Sexual orientation: An Invalid western concept

[Preeti]

Hello everyone. I have recently come across a nice sciforums thread where the OP exposes the invalidity of the concept of sexual-orientation.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51986

There are more threads in the same site which discuss about sexual-orientation being an invalid modern western construct rather than an objective human reality:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50083

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50433

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51879

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50460

I want some views about this discussion from the AVEN readers here.

[rahuls]

This will take a long time to read, atleast a couple days for me. :P

But that said, it is not the first time I have heard this. Most non-western cultures indeed consider sexual-orientation as an invalid concept although it is a different matter that people have different "sexual preferences" just like food preferences.I guess much of this is also why there has never been any real 'gay-gene' ever found.

[bookcase]

The OP from the first thread linked reads:

The western concept of sexual orientation is an artificial, unnatural and invalid concept that is developed to perpetuate the mechanisms that oppress straight men.

Instant fail. Mechanisms that oppress straight men? Gimme a break. For one, if sexual orientation is an invalid construct, then the assertion fails by the use of the concept of "straight men" alone. A nice shot in the foot right there.

This thread is to discuss how stupid the modern western idea of 'sexual orientation' is. (Well you are free to reason otherwise!).

Of course the biggest reason that sexual orientation is absurd is that men are basically meant to be bisexual (sic), but I'm still proving it. Here we will discuss other absurdities.

"Meant to be", by whom? This hinges on the assumption that human beings have a purposeful creator. Good luck proving that in a scientifically acceptable manner (which I suppose is the intention, given that this was posted on a forum with "science" in its name). Also, another shot in the foot with using the concept of "bisexual" (see above).

I'm sure the concept of sexual orientation can be criticised ... but the above doesn't amount to even the beginnings of a coherent and well-founded critique - it's just a bunch of nonsense.

[Vinita]

I have come across a couple of other websites which discuss a similar thing. Both say that sexuality atleast in men cannot be classified into simple gay versus straight dichotomy.

http://men-masculinity.newsvine.com/_news/2011/04/07/6425036-sexual-orientation-is-an-oppressive-and-bogus-western-concept

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~ptrembla/homosexuality-suicide/construction/a2-homosexuality-common-to-rare.htm

"In 1960, I was 10-years-old and growing up in a working class environment where male homosexual activity was the rule, not the exception. Its predominant manifestation was "sex with equality," thus including mutual masturbation and oral sex, but not anal sex (Bagley, 1997, p. 183). The latter was not even thought about, except for eventually learning that passive anal sex was an activity engaged in by apparently degraded males who thought themselves to be like women, or were labeled as such because they were accepting the status of being anally penetrated."

[sammy123]

Instant fail. Mechanisms that oppress straight men? Gimme a break. For one, if sexual orientation is an invalid construct, then the assertion fails by the use of the concept of "straight men" alone. A nice shot in the foot right there.

I am not sure of the implications here but I guess "straight men" (rather than just gay men) can be oppressed by the concept of sexual orientation ONLY IF they are NOT 100% straight in reality but just identify so socially out of social considerations.

[bookcase]

I have come across a couple of other websites which discuss a similar thing. Both say that sexuality atleast in men cannot be classified into simple gay versus straight dichotomy.

But isn't that dichotomy a strawman to begin with? Hetero/homosexuality has been conceptualised as a continuum for decades - the Kinsey scale was first published in 1948!

[sammy123]

I have come across a couple of other websites which discuss a similar thing. Both say that sexuality atleast in men cannot be classified into simple gay versus straight dichotomy.

But isn't that dichotomy a strawman to begin with? Hetero/homosexuality has been conceptualised as a continuum for decades - the Kinsey scale was first published in 1948!

I think you are right here bookcase. However, you will do well to remember that this Kinsey's scale has also been discarded by radical members of the LGBT wing. Infact, many members of lgbt claim a majority of people are either gay or straight (with only exceptionally few people being bi/pan or asexual). The so called 'gay-gene' is actually based on the premise of a dichotomy rather than a continuum.

