Are Straight People Born That Way?

[Sasha]

Are Straight People Born That Way?

The best scientific argument we have for the innateness of straightness is that evolution would favor it. But a poll of sexologists raises some interesting questions about arousal.

Time for a thought experiment: Are straight people born that way?
When I put the question to a number of sexology colleagues, they thought it a good question -- indeed, a hard question.
To answer it, we have to start with a more fundamental question: What do we mean when we say someone is "straight"? At the most basic level, we seem to be imagining female bodies that are specifically sexually aroused by male bodies, and vice versa.


http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/are-straight-people-born-that-way/254592/

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Prepares for definition wars and lots of misunderstanding and ignorance....

[Veovis]

Who cares?

It doesn't matter if sexual orientation is hardwired genetically, inculcated in childhood, or even chosen on a whim. Everyone deserves the same rights regarding sexual freedom.

[Prometeo liberado]

I hate that phrase, "straight". As if everyone else is somehow off kilter. We are all unique, sexualy. Some are just more in tune with it than others.

[NewLeft]

Personally, I think it makes sense to let straight-identified people marry, not because they were necessarily born that way, but because it seems silly, in this day and age, to get in the way of their desire to marry and/or to have sex with whatever consenting adults they wish. Given the challenges of attempting a lifetime partnership with a person who will be, on average, fundamentally sexually different from oneself, it seems the least we can do for straight people is to let them get married if they wantSounds good to me. :thumbup1:

[9]

Prepares for definition wars and lots of misunderstanding and ignorance....

I like how you think that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I like how you think that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

Where did I say that?

[9]

In several other threads about this topic in the past.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

In several other threads about this topic in the past.

I've called out the people on this board who were ignorant, yes, but I have never said that everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant.

[9]

I've called out the people on this board who were ignorant, yes, but I have never said that everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant.

Well yes, but you think they are ignorant because they disagree with your contention that 'sexual orientation' is, without exception, determined at birth and remains static throughout life.

At any rate, I would be interested in hearing your opinion about the article in the op. In particular,

Developmental studies by researchers like the University of Utah's Lisa Diamond (http://www.psych.utah.edu/people/person.php?id=54) suggest that women may demonstrate a fair bit of flexibility over the course of their lives in terms of their sexual attractions, relations, and identities, and laboratory studies by people like Chivers and Bailey seem to back up the hypothesis that females are, on average, less rigidly oriented when it comes to sex.

[28350]

It's pretty clear sexual orientation doesn't exist further than the social relations it describes.

[Ostrinski]

Wonder why it would be the case that women are less rigidly sexually oriented than men.

[Lobotomy]

Wonder why it would be the case that women are less rigidly sexually oriented than men.

I would argue that it's more socially acceptable (in western society at least) for women to be lesbian than for men to be gay, so perhaps there are more women open to the idea of same-sex relations than there are men.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well yes, but you think they are ignorant because they disagree with your contention that 'sexual orientation' is, without exception, determined at birth and remains static throughout life.

I have an opinion, yes. But some people are simply misinformed, not ignorant.


At any rate, I would be interested in hearing your opinion about the article in the op. In particular,

Link me to the article in full.The selected portion leaves much room for guess work and definition semantics.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I don't put much stock in writer Alice Dreger, or sources like Michael Bailey and Ray Blanchard. Dreger and Blanchard have supported reparative therapy for trans youths, and Bailey wrote a notoriously transphobic book a decade back that claimed transwomen are motivated by being sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as women.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I would argue that it's more socially acceptable (in western society at least) for women to be lesbian than for men to be gay, so perhaps there are more women open to the idea of same-sex relations than there are men.

I would say that more women are open to exploring their sexual identity because of this.Attractions are quite stable after so long of remaining in the discovery phase where one openly seeks experimentation.

[9]

Link me to the article in full.The selected portion leaves much room for guess work and definition semantics.

The link is in the original post.

