Is sexual orientation a choice?

[WidowWadman]

Julie Bindel seems to think so.

Is it just me or is that actually fairly offensive?

Sorry, it wasn't clear to me that the term was why you found the post offensive, which what caused our initial misunderstanding.

Why is it offensive to say there may be a strong element of choice in sexual orientation?

I've always thought that at some level I chose to be a lesbian. Of course, it wasn't that straightforward, but I'm quite capable of having enjoyable relationships with men but have chosen not to. My dp feels the same.

I'm aware that not all lesbians feel like this. And even fewer gay men. But I'm not going to deny my reality because it doesn't fit with current orthodoxy, or because it inconveniently fits with what some American bigots are saying.

As for the rest of the article, I don't share Julie Bindel's political perspective and I was quite prepared to read and critique it, but reading ncg's posts have rather put me off. Criticise another dyke for being too dykey? Nah.

Yup, after 30 years as a lesbian it may be that what I think of as active choice is actually comfortable habit

The article was written by a sixth former in 1984.
Therefore I'm not rising to it.

Labels. I hate them. People change in their sexual orentation...or they stay the same with reagards to which sex they are attracted to. We're just obsessed with NAMING every emotion, every thought process and every little tic that we go through. Boring.

Nah. I'd prefer to be lesbian - it would make my life easier in numerous ways and I do find women sensually appealing. But I've tried it and it just isn't 'there' for me. Could be the pheromones or summat, but a sexually excited male (assuming I'm willing) has an effect on me that women don't.

I agree that sexuality's a lot more fluid than our society likes to admit. A person can be sexual in many different ways, and people change. But it's plain wrong to insist that sexual orientation is some kind of lifestyle choice. Folks have died for their orientation, and continue to suffer for it. They wouldn't do that if they could choose otherwise, would they?

Hah, breasticles! Just seen your post

'Plain wrong' -

I'm not sure that argument works, garlicbum. I suffer sexism, but would never want to be a man. My dp suffers racism, but would never choose to be white. And so on.

Devora, I was saying that you have no more choice about your sexual orientation than you do about being a woman or black, or sightless or deaf, etc.

I think there is a difference because there's a fluidity to sexuality which there isn't with those other things - and you can choose not to express sexuality at all. But I maintain people wouldn't have died for their homosexuality if they were able to simply choose to be straight.

I don't think anyone knows how much of sexual orientation is innate and how much is acquired, the scientific body doesn't make any claims of knowing. I think all human behaviour is a mixture of nature and nurture, so I don't see why sexuality would be any different. I think that those who come down on one side or the other have a political motivation for doing so until the evidence is there to support them.

AFAIK, there is some considerable criticism within the lesbian community of political lesbianism as it is seen as s appropriative. Also, would you really want to sleep with someone, who rather then fancying you, viewed you as a political statement? I wouldn't.

Also, having read Julie Bindel talk about her first kisses, first with a boy and then with a girl, it would appear that she is of the fancying women rather then men sort, I think she just claims it's a choice to gain some sort of credit, like it's not enough to be an "accidental" lesbian.

"So if you're politically for women, as a feminist, why not put your relationship-having energy into being with women too?"

Say what? Does that only apply to sexual relationships or friendships, too? I choose my friends according to their personalities, not their gonads.

Why should feminism "or being politically for women" mean that you can't hang out with men (who share your viewpoints)?

What Ethel said - well done for saying it.

My grandmother had three sisters who chose to be 'spinsters'.

They lived together and all had jobs and travelled a lot. Two of them had very close female friends, who my mum later told me, were lovers. The third sister was celibate AFAIK.

I know from talking to my aunts that this was very much a lifestyle they chose. They were from a family of 11 children and didn't want a heteronormative set up - they didn't call it that . They called it 'being married'.

Brilliant essay by Adrienne Rich. Thanks Ethel.

My organizing impulse is the belief that it is not enough for feminist thought that specifically lesbian texts exist. Any theory or cultural/political creation that treats lesbian existence as a marginal or less "natural" phenomenon, as mere "sexual preference," or as the mirror image of either heterosexual or male homosexual relations is profoundly weakened thereby, whatever its other contributions. Feminist theory can no longer afford merely to voice a toleration of "lesbianism" as an "alternative life-style," or make token allusion to lesbians. A feminist critique of compulsory heterosexual orientation for women is long overdue. In this exploratory paper, I shall try to show why.

I am suggesting that heterosexuality, like mother-hood, needs to be recognized and studied as a political institution

why species-survival, the means of impregnation, and emotional/erotic relationships should ever have become so rigidly identified with each other; and why such violent strictures should be found necessary to enforce women's total emotional, erotic loyalty and subservience to men.

The list of characteristics of male power is sobering and thought provoking.

Thanks for those links Ethel

Of course what people are forgetting is that heterosexuality may be a choice too.

If we look at the animal kingdom there is some evidence to suggest that the natural state is to be fairly sexually indiscriminate, old, young, same or opposite sex, inanimate objects, other species, even dead animals come in for sexual attention. Just as in the human species. But in human society we are at pains to separate sexual behaviour into silos and label some normal and some abnormal, we want to be able to say "that person is always this thing and it is good/bad". Whereas I suspect the reality is more complex and we all have the potential to go in any number of directions in general and minute by minute, but exaggerate certain sexual preferences due to life experiences and subconscious or conscious beliefs or desires.

For those who say there are no benefits to being lesbian and nobody would consciously choose that path if there were alternatives, I think you are a) overlooking the fact that choice doesn't have to be conscious and b) there are certain benefits to some individuals in some circumstances.

Why should it be a threat to your lifestyle that you take part in it willingly rather than unwillingly? Surelynthepolitical argument isn't whether you have a choice, but whether you have the right to that choice?