First of all, allow me to show my cards: I like women, sexually.
Although I’m a bit of a ponce, somewhat of an effeminate fella – I dress in a way that some would consider flamboyant, I wear nail polish, I hug and sometime kiss my friends, males included, and I can occasionally overly animated, again, perhaps the right word would be flamboyant – I’m a raging hetero. Straight as a pole. Gay as a muddy hole is white.
Look at how boss he is!
And the reason that I mention this is because I’m comfortable with my sexuality. I’ve questioned my sexuality. I’ve contemplated the idea of finding men attractive. I’ve even, at times, convinced myself that because of my rather outlandish ways, I must, MUST, be gay; after all, what sort of straight guy paints his nails and knows who Karl Lagerfeld is?
Nevertheless, despite these ambiguous societal standards woven of pure grey that I’ve, on countless occasions, applied to measure my own sexuality, my love of woman has proven irrefutable.
I like girls. I’ve no choice in the matter.
Wherein lies my point:
I like women. I don’t have a choice. Boobs, butts, feminine legs (sometimes this is misleading), long hair (also, on occasion, misleading) and vaginas (usually not misleading), respectively, turn me on.
And in the same way that this is the case for me, so it is the case for the gays and their ways.
Recently, I watched a video on Youtube, where one of the topics of discussion was whether or not being gay was a choice. To me, it’s not really a discussion worth entertaining.
And so, I wrote a post about it? Anyway…
The video’s panel comprised a wide range of participants; ranging from the likes of Richard Dawkins – an evolutionary biologist and an atheist “campaigner” – all the way through to evangelical pastors, and equally evangelical politicians.
When the topic of homosexuality was specifically exposed for debate, one of the highly religious people of the panel, Betty King, made a comment, running along the lines of, ‘you make a choice to be a homosexual, and you are not forced to.’ She also mentioned that in her mind, homosexuality was not morally right, and that without a man and a woman, the man sitting next to her, a rather well-known gay activist, could not have come into being.
Here, Dawkins, in his usual jeering manner, outlined, very bluntly, how her views were totally irrelevant and invalid.
This was then promptly scoffed at by some of the panel, saying how Dawkins, and people like him, were blind to their arrogance, because of their unwillingness to accept the validity of other’s views. Adding that people are all entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, and that we should not write each other out because of them.
However, and as Dawkins highlighted, those who’d decided to argue this had completely missed the point he was making.
Yes, indeed, everyone is entitled to believe whatever it is that they like. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong because of your biblical persuasions, fine; that’s your prerogative, and so be it. That’s not what this post is about.
And in this sense, there is nothing at all wrong with what Dawkins said: Her views very much are invalid. Meaning, they are quite simply, wrong.
The truth is (relatively) the truth whether we like it or not. It’s indifferent to our beliefs, and insensitive to our maudlin fantasies.
Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is exactly one of those things; the answer isn’t based on one’s own personal belief regarding the matter, but rather on scientific based inquiry; on measurable analysis.
Exactly…?
And I’m not sorry to say, but love, attraction, or whatever you want to call it, is blind.
Though, I’ll even concede that there is one argument to say that being gay is a choice: simply put, you could remain celibate. I mean, in order to “be gay,” so to speak, you’ve got to actively fuck someone of your own gender. And in that respect, you’ve a choice to follow through, literally, with that action, the act of pursuing someone, sexually, that you find attractive.
But that’s about as far as that train of thought extends. It’s vague and silly. And it doesn’t expose the root of what is actually being inferred, which is that one chooses his or her sexuality.
Again, love (attraction) is blind, folks. It knows no bounds, and sees no gender. It – attraction – is embedded into our human genome in the form of a primordial driver, forcing us, not necessarily to procreate, but to mimic the act of procreation. And that’s all. It doesn’t take a scientist to fathom how this is so.
In conclusion *taps cue cards on desk* homosexual acts are actively pursued, and thus chosen. Actually being a homosexual is not.
It’s genetic, yo.
Humans-are-lovers. And how you wanna love is none of my business.
As you say, the topic is barely worth discussing. Only by completely ignoring the facts and clinging to a holier-than-thou, repressive point of view one can defend the opposite. I guess it’s always fun to have someone to hate or to feel morally superior to for whatever reason. However, nothing you say will ever convince them. And that’s the really sad part.
Tis a bit. I guess some part of me is somewhat hopeful that if people who are against the gays, for whatever reason, learnt that it wasn’t a choice, but a mere natural pull, they’d start to think about things a little differently. Probably over ambitious, but meh, gotta write about something. May as well spread an idea that I think is worthy of being spread.
My “adopted” daughter came out to us this year. She was sexually abused by her “real” family and says that she’s not attracted to ‘other’ women besides her partner. Her partner, however, says she is simply attracted to women. My take on it? None of my business. I just love my daughter and her partner as well.
Tis a great take on it, I reckon. I can’t say that this is the general rule, as I’ve no way of knowing if it is, but I would assume that a lot of the reason why people have a problem with their children’s lifestyle has to do with selfish reasons; “what will people think of me?” “How will people react?” “Me, me, me!” It’s like polygamy. What’s wrong with a healthy polygamous relationship? People fall in love with internet programs. If you’re with a person, and not a racoon, you’re doing well on the “normal” scale, I reckon. Oh, and kudos to you!
