Is Sexuality Socially Constructed?

[¿Que?]

Because the general consensus seems to suggest otherwise, that sexuality is genetically determined. But it is generally considered that gender is a social construction, and considering the inherent and inextricable connection between gender and sexuality, why do leftist generally consider gender a social construction, but sexual orientation genetically determined?

(Perhaps should go in learning)

[Apoi_Viitor]

Here's an argument for the social construction of sexuality.

http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/foucault.htm

In The History of Sexuality Volume 1, Foucault demonstrates that even such a basic human need as sexuality is socially constructed; there is no “pre-social” sex drive.

Sexuality must not be thought of as a kind of natural given which power tries to hold in check, or as an obscure domain which knowledge tries gradually to uncover. It is the name that can be given to a historical construct: not a furtive reality that is difficult to grasp, but a great surface network in which the stimulation of bodies, the intensification of pleasures, the incitement to discourse, the formation of special knowledges, the strengthening of controls and resistances, are linked to one another, in accordance with a few major strategies of knowledge and power. [p. 106]

As I read this then, even if deep down in the human organism there is some need for food, warmth, love and sexual intercourse, psychoanalysis notwithstanding, it has been amply demonstrated that such ‘essential’ drives and needs are buried so deep beneath elastic and socially constructed interpretations, that the constructivist hypothesis is by far the more relevant as opposed to the essentialist, at least for the purposes of understanding modern society. Human beings are their own product; our essence is nothing but the need to negate and produce our own being; humanity is essentially non-essential.

If a person’s needs do not originate in an individual’s ‘inner nature’, but are socially constructed, the same is even more true of cognition, the activity of understanding the world, which is shaped by socially available discourse and objectified in books, artefacts, languages, institutions, etc., etc.

[jake williams]

I don't think there's a simple answer and sex, sexuality and gender are all very complex.

I might point out that part of the story is clearly that gay and straight people are both almost always more attracted to bodies than they are brains or personalities in this sense: almost every straight man and lesbian would rather have sex with a "masculine-acting" woman than a "feminine-acting" man, and almost every straight woman and gay man would rather have sex with a "feminine-acting" man than a "masculine-acting" woman. It's quite clear that some people are sexually attracted to certain bodies and not others, and every reason to believe that evolution would have made this the case (and limited evidence to the contrary).

It's certainly conceivable that sexual orientations themselves are socially constructed, and I think to an extent this is true. Certainly aspects of the identity around same- and opposite-sex attraction are culturally determined. What it means to be a gay man or straight woman is not the same thing in every society at all points in history. But there appears to be some sort of biological basis, not least because, as far as we know, the relative rates of same-sex and opposite-sex attraction are about the same in every society.

[charley63]

What seems to me to be the consensus on the left is that political and economic equality should be achieved for all regardless of sexuality or gender. Where the left diverges is what political path will achieve these ends. Marxists generally hold that only a worker-controlled state can begin to achieve political and social equality. Anarchists generally hold that only abolishing all hierarchies directly, not using the State, can achieve equality. Feminists hold that only abolishing male domination, including in politics and capitalism, will truly bring about social equality. And, so on.

The question of social construction applies to both sexuality and gender. The view that sexual orientation is biologically (not necessarily genetically) determined isn't a view of the left necessarily, since many libertarian capitalists accept this view. Gender as a social construct is very much accepted by the left, insofar as society accords privileges to the male gender.

My view is that both gender and sexual orientation are evolutionary legacies, that result in complex social conditions, especially in our modern societies, where reproduction is less important. The earliest life-forms were asexual and genetic sex differentiation evolved much later. It was favored by natural selection for complex life-forms, since it resulted in greater successful genetic variations. The first forms of sexual intercourse may have actually been hermaphroditic, such as penis-fencing flatworms, who have both male and female organs and fight to pierce and impregnate their opponent with their dagger-like penises. Not very romantic!

If I understand your original question, it does seem that for political purposes the left tends to favor the idea that sexual orientation is inborn, since that tends to justify sexual freedom and tolerance. On the other hand, it seems that the left favors gender construct views, since that favors gender equality.

