly all people who are abused in any way by the opposite sex choose to be homosexual, and not nearly all homosexuals were abused by the opposite sex. There is no environmental cause of homosexuality in the majority of cases. And many fight against it for years and decades. I know a woman who was married with a couple kids who eventually couldn't live that way any longer. Her kids were into their teens when she left her husband, and began living an openly homosexual life. She did not "choose" to be homosexual, and she tried her very best to "choose" to be heterosexual. But that's not how it works.

Hmmm...I'm not quite sure what you were agreeing with in mine Orlion, since I don't see choice much involved in orientation. Some are born purely straight, some purely gay, and some with greater or lesser preferences [maybe they're the lucky ones...for them there is some choice, and they can suppress one side or the other for whatever reason, and still have a chance for happiness/satisfaction...or suppress neither and vastly expand their chances for getting some.]

Or was it the sex/emotion part you liked?

Anyway...there were some interesting early studies showing that sexual orientation can naturally change over time, though I don't know if it's been pursued any further. But, just like I never liked any beans, and loved Lobster 30 years ago, and now love beans [except baked...yuck] and can't even look at lobster without getting ill, some people's orientation changes with age.

And Av...there's some evidence that fetish behavior is an imprinting process...pretty much like a baby duck imprints whatever happens to be around at the right time as "mom." The stranger ones are just rarer forms of a "leg man" or an "ass man" [and/or the female equivalents].

My experience of those who claim it's a choice and hate it [as opposed to Orlion, who doesn't hate because of it] is that, if you argue with them long enough, you find out many of them don't hate it because they believe it's a choice, the want to believe it's a choice because they hate it. Many of the various -isms are the same: they claim reasons/beliefs cause the hate, but really they hate, and so pick their reasons/beliefs.

I read an online rant about how "isms" were destroying the world, and we should all do our utmost to get rid of them. The guy thought he had a good thing going, citing all these terrible isms and their crimes-fascism, communism, sexism, racism, feminism, etc ad nauseum. Then someone came along and accused him of "antidogmatism!"

Cambo wrote:. Then someone came along and accused him of "antidogmatism!"

Damn, that made me snort beer out my nose. Hysterical.

Vraith wrote:And Av...there's some evidence that fetish behavior is an imprinting process...pretty much like a baby duck imprints whatever happens to be around at the right time as "mom." The stranger ones are just rarer forms of a "leg man" or an "ass man" [and/or the female equivalents].

Which pretty much removes it from the realm of conscious choice as far as I'm concerned.

--A

How do people get imprinted with exotic behaviours hardly anyone knows about? Does the exposure have to happen in the formative years, or can it happen anythime?

Cambo wrote:How do people get imprinted with exotic behaviours hardly anyone knows about? Does the exposure have to happen in the formative years, or can it happen anythime?

I'd say some behaviours are the sum of simpler imprints.
And I'd have to agree with Av... imprinting is more the product of environment than choice.. imprinting is probably what forms the individual that will eventually be able to make the choice.

Orlion wrote:

Cambo wrote:How do people get imprinted with exotic behaviours hardly anyone knows about? Does the exposure have to happen in the formative years, or can it happen anythime?

I'd say some behaviours are the sum of simpler imprints.
And I'd have to agree with Av... imprinting is more the product of environment than choice.. imprinting is probably what forms the individual that will eventually be able to make the choice.

I think yes, at least this is part of our individual "ground."
Cambo: The general outline was this: they could trace the attraction [the biggest study group was shoe fetish peeps] to pre-puberty. Many of the volunteers could actually recall a specific moment when they realized the attraction. [One guy was pretty funny about it..."I always liked to draw, I'd draw anything all the time...suddenly I was always drawing shoes, and I was so embarassed that if I was drawing something for anyone to see, I didn't dare put feet on them.] Happened between 7 and 13 for almost all. However, the sexual component happened later, but with lots of variation.
They were unable to determine if that was because of different sexual developement in the peeps, or just different opportunities/exposures for the sexual component to express itself.

Just responding to the original question.
Lots of my strait friends have had sex with my gay friends. They are clearly not gay.
Then there's me-- I'm gay in every way you could imagine, except the most important one: I'm not terribly attracted to dudes. I enjoy gay porn, I've had two gay encounters, but here's the fact:
I'm crazy, crazy, crazy for girls.
When I was 18 I had convinced myself that I was gay. I was really happy and excited about this until I caught myself ogling some leggy college student in a sun dress one fine afternoon.
"Who are you kidding?" I asked myself, "you never get this excited from some dude walking down the street!"
Another important factor is not sex at all, but love.
I love many men, very deeply. I have even held hands and looked at the stars with a man, but...
I've never fallen in love with a man. I've fallen in love with women time and time again.
All of my gay friends, all of them, fall in love with same sex!

Yes, LZ, romance seems an important part in determining sexuality. Of course, you get some people who aren't interested in love whatsoever, but I guess it's the difference between being unable to fall in love with a guy and not wanting to..

Cambo wrote:How do people get imprinted with exotic behaviours hardly anyone knows about? Does the exposure have to happen in the formative years, or can it happen anythime?

As Orlion said, I'd imagine that it's not the method of expression (the behaviour) that gets "imprinted," but that what does get imprinted eventually leads to the behaviour.

--A