Nature or nurture?

[davelwhite]

Well, here goes. I notice that the notion that asexuality (and sexuality in general) is an innate part of our nature is very common, almost to the point of being a "dogma," on AVEN. It also seems like people think of "asexuality" (conceived of as innate) as somehow purer or more "real" than celibacy (conceived of as chosen). Since I don't happen to believe this for myself (and am very suspicious of genetic determinism in general) I want to continue a discussion about nature vs. nurture. First, a link:

http://www.queerbychoice.com

This website both dispells the notion that "all" gay people think that their sexuality is part of their "nature" that they were born with (interestingly, fewer lesbians than gay men believe this); and it presents cogent rebuttals to the notion that people who say that their sexual identifications are the result of choice and life-experience just sat down one day and said "Gee, I would like to make my life more complicated. I know, I'll be queer! (Or, asexual.)" "Choice" doesn't just mean deliberate choices made at discrete moments in time-- our life choices about everything from career to religion to the specific friends and partners we share our lives with, all are made slowly over time. Years later, we look back and say "Well, I guess I chose to make my living in X-- it wasn't what I had originally planned, but in some ways it worked out better that way."

And if we make a choice in this manner (say, we become involved with a religion) and then somebody wants to persecute us for this choice, we fight back. The fact that Catholicism isn't genetic didn't result in half of Northern Ireland converting to Protestantism to "make life easier" (or vice versa)-- so why do we assume that sexuality has to be "innate" because it's hard for Christian conservatives to change gay people? It's hard for them to convert me to their religion too, but that doesn't mean agnosticism or Unitarianism are innate! It would be much harder to get me, personally, to vote for George W. Bush than to have sex (or to have sex with someone I found unattractive); does that mean that my liberal political values are "part of my innate nature"? Then how come I remember developing them over time as a youth?

QueerByChoice has some good links rebutting the "scientific" argument for genetic determinism (genes, brain components, finger length) so I won't dwell on that except to point out that even obviously genetic things can be, and are, overcome by cultural intervention. There are your obvious examples-- like the "unnatural" clothing and housing that enables me to live in Minnesota which is certainly not "natural" habitat for furless primates-- and then there are less obvious examples, like height (genetically determined to a great degree, but it has increased over the last 100 years on average because of improved nutrition).

I want to make a case that the genetic theory of sexuality hurts us in the long run politically. For one thing, it divides the world into things that are "innately part of my nature" (and hence which I am supposed to be allowed to act on, because "going against my nature is unhealthy"), and things that I "choose," and which therefore are unprotected and the government and church and society can still pressure me to stop doing.

The gay movement's history is replete with this-- at this point they have made great progress in making the world safe for gay couples who are exactly like married couples in every way except the gender of their sexual partners, but have made only very limited progress in creating safe spaces for people who want to center their lives around friendship, or who choose casual sexual relationships, or permanent non-monogamous relationships, or who include others besides their sexual partner into their childrearing and economic relationships, etc., etc., etc-- all of whom were part of the original gay movement but got left behind (and occasionally write books complaining about it). If asexuals follow in the same path, I suspect we will end up with a world that "accepts" asexually-romantic couples who "date," but still looks down upon people who choose multiple friendships as the center of their "asexual" life, or choose to have a more "loner" lifestyle, will still be looked down upon and excluded from relevant benefits.

When I talked to AVENguy a few weeks ago, he mentioned that in talking about asexuality he finds that many people want asexuals to prove that they can "date" like "normal" people (what does "date" even mean with regards to asexuality-- does it mean emotional exclusivity or hierarchy of partner over other friends, does it mean physical affection with only one person, does it mean having a gender preference? And who gets to decide what it means?). As long as we hold out our "innate sexuality" as the reason we can't be made to have sex, we are basically handing over all the "cultural factors" to mainstream people, who will decide whether we are "mature" or not based on whether or not we are aping them sufficiently.

