This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

all 70 comments

[–]flapyourwings[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Tired of OP bloviating. This isn't a debate sub or a soapbox for men to lecture women about sexuality.

[–]censorshipment 27 insightful - 5 fun27 insightful - 4 fun28 insightful - 5 fun -  (18 children)

Sexuality i.e. sexual orientation isn't a choice.

Sexual desire i.e. lust isn't a choice.

Sexual activity is a choice (where people have bodily autonomy).

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

If this is true, the implication would be that asexuality is impossible for most people, that genes compel a person to experience sexual lust. This would, likewise, mean that someone's desires are divorced from ideology, that they have no beliefs about a certain sexualised thing/person, but rather that something biological automatically causes them to feel a certain way. If choice isn't involved in such experiences, sensual or internally artistic, it would mean that someone is frequently being psychologically attacked, that they feel the way they do due to their genetics compelling them to, even if they don't like it whatsoever. If they do like it, however, that can only be because of ideology. If someone doesn't like sexuality, their experiences of it must be truly horrific. Or, is it the case that they're not actually experiencing sexuality, or 'sexual arousal,' but, rather, their genitals are moving in accordance with a certain, specific, OCD fixing arrangement of things, which causes blood to be pumped to such genitals? The same reason any genital movement occurs in non-sexual scenarios.

[–]GatitoMalo 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This follows correctly up until "Or, is it the case that they're not actually experiencing sexuality," where you lost me.

Example of your psychological assault: people who non-volitionally desire pre-pubescent children, pedophilia. Many of them experience great distress over this, not all of them act on it. Some pedophiles are perfectly happy molesting children.

Yes, we have compulsions, not just organs. You have a stomach. It is not enough to have a stomach, you need a compulsion to put things into it. It is not just enough to have sex organs, we need a compulsion to use them. Without the compulsion, the organism dies and dies out, respectively.

[–]xandit 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If choice isn't involved in such experiences, sensual or internally artistic, it would mean that someone is frequently being psychologically attacked, that they feel the way they do due to their genetics compelling them to, even if they don't like it whatsoever.

an example of this is someone who is gay but because of their upbringing have born told those desires are wrong. they have no control and may even try conversion therapy, which would not be needed if desire was a choice.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I've addressed this prior. I wasn't saying someone felt psychologically attacked because of anti-gay ideology, but because they themselves, on their own, not born out of any social conditioning, but born out of ideology, don't like their attraction. They're not anti-gay, they're just not interested in such lust.

[–]xandit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

they're just not interested in such lust.

and you are saying they can just choose not to be gay, the way you made a choice not to be straight because of misogamy.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'm saying it's, on average, more rational for women to be exclusively sexually interested in women, if they're interested in any sex at all, just as it's more healthy for men to be exclusively sexually interested in men.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If this is true, the implication would be that asexuality is impossible for most people, that genes compel a person to experience sexual lust.

The amount and kind of sexual desire humans experience varies widely from individual to individual, usually varies quite a lot within the lifespan of each individual, and varies too amongst persons of different sexes, life experiences, health histories and so on. It's quite common for girls & women to experience markedly different levels of sexual desire at different points in the menstrual cycle as well as during pregnancy, after childbirth and when breastfeeding/rearing young children.

In general, there have always been people who from puberty on are heavily inclined to horniness, and those who never feel horny at all. Ascetic traditions and roles for those who are asexual and celibate have always existed in pretty much all cultures.

I don't think you understand how genes and gene expression work.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I'm saying that no genes exist which create sexuality. I'm saying people come to be sexual, based upon the social construct that is sexualness, through social engineering, through the various environments which shape and structure them to be the type of person that they are.

[–]GatitoMalo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm saying that no genes exist which create sexuality.

Most everything living on this planet reproduces sexually, and those lesser creatures don't have social constructions.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not saying sexual reproduction doesn't exist. But, you see, people in this very thread stated, correctly, that sexuality isn't defined by sexual intercourse, but rather by arousal and attraction. Clearly, if sexuality was sex, sexuality would be a choice, since people choose which sex to be with erotically.

[–]usehername 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

genes compel a person to experience sexual lust

Yes, good. Sexual lust is the biological mechanism that drives humans to reproduce. Some people feel that attraction for the same sex, which they are obviously incapable of reproducing with, but that's fine.

If choice isn't involved in such experiences, sensual or internally artistic, it would mean that someone is frequently being psychologically attacked, that they feel the way they do due to their genetics compelling them to, even if they don't like it whatsoever.

This is the way the vast majority of same-sex attracted people feel about their same-sex attraction when they first start feeling it (puberty) and sometimes their entire lives.

rather, their genitals are moving in accordance with a certain, specific, OCD fixing arrangement of things, which causes blood to be pumped to such genitals?

Sounds like a fetish to me.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Well, I should clarify on what I meant here.

Same-sex attracted people do, of course, experience psychological distress arising from anti-gay sentiment. And, obviously, this is bad, and shouldn't occur. What I'm talking about, however, is not this phenomenon, but the fact that if someone experiences sexual arousal, it might not at all be a positive thing for them. The claim that sexuality isn't a choice, it would mean that experience feelings one experiences, which they have no control over, wouldn't be derived from ideological beliefs, and, therefore, must be a distressing thing for the subject. It is quite possible that since one no has beliefs surrounding this sexual arousal, they might not like it, and might not want to engage it. This would imply that asexuality is something people cannot choose, that they are forced to be sexually aroused, and to be inherently sexual creatures. We're not talking about sexual intercourse, but merely sexual arousal.

What if someone never wants to look at erotica or pornography? What if they don't want to masturbate, or look at sexually exciting images? So, they, supposedly, have these genes residing inside of them, but they don't want to act on their attraction, not even privately. How are they sexual? Additionally, what if someone doesn't have the genes, but looks at erotica of one sex, and masturbates to that sex. Are they not sexual?

In relation to my genitalia movement comment, all sexual feelings are derived from having fetishes, whether consciously or otherwise. One can have an unconscious fetish, but it's still derived from societal phenomena, and doesn't exist due to any biology.

[–]Irascible-harpy 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

By definition, you can't have a fetish for sex. The claim "all sexual feelings are derived from having fetishes" is blatantly false.

"Something, such as a material object or nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification."

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Well, the definition has sort of been modified over the years. Today, it's understood by some that a 'fetish' refers to viewing anything, with a sexual lens, as a sexual thing, as a means to getting off to it.

[–]Irascible-harpy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Understood by "some". You've literally just picked an incorrect definition you like. Words have meaning. "Fetish" means what it meant. Your definition makes less sense than the one established by dictionaries. You can't have a fetish for sex/sex organs.

[–]usehername 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

if someone experiences sexual arousal, it might not at all be a positive thing for them. The claim that sexuality isn't a choice, it would mean that experience feelings one experiences, which they have no control over, wouldn't be derived from ideological beliefs, and, therefore, must be a distressing thing for the subject.

