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

What's the general consensus on sexuality being a choice?

submitted by SexualityCritical from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.

[–][deleted] 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.

[–][deleted] 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.