It’s always nice to hear.
I can’t say much on this topic because then I get all moody. Someday, someday it won’t be a big deal and people will just let people live and be and whatever … but then again, no never mind. The human race disagrees with one another. That’s the way we are. It’s a beautiful thing really. Live. Let live. Some will come around, some won’t. But that’s the same with anything. When I came out as a bipolar, depressed, bisexual, food addict, I lost a good chunk of vegetarian loved ones. But I lived and so will others. Not that the whole gay thing isn’t a big deal, but … it really isn’t. You’re straight. You’re gay. You’re attracted to antelope. Who cares. (Though I do care when it comes to equal rights … that’s where it goes from being nobody’s damn business to okay, get things fixed already America).
Agreed, loony. I don’t really care at all. As the expression runs, “haters gonna hate.”
But yeah, like you said, it’s still kinda ridiculous how people are discriminated against so much, still so often. I still get all tense when someone calls me a fag; not because it’s an offensive thing to say, but only because I dislike being around such hate filled words. Why is it any of your business, random, prehistorically minded person? Fuck off, mate.
1. The human brain is a mystery to us, we only have good, plausible and the latest popular theories theories about it and how it works.
2. We all have a choice about who we lay down and and engage is sexual activities with.
3. Does it have to be all or none? Perhaps there is a spectrum. Humans are complex no?. Perhaps some individuals have more say or choice over their attractions and desires than others and can steer them as they wish? I myself am thrown to be attracted to women but I could switch teams if I had the motive and or need to do so. A hole is a hole from my POV. but for now, men and their holes do not show up whatsoever on my radar, and I am content being attracted to women who like like Kate Upton.
Nah, I don’t think it’s necessarily gotta be all or none, but I do think that it is like that. You can’t help who – and in some cases, what – you’re attracted to, I very much don’t think. Like you said, any hole’s a goal. That’s the very nature of attraction, it pulls like gravity. I suppose you could force yourself to be attracted to someone, but is that really attraction? I don’t reckon it is. Thanks for your enthusiastic commenting spree, it’s much appreciated!
Yeah, people definitely do seem to have a default way of seeing and being in the world.
But I don’t view shaping (or attempting to shape) one’s own way of seeing and being as necessarily “forcing” oneself to be what one is not or forcing anything but rather being creative and getting involved in exploring the default limits of what one can think feel and be. And I am curious to see if one can actually generate authentic attraction. Humans are so mysterious unlimited and our brains capacity so untapped, so neuroscientists tell me. Why not look out beyond the status quo? Maybe some can do things others cannot or are unwilling to do.
The PC culture around this topic makes it heresy to speak about such things. But I have a feeling you are a good friend of heresy
I would add that the most accurate statement might be expressed as “homosexuality IS a choice when it is a choice and it is not a choice when it is not a choice.”
This leaves room for everyone on the spectrum and does not force a catch all politically correct belief system on anyone.
Haha, it’s funny you say this. I’ve always contemplated whether one can consciously develop their “creative” juices, so to speak, or whether they’re inborn. I’ve decided they’re inborn; though, will change my mind if someone can compellingly show me otherwise.
I’m not convinced we have a choice in anything. Or, in other words, I reckon the “I” behind the “me” is not actually behind the me, but a part of it. Or, in other words,, brain = mind, mind = brain. There have been some pretty compelling neuroscientific tests done to show that our brain decides our fate before “we” do. And for me, it seems to fit in logically with all else I’ve ever come to realise/understand. Sam Harris specifically has done a lot of good work on it; you seem the type who’d enjoy it … if you’ve not already.
And indeed, I’m a friend of heresy. Not intentionally … I don’t have a choice, it’s just the way my brain works
very interesting.
Perhaps is it the brain that spits out slogans, rules, assumptions, shibboleths about sexuality being a choice and and other brains all spit out agreement to that? It is my experience that the brain – let’s call the mind/brain IT, likes to keep things the same and have itself survive forever and never be questions or looked at too closely. And then all the other IT’s fight tooth and claw to maintain the status quo on any subject of enquiry.
Like you said, we know so little about the brain, that it’s even difficult to speculate.
P.s, I’ve enjoyed these chats!
I mean speculate correctly … correctly. Speculation’s all we’ve got.
yeh, lots of guessing…..
After so many years, sexuality and orientation is still a question stumbling biologist, psychiatrists and psychologists. And today we still have priests and politicans prescribing rules over these areas of our lives. See link below.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/96545/singapores-prime-minister-lee-hsien-loong-says-to-just-leave-anti-gay-law/
Humans are weird indeed.
It’s funny that. I think sexuality is so much more simple than what it’s made out to be. If you take away the term, sexuality – and all its sub-categories – then all you’re left with is animals acting out like animals, without petty words to define (skew) this process. I like chocolate ice-cream much more than vanilla ice-cream. I’m not a chocolatist. Why does sexuality need to be labelled? It boggles my mind. And indeed, priests and politicians should stick to what they know, which unfortunately is often very little.
U hit the nail on its head. Why are we judged n defined on what we prefer? My sexual preference is my business n why is the state so concerned about it? (From Singapore, by the way).