Sometimes it is distressing, yes. But in general, there's nothing wrong with two adults consenting to have sex with each other, and sex is pleasurable (biologically, sex is pleasurable to encourage animals to reproduce, similar to the way that eating is pleasurable to keep animals alive). So your claim that all sexual arousal is negative because it isn't a choice doesn't hold up. People feel unwanted arousal all the time. Any man will tell you about unwanted boners, but for women, arousal isn't visible like that when clothed, so it's not that bad.

Also, are you saying every single emotion you experience is distressing because you can't control it? Or that every event that happens to you is distressing because you can't control it? The desire to eat is distressing because you can't control it? In general, no. There are a lot of things we can't control in this world, and it would be very painful to experience distress over every single event or feeling you have because you can't control everything.

What if someone never wants to look at erotica or pornography? What if they don't want to masturbate, or look at sexually exciting images?

They don't have to, but not masturbating usually results in sexual dreams, and they will still experience sexual arousal. Even if someone chooses to be celibate, they still experience sexual arousal. In that case, especially if they have chosen to be celibate for religious reasons, they will likely experience distress when they feel sexually aroused.

asexuality is something people cannot choose

This is true. One can choose to be celibate (choosing not to engage in sexual intercourse regardless of sexual arousal), however.

that they are forced to be sexually aroused, and to be inherently sexual creatures. We're not talking about sexual intercourse, but merely sexual arousal.

Yes, every animal that reproduces sexually is an inherently sexual creature. Sexual intercourse requires sexual arousal. The only time sexual intercourse doesn't include sexual arousal is rape.

all sexual feelings are derived from having fetishes, whether consciously or otherwise. One can have an unconscious fetish, but it's still derived from societal phenomena, and doesn't exist due to any biology.

So you're convinced that animals that reproduce sexually don't have a biological drive to do so? That cats just fuck each other because cat society?

Sexual orientation describes the sexes a person is physically capable of being attracted to: same (homosexual), opposite (heterosexual), or both (bisexual). It can't be chosen. Here's a challenge, and don't involve fetishes:

Choose to be attracted to women and masturbate to the thought of the ideal one until orgasm right now.

Choose to be attracted to men and masturbate to the thought of the ideal one until orgasm right now.

Follow-up questions:

Were you able to orgasm to the thought of the opposite sex? Hold up one finger on your left hand.

Were you able to orgasm to the thought of the same sex? Hold up one finger on your right hand.

Results:

If you are holding up two fingers, you are bisexual.

If you are holding up one finger on your left hand, you are heterosexual.

If you are holding up one finger on your right hand, you are homosexual.

Sexuality isn't based on ideology. It's based on the material reality of sexual arousal.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

When I spoke of 'unwanted arousal,' what was being referred to was thoughts which contradict an individual's ideology. They don't want to be attracted to women/men, and, therefore, find distress in their genital movement (also, I mean, pedophilia is a shameful, depraved thing, so of course it causes mental issues. But, one can stop being a podophile, since sexual orientation is a choice). However, there are two things worth noting here.

First, genitals hardening or opening up doesn't imply arousal, since one literally doesn't enjoy what's happening, hates such activity, and is, in fact, distressed by it. But, additionally, erect genitalia is inherently uncomfortable. Why do you think people (often) masturbate? To get rid of that undesirable feeling.

Second, someone who likes the same sex - in this case, political lesbians - is someone who's gay/lesbian. They gravitate toward sexual material featuring the sex they want eroticised. If a woman calls herself a lesbian, doesn't partner with a man, likes the female form, she is, by all means, as created by all ideological intent, a lesbian.

I don't believe people have sexual dreams unless they actively engage themselves in sexual matters, whether through intercourse, pornography, or a variety of others fabrics which relate to eroticisation.

Cats fuck each other because of the sensual pleasure derived from it. But, I don't believe cats have a natural preference for having sex with cats only of one sex. Considering how widespread, in a variety of animal species, having sex with both sexes of a species is, it would be reasonable to assert that sexual arousal plays no role in it. When genitals make contact with one another, or when genitals make connect with a butt or a piece of flesh, usually a penis involved, ejaculation occurs from physical contact alone (sooner or later).

I would hold up both fingers, but I'm only actually upholding up the finger on my right hand, since I have no ideological interest in being sexually attracted to women. I am not sexually attracted to women, but only to men. However, I can be sexually attracted to women, for it would be a choice, and a choice I could make at any moment. Anyone's genitalia can move about as a result of viewing something which has culturally been fetishized.

[–]yousaythosethings 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Heterosexuality (which cannot be divorced from political ideology)

Like except for the fact that it definitely can be and generally is. I say that as a homosexual.

I’m not sure how you end up thinking like this unless you’re just straight and trying to convince yourself you’re into women or if you’re a clueless bisexual who assumes every gay or straight person is also secretly attracted to both sexes but with a mere preference and won’t admit it. This latter group is definitely a thing and it’s a very self-centered ignorant attitude.

Only one sex makes me wet. I choose women over men like I choose to eat chocolate cake over a pair of scissors. And I know enough people intimately to know not everyone is secretly like me. I know I’m the outlier. It’s pretty fucking obvious. I can tell the difference between a bicurious straight woman having a moment/pansexual, bisexual, and a lesbian. And it’s not just in how we choose to live. We’re wired different. Our bodies respond or do not respond to different things.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

So, there's a lot to unpack here, with what you're remarking. I think you definitely believe you're not a lesbian for political purposes, but ultimately it should be addressed why the vast majority of radical feminists aren't heterosexual, but label themselves as either lesbians or bisexual women. Obviously, it's not a coincidence.

A woman have, at any time, with or without any certain genes (which don't even exist), leave her husband, find a girlfriend, have sex with her girlfriend, masturbate to gynophilic erotica, have her vagina open up when looking at aesthetically pleasing images of women, and draw and write about erotica featuring lesbian relationships. Is anything of this not a choice?

'She's actually bisexual, and just merely expresses herself in such a way as to appear as though she's a lesbian.'

I think the issue with this sentiment would be... well, that'd it make everyone bisexual, including asexual-identified people. The reason one's genitalia moves when looking at certain images, or having certain erotica thoughts, is because a certain, ultra-specific arrangements of things, that things are the way they are, conditionally, has been met, that it subsists in this state, causing the mind to activate movement within the genitals. Hence, why non-sexual seeming things (in relation to fetishes) turn people on, that their genitalia hardens or wets. It is not the case that anything, in all of existence, is inherently erotic, but rather that its status as erotically pleasing is socially woven, and, as a result, people react to such imagery with sexual excitement. What is, and isn't, sexual differs from culture to culture. A major example is movement and behaviour from women and feminine appearing people which society classifies as sexual, but when men and masculine appearing people do it, it's not considered sexual, not seen in such a manner.

