Is sexual orientation a choice?

[WidowWadman]

Julie Bindel seems to think so.

Is it just me or is that actually fairly offensive?

compulsory heterosexuality even.

in that sense engaging in sexually pleasuring activities for pure fun or relationship forming is just as 'natural' with same sex or other sex. it's the natural fulfilling of sexual desire i guess - who you do it with is irrelevant because it's not for reproductive purpose anyway.

thinking out loud but yeah - think you have to distinguish between sex as reproduction and sex as pleasure, identity, bonding, etc.

Possibly because I've never felt the need to conform in the first place. Being gay or lesbian was never a huge big deal after you got past age 17. And seeing as I never had a relationship before then it wasn't an issue. I've always seen it as other people's problem not mine tbh.

I never felt it was compulsory. Despite any prejudice. I think the word compulsory is far too strong.

swallowedAfly Sat 16-Jun-12 09:59:51
i'm dubious about the term 'natural' here - re: calling piv perfectly natural sex. there's really nothing natural about the way we have sex.

sex is for reproduction in our nearest relatives - coital sex was only engaged in when the female was in oestrus.

so whilst it's 'natural' to have piv sex for reproduction it's not really natural to do it for pleasure and all the other uses we make of it.

I despair at comments like this. I really do.

You know. Sex is natural. PIV is natural. Sex not involving PIV is natural.

For the love of god, stop trying to make one better than the other. All this catergorisation for the sake of fucking politics is just as bad as any bloody oppression.

I don't get why you can't see the utter hypocrisy in it.

And I despair at comments like yours Hmm.

I said at the beginning of the thread that I was hesitant about entering this discussion and comments like your one above is the reason why.

I'm sick of all the adversarial bullshit in this forum. I'm sick of the insults and aggression that appear when women try to explore certain subjects.

Chewing the fat on an internet forum is not oppressive. People throw this around like confetti whenever they disagree with someone. 'You're oppressing me with your political analysis and opinion I don't agree with'. Oh Please.

It IS oppressive when you suggest that something isn't natural when it very much is to a sizeable number of people. Its bonkers to put values on sexual practices whilst claiming you are for free expression.

Sorry, but its not a competition, and trying to explore subjects involves accepting that actually some people think that what you are saying is a great big heap of dog doo and pointing out the utter hypocrisy in those who claim to want equality and free expression is fair game.

You are welcome to keep discussing, but don't expect people to nod like the Churchill Dog.

It isn't about disagreement or nodding dogs. Just, yunno, discussion that doesn't have to be hostile because people disagree.

Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

I find it oppressive when values are placed on thing and other things are devalued in a political way that undermines another persons experience.

I find the idea that PIV is unnatural by some feminists as a exercise of power. It places those who do value it and do find it natural outside of their group. It is drawing lines in the sand about what is acceptable and what isn't.

So yes, it is oppressive. Even by your own patronising dictionary definition.

To be frank, I regard vast elements of radical feminism as deeply oppressive and deeply conservative and reactionary rather than encouraging free expression and belief. I find it a very prescribed and narrow view of feminism that doesn't believe in liberation values. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, that as a bisexual I often found feminist thought on this forum very alienating. Julie Bindel's article and this whole business of PIV pretty much sums it up for me.

PIV satisfies one part of me. It comes very naturally. But it doesn't satisfy every part of me. Equally other forms of sex don't fulfil that either and they come very naturally. They are just different, and equally valid. I despair at the PIV business as it completely disregards my experience and the experience of many others.

I don't doubt that PIV isn't right for many people. Whats right for me, isn't right for them. Where I think it is wrong, is for others to make generalisations and say that PIV is unnatural. As if it is right for some then of course its a natural experience. That is oppressive.

libertarian* even.

Thank you Hmm.

When, on another thread here, I said that I found PIV enjoyable, I was told that I shouldn't find it enjoyable, because it's no different then being poked in the ear.
For me feminism is about liberation of female potential. I do not find someone being judgemental and critical of my sexual preferences in anyway liberating, it is the opposite.

Finally, WFT is it with all the whining and hints (or outright being told) to go elsewhere if you disagree with whatever's deemed as "the standard line". It's rude and tedious. This is an open board, everyone should be able to comment.
There already seems to be a far smaller number of commenters then days past and I'm sure certain attitudes are the reasons why.

I always used to defend FWR when it got a kicking elsewhere on mn, but I'm starting to think some of the critiques are very valid.

I think your post is mixing up analysis of society and value judgements on individuals. Analysing PIV or anything else is not about judging individuals, it is about observing and commenting on societal patterns and politics.

I'm sorry you find my posting of a definition patronising - it was purely intended to show what I understand the word to mean.

FWIW, I engage in PIV myself despite finding it problematic on a political level - and I have political discussions without finding them a judgement on my personal life.