With the assumption that sex and gender are evolutionarily variable, it seems no surprise that both physical characteristics change over time as well as psychological orientation. I see more young persons (I live near a university) everyday who reject male/female appearance for an androgynous comportment. Certainly not a mass movement, yet, but something that has changed in my lifetime.

The genetic reality is still pretty fixed, only human sperm can fertilize ovum. However, technology is making sexual intercourse superfluous for that purpose. Caring for offspring was once entirely a female occupation, but that is changing, if not fast enough for my tastes.

I could go on, but that's enough for a first posting.

[GX.]

There probably isn't one single social/biological explanation of gender or sexuality and it's not that easy to separate the two, since biological explanations are also a product of society. There is some evidence that gender identity is correlated to certain biological factors like brain structure and prenatal hormone levels. Does that mean that there are really two types of brains and gender differences are innate? We are dealing with the characteristics of bodies so in that sense it's biological, but we come to understand and classify bodies through the lens of society (in the case of sexuality our categories assume two sexes/genders and a static relationship to either one; I don't know how you can say that gender is a social construct but sexual orientation isn't when it's tied to gender). At the same time society shapes the body, environment influences phenotype. So I'm skeptical of the whole biology:society dichotomy, the two are intertwined.

[Revy]

Implying something is "socially constructed" implies it can be "deconstructed" and the person belonging to the supposedly "socially constructed" group can change what they are.

If you really think gender is socially constructed, I suggest you look into the story of David Reimer.

I don't think sexuality is socially constructed. It is as natural an inborn characteristic as having having brown eyes or blue eyes. Homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual people all usually become physically aware of their sexual feelings during puberty. It is society that socializes us as children to believe we are heterosexual, but society cannot change what we are.

[Jimmie Higgins]

why do leftist generally consider gender a social construction, but sexual orientation genetically determined?I can't really answer that because I don't believe we are hardwired for a specific sexual orientation. I think many people, and it's almost a consensus now among most gay rights activists, believe that sexual orientation is inherent or hardwired, simply because the right wants to restrict sexuality on the basis of their argument that homosexuality is a "choice" and somehow just weak morality, rather than a legitimate sexual preference.

In the past the LGBT movement rejected these ideas and I hope that with a return to sexual liberation struggles, the question will be revisited. IMO we've been hardwired to enjoy getting off and loving other people and forming intimate bonds through sexual activities (though not always)... society, our own experiences, and conditions we find ourselves in, determine how we act out and develop our sexuality.

The idea that there are categories of sexuality divided between "straight" and "gay" is only about 150 or less years old. People have expressed themselves sexually in different ways in different societies.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's a debatable point. But the fact still stands that even if sexuality is completely socially constructed, it still doesn't make it invalid in any way at all for people to freely choose who they wish to sleep with.

Homosexuality doesn't have to be intrinsically biological for it to be justifiable in the normative or "moral" sense. People have the right to choose their sexuality.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's a debatable point. But the fact still stands that even if sexuality is completely socially constructed, it still doesn't make it invalid in any way at all for people to freely choose who they wish to sleep with.

Homosexuality doesn't have to be intrinsically biological for it to be justifiable in the normative or "moral" sense. People have the right to choose their sexuality.That's right and I think this is the strongest position in which to try and fight for liberation from. Personally, part of the reason I don't like the "inherent sexuality" argument is because it seems to be defensive and concede too much to the right - as if the question was settled and sexuality was proven to be a "choice" then it would mean that homosexuality was then somehow indefensible. Also bigots used to believe that homosexuality was an inherent defect, so construct or genetic, that's not the point for the bigots and it shouldn't make the difference to us either. Sexual liberation and mutual relationships (i.e. freedom to love who you want and not love who you want as in divorce) should be fought for on principle.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's right and I think this is the strongest position in which to try and fight for liberation from. Personally, part of the reason I don't like the "inherent sexuality" argument is because it seems to be defensive and concede too much to the right - as if the question was settled and sexuality was proven to be a "choice" then it would mean that homosexuality was then somehow indefensible. Also bigots used to believe that homosexuality was an inherent defect, so construct or genetic, that's not the point for the bigots and it shouldn't make the difference to us either. Sexual liberation and mutual relationships (i.e. freedom to love who you want and not love who you want as in divorce) should be fought for on principle.

