Interesting Observation Concerning Sexuality and Choice

Post Reply New Topic

Visagrunt, I am grateful for your thoughtful and well-researched reply.

In particular you are starting to slowly win me over with this argument:

Natural this opens a whole "can of worms" for example: If there are morphological differences, do they extend beyond the brain, to other parts of the body, for example the various erogenous zones? Can a person "exercise" the gay part of the brain and gradually become gay through diligent practice? (Conversely will it atrophy if not regularly used?) What about people whose brain structure appears the opposite of their sexual orientation, are they "faking it" or have we discovered a new category of "trans" (StG, GtS)? Could a "gay test" be invented to predict whether a child will grow up to be straight or gay? And of course the horrific question, if homosexuality is caused by a detectable feature of the brain, and a simple surgical procedure invented, would it be ethical for parents to "correct" their "abnormal" child at birth?

Cans of worms indeed. But I'll speculate on them, a bit. (Be warned, this will be more of a stream of consciousness than a researched response...)

Certainly behaviors can be learned, and reinforced through repetition. How many unpleasant things do we do because we know we have to do them? How much easier, then, to learn a behaviour that is, if nothing else, physically pleasurable? I have no doubt that I could undertake sexual intercourse with a female partner but I know full well that there would not be the same mental immersion in the act that I have with male partner. Would that immersion come with time? I have no way of knowing.

How many thousands of GtoS men were there in the early twentieth century, living in sexually unsatisfactory marriages because that was the role that society imposed upon them. How many unsuspecting women married men in such circumstances? The early history of the gay movement is filled with such stories. Were they GtoS because they married and fathered children, or were they simply gay men who were engaging in heterosexual activity because it was the only sexual activity open to them? How many ceased to have any sexual relationships with their wives after they discovered the parks, the beaches, the beer bashes and all the other clandestine gay meeting places? Is this GtoS, or is it just "cover?" Each individual case is, of course, different. Maybe there are some who happily settled into heterosexual bliss, after all, that's not particularly newsworthy. But we know that thousands upon thousands didn't. To this day, people continue to divorce their opposite sex spouses when it transpires that one of them realizes that he or she is homosexual.

As for erogenous zones, consider the wide variety of human sexual behaviour. Each of us is aroused by different characteristics--not merely the sex of a potential partner, but a variety of other factors. Each of us prefers some sexual activities over others. Gay men, apparently, have a particularly broad range of sexual behaviors, if Dan Savage's latest column is to be believed (to which belief I am inclined). From my own experience, I know that my enthusiasm for some things has changed over time--some I like better, some I like less. (Generally speaking, as I have aged, my repertoire has gotten broader).

There have been some interesting animal experiments on the last issue (see the ferret study I cited, for example). The interesting thing, though, is that heterosexual men have larger INAH-3 regions than homosexual men, so it's very easy to turn straight men gay (oh, would that it were so!!), but turning gay men straight might well require neurogenetic therapy, that would likely require the use of stem cells. And even then, if genetics interfered with testosterone building the hypothalmus in the first place, what assurance is there that exactly the same result would not occur with neurogenic therapy? I can pump your brain full of undifferentiated stem cells--but if they don't turn into neurons and organize themselves into the desired structure, then they are just random cells sitting around with nothing to do.

I like where this conversation is going, thanks for the history lesson and I hope I haven't given any offense.

I think you are on to something with your idea of wearing the opposite identity as a "cover" or "disguise" and how we will never truly know the hidden impact on so many closeted generations pre-1970s. Food for thought.

Thanks visagrunt good stuff. there's also genetic evidence, but not 'proof' yet, like autism you could say.

When it comes to twins, if one is homosexual it is highly likely and often the other twin is homosexual. Just like if one twin is straight, the other is pretty much gaurenteed to be straight. If a homosexual person does have kids its more likely one or more of their kids will be homosexual.

Yes, I agree, to some extent. But, pretty much any reputable psychologist today would tell you it is very likely that our sexuality is determined long before our first erotic experience. So yes, a combination indeed, but more likely genetics, enviroment, and childhood (not erotic) experiences. and what I'm trying to convey to you is once our adult sexuality is shaped, it does not and can not be changed.



I agree with all of this and i'm glad you don't think one is more normal or better, definately more elightened than a lot of people.

And i'm just kinda posting this generally. What the majority of people don't realize, and this is simply because sexuality is not really taught to the common person. Is that human sexuality is not simply clear cut gay, bi, or straight. it's more like a scale,

|---------------------------|-----------------------------|
if the three vertical dashes above represnt homosexual, bi, heterosuxual, respectively in that order, a person could be:
|here oooorrrr |here orrrrrr |here orrrrrr |here orrrrrr |here etc. and so on...

But what i'm argueing and what the evidence supports, is you do not consciously choose where you fall on this scale, and once your sexuality is developed, it does not change. Now people's actions may change over the course of their lives, for example I was in denial for the majority of my teen years, and did not touch another guy for the longest time lol, however I believe my place on this scale has always been and always will be where it is today, regardless of past or future sexual activity.