Also,


I would say that more women are open to exploring their sexual identity because of this.Attractions are quite stable after so long of remaining in the discovery phase where one openly seeks experimentation.

What does that mean?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The link is in the original post.

There seem to be many links, which one is the article you are referring to? Is i the one which has the following description... "A dynamical systems approach to female same-sex sexuality. Perspectives on Psychological Science,"

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What does that mean?

Sometimes people are confused about their sexual orientation/identity and as a result enter what I call a "discovery phase" where they will engage in various sexual acts with consenting partners in order to find where they belong. Mostly this happens with teenagers and adults who repressed their sexuality.

[9]

There seem to be many links, which one is the article you are referring to? Is i the one which has the following description... "A dynamical systems approach to female same-sex sexuality. Perspectives on Psychological Science,"

Um, its the link in the first post in this thread... psycho's post.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Um, its the link in the first post in this thread... psycho's post.

Oh...lol.... well, you had a link in your post so I got confused....

[Decommissioner]

Personally I see "straight" as socially constructed.

Straight, as defined by homophobes and people who are explicitly heterosexual, is when someone is heterosexual, and any sort of bond that could be homosexual in nature bars someone from being considered "straight." You are either straight or you are gay.

This is in contrast to homosexuality, where homosexuals, for the most part, would not consider a heterosexual who made out with someone of the same sex or experimented a homosexual.

I feel straightness defies the natural pansexual nature of most humans. A straight person would define, for example, a heterosexual male who embraces sexual relations with a trans female a homosexual. This makes no sense, as in that instance the cisman would be attracted to a woman, whether this woman is cis or not is irrelevant.

I made a thread on this a long while back, questioning whether or not sexuality, namely heterosexuality as currently defined by society, is socially constructed. I believe it is.

[Crux]

I'm always a bit wary about attempts to say sexuality is biologically determined, simply because I am wary about biologism in general.

[Thirsty Crow]

Who cares?

It doesn't matter if sexual orientation is hardwired genetically, inculcated in childhood, or even chosen on a whim. Everyone deserves the same rights regarding sexual freedom.
Absolutely agree.
I think it's about time that anti-discrimination groups start to dismantle this whole false dichotomy of nature-nurture in issues of sexual orientation and sexuality. It implies actually, in my opinion, a sort of a post hoc justification, as if there needs to be an explanation of why some men sexually prefer men, women other women and so on. In my book, this is redundant, but the struggle against discrimination itself isn't (and I think that this approach is undermining it).

[9]

Who cares?

It doesn't matter if sexual orientation is hardwired genetically, inculcated in childhood, or even chosen on a whim. Everyone deserves the same rights regarding sexual freedom.

I mean, I agree with the latter part of you post (and I imagine everyone on this website who isn't restricted agrees as well}, but I still think it is an interesting question and I don't see whats wrong with discussing it.

[gorillafuck]

I think it's probably a combination of biology and learned behavior.

[Kronsteen]

I can tell you three things about sexual orientation:

1) It changes over time.
2) People have wider orientations than they usually think.
3) All attempts to make it change have failed. Every single one.

[Thirsty Crow]

I mean, I agree with the latter part of you post (and I imagine everyone on this website who isn't restricted agrees as well}, but I still think it is an interesting question and I don't see whats wrong with discussing it.
Of course, the question on its own is interesting (as any other question, from the point of view of scientific inquiry), but the way it is framed, the social and political context of its appearance, in my opinion, is that of a forced justification of sexual practices which are condemned as subnormal.

This doesn't in fact mean that all research of sexual orientation should be stopped, but rather that anti-discrimination organizations should change the way in which they engage this debate.

[Veovis]

I think the reason that LGBT rights groups have latched so firmly onto the hypothesis that non-heterosexual propensities are biologically ingrained is simply to counter the assertion from the right that it is a choice and can be made to change. Of course, this is a false dichotomy but in the world of political rhetoric nuance and accuracy always seem to get the short end of the stick.