The "I can't help it, I was born that way," argument also implies that if we COULD help it we would-- I don't see that attitude so much among AVENites, but I'm sure it's what a lot of mainstream people will THINK we mean, if we use this argument. And then they will look on us as a perpetual "minority" to be pitied and "tolerated," instead of as a group of people with ideas that bear listening to. It is probable that the percentage of people who never have sex will always be small-- but it is quite possible that some "asexual values" could spread to the majority, such as greater respect for friendship, a more nuanced approach to physical affection, etc. When we focus on our "innate nature" we foreclose the option of spreading our ideas, since people will think "they only apply for asexuals."

Another problem is that defending rights around "innate sexuality" ensures that sex becomes the primary topic of conversation. This is true in the gay community, and even here, where the conversations revolve around how much orgasm or naked scenes in movies gross us out, rather than what kind of lives we would like to build outside of the sexual-love paradigm.

Hence, I propose that the movement for relationship rights should not focus on things we can plausibly defend as "innate" (like sexuality), but on the notion that we as human beings in a "free" country should be free-- both legally and culturally-- to choose the forms of our families without discrimination and ostracism, that "love makes a family" should be a guiding principle including both sexual and nonsexual consensual relationships. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion should be our watchwords, instead of this notion that we have to justify our family choices by reference to "genetic innate nature" that we cannot choose.

Dave

[davelwhite]

ONE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE "WE CAN'T HELP IT THEORY"

Sorry for the flood of text :(, but I wanted to give you all an example of a complex theory including both genetics, choice and family background as determiners of sexuality. I'm not sure if I agree with this theory, but I think it's interesting and at least as plausible as the "gay" or "asexual" gene.

QueerByChoice offers some links to a different theory of sexuality, the "Exotic is Erotic" theory. In this theory, cultural values lead to childhood gender roles (dolls vs. action figures, talking friendships vs. activity friendships, etc.) and individual variation (genetic or cultural) leads to acceptance or rebellion against these rules. One possible component is a possible gene for "risk-taking" or rebellion itself, which might make a person more likely to rebel in order to defend their choices! Then, according to this theory, they fall in with a group of friends (mostly same-sex if they buy into the gender theories, opposite/both/neither sex if they don't) and consider the people they don't have as their friends to be "exotic," hence interesting from the perspective of sexual relationships (the notion that "exotic" leads to "erotic" could itself be a combination of nature and nurture, and as a less-sexual person I might propose that "exotic" leads to "passionate interest" rather than specifically sexuality, which might explain why I am always trying to make close male friends even though it never works out, and I get along with women better).

In this theory, sexuality is determined by a complex chain of choices, cultural influences and possible genetic factors (and the genetic factors are themselves complex, coding for "risk-taking" instead of directly for sexuality). You can't explain how Microsoft Word works by having a simple two-paragraph explanation of the workings of a transistor, so why should we explain how human sexuality works with a two-paragraph theory about "innate nature" and genetics?

Dave

[fluffy_hime]

Haven't decided yet. I didn't read all that, Dave. :mrgreen: I have enough to read for school, hehe.

[Guest]

I voted "A complex combination of nature, nuture, and free will, with only a SMALL genetic component possibly." I think my asexuality might be a subconsious choice, but in a way, part of it was always unchangeable. Uh...I hope that makes sense.

[Jayann]

Where's the "combination of nature and nurture" option?

I tend to think, when it comes to a person's personality, he or she is subject to a complex interaction between the way their brain/body naturally function and process (which may or may not have to do with genes), and outside influences like societal norms or other environmental elements.

So I tend to favor a sort of complex determinism over a free will concept. However, my general sentiment is "Who cares?" because I tend to believe it's not the cause that matters, but the effects. How one became the way they are matters much less to me than realizing what this person means to me as an individual.

EDIT: And now, I shall do my 2000th post dance. Lookit me dance! *dance dance*

[cronos]

So I tend to favor a sort of complex determinism over a free will concept. However, my general sentiment is "Who cares?" because I tend to believe it's not the cause that matters, but the effects. How one became the way they are matters much less to me than realizing what this person means to me as an individual.