I don't disagree, but scientific research in itself should be ideology-independent, so empirical research into this area should still continue, whatever its political implications may be.

To subjugate science to the demands of political ideology is the Stalinist way.

[Tim Cornelis]

Swedish research from 2008 showed that gay males have feminized brains (and gay females masculinized brains), likely the result of over-exposure to female hormons during pregnancy--in case of the males, of course. Sexuality is not a choice, I can tell from personal experience alone!

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't disagree, but scientific research in itself should be ideology-independent, so empirical research into this area should still continue, whatever its political implications may be.

To subjugate science to the demands of political ideology is the Stalinist way.I'm not saying that at all, I'm arguing for the opposite. My rejection of homophobia comes long before I rejected the idea that sexuality preferences were inherent. In fact I find the genetic-determinist argument to be the ideologically-influenced argument because, as I said in the earlier post, IMO it seems to come mostly from a desire to counter the right-wing arguments against homosexuality.

The big picture is what you said before - it is or isn't "hardwired" and that doesn't matter, liberation does. But my personal view that it is not hardwired doesn't come from an ideological conviction but from my reading of historical evidence. The first being that societies have historically had all sorts of different takes on sexuality from more or less openness to a range of sexual acts to more restrictive views of what is acceptable. Secondly, and more annecdotally, many people have changed their preferences and sexual activities at various times in their lives. Third, same-sex situations (single-sex schools, the military, prisons etc) have very high instances of homosexual relationships and encounters even in restrictive societies where same-sex relationships are not common in general society.

[Hiero]

Socially constructured and social structured are different concepts. So you can believe that sexuality is natural, but it is structured by society. Or you can believe both.



To subjugate science to the demands of political ideology is the Stalinist way.


It lots of "ways", it can be the neo-liberal way or the Stalinist way.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Swedish research from 2008 showed that gay males have feminized brains (and gay females masculinized brains), likely the result of over-exposure to female hormons during pregnancy--in case of the males, of course. Sexuality is not a choice, I can tell from personal experience alone!
Then homosexuality is a hormonal defect:scared:?! I think that's kind of a troubling argument.

[punisa]

Sexuality is not a choice, I can tell from personal experience alone!

Well... of course it isn't, but its a very big subject in itself.
When we talk about sexuality we should definitely acknowledge that there is "primal" basic instinct that we can not control that much, but we humans also use sex for fun - not strictly reproduction.

One can be strictly heterosexual, but engage in occasional homosexual behavior our of sheer curiosity and perception of fun.
I'm sure this goes both ways.

[Tim Cornelis]

Then homosexuality is a hormonal defect:scared:?! I think that's kind of a troubling argument.

Why would that be a troubling argument?

Sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

[Thirsty Crow]

Why would that be a troubling argument?

Sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
Because such arguments open the door to medicalization, which is a proxy for social control and discrimination against LGBTQ community, wide open. It could fuel the reactionary "it is not natural", "it is a disease" paradigm.
Once again, science to the rescue (of reactionary attitudes, of structural domination and opression, of the social status quo).

EDIT: what should we think, according to this viewpoint, about bisexual people? That their hormonal defect is not as severe as in homosexual people?

[¿Que?]

Why would that be a troubling argument?

Sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
At what age were the measurements taken? I think I heard somewhere that neural pathways can be remade even as adults. I would think this study only proves that homosexuality is innate in some people if such differences were observed in children. However, it is known that early experiences help shape the brain's architecture (pdf) (http://www.piurek.com/resources/pdf/2zi%20Early_Influences_Brain_Architecture.pdf), so that it is perfectly reasonable to assume, if the test subjects were adults, that the brain developed that shape through environmental causes.

To answer my own question, I would have to agree with people who are skeptical of the whole biology/construction dichotomy. There is actually a dialectical process that involves the interactions between biology and environment.

[Dogs On Acid]

Then homosexuality is a hormonal defect:scared:?! I think that's kind of a troubling argument.

Why is it troubling?

[Dogs On Acid]

Well... of course it isn't, but its a very big subject in itself.
When we talk about sexuality we should definitely acknowledge that there is "primal" basic instinct that we can not control that much, but we humans also use sex for fun - not strictly reproduction.