I think it's a mix of biological factors and upbringing that influence someone's sexual propensities (not orientation, as that implies a self-chosen identity).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Who cares?

It doesn't matter if sexual orientation is hardwired genetically, inculcated in childhood, or even chosen on a whim. Everyone deserves the same rights regarding sexual freedom.

While I certainty agree with the fact that we need to primarily rally around the principle of sexual equality regardless of any other factors - and I would never NOT work with a dedicated fighter against oppression if we disagreed on this question (which would make things tough since it's pretty much the majority opinion among LGBT activists and allies) - but I do think this is an important question that should be brought up when appropriate.

First of all I support the idea that sexuality is constructed and I think there is much more historical evidence for this compared to the biological and psychological evidence used to argue the idea of inherent sexual preference. Second I think the idea of inherent sexuality can in ways weaken the fight for liberation - especially when it comes to people who are trans or bi-. It reinforces some of the same ideas that bigots have used in the past and creates the sense that there are specific and fixed categories for people and therefore some validity to gender roles being seen as also inherent. Third I think it's a tactically weak position because it give ground to the bigot's arguments that if sexuality were somehow not biological, then certain behaviors and feelings are illegitimate. This giving ground can again, can lead to people who don't fit into the notion of "gay/straight" being seen as sort of illegitimate... the (liberal) left has tried to combat this effect with increasingly narrower "boxes" of defined sexuality which just leads to fragmentation of a liberation movement (i.e. trans women or other sexual minorities that aren't gay or lesbian, have to fight their own fight rather than being part of a larger movement of sexual liberation).

Lastly, aside from thinking that the evidence is more convincing, why I prefer the argument that specific sexual preference is not inherent is that it basically cuts right to the main point about ending sexual oppressions: that people need to be free to have any consenting relationship they want. This totally disarms any arguments about if it's biologically determined, or psychologically inherent, or can be *barf* fixed. Then the only question is about liberation, not the nature of sexuality or definitions about what fits into which column.

[MotherCossack]

I would argue that it's more socially acceptable (in western society at least) for women to be lesbian than for men to be gay, so perhaps there are more women open to the idea of same-sex relations than there are men.
i think it is more about the actual sexual act... from a male and a female perspective..... traditionally speaking they are very different!
the female can, theoretically, be asleep and have sex...
the male does, probably, need to be slightly more awake ... his role is a bit more well defined and clear cut.... ejaculation is the single goal, i think.
because women have a less clearly defined role in the procedure.... they have been able over time to improvise a bit more .... they dont have to pass any batons or anything so can be a bit more adventurous.... or maybe i am talking boll**ks. [couldn't resist that... sorry]

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I can tell you three things about sexual orientation:

1) It changes over time.
2) People have wider orientations than they usually think.
3) All attempts to make it change have failed. Every single one.

Proof for all please.:rolleyes:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

While I certainty agree with the fact that we need to primarily rally around the principle of sexual equality regardless of any other factors - and I would never NOT work with a dedicated fighter against oppression if we disagreed on this question (which would make things tough since it's pretty much the majority opinion among LGBT activists and allies) -

Are you saying that you wouldn't work with Queer Activists if they thought that sexual orientation was inborn?


First of all I support the idea that sexuality is constructedOf course you do... are you Queer?


and I think there is much more historical evidence for this compared to the biological and psychological evidence used to argue the idea of inherent sexual preference.As I have said before: where is this supposed evidence?


Second I think the idea of inherent sexuality can in ways weaken the fight for liberation - especially when it comes to people who are trans or bi-. It reinforces some of the same ideas that bigots have used in the past and creates the sense that there are specific and fixed categories for people and therefore some validity to gender roles being seen as also inherent.That is quite the leap to make: inherent sexuality leads to reinforcement of gender roles? How so? How would "Constructed sexual orientation" lead to less defined roles? You seem to be conflating the two struggles when in reality the bigotry has more to do with Heterosexism than gender roles (per se. There is wiggle room and some cross over but I would say it is more directed to Heternormality).