I agree completely. I found this speech by Dr. Arnold Drake when he became the head of PFLAG that accurately describes how I feel about the whole "is it a choice?" debate.

[fluffy_hime]

::applauds Julie, the formidable Aeros Incarnate::

[JimDandy]

I'm going to have to postpone voting on this poll until a 'don't have the foggiest' option appears because, well, I don't have the foggiest.

Way back in the stone age when I was in college, my friends and I spent long long evenings hanging around the student union cave arguing the 'nature vs. nurture' question. Throw in 'free will' (a vaguely defined term at best) and you've got a debate that loops in on itself like a mobius strip.

Largely, that was because we hadn't yet figured out how to seperate the 'how' of a question from the 'why.' In this instance, 'how' a persons sexuality is determined, though yet to be definitively answered, is certainly scientifically discoverable. It might be genetic, environmental, or a combination. 'Why' a persons sexuality is the way it is, well, that's more mysterious than why Milli Vanilli won a Grammy.

As far as the 'politics' of sexuality goes, personally I don't much give a damn. It strikes me that making a political statement out of one's sexuality is like making a political statement out of one's shoe size. Now, I'll concede that if the little footed people are oppressing the big footed people, then the big feet have every right to agitate for fair treatment from the little feet. That's fine and dandy. However, it's not much help in other important areas. Like, say, if all the feet people are ruining their environment and raising incidents of toe fungus in the general feet population.

But that's as may be. Until the definitive 'why' is found, (and thats not really likely, is it?) I'll have to throw in with jayann & cronos on this one. The way one treats others is the important thing and the way one lives ones life. But Lucretuis said it better than I'll ever be able to:

"Men's natures differ, and the habits too

That spring therefrom; whose causes all unseen

I can not now set forth, nor seek out names

To match the number of elements

Wherefrom doth rise this varied store of things.

Yet this herein I clearly can affirm:

So small the traces of these natures left

Within, which reasons power cannot dispel

That naught may bar the living of our lives

In manner worthy of the gods themselves."

De Rerum Natura (On The Nature Of Things) Book Three, 314-324

(Edit -- Also, a big congrats to Julie on her 2000th post! :D *bows down* I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy! :D )

[Cate Perfect]

I was going to go with the list of things and a SMALL genetic input, but then I thought, 'My typical response to that is, "Who gives a shit?"' I don't think it matters why people are the way they are, as long as they are happy with their lot and not injurying anyone else. Knowing the cause of something isn't going to change the way you are. If I say, 'Oh, I have red hair because I'm English and Irish', it's not going to make me brunette without a trip to the salon. It just means my ancestors were pasty folks with ginger hair.

Cate

[JKReagan99]

Where's the "combination of nature and nurture" option?

I tend to think, when it comes to a person's personality, he or she is subject to a complex interaction between the way their brain/body naturally function and process (which may or may not have to do with genes), and outside influences like societal norms or other environmental elements.

*Agrees completely to that* I also think it is a mix of a lot of different factors....

Also, congrats on your 2000 posts :D

[mcsquared]

Wow--that was a lot to chew on--so much to respond to. I didn't get to check out much of the queer by choice site but it looks even more provocative. It's such a sticky issue--I think the gay community is trying to go for the nature argument, "God made me gay so how can it be wrong" because otherwise the religious right will accuse them of immoral behavior and all that. Then again it could get dangerous for genetic selection with people aborting fetuses they thought might be gay.

I'm not surprised that less lesbians go along with the "born that way" opinion--I think studies show that women are a lot more fluid with the sexuality thing and move more along the spectrum throughout their lifetime than men do. Noone ever mentions the role of pheremones in orientation--I've been curious about that.

Right now, I think the idea of multiple friendships being the center of your life is actually kind of trendy. Witness the popularity of the recent books "Urban Tribes" and "Quirkyalone" which are both getting all sorts of publicity in the media.