One can be strictly heterosexual, but engage in occasional homosexual behavior our of sheer curiosity and perception of fun.
I'm sure this goes both ways.

Fun and pleasure from sexual activity is actually an evolutionary trait. It promotes the search for sex and consequently giving offspring.

It's all about survival of the species.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why is it troubling?Repeating questions is troubling! :laugh:

Sorry, I'm sure you just missed the above response by another poster. It's troubling because it can lead to people arguing that homosexuality is a medical defect and therefore can be "cured".

[Dogs On Acid]

Repeating questions is troubling! :laugh:

Sorry, I'm sure you just missed the above response by another poster. It's troubling because it can lead to people arguing that homosexuality is a medical defect and therefore can be "cured".

People can be happy with medical defects. Hormonal or otherwise.

But everyone has bi-sexual inclinations, it's just more evident in some people than others. Don't get me wrong, I consider myself straight, but if I look at another male I can evaluate his attractiveness and compare it to mine, and so can all other men.

Evaluating another person's sexual attractiveness is sexual in itself, so everyone is a bit gay whether they like it or not.

[Thirsty Crow]

People can be happy with medical defects. Hormonal or otherwise.

But everyone has bi-sexual inclinations, it's just more evident in some people than others. Don't get me wrong, I consider myself straight, but if I look at another male I can evaluate his attractiveness and compare it to mine, and so can all other men.

Evaluating another person's sexual attractiveness is sexual in itself, so everyone is a bit gay whether they like it or not.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the potential political signiicance of the argument that homosexual people are hormonally diseased.

[Tenka]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the potential political signiicance of the argument that homosexual people are hormonally diseased.
"Over-exposure to female hormones during pregnancy" implies neither disease nor defect.
And anyway, if levels of exposure to hormones in the womb contributed so significantly to development of sexual orientation, we could "cure" heterosexuality as easily as we could homosexuality. I don't believe anyone but rightists would condone the blatant discrimination involved in singling out homosexuality.

[gendoikari]

Because the general consensus seems to suggest otherwise, that sexuality is genetically determined. But it is generally considered that gender is a social construction, and considering the inherent and inextricable connection between gender and sexuality, why do leftist generally consider gender a social construction, but sexual orientation genetically determined?

(Perhaps should go in learning)

Know what? I'm a scientist so I'm going to go ahead and say since there are no real studies on the matter, I don't know.

More to the fucking point I don't think it's important wheather it's "a choice" or you were "born that way" what happens between the sheets of two consenting adults is their own damn business. Period.

[¿Que?]

Know what? I'm a scientist so I'm going to go ahead and say since there are no real studies on the matter, I don't know.

More to the fucking point I don't think it's important wheather it's "a choice" or you were "born that way" what happens between the sheets of two consenting adults is their own damn business. Period.
But the point is not about choice. Just because something is a social construction doesn't always mean there's always a choice involved. Look at our economic system. It is basically a social construction, money has no inherent value outside of the societies in which it exists, and yet we are not really free to choose not to spend and earn money somehow, if we live in said societies.

[gendoikari]

But the point is not about choice. Just because something is a social construction doesn't always mean there's always a choice involved. Look at our economic system. It is basically a social construction, money has no inherent value outside of the societies in which it exists, and yet we are not really free to choose not to spend and earn money somehow, if we live in said societies.

True. You know once upon a time currency had a use. I think that bit of history has about run it's course.

[¿Que?]

True. You know once upon a time currency had a use. I think that bit of history has about run it's course.
Yes, well as usual, there is a materialist explanation even for social phenomena.

[Thirsty Crow]

"Over-exposure to female hormones during pregnancy" implies neither disease nor defect.
And anyway, if levels of exposure to hormones in the womb contributed so significantly to development of sexual orientation, we could "cure" heterosexuality as easily as we could homosexuality. I don't believe anyone but rightists would condone the blatant discrimination involved in singling out homosexuality.
That's precisely the point:


Because such arguments open the door to medicalization, which is a proxy for social control and discrimination against LGBTQ community, wide open. It could fuel the reactionary "it is not natural", "it is a disease" paradigm.
Once again, science to the rescue (of reactionary attitudes, of structural domination and opression, of the social status quo).