Third I think it's a tactically weak position because it give ground to the bigot's arguments that if sexuality were somehow not biological, then certain behaviors and feelings are illegitimate.Except that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that it is biological. As others here have pointed out the problem isn't in that its biological but there are too many biological factors.


This giving ground can again, can lead to people who don't fit into the notion of "gay/straight" being seen as sort of illegitimate... the (liberal) left has tried to combat this effect with increasingly narrower "boxes" of defined sexuality which just leads to fragmentation of a liberation movement (i.e. trans women or other sexual minorities that aren't gay or lesbian, have to fight their own fight rather than being part of a larger movement of sexual liberation).The Queer liberation movement has never been united so this weakens your argument here. It is not because of liberal interference, necessarily; but, rather, due to the typical ills of bourgeois society: chauvinism, ignorance, and the rest. Women, for instance, during the years proceeding the Stonewall Rebellion, had to split off from the male dominated GLF and form their own liberation groups. However, much like the men treated them, when Transsexuals emerged onto the scene they were not welcomed by the female groups because of misplaced notions of gender norms, so they had to break off and fight their own fight. The same can be said with bisexuals who, for the longest time, and still do to an extent, are discriminated against by gay males due to reactionary thoughts that one cannot be Bisexual and it's "just a phase before coming out as gay." Obvious all these positions are counterproductive yet they were not introduced into the movement by liberals (especially not when the liberation movement was nearly controlled by revolutionaries).

[Kronsteen]

1) It changes over time.
2) People have wider orientations than they usually think.
3) All attempts to make it change have failed. Every single one.
Proof for all please.

The number of gay people who unexpectedly form straight relationships. The number of straight people who have gay experiences. The number of people who drift from one to the other.

The utter failure of the ex-gay movement or any form of anti-homosexual 'therapy' to produce a single conversion from gay to straight. The fact that gay-for-pay prostitutes and porn actors don't turn gay, no matter how much gay sex they have.

In other words, everything you as a 'queer nationalist' are supposed to know already.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The number of gay people who unexpectedly form straight relationships.

Many gay people who grow up in bigoted households deny their orientation and enter into opposite sex relationships despite how they feel on the inside. It is fortunate that these people find the courage to escape someday.


The number of straight people who have gay experiences. The number of people who drift from one to the other.Again, many people have a difficult time in discerning their identity and orientation and,as a result, drift, experiment, and wander until they find out who they are.


In other words, everything you as a 'queer nationalist' are supposed to know already.lol

[Lilith]

'Queer Nationalist' is supposed to be a joke, right? Because if not, it certainly ranks highly amongst the dumbest things I have ever heard.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

'Queer Nationalist' is supposed to be a joke, right? Because if not, it certainly ranks highly amongst the dumbest things I have ever heard.

There are Queer Nationalists as well as Gay Statists who believe in some sort of "Homeland" for gay/queer people. For more info google a site called the "Gay Homeland Foundation." Their stance is funny (to say the very least).

I wouldn't call it dumb but it is counterproductive.

[l'Enfermé]

I feel straightness defies the natural pansexual nature of most humans. A straight person would define, for example, a heterosexual male who embraces sexual relations with a trans female a homosexual. This makes no sense, as in that instance the cisman would be attracted to a woman, whether this woman is cis or not is irrelevant.


What do you mean by your first sentence? Only a very tiny minority of humans are "pansexual", how could pan-sexuality be natural to humans? Advance the cause of gays, sure, it's a noble goal, but let's not invent things.

What's a trans female? Is it someone who was born male and used surgery/hormones to appear female, or a woman who used surgery/hormones to appear male? I am not familiar with these terms.


The number of gay people who unexpectedly form straight relationships. The number of straight people who have gay experiences. The number of people who drift from one to the other.