In case you're wondering, I'm a man. A man with androphilic fantasies. Could I, if I wanted to, be a heterosexual man, gynophilic? Yes, of course I could. It's not even difficult, from a sensual perspective. But, from a logical perspective, it is extremely, extremely difficult. Because liking women, in my case, but not in everyone's case, is not logical, but illogical, it harms me psychologically. Hence, why I only masturbate to fantasies involving men, and read/watch erotica featuring male relationships. If I wanted to, I could read/watch gynophilic material, and also masturbate to female-centered fantasies. But, that's not me, for ideological reasons. Because I care about this thing called objectivity, because I know such thoughts make me feel bad, because women are already endlessly objectified (a lot of the time, against their will). Because I'm a man, and being of the male sex, desiring a population distinctly genetically different from myself just feels weird and unnatural.

If, in an alternate reality, men were the ones who were always sexualised and objectified, and never women, and I was a woman, it's possible I would've been gynophilic instead of androphilic. Currently, I live in a world where women are only ever sexualised and objectified, and I'm a man. So, it makes sense for me to be erotically interested and sexually attracted to masculine men, exclusively the male sex.

Literally any time I want, I can stop feeling things for men, quit liking them. Heck, straight women can, whenever they choose to.

A bunch of studies have found that lesbian-identified women are just as sexually turned on (measured by genital movement and eye dilation) as bisexual-identified and heterosexual-identified women by guy on guy porn, when they were test subjects watching such sexual activity. Sorry I can't find the study (I think I actually bookmarked it, but it's so far down my list of citations, I can't get it now), but if you look up similar things, you'll find it's accurate science. But, does this mean that such women were actually turned on by male on male action? It depends on the individual woman. A straight-identified woman may not like gay male porn, but a lesbian-identified woman may love it. Hence, why certain lesbians regularly watch gay male porn, or only ever watch it in terms of their erotic choices.

What I'm saying is that there's no actual genetic difference between women of any claimed sexual orientation. Straight-identified women can experience sensual movement in response to watching lesbian porn, and lesbian-identified women can feel the exact same way watching gay male porn. Likewise, it has been found, in a variety of academic studies (again, I've probably bookmarked them, but it's so far down that citations list), that straight-identified men are just as equally sexually moved, in terms of genitalia and eye dilation, as bisexual-identified and gay-identified men, when watching guy on guy pornography. But, this doesn't mean everyone who's been in these tests likes this erotic business equally.

Let's say that a woman is in the process of being raped, and though her rapist never touches her genitalia, her vagina nonetheless opens up. Does this mean she was sexually aroused? No! Absolutely not! There was zero, absolutely zero, sexual excitement derived from such an incident. She was not turned on, she was not sexually aroused or sexually attracted. She hated every moment of such torture and torment. If anything, her genitalia moving actually made far worse for her. Psychologically damaging, she was under the impression that she was 'sexually turned on,' and therefore must've somehow 'enjoyed' it. But, she didn't enjoy it. A lot of women, and a lot of men, experience genitalia movement, even when no touching has commenced, in response to incidents of sexual violence being committed against them. However, they hate this, and it instils an immense quantity of shame and guilt into them, self-hatred. The reason their genitalia did what it did was because the act being performed on them is considered sexual by society, and, therefore, subconsciously, someone's genitals move, but no sexual attraction is present whatsoever. Likewise, eye dilation occurs when someone checks out a painting, or looks at small-sized words. It's not inherently sexual, as nothing is. It doesn't, at all, imply sexual arousal. Nothing does. 'Sexual arousal' is just something society has made up.

Sexuality isn't like taste buds. I don't really like chocolate cake, because I don't tend to like sweet stuff. I'm a savoury person. But I actually have evidence for this, since taste buds objectively exist. No matter how hard I try, I can't make broccoli soup taste good. I can, however, direct my thoughts in such a way as to get, and maintain, an erection, and climax shortly afterwards as a result. This is something anyone can do.

I do apologise if some of the stuff I've mentioned about myself is rather graphic. I'm just describing in scientific terms the process of sexual arousal.

[–]usehername 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I've seen the studies you're referencing and they were measuring vaginal lubrication. Women experience vaginal lubrication as a response to all sexual stimuli (including visual, such as watching porn) as a defense against rape. If a woman is raped and does not lubricate, she could die. Women can and do experience vaginal lubrication without arousal of the clitoris (check out a diagram, some of it's internal) which is the female sexual pleasure organ. Lubrication as a defense against rape isn't true arousal. However, it's true that some people may experience unwanted arousal during rape as a result of being sexually stimulated. This completely undermines your point that sexual arousal and orientation is a choice.

I can, however, direct my thoughts in such a way as to get, and maintain, an erection, and climax shortly afterwards as a result. This is something anyone can do.

Genuine question: can you orgasm to the thought of a woman (no fetishes involved, just the woman, her experience and her body)? If so, you aren't gay, you're bi. You may choose to "live as a gay man" and never pursue women, but you're not gay. Gay men (exclusively homosexual males) aren't attracted to women and can't orgasm at the thought of them.

[–]GatitoMalo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The preparation hypothesis. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797610394660

This completely undermines your point that sexual arousal and orientation is a choice.

👍

[–]usehername 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for the source

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The studies were measuring arousal via vaginal lubrication. So, yes, we're both thinking of the same studies. Now, I'm a man, and no man has a vagina. So, I don't quite know how this stuff works. But, based upon your description, it does sound rather weird and sketchy to claim that a woman could die as a result of not lubricating while being raped. The body does not recognise sex, as virginity is a social construct, so the only way this could be is if an object - a penetrative one; maybe a penis, but not having to be - enters into her vaginal area, and she fails to lubricate while this is happening. If so, it would be the case that many women, who have broken vaginas, possibly a result of female genital mutilation, die masturbating, placing penis shaped objects into their genitalia, and failing to lubricate. I'm sorry. I don't mean to come off as insensitive. It's just that I've literally never heard of this before.

So, you're saying that for a women to be sexually arousal, it can only be measured through clit simulation? That her clitoris has enlarged? I don't know if any studies exist for that, but the belief that clitoris or penis movement stems from sexual arousal is actually pseudo-science. The reason I brought it up in the first place, mentioning those studies, was because if people did consider that sexuality, sexual arousal, it would mean that anyone can choose their sexuality.

Firstly, why do you think that women were suddenly lubricated after viewing sexual imagery? Clearly, women are only a microscopic fraction of the time vaginally lubricated. I highly doubt it was a coincidence.

