Sorry, I think the strange use of 'adhere' makes that unclear - I should have said 'prevalent'.
Breitbart
- Thread starter Woebot
- Start date
Sorry, I think the strange use of 'adhere' makes that unclear - I should have said 'prevalent'.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Sure, understand that. However, for sake of argument/uncovering the logic behind all this - what changes if we do say that sexuality is something chosen or changed on a whim? (1) Are some people then less deserving of protection?; (2) This would also apply to those who define as heterosexual.
Hmm, I think this can't be argued away so easily. What about the argument that, just as 'whiteness' is a construction that is so solidly embedded in almost all social relations that it passes for fact, so is 'heterosexuality'?
Openly admit that I have done very little reading about this, but surely worthy of consideration?
Last edited:
john eden
male pale and stale
Well yes. So it seems logical to suggest that when we build a society which isn't hung up about this stuff there will be more non-heterosexual people?
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
More people who openly display their non-heterosexuality, certainly.
john eden
male pale and stale
Which is surely proportional to those who act out their non-heterosexuality in private but do not wish to display it in public?
john eden
male pale and stale
Well that is probably better but you seem to be arguing that heterosexuality will always be the most common form of sexuality? I'm not sure how you can know that?
Well, I dont see sexuality as a binary to start with, but even with making assumptions of a Kinsey type scale and acknowledging that the demographics of sexuality are difficult - even somewhere like San Francisco gives you about 15-16% based on surveys/estimates...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Change_over_time
Even if the real figure was twice that, hetrosexuality would still be more prevalent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Change_over_time
Even if the real figure was twice that, hetrosexuality would still be more prevalent.
subvert47
I don't fight, I run away
This thread is moving too fast for me to organize my thoughts. 
A few comments on a couple of baboon's posts...
You're right, it isn't. It's primarily about resolving personal issues. But it's not really about conforming to normative notions of what it is to be a man or a woman. Okay, there are conservative people within the trans community who believe that men are naturally "this" and women are naturally "that", but these views are no more prevalent than in society in general. Far less prevalent in fact, since the trans community as a whole is massively gender diverse, there is a definite gender freedom, as you'd expect from a community that has thought very seriously about gender for a long time.
Hmm, "expect" to pass... You either do or you don't, at any given time. There are trans people who pass all the time, whether they want to or not. And others who almost never do. And if (when) you don't, you tend to find out pretty quickly. Passing certainly has practical value, in that you're recognized by default as what you are, and you're not hassled for what you're not. So trans people will often make an effort to pass, even when they don't really want to. It's a problematic issue.
I agree with most of that; and I'm not particularly keen on "born this way" narratives, with all their "we can't help it" connotations.
All the same, I'd probably tend towards the view that basic sexuality (i.e. straight, gay, bi) may be innate for most people, or so embedded that it makes no difference. But how we act on that, how it manifests itself is certainly determined by culture. There's no way, for instance, that a (certain type of) heterosexual man's desire for a woman in sexy lingerie could in any way be regarded as innate. This is a learnt response.
A few comments on a couple of baboon's posts...
You're right, it isn't. It's primarily about resolving personal issues. But it's not really about conforming to normative notions of what it is to be a man or a woman. Okay, there are conservative people within the trans community who believe that men are naturally "this" and women are naturally "that", but these views are no more prevalent than in society in general. Far less prevalent in fact, since the trans community as a whole is massively gender diverse, there is a definite gender freedom, as you'd expect from a community that has thought very seriously about gender for a long time.
Hmm, "expect" to pass... You either do or you don't, at any given time. There are trans people who pass all the time, whether they want to or not. And others who almost never do. And if (when) you don't, you tend to find out pretty quickly. Passing certainly has practical value, in that you're recognized by default as what you are, and you're not hassled for what you're not. So trans people will often make an effort to pass, even when they don't really want to. It's a problematic issue.
I agree with most of that; and I'm not particularly keen on "born this way" narratives, with all their "we can't help it" connotations.
All the same, I'd probably tend towards the view that basic sexuality (i.e. straight, gay, bi) may be innate for most people, or so embedded that it makes no difference. But how we act on that, how it manifests itself is certainly determined by culture. There's no way, for instance, that a (certain type of) heterosexual man's desire for a woman in sexy lingerie could in any way be regarded as innate. This is a learnt response.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
@john : i think my last answer was a bad one - what I should have said is 'more people willing to acknowledge thoughts/possibilities of non-heterosexuality to themselves', rather than presenting it as a public/private divide in the sense of 'private' = actions in private.
Admittedly am feeling confused as to what I even think at this stage, so above may not make sense.
Admittedly am feeling confused as to what I even think at this stage, so above may not make sense.
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I'm not sure I get you - a society in which most people aren't attracted to the opposite sex is not really going to flourish, population-wise, is it.
subvert47
I don't fight, I run away
Well, thank you
As a paid up associated member of the trans community myself, I have a lifelong interest in gender issues, and of course this is feminists' turf as well.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I recall an excruciatingly stupid article in New Statesman a few years back, in which the author described how she'd had a few unsatisfactory relationships with men while in her late teens/early 20s and had therefore made a more or less conscious decision when she was about 25 that from then on, she was going to be a lesbian, and that was that.
She then extrapolated (from this sample size of 1) to the entire human race, and declared that because she could decide her sexual orientation, anyone could.
(Perhaps society isn't ready for the awesomely radical idea that sexuality is determined by different combinations of factors in different people, and that for some people it really is set in stone, for some it's essentially a matter of choice and for others it's somewhere in between?)
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
@subvert Thanks for these thoughts - I'm going to go away and think about this some more myself, as my ideas are v jumbled right now.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
First off, heterosexuality (as usually understood) is far from the only configuration of sexuality that involves any kind of attraction to the opposite sex.
Secondly, in terms of numbers, what % would 'need' to be attracted tot he opposite sex for a society to flourish population-wise (open question, I haven't thought about this enough)?
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
What does it actually mean for someone's sexuality to be set in stone, though? The whole concept doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I have no idea.
Does there need to be a "reason" why most people are straight, or more or less straight? Heterosexual attraction exists for obvious evolutionary reasons. Sure, same-sex attraction has been documented in loads of other animal species, and is particularly common in some of our species' closest relatives, so it presumably also fulfills some evolutionarily beneficial social function. But in terms of evolutionary pressures, this is going to be secondary to the basic fact of reproduction.
john eden
male pale and stale
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Well not necessarily even immutable, then, but beyond the person's conscious control, put it that way. I don't think it's at all common for people to 'choose' to be gay, at any rate. Of course some people can adapt to a gay lifestyle if they're in a same-sex environment for a long time (boarding school, armed forces, prison, whatever) and people with strong same-sex desires can suppress those desires, even to the point of marrying and having children, if they're in a society where it would be taboo or even illegal to act on those desires.
But that's not the same thing as being able, in effect, to flick a switch in one's head from 'straight' to 'gay' or vice-versa.
john eden
male pale and stale
There is always the possibility that future generations will look back at San Francisco not as the high point of sexual freedom, but as the last vestiges of a repressed society before we entered into a new era of currently unimaginable human community and pleasure?