The utter failure of the ex-gay movement or any form of anti-homosexual 'therapy' to produce a single conversion from gay to straight. The fact that gay-for-pay prostitutes and porn actors don't turn gay, no matter how much gay sex they have.

In other words, everything you as a 'queer nationalist' are supposed to know already.
Men that have loads of sex with men are not gay? Not even bisexual? This is hard to believe. Maybe if "gay" people unexpectedly form straight relationships, it just means that they're not gay but actually bisexual?

[Kronsteen]

gay-for-pay prostitutes and porn actors don't turn gayMen that have loads of sex with men are not gay? Not even bisexual? This is hard to believe.

You're saying that people who do a job must enjoy that job? That's obviously not true.

Or are you saying that if a person does something enough, they'll start to enjoy it?

Okay, test it out. Whichever sexual taste you have, try watching several hours of porn for a completely different taste - every day for a year. If you're into heterosexual vanilla sex, watch a load of gay bondage. See how long it takes to turn you into a leatherman.

Here's a hint: Gay men have tried every imaginable way to turn themselves straight - from electrocuting themselves while watching gay porn, to having sex with hundreds of women, to prayer. There's not a single recorded instance of it working.

[Kronsteen]

The number of gay people who unexpectedly form straight relationships. Many gay people who grow up in bigoted households deny their orientation and enter into opposite sex relationships despite how they feel on the inside. It is fortunate that these people find the courage to escape someday.

You mean like the singer Tom Robinson, who grew up in homophobia, found the strength to come out and sing 'Glad to be Gay' at a time when hate crimes against gay men were the accepted norm...and later fell in love with a woman, married her and raised a family.

Did he stop being attracted to men? Did he betray the gay community? Did he sell out? No, he just discovered that his sexuality at 40 was broader than it was when he was 20.


Again, many people have a difficult time in discerning their identity and orientation and,as a result, drift, experiment, and wander until they find out who they are.

The point you're strenuously avoiding is that 'who they are' is not a fixed quantity.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You mean like the singer Tom Robinson, who grew up in homophobia, found the strength to come out and sing 'Glad to be Gay' at a time when hate crimes against gay men were the accepted norm...and later fell in love with a woman, married her and raised a family.

Did he stop being attracted to men? Did he betray the gay community? Did he sell out? No, he just discovered that his sexuality at 40 was broader than it was when he was 20.

Uh, the dude was bisexual... in accordance with my other posts it just took him some time to figure that out (must have been growing up in that Queerphobic household).


The point you're strenuously avoiding is that 'who they are' is not a fixed quantity.

No, its not, But who you are in terms of sexual identity and orientation is.

[Dogs On Acid]

What 2 people do under the covers is nobodies business but their own.

[Ele'ill]

What 2 people do under the covers is nobodies business but their own.


Eh, sort of but it's everybody's business knowing that it's perfectly ok which is why I don't like this talking point. It kind of says 'well we dont' want to know about all that other stuff so let's not ever talk about it, ever.'

[Dogs On Acid]

Eh, sort of but it's everybody's business knowing that it's perfectly ok which is why I don't like this talking point. It kind of says 'well we dont' want to know about all that other stuff so let's not ever talk about it, ever.'

That accepting mentality to LGBT will only come with time and education. That's if LGBT discrimination can even be eradicated under Capitalism, that makes good use of it to divide the workers.

Heck, you think Homo hating is bad? How long do you think it's going to take for the masses to accept Transvestism?

For now, I think it's more realistic to expect the masses to be tolerant than accepting.

Don't forget we're light years ahead of society.

[Kronsteen]

Uh, the dude was bisexual...

Or his sexuality changed, exactly as it appeared to.

You seem to think that anyone who enjoys homo-sex at one point in their lives and hetero-sex at another must be bisexual their entire lives and intermittently in denial about one or another side of it.



'who they are' is not a fixed quantity.
No, its not, But who you are in terms of sexual identity and orientation is.

Evidence that everyone's sexuality is preset and unchangable please.