Secondly, a person cannot get an erection, or a stimulated clitoris, without fetishistic thinking. If I look at a woman, even a conventionally attractive woman, even a woman I consider attractive, even a woman I consider attractive that is performing erotic acts, or is naked, I cannot get an erection. My genitalia does not move at all, but sits still. There is no enlargement of my penis or bass, and the same goes for any woman, as she, even if she calls herself a lesbian, will not feel anything, or vagina won't move, if there's no fetishistic thoughts involved. When I think about a man, or whenever I have in the past thought about a woman, I cannot receive an erection without focusing on specific things, which are super specific, in order for my genitals to harden. Hence, why simply looking at pictures of women, for lesbians, isn't arousing. It is having certain, particularistic thoughts about such women that gets them off.

You can do this with a lamp. At first glance, there is nothing inherently sexual about a lamp. But, the identical sentiment can be expressed about human beings. Human beings are not inherently sexual. They can reproduce, sure, but reproduction isn't always viewed as erotic. What is and isn't erotic is determined by society, by culture. Socialisation causes one to view certain actions, objects, and behaviours as sexual, while not viewing other things as sexual. Hence, why it's the case that for some people feet are sexual, and they can sexually get off to feet, can climax with either a penis and balls or vagina. However, for the same people, viewing people without clothes on isn't sexual. And it's not innately sexual. Nudity is just nudity. We all have private parts. Heaps of classical art depicting people women wasn't painted for the sake of erotica arousal, nor did the painters even have in their minds the idea that should depictions are sexual. Additionally, people don't view such paintings as sexual, and don't get off to them. The status of 'sexualness' is socially constructed. Thus, the brain, and the genitals by extension, cannot recognise something as sexual in itself, but only in relation to culture. If you were to have certain thoughts about a lamp, no matter how ordinary that lamp looked, one would be able to climax. It's not the case that certain people don't possess the genes to do such a thing. Anyone can do such a thing. It's just the case that some people know how to climax to certain objects, and others simply don't. For a lot of people, if they were stuck in a room with nothing but a lamp for the rest of their lives, they would eventually figure out how to successfully, and easily, masturbate and ejaculate to the lamp.

Do you get what I'm saying?

I don't ever want to erase lesbians, what being a lesbian means. That's what TRAs are doing. I'm simply saying that if any woman wishes to be a lesbian, decides to choose such a path, she can be one. The reason the term 'gay' for me makes more sense than 'bisexual' is because I don't like women sexually. That is a choice I've made. Anyone can climax to anything. I've just chosen to only get hard to guys and masturbate to images and videos of men. I've touched myself to drawings of women in the past. I didn't like it for a moment, for even though I was able to get erect, I was unhappy the whole time, and felt very gross afterwards. That was entirely due to my ideological beliefs. It was bad for my mental health, but liking men is good for my mental health. My experiences aren't the same for everyone, though. I just speak for myself. If a woman doesn't like being sexually orientated toward men, she doesn't have to be. This is what lesbian feminists are critiquing when they critique compulsory heterosexuality.

[–]GatitoMalo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, with regards to yourself, you've got a theory. I encourage you to go out and empirically test it. You're not the first one to come up with your line of reasoning, and you won't be the last. Like many before you, however, I don't think that you'll find it holds any water in the real world. I think you're trying to cope with some issue you have about being homosexual, and have tried to do so in a very complex way, probably because of your intelligence.

Almost all of us non-heterosexual people have had some variety of struggle with it. It can be a minor inconvenience, all the way up to a life-long struggle to deal with it. There are many avenues available to try and resolve it. Some people have a relatively easy time of it. Others, read every single scrap of sex research, Queer Theory, history, anthropology, psychology, sociology... they get their hands on to try and come up with a correct model for the entire phenomena.... That's the route you've gone down, and you should probably try and conclude it. Just test as you go, empirically.

A bunch of studies have found that lesbian-identified women are just as sexually turned on (measured by genital movement and eye dilation) as bisexual-identified and heterosexual-identified women by guy on guy porn, when they were test subjects watching such sexual activity.

Not quite, assuming we're referring to the same corpus. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-09556-1 if you want to see IMHO hastily-drawn conclusions, and go here for references that has the corpus in question. See note #7: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100616637616 , also the whole article is excellent as a general introduction.

[–]Greykittymomma 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Are you gay or straight before you have sex the first time? I see the attraction as being beyond our control but of course many people live closet lives or pretend to be lesbians so acting on attraction is a choice.

Sexual acts require choices but the base attraction and drive is what we name with the terms homosexuality and heterosexuality. Just my understanding but I'm just one little bisexual lady.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

So, I'm getting, from what you're saying, that anyone can have sex, but not everyone can experience attraction? If you could place your finger on it, what, precisely, is attraction (in sexual terms)? Is it erections or female equivalent? Is it admiring art or erotic depicting a certain sex in a sexual context? Is it reading/watching erotica?

It seems to me, nobody defines sexual attraction the same way. It's a bit of a vague abstraction as a result.

[–]xandit 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

at its base it is a desire to mate, it is the sexual drive, but of course people have sex for pleasure too. It involves arousal.

[–]GatitoMalo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It seems to me, nobody defines sexual attraction the same way. It's a bit of a vague abstraction as a result.

Concur. Leaving the paraphilias out of it, it is a subjective desire to have genital contact with another person. Physiological arousal usually is coincident.

anyone can have sex, but not everyone can experience attraction

It is possible to have sex with a person for an extrinsic reason, such as money, without an intrinsic compulsion to have sex with the person, for example; prostitution.

[–]Greykittymomma 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is true friend. I will have to ponder that...

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Heterosexuality (which cannot be divorced from political ideology) is responsible for this mess.

So all the members of sexually-reproducing plant and animal species that have engaged in, do engage in, and will engage in mating behaviors with members of their species of the opposite sex are doing so due to political ideology?

If a woman wants someone to be intimate with, sexually and romantically, there are other women who'd consent to be with her. And the exact same can be said with men. Men are told they should be with women, because of the patriarchal constructs called marriage, natalism, and fatherhood/motherhood.

This makes me wonder how old you are and how much life experience you've had.

Sex drive is instinctual, and sexual orientation is innate. Human males who sexually desire human females don't do so coz they "are told they should" and due to other conventions. Otherwise there would be no gay people. Lesbians are female people who are exclusively attracted to other female people.

My understanding of "political lesbianism" is that it describes bisexual women who've chosen not to have sex with men for political reasons.

If a woman wants someone to be intimate with, sexually and romantically, there are other women who'd consent to be with her.

Regardless of sexual orientation, most women with any self-respect are not interested in partners "who'd consent to be with" us. We are interested in partners that we feel attraction and lust towards. Moreover, most women with healthy self-esteem aim for partners who are enthusiastically into us, not just anyone who merely would "consent to be with" us.

