Is sexual orientation a choice?

Add message | Report | Message poster EatsBrainsAndLeaves Mon 18-Jun-12 21:24:27
Yes I think all men are sexist. Yes I think all women are oppressed. And tbh I am always surprised that others don't see this.

Eats, that maybe your experience but I don't believe it holds true for all women. That's where we part ways.

Yes I think all men are sexist. Yes I think all women are oppressed. And tbh I am always surprised that others don't see this.

Can one of the women in a lesbian relationship expect the OH to do all the work in the house (as a sexist man) might? Does this happen or do people think lesbian relationships are more equal at home compared to some male / female relationships?

Believing all men are sexist is akin to believing all women are oppressed... Just not the case, IMO.

Eats, just to be clear... Are we disagreeing on the point all men are not sexist?

Well we disagree on that point eclectic

Eats, that's my point- not all men are sexist. You chose to have relationships wih women rather than be bi because you didn't want do deal wih sexism in a romantic relationship. You are assuming all men are sexist... That just isn't the case.

Eclictic - never seen deciding not to shag men described as discrimination before.

I am attracted to women including my partner, but I chose to be a lesbian rather than bi, etc, because I did not want to have deal with sexism from men in such a close relationship. I wasn't a radfem when I met my partner. Now I would decide to be a lesbian for political reasons.

"And as a RadFeminist who has chosen to put women first, then it does make sense politically to choose to have female partners rather than male partners."

Eats, are you saying you choose to be a lesbian purely because you discriminate against men?

I agree with Julie Bindel. I think there are a small group of women whose desire seems to be clearly for men or women. I don't think those women are born that way, we are born with the potential to be sexual, but we learn sexual attraction and desire.

But most women I think have the potential to be attracted to either men or women. And as a RadFeminist who has chosen to put women first, then it does make sense politically to choose to have female partners rather than male partners.

The idea of being born gay has been seized on by some gay people as a way of arguing against discrimination i.e. don't treat us badly because we cant help being like this. While I understand why someone would choose this position, its hardly a positive approach to take to challenging discrimination.

Have just read through this whole thread. I'm a newbie to this board and mainly lurking at the moment, but do get put off posting a bit when some threads seem to suddenly disintegrate into insults. I'm all for robust debates and disagreeing btw, just not abosultely jumping on people as opposed to saying I don't agree with you.

I was interested in a point raised earlier about how much (or little) we see lesbians in popular culture. There are books, films, TV series out there, and perhaps they are becoming more mainstream (thinking about things like the L Word and the British equivalent which I've forgotten the name of). If sexuality is potentially fluid and influenced by society and culture, then does it follow that greater exposure to a variety of expressions of sexuality in popular culture might help to balance out some of the conditioning other people have talked about.

I feel really uncomfortable with Bindel's argument about bisexual women. I think I feel uncomfortable full stop with having to categorise and contain something so complex as sexuality. I don't know what I would self-identify as. As time goes on, I'm more happy to live with ambiguity.

"I think the whole "is it natural" question is a dead end.

It harks back to old school thinking about "the natural order" and that you can divide human behaviour into natural and unnatural and use that distinction to condemn or discourage so called unnatural behaviour - "it is unnatural for women to lead" "lesbianism is unnatural" etc..."

I agree. It's very tempting to argue that X - lesbianism, bisexuality, extended breastfeeding... - is natural (in the 'occuring in nature' sense), because 'unnatural' feels like a hurtful insult, and indeed because many of those things arguably are natural, it's just that our perspective has been skewed by society. But, there's so many examples where natural things are clearly terrible, that it's a logical fallacy to condemn something because it's unnatural. Obviously we don't want to construct a society where everyone behaves like wild animals; I think focusing too much on natural vs unnatural, while scientifically interesting, tends to reinforce the flawed 'natural = good' idea.

On the other hand, it seems that many religious people have a whole different-again meaning for 'natural' which I don't fully understand... it would be great if someone religious could explain what they mean by 'natural'.

Beachcomber - I could ask exactly the same question to you. Himalaya was even accused of gaslighting on another thread because she disagreed with someone.

surely normal would have been 'well what about bonobos, they use sexual behaviours for other reasons don't they?'. i was at a really good talk from a primatologist who worked studying bonobos and would have happily talked about them, i may even have said good point and explored how i thought that fitted in with human sexual behaviour. why instant rude and attacking as if the point isn't the discussion but to attack people and employ propaganda as to what they said and what it implies and blah blah blah.

i honestly get nothing from this kind of bullshit mudslinging anymore - it's not fun, it's not informative, it doesn't encourage exploration and growth of ideas. it just dead ends everything.

Oh for goodness sake.

sAf didn't not say 'PIV/sex for pleasure/whatevah is unnatural and that is a fact and anyone who disagrees is wrong wrong wrong and bang the gavel.

She was musing out loud. She put her thoughts into two posts, and she actually said 'just thinking out loud' in one of them. It was obvious from the tone of her post that it was a 'this is my take on it' type opinion post.

Hmm, choose to take that the wrong way, really personally and start swearing and throwing words like 'utter hypocrisy' 'bloody oppression' 'fucking politics', and claiming that disagreement is Not Allowed by the nasty feminists.

Then I get called patronising, belittling, rude and oppressive because I pointed out that there wasn't any reason to take things personally.

Can I just ask a simple question. Why is it seemingly OK for some posters to be extremely thin skinned and say some pretty harsh things to other posters - and those posters are just supposed to do what exactly? Suck it up? They're radfems, they don't have any feelings, right? They can be attacked, lied about, called names, have their words misrepresented and it will all bounce of them, right?

Charming

I think the whole "is it natural" question is a dead end.

It harks back to old school thinking about "the natural order" and that you can divide human behaviour into natural and unnatural and use that distinction to condemn or discourage so called unnatural behaviour - "it is unnatural for women to lead" "lesbianism is unnatural" etc...

I do despair that some parts of feminism seem to have bought into that fallacy, while trying to fix it by changing the category of what is natural/unnatural.

I agree with Devora, we can talk about 'natural' in an everyday sense to mean whatever works best for a person being true to yourself, and this is important.

It is certainly is not a fact that non-procreational sex is unnatural for humans. It could be said to be unnatural for a whole host of species that don't do it. But this is a bit like saying it is unnatural for birds to breathe underwater.

If it were natural for humans (men and women) to only have PIV sex when conception is likely we would need some natural way of sensing that. Human beings have no natural way of sensing when women are in oestrus (unlike animals with a "in heat" period). We have to take our temperature, POAS, monitor mucus or count days from last period etc.... Concealed ovulation is natural in humans.

There are tons of things humans do that are different from other primates. This does not make them unnatural!

The point was about the act of PIV being presenting as not being natural and presenting the idea as fact. Well, its not a fact. Its an opinion. And people don't like the fact it got pulled up over the difference which is important.

How can you have a discussion over whether something is good, bad or ugly when you are TOLD it as being set in stone. To do so is to dismiss any discussion over it. I never at any point said that challenging the idea of PIV was problematic, I do resent however being told what it is or isn't. Which was the case.

Its closing down a discussion, before it even starts.

As I said before, it has validity in a discussion as an opinion. It is not however a fact.

Me too, Devora!