Philosophy Sexual Orientation Doesn't Exist

[Abhorsen]

Man, great 'theory', but it comes straight into a wall of empirical facts, namely that a lot of people only experience same sex attraction. And a huge number of animals have same-sex attraction. And there is somewhat of an evolutionary advantage to some, especially in more social species. Effectively, it can be used to build bonds between parts of the group, increasing group survivability. Also, note that to succeed at passing down genes, one doesn't necessarily need to reproduce, just have a relative reproduce.

So yeah, have fun with this.

But then, what is a sexual orientation then. The person who I presented isn't a "asexual" because, if sex was in the offing, they'd choose opposite-sex over same-sex every time. But they aren't "heterosexual" because their low sex drive means that there's not a stable attraction to any one sex over time.

... Then that person is heterosexual. Or alternatively, you've found a 'conservative' (read: also stupid, but from the opposite direction) reason for the 1000's of orientations and why LGBTQ... should keep getting longer. The lefty terms for this is, among a variety of things, heterosexual & aromantic, gray-sexual, ace-spectrum, demisexual, etc. Want to go invent genders next?

hen we go a little bit deeper, then it becomes more questionable. Is this “sexual orientation” to the degree that it exists genetic and immutable? No, studies show that environment plays a large role in determining sexual preferences, including what sex we’re attracted to. The left stridently rejects that evidence and insists that gay people are born that way - which is strangely the only trait that they seem to think that people are born with. These are people who think that women are shorter than men because we are malnourished as infants by sexist parents. Can a “homosexual” be “cured?” I don’t know that answer to that, maybe so.

So about this. Much of this is right, there's probably a mixture of genetics that predispose one for it, and early environment that makes the 'choice' (not really a willing choice as people make the choice way to young (some people can remember their first 'gay' moment when they are really young, too young to have a real choice).

As for homosexuality being cured, the experimental evidence is a resounding no. It's been tried and triied by both professionals and non-professionals, and it never works. They can make people more asexual with aversion therapy (which is utterly horrifying in result, as you are being taught that sexual attraction = pain, and doesn't even necessarily last), but not more straight.

 

[The Name of Love]

Man, great 'theory', but it comes straight into a wall of empirical facts, namely that a lot of people only experience same sex attraction. And a huge number of animals have same-sex attraction. And there is somewhat of an evolutionary advantage to some, especially in more social species. Effectively, it can be used to build bonds between parts of the group, increasing group survivability. Also, note that to succeed at passing down genes, one doesn't necessarily need to reproduce, just have a relative reproduce.

Somebody didn't read the OP. Why don't you circle back and try again? I never denied that there is such thing as same-sex attraction.

... Then that person is heterosexual. Or alternatively, you've found a 'conservative' (read: also stupid, but from the opposite direction) reason for the 1000's of orientations and why LGBTQ... should keep getting longer. The lefty terms for this is, among a variety of things, heterosexual & aromantic, gray-sexual, ace-spectrum, demisexual, etc. Want to go invent genders next?

Why don't you invent genders for every individual on Earth then? Why not invent orientations for every desire known to man? And better yet, make every single one an "identity"?

I'll also ask why you feel the need to taxonomize these things to such fine-grained detail? What does this actually tell us about reality?

 

[Abhorsen]

Somebody didn't read the OP. Why don't you circle back and try again? I never denied that there is such thing as same-sex attraction.

If you read the rest of my post, I went into how after very young years, it becomes an orientation (in the sense that it cannot be changed). Also, I talked about how it was exclusive as well. SSA + exclusivity + unchangeability = SSO. I also pointed out how there is an evolutionary advantage to having SSO or at least some bisexuality in a very social species.

Why don't you invent genders for every individual on Earth then? Why not invent orientations for every desire known to man? And better yet, make every single one an "identity"?

I'll also ask why you feel the need to taxonomize these things to such fine-grained detail? What does this actually tell us about reality?

... No, I'm pointing out that you are doing this, by trying to separate out people who are barely sexual at all, but are hetero for what little sexuality they have, from heterosexuals. It may be occasionally useful if fine-grain detail is needed for something specific and relevant, but other than that, mostly irrelevant. Given that this discussion is at a very broad level (does SSO exist?) such distinctions aren't useful.

Note the first sentence where I pointed out you've described someone heterosexual.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Is the chaste homosexual actually homosexual?

There were men in history(nobles and so forth) who had same sex proclivities but sired children with women for the sake of the family line.

What does this tell us? Obviously they were able to "perform". Presumably they didn't always have ways to trigger arousal to be transferred(I'm reminded of that scene in Game of Thrones where Margaery Tyrell-intent on getting an heir from Renly offers to invite Loras in for a threesome-or at least to get Renly sexually excited if he couldn't do so with just her).

What about men who didn't "need" such extra party involvement. Or didn't always have it? Did they somehow will themselves to perform in the marital bed despite an utter lack of attraction? If so, then wouldn't that mean sexual "identity" is merely some sort of mental self created construct. If not, then how did they manage at all?

Not to mention there's conditioning involved-can you use Skinnerian conditioning to tilt someone's sexual behavior? I don't particularly see why not.

Sex isn't an identity, its an act. There are proclivities that tilt one a certain way, but they can be structured to express themselves or not.

 

[Abhorsen]

Is the chaste homosexual actually homosexual?