I wanted to say, if you claim sexuality isn't a choice, what exactly are you saying isn't a choice? Are you saying that having sex with people of a certain sex, or both sexes, isn't a choice? Wouldn't that make such instances rape? Are you saying that masturbating to erotica featuring a certain sex, or both sexes, isn't a choice? Is someone forcing you to jack your dick or finger your pussy, holding you hostage as their sexual abuse victim? Are you saying that having sexual fantasies involving people of a certain sex, or both sexes, isn't a choice? Has someone hacked into your mind, controlling your thoughts? Last I checked, such technology hasn't been invented yet (way, way too advanced).

You are confusing sexual orientation with libido/sex drive, and then to add further confusion you're mixing both of those up with specific sex acts.

As for all your sentences that start out

Are you saying

Then proceed to make one ridiculous statement after another: No one is saying any of that nonsense except you.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Animal species engage in opposite-sex intercourse as a means of reproduction, or, as a means of sensual pleasure. Let's say that an animal possesses no knowledge that their activities with another of a different sex will result in pregnancy, and, thus, the continuation of that animal's bloodline. Therefore, they are doing it exclusively for sensual, hedonistic pleasure, and don't care about procreation whatsoever. Additionally, they don't do it with an animal of the same sex because, of course, they don't believe in pregnancy. They have no clue it exists. As there are animals who willingly refrain from sex, I would say it is due to political ideology, that such mating occurs. They objectively, the animal, consider such actions to be of a positive nature.

I don't understand what makes these women bisexual when they've chosen to identify as lesbians, live only with a woman/women, and gravitate toward sexual situations and media featuring women and lesbians.

Yes, I'm aware that romantic relationships should actually be fulfilling. That doesn't relate to what I've been saying.

[–]Treeofthoughts 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My sexuality was not a choice. I chose heterosexual, but I got homosexual and that was the end of the story.

It is not complicated or philosophical, I experience attraction, lust and love towards men, but not towards women. This is biological like many of my base emotions, we are hardly unique in having sexual feelings and sexualities it happens widely in the natural world, and we are a part of it.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Could it, alternatively, be said that you were heterosexual, but then you became homosexual? To clarify, I'm not saying you were ever straight, I'm just saying that if you considered yourself to be straight for any period of time, it's probably true if that was what you chose. I would argue that you could be heterosexual, any time you want, but that there's no incentive to want such a thing. See, it's all about ideology, because one can make arguments for a certain sexuality, they can say it's logical to be a lesbian over a heterosexual woman.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don' t particularly care about whether or not sexual orientation is a choice or innate. All I care about is that if someone says no, that' s it. Whether that person is saying no because they can' t help it or because they choose to is completely irrelevant to me.

Even assuming it' s a choice, I don' t see how this is anyone' s business but that person' s. The only people who care about your taste in bed partners are either people who don' t mind their own business or people who are trying to find a way to guilty trip you into fucking them. Why should anyone hear "no" and think "but I need a legitimate reason to accept that and leave you alone"?

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I agree that consent is the most important principle in all sexual matters, and in all of existence. Obviously. That even goes without saying (or, at least, should go without saying).

What you're saying, though, it's just not relevant to this discussion. I clearly care about sexuality being a choice because it permits women to leave abusive relationships with men and find women their own speed, and vice versa.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wasn' t accusing you of anything, you asked what our opinion on the choice/innate question was and I gave you mine, which is that it doesn' t matter.

[–]usehername 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You are confusing sexual orientation with sexual acts. Sexual orientation describes the sexes a person is capable of feeling sexually attracted to: same, opposite, or both; i.e. homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality, respectively.

The majority of people are heterosexual because sexual reproduction (the survival of the entire species) depends on it. The exact cause of homo and bisexuality is unknown, but it's thought to be due to changes in the levels of hormones the fetus is exposed to in the womb. However, it is a scientific fact that sexual orientation is unchangeable.

Monosexuals (non-bisexuals; homo and heterosexuals) are incapable of becoming aroused by one of the sexes, and will not fantasize about or engage in consensual sexual relations with the sex they are physically incapable of being attracted to (unless they are in complete denial, in which case they will not enjoy it), except in the rare case that they have developed such a strong paraphilia (BDSM, furries) that it overrides their sexual orientation and allows them to orgasm to the stimulation of their fetish, thereby rendering the sex of their partner irrelevant.

If what you're saying applies to you, and you can simply choose which sex to masturbate to/have sex with, you are bisexual. Most people are only physically capable of being attracted to one sex.

Does that clear up your questions?

[–]Cass 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I also think sexuality isn't a choice.

But I don't understand how the left believes "sex is a choice" and "sexuality isn't a choice" at the same time.

[–]jkfinn 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

Sexuality is built around male objectification of women (or her substitute)---men doing the objectifying and women having to deal with it via a array of responses which include both acceptance and rejection. Sex is a political act--or how women are made inferior and how men achieve dominance.

What would male sex be like without objectification? My conjecture is that it would be far less significant, far less practiced (if at all), far more private and, of course, far more egalitarian and real. It would also mean a new day for women’s sexuality which would slowly transform into something perhaps unpredictably different from its present forms, because the heterosexual determinant, which everyone practices or constantly has to reject, will have vanished. It would also end gender altogether, and those hundreds of labels that are supposed to derive from “natural” or “cultural” “sex attraction” to this or that sex and gender--although there would, undoubtedly, be far more lesbians.

[–]yousaythosethings 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Sexuality is built around male objectification of women (or her substitute)---men doing the objectifying and women having to deal with it via a array of responses which include both acceptance and rejection. Sex is a political act--or how women are made inferior and how men achieve dominance.

Said no actual lesbian ever.

It would also end gender altogether, and those hundreds of labels that are supposed to derive from “natural” or “cultural” “sex attraction” to this or that sex and gender--although there would, undoubtedly, be far more lesbians.

Lol no. “Gender” in terms of femininity and masculinity and expectations and associations with them very much exists among lesbians. Our innate sexual orientation is not a political or ideological choice. Nor is it some egalitarian misogyny-free utopia.

[–]xandit 10 insightful - 7 fun10 insightful - 6 fun11 insightful - 7 fun -  (2 children)

I guess gay men are gay because we reject the "male objectification of women" lol, we are superfeminists!!

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

That's part of the reason I'm exclusively androphilic, yes.

You might say you don't like what you like because of political reasons, but there is a preference, set of preferences, you hold which derive from your own individual opinions. It is like liking art, or films, or sort like that. Not like having taste buds.

[–]xandit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's the thing, sex drive is the taste buds. What foods you like are the preferences you choose. But the buds will always function as buds.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Sexuality is built around male objectification of women (or her substitute)---men doing the objectifying and women having to deal with it via a array of responses which include both acceptance and rejection. Sex is a political act--or how women are made inferior and how men achieve dominance.

So all sexuality and sex acts are heterosexual? Masturbation isn't sex?

