Interesting Observation Concerning Sexuality and Choice

Post Reply New Topic

To be fair, I think that is less true of my generation than of yours. Because gays aren't marginalized as much these days I think it generally has fewer effects on such things. Being gay is an aspect of someone's identity, but not a defining aspect. For instance, I'd declare myself as a science nerd before I identify myself as gay. Of course, being gay does have an impact on my political stance (I'd never vote for the Conservatives), although in my case it's irrelevant because the left-of-center parties all support gay rights right now anyway. But in terms of culture, my love for musicals began long before I realized I was gay, and I have little interest in the gay magazines out there. Ultimately I think (hope) that homosexuality will just be accepted to the point where there's no reason for there to be any subculture beyond that stemming from some unique needs--most of what is currently a part of that subculture will simply be mixed into the main culture.

I disagree. I think that the cultural identity of your generation of LGBT people is even more distinct than mine was. Our culture has become more normalized--but that is not the same thing at all as being assimilated into the larger culture.

I have no interest in seeing our culture mix into the main culture. Cultural diversity is crucial to our society. It doesn't matter whether cultural diversity is based on language, ethnicity, sexuality, religion or disability, the distinctiveness of our cultures is a key strength.

Sorry to just reply to the OP without reading the entire thread, but it caught my attention and I wanted to quickly reply.

Yes, I believe human sexuality is a choice.
Yes, I include myself in that statement.
No, I do not think of myself as "ignorant" or "repressed."
No, I do not believe there is a "default" or "normal" sexuality.

In other words it is a huge cognitive leap from "homosexuality is a lifestyle choice" to "therefore everyone should choose to be straight cuz it's NORMAL!" so please don't assume that because I believe the former, I also believe the latter.

I did not realize until very recently (on these forums) that my saying "homosexuality is a choice" could possibly be construed as "offensive" in any way. I always felt the exact opposite, that "gays can't control their behavior because they are born that way" is very demeaning whereas "consenting adults should be free to choose their sex life" is empowering. But I now appreciate the counter-argument a little bit better, thanks.

You choose to define your sexuality one way. Others will choose to define their sexuality in other ways. And different people will have different opinions regarding human sexuality as a whole.

There's nothing inherently "wrong" with "behavioral determinism" besides the fact you disagree with it and don't think it accurately defines your sexuality. If you think your sexuality is an important part of your cultural identity and you choose to define it in a particular manner, great, but I know many other sexuals who define their sexuality, and it's relevance to their lives, in ways that don't resemble your opinions in the slightest.

Frankly, I can find nothing in Hyram_Inesh's posts that's "offensive" or "anti-gay" or homophobic. He just doesn't view sexuality in the same terms that you do. Rather than taking offense, maybe you should try to convince the rest of us that your view of human sexuality is the "correct" one.

And it's your choice to believe that.

Well, I admit I haven't really mixed much with other LGBT youths. I suspect we might both be right in a way: on the one hand a subculture isn't as necessary anymore because there is more tolerance, but on the other people are coming out sooner than they used to and as such those that are in the subculture are more visible. And there are some ways in which people can be be a part of the culture on the but at the same time have a distinct (perhaps more important identity). I'm thinking, for example, of pictures I saw of a Toronto Pride Parade (it might have been this year's, or maybe last year's) where there were a group of youths wearing Green Party shirts. Mind you, I suppose maybe that's not so different then what you say about how you became involved in local theater.

I agree that cultural diversity is a good thing, but the reason I'm unsure about it in this case is because the diversity was born out off discrimination. I suppose my usual views on such matters still hold: integration and not assimilation. Encourage people to be part of the broader culture and share their own culture, but not loose it. Still doesn't change the fact that I personally have no interest in LGBT culture (beyond maybe walking in a Pride Parade in a Green Party shirt).

I think behavioral determinism is legally risky. So long as sexual orientation means nothing more than one's sexual behavior, then there is no legal basis on which to argue, for example, that same sex marriage or protection from discrimination are justified. Canadian law recognized in the late 1980's that sexual orientation was an "immutable characteristic." The law recognizes that even if sexual orientation can be changed, it cannot be done easily or without significant impact on the individual. Thus, like religion, sexual orientation is worthy of protection under section 15 of the Charter. The entire corpus of Canadian constitutional law on the subject of sexual orientation is predicated on a finding of immutability. If we proclaim a view of sexuality that sets out that sexuality is a mutable characteristic, subject only to conscious choice, then we will have removed a fundamental pillar that supports our legal protection.