I don't think that LGBTQ activists and supporters should accept the debating terrain which forces them to take a defensive, explanatory stance ("It is natural", "We are born with it", "It's a matter of social influences" etc etc.). Who the fuck are those fuckwits to act like the sex police? What do they care why people do stuff in bed with other people?

[noble brown]

I agree that it doesn't really matter or rather that it shouldn't but it should cause no harm to ask that question from an anthropological stand point. I think the reason we ask question is to get the truth about a matter. So you ask if its genetic or environental. We don't know for sure but observations point to a combination of the two. I believe its demonstratable that as a social identifier sexualityonly recently came about. So its not whether or not your gay but the fact that you call yourself gay/straight bi or whatever in the first place. That's the social construct of sexuality. Bad or good that's up to you.
now what your attracted to is probably as rooted in our biology and psyche as our tastes in food esthetics and such.

[Luís Henrique]

I fear that a great part of questions of the kind "Is X really a social construct?" rely on the perception that "social constructs" are somehow less "real" than other things. Perhaps we should have a stickied thread on what is a social construct, to avoid this.

Sexuality is a social construct, not because we can construe a male into something else (though we eventually can), but because all the attributes of "maleness" are socially constructed: males are not biologically more violent than females, nor they are biologically more attracted to cars or soccer, etc (as we can see for the fact that in some cultures soccer is a female thing). Those characteristics are socially attributed through education and socialisation, they are not inate or biological in any way. It doesn't mean, however, that they are any less compelling because of that.

Luís Henrique

[charley63]

Because such arguments open the door to medicalization, which is a proxy for social control and discrimination against LGBTQ community, wide open. It could fuel the reactionary "it is not natural", "it is a disease" paradigm. Once again, science to the rescue (of reactionary attitudes, of structural domination and opression, of the social status quo).
EDIT: what should we think, according to this viewpoint, about bisexual people? That their hormonal defect is not as severe as in homosexual people?

Or perhaps, there is an even more emancipatory possibility. On the "Kinsey Scale" I am almost entirely straight. I desire women sexually around the clock. However, in some rare moments, some men can spark a momentary arousal in me. I haven't explored this latent bi-curiousity, but it is there.

I also experienced nearly an entire decade of serious depression that was only ended when I took Prozac. The liberation I experienced from depression has persisted for over 14 years. Very few Prozac users get such a remarkable result, but it happened to me. I remember one of the last weeks when I was still on it and the almost ecstatic, buzzing thrill I felt at being so alive that nothing was impossible. Things that even today are difficult for me were a breeze.

I haven't taken Prozac since 1996, and while I no longer experience that ecstasy, I am still cured of depression. What the experience taught me is that behavior is chemistry. If a drug can turn my personality inside out in a few months, why not alter my sexual orientation, elevating my unexplored homoerotic tendencies?

I imagine a utopia one day of medical self-creation. We will be able to design our personalities, overcome those habits we dislike, and develop new ones we desire.

"I know kung-fu." - Neo

[Luís Henrique]

Very few Prozac users get such a remarkable result, but it happened to me.


What the experience taught me is that behavior is chemistry.

If very few Prozac users get the result you get, then it seems that the chemistry is rather variable, isn't it?


If a drug can turn my personality inside out in a few months, why not alter my sexual orientation, elevating my unexplored homoerotic tendencies?All (an)aphrodisiacs that I know of arise or depress one's sexual interest, but they don't interfere in the orientation of such interest. I would say that the chemistry of sexual orientation, if there is one, is too subtle for drug pills. There certainly are behaviours that cannot be affected by drugs, after all. Or can we have a pill for Islam, or communism, or for supporting Tottenham Hotspurs?

Luís Henrique

[Kronsteen]

Short answer: I don't know, but there are some suggestive facts.

Sexuality does change over time - sometimes quite suddenly. But attempts to control it have never succeeded.

We've all met people who were uncomplicatedly heterosexual until that time they tried the alternative and were astonished to find they liked it. Were they bisexual all along? No, it's more like their tastes broadened.