According to your portrayal, women have no innate desire and sex drive that comes from within ourselves; we're just passive beings who respond to the sexual overtures of men. We never get horny, sexually pursue others, initiate sex. We don't masturbate. And no women have sex with other women.

Moreover, to you every act of heterosexual sex must involve the woman being made inferior and the man achieving dominance.

Sorry, these generalizations tell us more about you than about human sexuality.

[–]jkfinn 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

You didn't understand a word I said, but assume you understood everything I said. Typical social media response. ??????? You re-write my every word and misinterpret every sentence. But this said, I do believe you would burn Adrien Rich's essay on "Compulsive Heterosexuality," which I don't think even went far enough in its recognition of how CH affects ALL SEX. What to hell is wrong with me saying that if sex objectification ended, we would be living in an unrecognizable world, an egalitarian one... no prostitution, no porn, no wars, no earth destruction...

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But it was the first part of what you said that I took issue with, not the second part. I didn't say anything about your conclusions/solutions. I objected to your premise.

You know that even back in the 1970s, not everyone even amongst the world of feminism thought that everything Adrienne Rich said was the incontrovertible truth, particularly when it came to her depiction of heterosexual relations. I think she was brilliant, but not necessarily the world expert on everything she wrote about.

If my misunderstanding of what you meant is my fault, I sincerely apologize. But since other posters here with different POVs and different sexualities to mine and to one another also "misinterpreted" what you said, maybe some of the fault is with your POV and the way you stated it. I think your characterization of my post is actually more "typical social media response" than what I said. All you did was accuse me of not understanding, of rewriting your "every word" and misinterpreting your "every sentence" like I'm a moron with deficient reading skills.

Human sexuality is complex and diverse. I simply said your simplistic portrayal of all human sexuality and all heterosexual acts doesn't ring true to me.

As someone who is not a lesbian or a gay man, but who is very close to many persons of those sexualities and knows a fair bit about the vast range of their views and experiences, I would never presume to say that het and bi people are the authorities on gay and lesbian sexuality. Nor would I suggest that gay men are the ones who best understand lesbian sexuality. So why do I and others have to accept that the views that Adrienne Rich and some lesbians have about heterosexuality and ALL human sexuality in general constitute the one and only "correct" characterization?

[–]yousaythosethings 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because female homosexuality already exists naturally and not politically and it’s not some egalitarian utopia. It’s bizarre and very short-sighted that you think it would be. I also don’t want to live in a world where I have to deal with fake “lesbians” who are not inherently attracted to women saying they’re the same thing as me and infiltrating my dating pool. You’re no better than transbians.

[–]jkfinn 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You are on a totally different political or thought wavelength than I am, so my words mean nothing to you and yours have no meaning to me. I never said any of what you assume I said.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

'Said no actual lesbian ever.'

I've heard it be said before, but I think I should say it now. I think that, honestly, a lot of women who say they're radical feminists are really just gender critical liberal feminists. This criticism of compulsory heterosexuality - that one is, by genetics, forced to be heterosexual, which is what 'sexuality is not a choice' would imply - is entirely unique to radical feminism, or was anyway, as many MGTOW, pro-male types have also understood sexuality to be derived from political ideology.

Why do you think it's the case that most radical feminists aren't heterosexual-identified, but most women in general are? Clearly, ideology. I have no clue what this 'non-political lesbianism' is, as it implies that a woman's choices aren't based upon any reason, any logical sense, but are pointless, driven by hedonistic matters, or absent altogether of thought. It is, in essence, to divorce an entire person's journey from purpose, to state that there's no difference in quality, grounded by objectivity, between the romantic/sexual relationships which subsist between women and men and women and women.

Radical feminism has, for a long time, criticised heterosexuality as a political prison created as the norm by patriarchy to keep women in bondage with men. Prior to Christianity (there's nothing inherently wrong with Christianity or being a Christian, but more with how it's interpreted by reactionaries: i.e., the anti-gay sentiment), in the continent of Europe, sexual expressions between individuals of the same sex were not only socially acceptable, but normalised, and actually rather widespread. Heterosexuality exists because marriage exists. Heterosexuality exists because natalism and the family exist. Heterosexuality can only ever be political.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Absolutely correct! You nailed it.

I'll add on to it a bit. See, the sexual preferences human beings have, they hold on to them because of the social environments which surround them. For me, personally, I was drawn to the sexualisation men specifically because I was repulsed by the objectification of women. This has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with society. I could've chosen to be sexually interested in women in a society where neither women nor men are sexually objectified, or objectified to roughly equal degrees. My preferences are contextual, fashioned through the type of social organisation which subsists in the present day. Clearly, if men were always sexually objectified, and never were women, there'd be a far higher chance I'd gravitate toward women erotically.

I think radical lesbians (lesbians who are radical feminists, whether they consider themselves political lesbians or not) want to redefine both female sexuality and female sexualness. They, firstly, want to recognise that heterosexuality is a political institution, and not natural by any means. It is forced upon women (and men, as well) to force them to be together with men, to continue the family unit, and all the patriarchal social structures existent since the dawn of statehood. The sexualisation of women converts their status from humans to objects, and aids in dehumanising them, so that men have no worries in stripping them of their legal abilities. Through pornography, women are commodified further, to the point where they exist purely for the sake of erotical consumption, and not as human beings with any ounce of individualism.

Radical lesbians, they, secondly, want to cease the fetishization of lesbianism by both men and women, and to permit for all consensual sexual expressions, so that either sex can enjoy what they find erotically pleasing. Women are, from here on, not viewed as sexual properties, but human beings, who, when consenting with others (in a non-pornographic context), find freedom in their sexual experiences. Women who love women do so because they seek enjoyment and intimate connection, and not because of financial, cultural, and/or legal restraints.

It could be argued that in a post-patriarchal society, lesbianism would be far less necessary for women than it is today, since women, in this society, would be free to express themselves sexually, however they please, and women aren't over-sexualised. Women wouldn't become lesbians to try to distance themselves from men, since men no longer wield authority over them. Rather, lesbianism and heterosexuality, and, by extension, bisexuality, would just be relatively apolitical preferences, that are just expressed because they can be, as opposed to abiding by a certain set of ideological principles.

[–]yousaythosethings 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think radical lesbians (lesbians who are radical feminists, whether they consider themselves political lesbians or not) want to redefine both female sexuality and female sexualness.

They, firstly, want to recognise that heterosexuality is a political institution, and not natural by any means.

Radical lesbians, they, secondly, want to cease the fetishization of lesbianism by both men and women.