Second, I think that behavioral determinism supports an argument that sexual minorities require no protection in society because the manifestation of our distinctiveness extends no farther than the bedroom. If we choose to be gay, then we do so in the full knowledge that we acquire a diminished package of civil liberties as a result, and have no legal cause for complaint thereafter. On the other have, if our sexuality (whether gay, straight, bisexual or otherwise) is an inherent characteristic, and we choose whether or not to give expression to that characteristic, then we take away any support from the, "love the sinner, hate the sin," approach to civil liberties.

I certainly recognize the divergence of opinion. I don't expect others to adopt my opinions in preference to their own--but I do expect a free and democratic society to adopt public policy that embraces the broadest possible range of diversity of opinion, with only those reasonable limits that are necessary to a free and democratic society.

My opinion is sufficiently broad to encompass yours, and Hyram_Inesh's. But yours are not broad enough to encompass mine. Which, then, is the better basis on which to build a society? My view of sexuality is grounded in that liberalism--the notion that I, as a participant in society, carry all of my characteristics with me, and that I should be free to do so.

Thank you for the honest and open answer. The conversation in the thread has become interesting now and has taken on the dynamic of choice vs. born which is where a lot of discussions tend to lead in this issue. I follow the belief that born or choice, the individual deserves respect and fair treatment. To further clarify, my questioning of motive and reasoning was more directed at opponents of homosexuality rather than those who are accepting or tolerant. I wasn't exactly going for that cognitive leap either but I can see how it would be viewed that way. As mentioned earlier by another poster the comment I brought up seems to be an interesting lack of theory of mind of a great deal of people...

So anyone who may have been unintentionally offended or feeling attacked please do not take it that way. My concern was the motive behind the statements, not the validity of them or how one should behave.

Zero offense taken.

I think if there's a lesson I learned here it's the fine line between "opinion" and "agenda."

For example two people share the same opinion that sexuality is biologically pre-determined, but one adopts a pro-gay-rights agenda and the other an anti-gay-rights agenda. Likewise two people could share a pro-gay-rights agenda even while disagreeing in opinion over the root cause.

Mushroo, may I ask, what specifically makes you think human sexuality is a choice? When every reputable and proffessional study done on human sexuality by psychologists and scientists in the past few decades supports that it is in no way a choice, and cannot not be changed or reveresed.

Yes, there is not yet definitive proof that sexuality is not a choice, but there is a mountain of evidence, both psychological and scientific, gathered that supports its not a choice (I'm not the type to just pull examples out of my ass, but I can if you'd like). However, there's NO reputable or scientific evidence that supports human sexuality is a choice.

So looking at things from a purely logical stand point, with absolutely no agenda or bias, looking at just the evidence I don't see why anyone in their right mind would believe its a choice, unless ignorance clouds their belief on the matter.

Last edited by Scotch_Bingington on 04 Nov 2011, 2:55 am, edited 2 times in total.

I tend to think that this idea that "homosexuality is a choice" is really ignorant. This would also imply that heterosexuality is a choice, as well as non-sexuality (of the three "choices" this one is probably the only one that is partially accurate, as there are some who are naturally uninterested in sex and also others who were but lost interest or did not enjoy it or just don't care but still feel urges). So essentially there are three choices, according to this plan (yes, I know there are more than just three "choices" but in my opinion this is the view of those who support the "choice" argument, whether they recognize it or not) and they make the clear distinction that one of them is wrong and that those who choose it also have the power to be non-sexual if they won't be heterosexual, and thus be repressed and invisible due to their acceptance of the "inferiority" of their natural behavior according to the "laws of society". I am heterosexual because this is the way I am from birth, the only choice I can make is to stop engaging in intercourse with the people I am naturally attracted to, women. Not happening! The same can be said for someone who prefers the same sex, or has no preference.

Neither one of us has provided any scientific evidence whatsoever, we are just sharing opinions.

As to what specifically has caused me to form this opinion, I believe that human beings are not automatons, we have free will & choice. Specifically how it relates to sexuality, I believe we are all wired with the nerve endings to enjoy the physical stimulus of sex with either gender. It is the combination of cultural conditioning and formative erotic experiences that shapes our adult sexuality.

As I've tried to be very clear above, I don't believe that one preference is more "normal" or "better" than the other. I believe the only reason that heterosexuality is as popular as it is today is due to the incredible stigma against homosexuality. In a world where all preferences were equally valued I think we'd see something like 20% strict hetero, 20% strict homo, 60% bi (and a small but beautiful number of "other").