I mean, is a chaste heterosexual an actual heterosexual? I'd say yes. The definition of homosexuality has traditionally been about what one is attracted to, not what one does (hence gay men in the closet having wives, etc).

What about men who didn't "need" such extra party involvement. Or didn't always have it? Did they somehow will themselves to perform in the marital bed despite an utter lack of attraction? If so, then wouldn't that mean sexual "identity" is merely some sort of mental self created construct. If not, then how did they manage at all?

Eh, same way people can jack off using a fleshlight. (Most) people aren't attracted to the fleshlight, but what they are imagining. So it's having sex with a girl, but imagining it's a guy. Some people can do this, some people are incapable of this. Also, some of these people might have fallen somewhere in the spectrum of bisexuality (mostly gay with a little straight, for example).

As far as evidence goes, the reverse (men pretending that the man they're having sex with is a woman) happens a lot in prison.

Not to mention there's conditioning involved-can you use Skinnerian conditioning to tilt someone's sexual behavior? I don't particularly see why not.

I mean, empirical evidence says otherwise, from decades of formal studies and formal and informal attempts to switch it. Skinnerian conditioning has been tried, and the result is a repressed homosexual who isn't opposite sex attracted.

 

[ShieldWife]

Of course a chaste person could still be a homosexual. Take your average horny teenage boy who is still a virgin, that kid still very much a heterosexual even if he hasn’t has sex.

As for men in the past who had same sex desires but still fathered children - it’s hard to say because the complete truth of those relationships was likely concealed. Might they just have been bisexual? Maybe so. Did they fantasize about men? Maybe. Did they let their wives have lovers on the side? It could be a combination of these things. It’s not hard to find historical accounts of prominent people who never got married or had any recorded sexual or romantic relationships. Could those people have been gay and either kept their same sex relationships a secret or never acted on them.

We know that even in societies where there are social pressures to marry and reproduce and where people are harshly punished for homosexuality, there are some people whose sexual proclivities are so strong that they both reject the benefits of heterosexual marriage and risk the punishments from homosexual sex.

Also, as Abhorsen points out, a lot of woe has gone into trying to make gay people straight and it hasn’t been very effective, even when the gay people themselves were highly motivated to change. That doesn’t mean that changing a person’s sexual orientation is absolutely possible, but making that change certainly isn’t a choice.

This leads me to think that categorizing sexual orientation (keeping in mind that there are still degrees and gradients of sexual attraction, aversion, or interest within or across those categories) is valid and potentially useful.

As with almost any mental or psychological trait we observe in humans, sexual desires (including orientation) arise from a combination of genetics, environment, and socialization. In categorizing some phenomenon, we might more easily study and learn about both the causes and effects of that phenomenon.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Hot take-actually making a sexual identity for every individual on the planet sounds like a great idea.

We could look at all their fetishes, peccadilloes, preferences, likes, dislikes, subconscious fears and desires, and we’d have a well rounded orientation.

Call it Bobosexuality, or “fredosexuality” or whatever the person’s name is.

I can think of no greater diversity. Think of the Tumblr blogs, truly what are we missing?

 

[Abhorsen]

Hot take-actually making a sexual identity for every individual on the planet sounds like a great idea.

We could look at all their fetishes, peccadilloes, preferences, likes, dislikes, subconscious fears and desires, and we’d have a well rounded orientation.

Call it Bobosexuality, or “fredosexuality” or whatever the person’s name is.

I can think of no greater diversity. Think of the Tumblr blogs, truly what are we missing?

I mean, for someone you are in a relationship with, such knowledge is very useful. On the other hand, when trying to make laws about these things, or using it as a signal to others that you might be interested, the more specific one gets, the worse off they are.

 

[Deleted member 88]

T’was a joke

Sighs

 

[Abhorsen]

T’was a joke

Sighs

I know (at the very least the tumblr blogs gave it away), just decided to take it serious for fun.

 

[Deleted member]

I do generally agree that homosexuality is more of a tendency than an identity, and indeed, it is a tendency which is not absolute in most people who have it; however, to be realistic about society, it's been there since the dawn of time, and cannot be eliminated by any level of legislation or compulsion, because of how intense it is. So the best a society can do is enforce reasonable expectations of decorum on those who have a homosexual tendency.

 

[Abhorsen]

And right now, we can watch and see what happens when a society insists no gays exist: Chechnya, which is murdering its gays to the extent that an underground railroad now exists to get people out of there. There's a documentary out about it now, and I've linked a review.

Welcome to Chechnya

In Russia's Chechen Republic, gay people face violence not just from strangers on the street but from their own family…

reason.com

And the result? The gays still exist, even when they would otherwise be killed. They just try to flee the country, but new gays are being born everyday.

 

[ShieldWife]

Yeah, I mentioned something to that effect a while back. Even in nations where there is a very harsh penalty, sometimes even execution, for homosexual acts - there are still people who have gay sex. If sexual orientation were so fluid as to essentially not exist, then surely the threat of death would motivate everyone in places like Chechnya to become straight. It might cause most bisexual people to basically live like they were straight though.

I seem to recall The Name of Love saying that homosexuality (or at least such sexual acts) should be outlawed. I’m curious how much the position that sexual orientation doesn’t exist and the wish to outlaw homosexual acts are linked.