This is all supremely ironic. How do you not see how you fakeass “radical ‘lesbians’” are also objectifying and fetishizing female homosexuality? This isn’t the way actual homosexual females/lesbians think. Though it can inform our view of the world, our naturally occurring sexual orientation is not a political ideology like you want it to be nor do we view others as such because it would be counterproductive. You’re misappropriating it and holding yourselves out to the public as us, as the same thing as us, and as representative of us. Quite frankly my dear, you do not have our interests at heart and you at trading one dogma for another. With no sense of irony, you are the colonizers here.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I want to clarify, I'm not a woman (as you said, saying I was a 'radical lesbian'). I'm a man. Sorry if that made things weird. Clearly, I am opposed to the fetishisation of lesbianism, or any objectification of women. I am a man with only androphilic fantasies. Elsewhere in this thread, I've stated I'm a man, so I never lied.

To address your claim, you are saying that there are two types of women who go by the lesbian label: 'real lesbians,' who are lesbians because they feel sexual attraction exclusively to women, and fake lesbians ('political lesbians'), who are not lesbians because they're either bisexual or heterosexual, not exclusively sexually attracted to women.

So, the problem here is that sexual attraction needs to be defined. Do you think any woman who wants to be a lesbian is not a lesbian? We're not talking about, for instance, sex or race here. Someone cannot become a woman simply because they say they are. Being a woman is not an identity. Someone cannot become native American simply because they claim they are. Obviously, these things are not choices. But sexuality isn't something you can touch, something material. Sexuality is abstract, invisible, and not someone that can be detected within a person. If someone doesn't tell you they're gay, how do you know? Well, you simply don't, since all sexuality has arrived to mean is self-identification.

A political lesbian is no different from a supposedly real lesbian.

[–]yousaythosethings 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To address your claim, you are saying that there are two types of women who go by the lesbian label: 'real lesbians,' who are lesbians because they feel sexual attraction exclusively to women, and fake lesbians ('political lesbians'), who are not lesbians because they're either bisexual or heterosexual, not exclusively sexually attracted to women.

No, there are a lot of different reasons some females who do not experience exclusive female-attraction adopt or claim to be lesbians. The other categories were just not relevant.

A political lesbian is no different from a supposedly real lesbian.

You keep saying that as if we homosexual females out here in the field who are in the business of fucking women can't tell the measurable difference between women who are exclusively attracted to women vs. women who are not attracted to women or are attracted to both men and women but pursue women out of misandry. The latter think and talk about men way more than the rest of us.

I'm sorry I mis-identified you as a woman. I did see that later. Unfortunately though, almost nothing you say resonates with my sexuality or my sexual orientation. "Lesbian" is not my identity. In fact, IRL I use this word to describe myself almost never. But it is the word that describes the reality of my sexual orientation. As I said, almost nothing you said resonates with me. I'm a lawyer and constructing, analyzing, deconstructing, and evaluating arguments is what I do for a living. As for yours, you start with boldly stated premises that I don't agree with to begin with because they are so far removed and in conflict with my own experiences and observations. And then from there you jump to an equally preposterous conclusion. That's not worth my time to break down because it would be like arguing with a flat-earther. That you are a man makes a little more sense because you seem to have little understanding of female sexuality and homosexual relationships between two women.

But you know, the easiest relationship I've ever been in is the only relationship I've ever been in with with a man. He was an excellent partner and remains one of my very best friends and close confidantes. So maybe you're onto something. Maybe we should all force ourselves to be in relationships with people we are not attracted to.

Godspeed dude.

[–]lefterfield 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

The general question is usually whether sexuality is innate vs whether we choose it. I think it's probably more complex than that and based on many factors, including genetics. I don't believe anyone consciously chooses their sexuality. At the same time, I do believe you can learn to be more attracted to someone/some sex/some sexual activity, to some degree. When this is voluntarily chosen, as with political lesbianism - well, so long as everyone's happy with it, sure, w/e. When it's forced, that's rape and/or conversion therapy.

But yes, from a broader perspective, with whom and how we have sex is entirely chosen.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But yes, from a broader perspective, with whom and how we have sex is entirely chosen.

Except, however, in all the cases of child & minor sex abuse, and all the rape, sexual assault, sex by coercion and forced prostitution that adults experience. Lots of the sex that humans of both sexes but especially females experience regardless of our own innate sexual orientation is not chosen at all, much less "entirely chosen." Many people whose sexual experiences over a lifetime consist largely of sex that is entirely chosen have also had sex totally against their/our will.

[–]lefterfield 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Uhhh ok. I think it would be reasonable to assume in this context that I was not talking about rape, assault, coercion, prostitution, etc, given that I said HOW WE HAVE SEX. Rape, assault, coercion, prostitution are not "how we have sex." They are the names given to them.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, I think that would be reasonable to assume. But a lot of people are not reasonable. Or realistic.

[–]lefterfield 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I think you mean you. You are not reasonable, since you do this all the bloody time. Saying that, basically, we choose who we have sex with does not mean I think rape is impossible. It is absurd to make that claim.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Huh?

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

If your claim is that, as it is, no one chooses, consciously, their sexuality, and lesbianism is a female sexuality, would this mean that political lesbianism is not real lesbianism? Glaringly, political lesbianism is conscious, the belief that women should be sexually and romantically involved with women as opposed to men, on the basis that women can never be free from patriarchy if they're involved with men on such intimate levels.

I consider myself to have consciously chosen his own sexual feelings. I chose, for a variety of ideological reasons, to be interested exclusively in men, in erotica, in romantic fiction, in my sexual fantasies, and as potential romantic partners. If it wasn't reasonable for me to do this, I wouldn't have done this. It is reason which drove me to like what I like, as I don't believe in liking something through a subjective lens, as to imply that objectivity is absent from the equation. Honestly, to claim one likes a movie, considers it good, for 'subjective reasons' is to reject reason in its entirety. The things we like, making us the things we are, indeed derive from logical sense, or, at least, an attempt at logical sense. If there were just some gene in me that made me exclusively like guys - which couldn't be the case, as I wasn't always sexually drawn to men (early childhood), and only became sexually interested as a result of environmental, social conditions - it makes I might as well not like guys, since there's nothing logical about it. In fact, if it cannot be justified by ideological means, this means that asexuality is the only path to sanity, and the sexuality I do experience is actually damaging, degrading, and harmful to my health.

Here's something to put into perspective (two things, actually). The critique of femininity which radical feminism articulates examines individual properties and phenomena tied to womanhood, but only in a socially constructed sense, possessing no real relation to the female sex, and understands these constructs to be extremely negative, impacting women and girls in the worst of manners. From an objective point of view - not adhering to the nonsense of 'it's empowering to individual women' - there can be claimed that a certain product or phenomenon is of an objectively poor quality, and should, thus, be rejected. For instance, high heels are terribly uncomfortably, and aren't suited for human feet, and are extremely hard to walk in. They can't be ran in, and they hurt one's feet after lengthy periods of wearing them. They were originally invented by men for men, because men wanted to look taller (male biological trait). Realising they were painful and inconvenient, men decided to push them onto the female sex, because it was a means for a husband to control his wife's footing (implying a power imbalance). When individual women say, 'High heels empower me,' this just means they're incorrect about a certain gendered property, not that such shoes are inherently empowering, since they're obviously not. Like criticising a bad film, criticising properties falling under the umbrella that is femininity is nothing except a testification to objective correctness. High heels are bad because high heels are bad. Bad both for women and men. Something is bad for someone even if they claim it's good for them.