I hate to knit pick but can't you see what you're saying in this paragraph has no scientific basis. Again theres is no proof, but it is very very very unlikely there there is a one "gay" part of the brain. Unlikely that there is like a cluster of nuerons that form chip and and make you gay lol. the same neurons the play a role in a hetero person's sexual orio and sexual arousal also play the same role in a homosexual's, its just there are likely slightly different pathways and neurons and such just fire differently. These differences not caused by one single factor, it is likely a combination of factors, begining with genetics. Just like if a child is born into a family with a history of Schizophrenia, he/she is likely more predisposed to become Schizo, but there are likely a lot of other biological and non-biological factors that will determine if that if person actually develops the disease.

Of course I'm not camparing homosexuality to a mental disease, I'm simply saying there are many things about ourselves that are the result of a combination of things (not choice), and human sexuality is likely one of those things. So it is unlikely we will ever be able to predetermine or determine right at birth, whether a person will be homosexual or heterosexual.


I just have never seen or every come across scientific evidence that human sexuality is a choice, or can be worked and trained into a certain way. I've only seen people's own reasoning like your doing, but in the end thats opinion with no scientific basis. If I was an alien with no human connections and I was sent down to earth with the only agenda to study human sexuality, I would not simply take of poll of human opinion's, I would look at clinical studies and scientific evidence.

People like you (not meant as an insult lol) are simply playing the role of a defense attorney with a guilty client. Your not presenting much to prove innocence but you're just trying to raise enough doubt so the prosecution cannot no fully 'prove' what their saying. No one could prove that OJ committed murder, but, c'mon.

Keeping with that analogy, psychologists and scientists cannot prove that human sexuality is not a choice, and cannot be changed, however they make a damn good case. If the jury doesn't want to listen, there's nothing they can do about it.

Firmly held views are dangerous in cases such as people refusing to give up a theory or turn it into dogma. Think about global warming for example. In the beginning it's understandable that it was met with skepticism but these days most of the "skeptics" seem to be more denialist who will not be convinced by any ammount of evidence. And because of people like that there will be very bad impacts on the environment and on my generations (and future generation's) futures'.

There are few responses I can give to the idea that we must be able to change opinion that same-sex behaviour is normal and natural and gays deserve equal rights. First, if I saw evidence that homosexuality is abnormal than I would be willing to accept it. But that does not mean that they don't deserve equal rights or that that behaviour is bad. After all, those with AS aren't normal, and human's gave up doing only those things that are "natural" long ago. As for the idea of gays deserving equal rights--that is more of a moral statement than a factual one. If there was evidence that gays having equal rights causes harm to society (by which I mean something measurable and undeniable harmful, not something vague like "degrading family values") then that would have to be weighed against the harm that would be done to gays by not having equality.

All that said, I am not claiming that I am perfect in these matters. It would be very difficult to convince me that gays do not deserve equal rights (including marriage), that we'd be better off not trying to stop global warming, that conservatism is right, etc. But I am aware of these aspects about myself and at the end of the day I do try to keep myself grounded to the evidence.

I really love how funny those people can be making the arguement that it's a choice.

I always ask them the same question:
So when you were 13 or so, you could have gone either way, but you chose to like girls?
-The answer is 99% of the time: NO! I always have been attracted to girls/women!

Well guess what, I have always been attracted to boys/men growing up... I did'nt suddenly decide to like them.

It is 100% Natural for a certain percentage of people and animals to be born gay.
Any one who says differently is a liar.

Whoops! Forgot about this thread.

Yes, I'm aware of the societal attitudes that sexual orientation should only be granted protection if it is not a "choice." We encounter the same in the transgendered community.

From a strictly practical POV, I can appreciate your concern. My beef is actually with society itself and the notion that sexuality shouldn't be protected unless it is not a "choice." The truth could very well be that there is a predetermined set of biological criteria that compels attraction towards either 100% male or 100% female, but, as far as I'm concerned, that shouldn't matter.

Your sexuality does not affect me in a negative way and I can see absolutely no reason to deny you and your partner equal rights. Anyone who claims that your sexuality is a "choice" and you should be denied equal rights on the basis that it's a "choice" is an a$$clown.



And, as previously stated, I think people who would use that argument to deny you your rights are full of horseplop.

As far as I'm concerned, sexuality being a "choice" should not matter in the realm of civil liberties in the first place. The reason I'm interested in eliminating the idea that it's "okay" to harass/denigrate/deny rights to people for making utterly BENIGN "choices" is because there's too much transphobia based on the proposition that since transsexuals "choose" to undergo SRS, it's okay to treat transpeople like garbage. Ditto for many other "choices" in life.



Actually, I'm fine with your opinion. We both want the same thing. I just approach it from a slightly different angle based on my own biases and cultural perceptions.

I appreciate your thoughtful responses, however. Thank you for providing that bit of research. You are truly one of my favorite posters on this site.