I think that this community needlessly separates itself from celibates. If sex is not a part of your life, then you might as well be asexual. It's hard for me to separate the two concepts. I grew up with the sex being saved for marriage mentality and it saddens me to see the assumptions on this list that dating can't exist without sex.

I think culture has so much to do with it, but it's hard to realize unless you've seen other ways of thinking. Like in Latin America, apparently it's sometimes OK for guys to have sex with other guys and still be completely straight because of this macho mentality. And women and men both are able to touch and give affection more freely to the same gender in other parts of the world without it having sexual implications.

In the end it is free will to be the person you are inside. That's where that quote "Most men live lives of quiet desperation" comes from. I think numbers of asexuals get vastly undercounted, just because people will go along with the sex thing just because it's expected of them. Probably not many will admit that they don't like or want to have sex in public.

But anyway, thanks for taking the time to expound your thoughts.

[aury]

i believe we're born that way. hell, if gay people are born gay, why can't it be the same for us involving asexuality?

[wednesday's child]

*points at aury* Ditto.

[Autumn]

I never actually thought about this before...

nature I suppose there could be a small genetic factor in sexuality but then surely you would expect there to be some familiel thing going on, you would almost expect to have a gay aunt or uncle or cousin somewhere in the family if you had got the "gay gene" - thats simplifying (gosh i cant spell!) it a bit but still....Also having a gene for asexuality or homosexuality doesnt make sense in evolutionary terms... how would it be passed on? that is of course assuming that all asexuals and homosexuals choose not to participate in heterosexual sex.

The answer to that would be that it was a random mutation- but then there doesnt seem to be any evidence that the children of homosexuals (i dont know of any studies at all about asexuals) are homosexual themselves... gah its all quite complicated.

nurture Again this seems a little off. Fair enough, nowadays its fine to be homosexual but years ago it was very difficult to live that way, it was even illegal wasn't it? why would anyone choose to live that kind of life, to go to prison instead of give up thier lifestyle choices. I suppose its the same for asexuals, why choose to live with the fear that you might never get the same kind of closeness that a sexual couple has?

So then theres the option you presented, that its about long term almost subconcious choices that lead us to follow a particular way of life... but i would have thought that you would end up with some pattern in the family, afterall if you have two chilren bought up by the same parents in pretty much the same manner, who live in the same place and went to the same school and pretty much shared the same experiences, you would have thought that thier sexuality would be the same as well- many people claim to have known thier sexuality by the time they reached puberty- that only gives you 13 years or so for outside factors to influence your choices.

bleh, i dont actually have a real conclusion, neither option makes sense to me, nor does mixing the factors together.... if only there were a third choice- nature nurture or just cause.

[underminethewalls]

What if homosexuality or asexuality is caused by a recessive gene or a rare combo of genes whose presence in a tribe, band or family enhanced the survival and/or reproduction of related heterosexuals? Like, the non-heterosexuals without children were better able to participate in the raising of the other children of the community? Not saying that's the case, its total speculation...

[Autumn]

the problem with that is that for the recessive gene it would still theoretically appear in distant family members since there would be carriers of the gene among the brothers/sisters/aunts/uncles... and the enhanced survival thing, assuming that the homosexual/asexual didnt reproduce the gene wouldnt be passed on... of course that is assuming alot! ;)

[mcsquared]

many people claim to have known thier sexuality by the time they reached puberty- that only gives you 13 years or so for outside factors to influence your choices.

I don't think it's that necessarily the case--some late bloomers out there. Maybe it's more that you become more aware after puberty and if you differ from the "norm" it might take longer to realize that. None of my gay friends came out until college and most started out in het relationships first. I've even heard of married people coming to the realization that they were gay in their 30s and beyond....

[rose]

here is a little abstract blub i found crusing the web.

I would have just pasted it I but it's in pdf and treated like and image

go strait to page 11

www.iasr.org/meeting/2003/ABSTRACTS2003.pdf

EDIT by SpockJr.... old link had expired, so here's an updated one.