Sexuality, if it's viewed as anything except a choice, is very similar to the un-feminist upholding of femininity. It is to separate sexual desire and sexual expression from objectivity, reason, and political ways to life. For a woman to be with a man on a sexual and/or romantic level, it is to be with someone who holds different sexual class interests, who's very likely to be incompatible with her autonomy and individualism. She can like whatever type of erotica she wants. But by doing so, she shouldn't deny it's a choice. It's formed based upon her own personal beliefs.

Take what TRAs say about gender and neurology. They peddle the pseudo-scientific notion of female and male brains (which don't exist), and use this myth to attempt to justify self-identification. However, even if women's and men's brains were wired differently, and it's not even that in actuality, this would merely imply a predisposition to gendered behaviour, but not an guaranteed execution of it. For instance, a woman with a 'male brain' may not perform 'male behaviour' at all, and might adopt femininity fully. What's being stated is not the execution of the abandonment of femininity, but rather merely being more likely to reject femininity than other women. So, it's meaningless, worthless. A woman, in this hypothetical situation, is literally no different from other women. Ultimately, when TRAs claim that supposed brain differences prove the existence of trans-identified people as valid, that there exits some science to it, they're just claiming that someone is female or male based solely upon sex stereotypes, which is a form of misogyny. They are claiming that one's predisposition to perform, or not perform, femininity makes one female or male. But, it's not only misogynistic, but also really unintellectual. It's like saying someone who smokes an immense quantity of cigarettes has cancer, even when they don't have cancer. Do they have a predisposition toward contracting cancer, due to their smoking habits? Definitely. But, they don't actually have cancer. A predisposition is obviously different from an actuality.

If someone were to possess a gene, or a bunch of genes, which contribute to sexuality - which don't exist, but exist here hypothetically for the sake of the explanation - this would mean they have a predisposition to being gay, or bisexual, or straight. It doesn't mean they actually are any of such things inherently, as no desire or behaviour, which is sexual, has been expressed. It can be expressed, but it doesn't have to, since such expressions are a choice individuals make, or don't make. No one has to masturbate, no one has to have sexual fantasies, no one has to read/watch erotica, or write/draw erotica, or have sexual intercourse with anyone of any biological sex. Someone possessing such supposed genes doesn't have to participate in any of this stuff, at all, in any time of their existence. Are they, however, still gay, or bisexual, or gay? This is strange. Someone could not possess any such genes, and still decide to masturbate to a certain sex, fantasise about being with that sex erotically, have sex with only one sex, and read/watch erotica featuring only one sex, and write/draw erotica featuring, again, the same sex.

So, tell me again, how is sexuality not a choice? And not just a choice, any old choice, but a beautiful choice at that?

Anyway, I really appreciate your input. I want to let everyone know, I want the absolute best for all lesbians and gay men. If you know something's good for you, then peruse and enjoy it. But, let it always be based upon reason. Don't follow what others are doing just because they're doing it in mass quantities. After all, this is a gender abolitionist community. As it's anti-conformity as it can get. I just want to let people know, they have the choice to be who they want to be. I can't stand the thought of someone telling another that one can't be a lesbian or a gay man because they don't possess genes which apparently exist. Sadly, when Sheila Jeffreys put forth the reality, in feminist theory, that sexuality was socially constructed, she was accused of claiming that straight women could be lesbians. A political lesbian is a lesbian. Sheila Jeffreys was right. A lesbian is nothing except political. If she really hated herself, she'd be heterosexual.

[–]usehername 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

political lesbianism is not real lesbianism

Correct.

[–]yousaythosethings 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

would this mean that political lesbianism is not real lesbianism?

Correct. And if a woman presents herself as lesbian when dating but knows she’s a political lesbian who wants to pursue women sexually and romantically by choice, she is catfishing.

[–]lefterfield 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

would this mean that political lesbianism is not real lesbianism?

I think that if two women are in a loving, sexual relationship, they are lesbians. Real or fake does not factor into it, and you may be overthinking this.

which couldn't be the case, as I wasn't always sexually drawn to men

Not true. Some genetic predispositions are activated at puberty. If you had a predisposition to be attracted to men, there's no reason it would feel anything except natural, whenever or however it happened.

I can't stand the thought of someone telling another that one can't be a lesbian or a gay man because they don't possess genes which apparently exist.

This is ridiculous, and not related to what I said. I don't believe that sexual attraction is chosen, consciously. This does not mean that someone cannot choose with whom or how they have sex, for whatever reason. I can't see into someone's heart or mind, and I don't care to. I posited one theory about where sexual attraction stems from. I have no way of knowing if a gay man or lesbian or heterosexual has any particular genes or what their sexual motivations are - and I don't care. People can choose any way they want to express or not express their sexuality.

I don't understand what your argument is, you seem to be throwing out a lot of different ideas, many of which are not related. My own view is nowhere near as rigid as yours, so I don't know what you're reaching for here.

[–]usehername 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that if two women are in a loving, sexual relationship, they are lesbians.

A lesbian is a female homosexual. If two women are in a relationship, and one or both women are bisexual, they aren't lesbians. A woman can't be in a loving, sexual relationship with another woman unless she is bi or homosexual. Words have definitions.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

What genetic predispositions in question? The only way someone can be sexually attracted to someone or something legitimately, is if they admire something/someone from a (socially constructed) sexual perspective. Anyone can have such perspectives, as they relate to individual beliefs people hold.

I like guys because I relate to guys the best, since most of my friends were guys, and I was socialised in the male image. That socialisation is, of course, problematic, just as femininity is, but, ultimately, my reason for liking men sexually is because men have the same perception of sexual desire as other men, as opposed to the conflict of the male gaze meeting the female gaze.

You yourself said that if two women are in a romantic/sexual relationship with one another, they are lesbians. They can choose this path in their life because they can understand that members of the female sex cooperate better with one another, as opposed to with men.

[–]WrongToy 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Well, it sort of is.

By this, I mean that when I was in my teens, i had some thoughts about girls. By the time I got to college and guys were interested also, those feelings went away.

So for me, anyway, I'm glad I didn't have any experiences. Not to say it would have been a bad thing necessarily, but it just wasn't true for me. Just like everyone who has an experience with a woman, a lot of them really aren't lesbians.

I wish the same logic could be applied to trans. Especially in their youth.