The efforts of NARTH, Exodus and other ex-gay groups have had exactly zero success. Thousands of gay men and women have tried desperately to switch, and these groups can't produce a single case of someone who has. It's like you can't force tastes to change.

It's not just a matter of which gender you prefer for sex. Some people like one gender romantically, and the other sexually - which can lead to some complicated lovelives. Others like one kind of sex with women, and a different kind of men. And of course they may be attracted to one body type of man, and a completely different body type of woman.

If sexuality were entirely socially constructed, some cultures would have very much more homosexual activity than others - but so far as we know, they don't. There are a very few cultures which don't have a notion of romantic pairing - but there are none where there's only one sexuality, or sexual orientation.

[noble brown]

If sexuality were entirely socially constructed, some cultures would have very much more homosexual activity than others - but so far as we know, they don't. There are a very few cultures which don't have a notion of romantic pairing - but there are none where there's only one sexuality, or sexual orientation.

I believe sexuality to be entirely socially constructed. Sexuality to me is how you identify, or orient, yourself. Its different then your "tastes". A taste is not a "thing" that can be readily manipulated. No matter how you work it out in your head, if you hate liver today you'll still hate it tomorrow. Tastes do change but its not of your own doing, it is biological and chemical.

Now whether I consider myself to be heterosexual or homosexual or bi is entirely defined by the social costruct. Pre roman culture there was no such thing as sexual identity you had sexual relations with whomever regrdless of gender as long as it suited you. If you have resources stating the contrary I would be very interested to see them.

Sexuality and romantic pairing are not interchangeable terms.

[Kronsteen]

I believe sexuality to be entirely socially constructed.

Bodily sensations can't be socially constructed - though attitudes towards them obviously are. Emotions are to some extent categorised differently by different cultures, but unless you're going to claim a hard Sapir-Worf determinism, it's not possible to eradicate an emotion by never mentioning it.


Sexuality to me is how you identify, or orient, yourself. Its different then your "tastes". A taste is not a "thing" that can be readily manipulated.

Firstly, I did say that tastes can't be manipulated. Secondly, I'm obviously using the word analogically - taste in sex and taste in food are not the same thing, but there are similarities.


No matter how you work it out in your head, if you hate liver today you'll still hate it tomorrow. Tastes do change but its not of your own doing, it is biological and chemical.

If that were true there would be no such thing as 'getting used to something', or 'coming to like it'. And people do come to like sexual experiences which initially hold no attraction for them.


Now whether I consider myself to be heterosexual or homosexual or bi is entirely defined by the social costruct.

You're confusing the way cultures divide up reality with the reality itself. In our culture we categorise sexuality by whether one's choice of partner is the same gender as oneself. The ancient Athenians were famously more concerned with age differentials - and indeed the preferred orifice(!).

Both systems struggle with (say) a man who takes a 'top' position with older men and likes submissive SM with younger women. The struggle is when culture tries to cope with reality.


Pre roman culture there was no such thing as sexual identity you had sexual relations with whomever regrdless of gender as long as it suited you.

That is what some researchers claim about the way the ruling class viewed their own morality.


Sexuality and romantic pairing are not interchangeable terms.

Astonishingly, that's why I differentiated them.

[Thirsty Crow]

I imagine a utopia one day of medical self-creation. We will be able to design our personalities, overcome those habits we dislike, and develop new ones we desire.

That utopia is very far away if we consider the discrimination LGBTQ community suffers nowadays. And that's precisely the point, that medicalization would not function as happy "medical self-creation", but rather as diffuse coercion and blatant discrimination agains LGBTQ people. While you might want to medically alter some of your biological traits, other people wouldn't, but that's hardly relevant given the fact that there exists a whole network of institutions which specifically target LGBTQ people and try to force their notions of healthy sexual practices, connected to lifestyle in general, on others.

In other words, for "happy medicalization" to be a real possibility, the society should already have gone through a phase in which prejudice and bigotry are systematically eradicated.

[noble brown]

Like I said, sexuality and "bodily sensations" aren't the same to me.

If you agree that tastes are biological and chemical then tastes could concievably be manipulated by chemical or biological means.

