Is sexual orientation a choice?

[WidowWadman]

Julie Bindel seems to think so.

Is it just me or is that actually fairly offensive?

it's not a belief to say that human sexual behaviour be it lesbian, heterosexual or bloody anything is not 'natural' in the normal meaning of the world because in nature sex is for reproduction. our sex for pleasure - whichever way we do it is something different. therefore NONE OF THE WAYS of doing it are better, more natural, etc etc than any other. it's just social values.

learn not to be so bloody rude hmm! wow you're being so vile!

seems you and bindel would have a lot in common re: your manners and consideration of others.

Sorry, but its important and I think its important to address stuff like this.

There is a massive difference, and I'm sorry that sex for pleasure is disputed as being exclusive to humans as is sex for power and influence in a group.

Therefore it is a belief rather than a fact. There is evidence for both possibilities.

SAf, it is, like, really offensive to hint that human sexuality might be influenced by socialization - especially if a feminist says it.

What about the natural sexual behaviour of bonobos, as close to us as chimpanzees? They use sex for comfort, bonding, apology...

Beachcomber / Saf

Pointing out the difference between a belief and a fact may be something you don't like, but its an very important thing to do. If you present something as a fact it holds more weight and influence over others than if you present it as a belief.

You can say it might be or you think it is influenced by socialisation and thats very valid. But you don't know. Its an area very much contested by an awful lot of people for an awful lot of reasons. Don't get upset when you are challenged over it, as it is a very legitimate thing to do.

I do have issues where things are dressed as fact when they aren't. Why? Because its a method of influencing others and making your opinion look like it has more weight and substance than it actually has.

saf - it's incorrect to say that only humans are having sex for other means than reproduction, sex for fun, as well as sex for domination, homo- as well as heterosexual is pretty common in the animal world, not only in primates (most notably bonobos).

What a shame this thread has turned nasty. It seems there's a backstory here which I don't fully understand - I don't go on feminist threads much because it does seem to deteriorate like this, which is such a shame.

I have to say that it seems like there is a little wilful taking offence going on, apparently because of other threads. But FWIW I don't see what is wrong in challenging the idea of PIV as 'natural'. I don't see any form of sexual expression as 'natural', including my own. What is feminist discussion about, if not questioning everything we have been taught to see as natural?

What I DO find slightly surprising is how thin-skinned some people are at any questioning of their sexual practices. That doesn't mean I think it's ok to be rude to people because of their sexual orientation; it isn't. But, you know, maybe heterosexuals who get outraged and offended on these threads could reflect a little on what it feels like to grow up gay, how constantly and casually everybody insults your sexual orientation. And then think that it's perhaps not surprising that some radical lesbian feminists go a bit OTT once they get started. Cut them some slack! A lot of what Julie Bindel writes is not ok, in my book. But think about where it's coming from, and learn from that. You can afford to, if you've had a lifetime of heterosexual privilege; you really can.

" 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."

Hmm, I agree with you. It would be very helpful if people said
IMO or I believe and not portray such opinion as fact.

No one is saying that sexual relations of same sex is in natural, the point is sex is not just for reproduction in the human species and therefore it can occur naturally between anyone who is consenting.

Is not natural... Typo

Just because PIV sex is not what you find natural doesn't mean it's not natural for some people. This board is always about them versus us. As Devora posted earlier, compassion and wisdom are improtant factors.

Well, this is semantics, isn't it? We're using 'natural' in two different ways. If you take 'natural' to mean inherent, born-that-way, as-god-or-nature intended, essentially 'normal', than many feminists (including me) would argue that no sexuality is 'natural'.

If, however, you use 'natural' to mean the sexual identity that works best for me on many levels, that expresses who I believe myself to be on a very deep level, that comes easily and beautifully and feels in harmony with my inner self, then yes it's fair enough to use the term.

Of course, the relationship between the two meanings is where we should focus attention. Without anyone getting offended.

Yes Devora, I'm taking the second definition. Feminism seem so reliant on fixed definitions to simplify things. Not everyone posting on this board is using the feminist definition, they are most probably using the mainstream definition, in this case the second one. So quick to take offence here without clarifying what people mean. However, asking to expand your opinion is apparently trolling.

[waves olive branch] Can I just say that I'm really happy for anyone who is having great sex, of whatever kind. Especially after having children

Me too, Devora!

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.

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!

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

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.

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