Anyways I understand and value your opinion, but no study you can show will convince me that same-sex attraction is exclusive to the 10% of the population that identifies as "homosexual." I think the 10% are just the brave ones who act on these "forbidden" desires despite the cultural pressures.

My feelings are a little hurt but I respect your right to say that.



Yes.



No no no! Please carefully reread everything I've said previously. "I have a choice between apples and oranges, and I choose the apple" but it does NOT logically follow "therefore apples are good, oranges are bad, and all the oranges should stop being oranges and try to be apples instead (or cease being fruit altogether)."



I believe there is a minority of people who are really truly 100% straight or gay, I also believe that you could be one of these people, however to really truly know for sure we'd need your identical twin separated at birth and raised in a society where homosexuality is the norm and heterosexuals are maligned. "Nature vs. nurture" is a tricky question to prove without venturing into extremely questionable medical ethics.

Views that are so firmly fixed are dangerous. Everyone must be willing to change their opinion if confronted with good evidence.

What about opinions such as "same-sex attraction is natural and normal" or "gays deserve equal rights"? Must I be willing to discard these opinions as well? To whom exactly are these firmly-held opinions "dangerous"?

All right then, let's start diving into neuroanatomy.

During the last twenty years, or so, anatomical sex differences in the brain have been observed in a number of neural substrates. Further studies have examined dimorphism within (as opposed to between) sexes, with sexual orientation presenting itself as an obvious candidate for correlation with morphological differences.

The first study on morphological difference in the hypothalmus that I know if is Swaab and Hofman's, "An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2085769). This was followed by study of the interstitial nucleus 3 of the anterior hypothalmus (INAH-3) located in the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the pre-optic area (SDN-POA) that demonstrated further linkage between physiology and sexual orientation. Simon LeVay's "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men" (See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1887219) is the first study on that structure.

The INAH-3 and the SDN have homologs in other mammalian brains (as well as some other species), and comparable studies have demonstrated corresponding findings in, for example sheep (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14525915), monkeys (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/414825) and ferrets (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez).

Even more interesting is Allen's study "Sexual orientation and the size of the anterior commissure in the human brain." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1496013) because the AC is an anatomical structure that is not known to be related to sexual function, but nonetheless demonstrates morphological differences between heterosexual men, homosexual men and women.

These studies have all focussed on male homosexuality (as the SDN is primarily believed to regulate male sexual response). In the case of female homosexuality, a sexual-orientation dimorphism has yet to be identified. (See, for example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15639177)

Further study has found comparable dimorphism related to transexuality (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7477289). Of particular interest is that the dimorphism observed was independent of sexual orientation. FTM transexuals demonstrated similar differences regardless of whether their sexual orientation was male oriented or female oriented.

So what does all this tell us? Well, we can say with increasing certainty that there is empirical evidence that male homosexual brains and male heterosexual brains are morphologically different, in predictable ways, and there is evidence that the same may be true of transexual brains.

But there is much that we don't yet know. Perhaps most importantly, we do not understand why this is so. In addition, we don't yet have an analog to correlate with female homosexuality and we do not yet understand how bisexual orientation relates to these anatomical structures. But none of these shortcomings serve to invalidate the empirical evidence of dimorphism.



It seems to me that your assertion that "we ar all wired with the nerve ending to enjoy the physical stimulus of sex with either gender," is incomplete--and more importantly it is inconsistent with neuroanatomical studies that demonstrate that male homosexual brains are, in fact, wired differently than male heterosexual brains, and not just in the areas of the brain that regulate sexual response.

Now, your assertion that cultural conditioning and formative experience shapes adult sexuality may well be true--but if that is the case then we would fully expect structures like INAH-3, the AC, the SCN and the BSTc to develop (or to further develop) at or after puberty. While there is evidence of postnatal neurogenesis on a fairly restricted scale, there is no evidence to demonstrate that anatomical structures like these are subject to significant postnatal development.

But even if this is the case, then we are still left with the circumstance that, having developed in characteristic fashion, these structures will continue to exercise governance over individual behaviour.



There's no question that culture influences behavior, and can certainly inhibit response. A permissive culture certainly gives its members the freedom to act in ways that a more restrictive culture does not.

But I maintain that sexual orientation is not identical to sexual behaviour. I do not disagree for a moment that we have conscious control of the latter. But I maintain that there is solid scientific evidence to demonstrate that the former (for males) is hardwired.