An interesting point about getting used to something. But getting used to something isn't the same as being attracted to something. Sexual attraction is a very biological thing. Familiarity can be comforting but IRS not biological in the sense in which I'm speaking.

Your 4th paragraph seems to be in concert w what I was saying. w the exception of the first sentance I'm not seeing that you are disagreeing with me

And it did appear that you were using those two terms interchageably.
.

[Nox]

Yes. As are gender and race. We waste our time being racist, sexist and homophobic while we should be class conscious.

[Meridian]

I don't necessarily hold that it can be caused by biology, but:


Then homosexuality is a hormonal defect:scared:?! I think that's kind of a troubling argument.
Is simply a matter of considering the word "defect". Strictly speaking, no bodies are defect if they are not dysfunctional in a clear way. The kind of 'defection' we would be talking about would be like the 'defection' of having brown hair instead of blond. Simply a condition.

[Kronsteen]

getting used to something isn't the same as being attracted to something. Sexual attraction is a very biological thing.


Hormones are biological. Attraction is social, cultural, historical...and personal.

Tom Robinson famously sang "Glad to be gay" in the 70s - then astonished himself in his late 30s by falling for (and marrying) a woman. I can't count the number of people I've known who define themselves as straight but sometimes 'feel like a bit of the other'. And there's a few who've decided, after years of enjoy both sides of the field, that they only want the field with the pink grass anymore.

Of course, having gay sex won't automatically give a person a taste for it. Jeff Styker is a wonderful case study of mental compartmentalisation, in that he's a straight, rightwing, reputedly homophobic, evangelical christian who's spent several decades having sex with men. But he's still just as straight, rightwing and dumb as a box of spanners as ever.

[charley63]

In other words, for "happy medicalization" to be a real possibility, the society should already have gone through a phase in which prejudice and bigotry are systematically eradicated.

I do believe in social revolution, including the kind that will advance our knowledge of human psychology. Right now, psychology is driven by profit, when it should be driven by the goals of revolutionary emancipation. To argue that sexual orientation is a fixed entity doesn't undermine heterosexism at i's roots. I am opposed to prohibition and coercion in sexual matters, even if it's from leftists who try to tell me that being gay or straight is inborn.

My argument, as a post-Freudian sex-positive feminist, is that sexuality is changeable - and research finds that most people's sexual behaviors and feelings change over time, sometimes dramatically - and should be celebrated and pursued as a creative opportunity, not prohibited as politically incorrect. The flaw of heterosexism is the idea that there is only one right way to be sexual - straight Christian monogamy. Polymorphous perversity is way more fun, freedom is humanity's birthright.

Freedom is what we fight for, not some imaginary biological determinism. I remember my sexual attraction to girls dramatically intensifying after someone told me my first dirty joke in 5th grade, prior to which I had almost no sexual thoughts. I remember my first homoerotic fantasy a few years later quite vividly. I am not bisexual, and don't really want to pursue sexual contact with men, but my orientation isn't all or nothing.

[00000000000]

I suppose this is debate that will never go away, but I wish it would sometimes. Sexuality and gender should not be 'issues' at all. I've always thought that the genitals you happen to have been born with or whoever you choose to share them with should have no impact on how you treated by others or what you choose to do with your life.
I know it's not realistic, but I really wish people would stop obsessing with sex and sexuality in 'moral' terms (especially the way the Right and religious fundies do)

[¿Que?]

I know it's not realistic, but I really wish people would stop obsessing with sex and sexuality in 'moral' terms (especially the way the Right and religious fundies do)
The problem is that what I asked is an empirical question not a moral one. It becomes a moral one through the social inextricability of morality and sex in our society. And in fact, a society I would want to live in would take morality as a central concern for sexuality. Indeed, much of feminism revolves around the ethics of sexual politics (such as the sex work debate). What we need is not to discuss sexuality amorally, but to understand the moral implications of truth.

The fundamental problem with this debate as you point out is morality. As revolutionaries, we should not strive so far down the relativist rabbit hole that we ignore empirical fact. However, we must be prepared for those empirical facts to have implications that may hurt our cause. I think this is the problem and why this is such a point of contention among many on the left. Are we saying such such because such and such is the case, or because if such and such were true then this would present opportunities for leftism?