I think your post is mixing up analysis of society and value judgements on individuals. Analysing PIV or anything else is not about judging individuals, it is about observing and commenting on societal patterns and politics.

I'm not mixing anything up. Do not patronise, belittle or suggest I lack understanding thank very much. Its rude and again very oppressive behaviour.

The comment was made that PIV was unnatural because it wasn't just for reproduction in humans but for pleasure and other uses. I disagree completely. I believe it is completely natural in many ways.

Okay.

Then could somebody explain to me how people are supposed to have political discussions and analyse society then?

Because I'm at a bit of a loss - if it is verboten to discuss anything that relates to anything that anyone might potentially take personally because they do it/like it/identify with it/agree with it/experience it/think it/feel it, etc, how are people supposed to discuss things that occur in society?

I'm a bit confused as to what just happened to this thread. It was trundling along not too badly, stuff was being discussed, not everybody agrees, people were chewing the fat. Then sAf posted some musings about sex/nature/socialization and now suddenly the thread is about what oppressive patronising meanies radical feminists are. Again.

I have said numerous times in this section that I have NO PROBLEM with folks disagreeing. Quite the contrary - it keeps things interesting. I do however have a problem with 'stop discussing this because I am taking a political conversation personally/disagreeing, and if you don't stop that means you are oppressing me' type posts.

When, on another thread here, I said that I found PIV enjoyable, I was told that I shouldn't find it enjoyable, because it's no different then being poked in the ear.

No you weren't. I was on that thread. No-one said that to you. A poster wondered out loud in a totally non-personal way why the vaginal orifice should be explored when say, we don't explore our ears.

Nobody told you that you shouldn't enjoy PIV because it is no different to being poked in the ear. The post was addressed to you because it was in response to something you had said - but the poster didn't 'tell' you anything, they gave a general opinion.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1479204-Radical-feminism-and-PIV

VashtiBunyan Fri 01-Jun-12 13:16:14

GAG, I don't really understand why orifices need to be explored. I don't explore the inside of my ear.

Is the vagina packed with nerve endings? I thought that was just the bit around the vulva, which you can stimulate without penetration anyway. I can't feel a tampon once it is in, so I'm assuming my vagina is not packed with nerve endings.

I am more concerned that a lot of people don't understand that an engorged clitoris is the same size as a penis, where it is located or how to stimulate any part of it other than the tip. The sexual element of the vagina, while having its own unique pleasures, is a secondary concern for most women when it comes to having an orgasm.

I don't think that is grudgingly admitting people enjoy PIV sex - I think it is just putting the level of sexual pleasure in some kind of context.

There already seems to be a far smaller number of commenters then days past and I'm sure certain attitudes are the reasons why.

Yes, lots of us don't bother much any more because it is very difficult to discuss anything when everything is taken personally.

Discuss things without over generalising.

Discuss things without devaluing the experience of others. The use of language is very important and as a feminist i kind of expect you to know and understand WHY it is important.

This is why I find the fwr section so frustrating. I don't mind my experienced being critiqued as typical or not typical, but to deny my experience as completely invalid or wrong isn't on. We are not all the same, and I find the failure of feminists to observe this so frequency only reinforces problems rather than celebrating and encouraging diversity and freedom. Its why I find it alienating at times. There isn't an embracing of this often enough. Instead lesbians are like this, bisexuals are like this, men are like this etc etc.

Sex and PIV isn't political for some people. Its just what they like and find works for them. I don't think its wrong. For others it is. And again thats fine too. It should be respected rather than saying things like I believed then, and I believe now, that if bisexual women had an ounce of sexual politics, they would stop sleeping with men.

That is placing value and hierarchy which is as controlling as any notion that PIV is better and is a way of controlling women.

I don't think sexual orientation is a choice. What you choose to do with it is.

but i didn't place value on anything ffs - i stated a fact. i didn't say any type of sex was better or worse i just pointed out that there is no 'natural' president for human sexual behaviour outside of reproduction. i have no idea why that induced such rudeness.

Its not a fact though and you are still presenting it as if it is!

Thats the problem. It isn't a fact. Its a belief.

is it like you can't make a comment at all now on these boards without someone twisting what you said into the little polemic world of crap that is going on?

it makes discussion pointless and impossible and then the people doing it accuse others of being 'oppressive'?!?

it's ridiculous.

you can't have a discussion because everything you say is twisted into what someone assumes it says or wants it to say so they can continue their fight. so a conversation goes, 'statement x', 'god it's so ridiculous that you say y' 'but i didn't i clearly said x', 'y is so fucking ridiculous'. ???? just ridiculous.

Learn the difference between a belief and a fact.

Its important.

'I think' rather than 'It is'.