[underminethewalls]

Very interesting Rose! Of course it still implies asexuality to be a disorder of sorts. (If only they would eat better, visit the doctor regularly, and go to school...)

[dabishop]

Or course "a number of pathways, both biological and psychosocial, contribute to the development of asexuality." It's just that some of them are much much more important than others. *plonk*

The really interesting one was how identity politics somehow get in the way of rational scientific study. Translation: some academic took on a group of sexual minorities with half an ounce of confidence in themselves, and was duly informed that he was full of shit. Boo-freakin-hoo.

[Cate Perfect]

LOL@bishop

Yup.

Sexual Minority with Confidence: 'I'm actually fine with the way I am.'

Pompous Scientist: *condescending tone* 'You aren't ashamed?'

SMC: *shakes head* 'Nope. Not at all.'

PS: 'You don't want to be like everyone else?'

SMC: 'Fuck no! Normal is a fallacy. Not to mention dull as shit. Happy bein' me. Happy happy happy.'

PS: *non-plussed*

Cate

[AVENguy]

Great points Dave. I would say that there are (as you alluded to) some real problems with treating asexuality as inherent. It's a bit of a double-edged sword.

On the one hand being "intrinsically" asexual gives us a certain amount of backbone, if we CAN'T be "cured" then we don't have to worry about people arguing that we should be. On the other hand, saying that we have an intrinsic sexuality implies that there is something special and magical about that set of acts known as "sexuality" such that we can't engage in them. If we admit that there's something inherintly magical about sex then we have to concede a basis for there being something inherintly magical about sexual relationships. In a twisted way, if we're inherintly asexual then asexuality is pathological (or we're "missing out", at least.)

[VivreEstEsperer]

I voted for combination of nature and nurture with strong genetic component.

I didn't get to read through your argument as I don't have the time at the moment; but, besides truly thinking that sexuality is mostly genetic/biological, I think there is far more to lose by saying sexuality is a choice and can be changed by outside forces (that gives the right wingers so much more amnuition (sp?) against gay people, they can say that gay teachers will make their students gay and all that BS) ... I think there is far more to lose by a cultural explanation for sexuality than a genetic one, which simply says, I am what I am so you better accept me.

I would perhaps make a better argument if I had read yours first, but that's all I can do at the moment and that is how I feel...

Kate

[JKReagan99]

I just voted for who cares ( I actually think it is a mix of nature and nurture (though nature may be more than just encoded in DNA)) The reason why I chose this is not because I don't care, but rather because it shouldn't matter... we are who we are, it doesn't matter why we are, and learning why might only cause others to go out and try to find a way to change us (sorry I'm in a pessimistic mood tonight) To me what matters is that we are, not what caused it... :P :roll:

[cronos]

...it shouldn't matter... we are who we are, it doesn't matter why we are, and learning why might only cause others to go out and try to find a way to change us (sorry I'm in a pessimistic mood tonight) To me what matters is that we are, not what caused it... :P :roll:

I have to agree totally with what you said. The cause of asexualilty is about as relavent as the cause of homosexuality, heterosexuality, hair colour, facial structure, or whether we like certain foods or not.

[fluffy_hime]

Okay, I'm late jumping on this one, but I only just now appreciated the concept. :mrgreen:

I notice that the notion that asexuality (and sexuality in general) is an innate part of our nature is very common, almost to the point of being a "dogma," on AVEN. It also seems like people think of "asexuality" (conceived of as innate) as somehow purer or more "real" than celibacy (conceived of as chosen).

True, true.

The "I can't help it, I was born that way," argument also implies that if we COULD help it we would-- I don't see that attitude so much among AVENites, but I'm sure it's what a lot of mainstream people will THINK we mean, if we use this argument.

A good point!

However, my general sentiment is "Who cares?" because I tend to believe it's not the cause that matters, but the effects. How one became the way they are matters much less to me than realizing what this person means to me as an individual.

I agree.

I think that this community needlessly separates itself from celibates. If sex is not a part of your life, then you might as well be asexual.

Agreed.

I was wondering today how much of asexuality really is "natural." Like Dave, I feel that's almost a dogma on this site...

If it were a genetic mutation, would it still be "natural" (i.e. naturally occuring)? I have noticed many AVENites, including myself, have more of an aversion rather than just a lack of interest. To me, that seems to, at least partly, point to psychological components, perhaps in addition to extreme hyposexuality. BUT, if the cause were nonbiological, would it really be any more controllable? I'll go back to what I have said before...as long as the asexual is happy with it, that's all that matters. So does THAT fact (that asexuals can be happy with the way they are) argue for the nature side, or just deeply ingrained beliefs about sex (e.g. avoiding the turmoil of sexual relationships)? GAH! I'm confusing myself.

[Harvey the Pooka]

I think that this community needlessly separates itself from celibates. If sex is not a part of your life, then you might as well be asexual.

Agreed.

I absolutely disagree. Celibacy implies an effort to supress sex drive, while asexuality often comprises an effort to have a "normal" life despite the lack of sex drive. Don't you see the difference?

Furthermore, it is my general impression that we are not being too sincere to ourselves in this community. How much of our (well, of my, if you prefer) asexuality is my really, really free choice? I mean, how many of us are perfectly capable of having happy & satisfactory sexual life, but just opt for not having it because we can do it, we are spiritually superior...? Therefore, I argue that there is more effective freedom of choice in choosing celibacy than in choosing asexuality.

[Guest]

Am I capable of having a sexual life? Perhaps. Am I capable of having a "happy and satisfactory" sexual life? No.

At least for me, I am not suppressing anything - I genuinely have no sex drive or desire for it. Although mindless hornballs annoy me, they aren't the majority of sexuals by a longshot. (In fact, I would say many sexuals are annoyed by them as well.) I have no real aversion to the act, personally - just indifference. For me to participate in a sex act, though, would make me unhappy. For me to even participate in a relationship, even an asexual one, would make me miserable. You're forgetting about Type Ds. What are they repressing if they don't even want a relationship?

I don't consider myself "spiritually superior" to sexuals just because I live without a sex drive. I am being honest to myself when I say I have no sex drive or desire for an emotional relationship beyond friendship. This is the way I feel, and it's useless to change it, no matter what the cause.

[mindlife]

If asexuality had been a simple matter of choice, then I could have changed my behavior toward my husband or any number of people at any time.

Why is it then that my feelings and behavior did not change when life would have been so much easier in the event they had?

It's human nature to seek the easier path, the one that makes us feel most comfortable- for me that was no sexual contact, no kiss, no stroking.

My asexuality has a strong unconscious component. Is that a choice? Is there any freewill in it?

I have my doubts, but I haven't dismissed the possibility of freewill & choice in it.

[fluffy_hime]

I think that this community needlessly separates itself from celibates. If sex is not a part of your life, then you might as well be asexual.

Agreed.

I absolutely disagree. Celibacy implies an effort to supress sex drive, while asexuality often comprises an effort to have a "normal" life despite the lack of sex drive. Don't you see the difference?

We see the difference. Many of us just don't care.

Furthermore, it is my general impression that we are not being too sincere to ourselves in this community.

Speak for yourself. I'm perfectly sincere with myself, and with everyone else, for that matter.

How much of our (well, of my, if you prefer) asexuality is my really, really free choice? I mean, how many of us are perfectly capable of having happy & satisfactory sexual life, but just opt for not having it because we can do it, we are spiritually superior...? Therefore, I argue that there is more effective freedom of choice in choosing celibacy than in choosing asexuality.

Well, duh. There's choice in celibacy but none in asexuality (at least not for most/all of us). I know you were illustrating a point, that you feel asexuality is not a choice, but we generally avoid terms like "spiritually superior" 'round these parts.