[Vinita]

But isn't that dichotomy a strawman to begin with? Hetero/homosexuality has been conceptualised as a continuum for decades - the Kinsey scale was first published in 1948!

I think you are right here bookcase. However, you will do well to remember that this Kinsey's scale has also been discarded by radical members of the LGBT wing. Infact, many members of lgbt claim a majority of people are either gay or straight (with only exceptionally few people being bi/pan or asexual). The so called 'gay-gene' is actually based on the premise of a dichotomy rather than a continuum.

Yes this is the typical modern western view which is being challenged here.Sexuality is not black and white phenomenon even though this is a phenomenon held true in the mainstream.Although as a biromantic ace female,my views carry only that much weight here.

[bookcase]

I have come across a couple of other websites which discuss a similar thing. Both say that sexuality atleast in men cannot be classified into simple gay versus straight dichotomy.

But isn't that dichotomy a strawman to begin with? Hetero/homosexuality has been conceptualised as a continuum for decades - the Kinsey scale was first published in 1948!

I think you are right here bookcase. However, you will do well to remember that this Kinsey's scale has also been discarded by radical members of the LGBT wing. Infact, many members of lgbt claim a majority of people are either gay or straight (with only exceptionally few people being bi/pan or asexual). The so called 'gay-gene' is actually based on the premise of a dichotomy rather than a continuum.

Yeah, I know, but the "gay gene" hypothesis is shaky at best. For one, if it was a simple matter of one gene, then identical twins would always share the same sexual orientation, but they don't.

As for discarding the Kinsey reports, well if some people choose to discard facts in favour of their preferred narrative ... that is actually uncomfortably close to that other camp that also discards facts in favour of their preferred narrative, for example one that says that "gay can be cured". Personally, I'll go with facts, which seem to say that a significant portion of the human population actually lies somewhere between the extremes.

[orangeuglad]

Sounds like a load of bollocks to me. The idea that there is a "normal" sexual orientation is a social construct, as are most things in SOCIETY, but my attraction to both men and women was certainly not socially constructed. The only thing socially constructed about my bisexuality is the idea that it opposes a "default" orientation of heterosexuality.

[Sally]

However, you will do well to remember that this Kinsey's scale has also been discarded by radical members of the LGBT wing. Infact, many members of lgbt claim a majority of people are either gay or straight (with only exceptionally few people being bi/pan or asexual). The so called 'gay-gene' is actually based on the premise of a dichotomy rather than a continuum.

Those are claims, not facts. Whether one group discards one theory or not doesn't prove anything about that theory.

[Guest]

Um, well... the OP (of the links, not of this thread) isn't someone I'd want to advocate for my position, and I don't think he did a great job of advocating for his position... but I do agree that the notion of sexual orientation is inaccurate. I've been saying that since I've come on AVEN. Sexual orientation is a political label. It began because people hated gays and the transgendered, so they were naturally outcast. And when we have outcasts, we name them, and there began homosexuality. Bisexuals/ pansexuals (I still assert they are the same thing) jumped in because they felt ignored. Now lots of other people are jumping in because they feel ignored too. And while you'd think that the more people who jump in, the clearer things get, I think the exact opposite happens. Once a label exists, so do boundaries. You do this one thing and you're in the label, but if you do this one other thing you are out. It coerces behavior, which I don't have as big a problem with as the fact that it also subtly coerces our interpretation of our own thoughts and feelings into fitting the rubric (and language) of the label. And that, I think, is damaging.

[bookcase]

Sexual orientation is a political label. It began because people hated gays and the transgendered, so they were naturally outcast. And when we have outcasts, we name them, and there began homosexuality. Bisexuals/ pansexuals (I still assert they are the same thing) jumped in because they felt ignored. Now lots of other people are jumping in because they feel ignored too. And while you'd think that the more people who jump in, the clearer things get, I think the exact opposite happens. Once a label exists, so do boundaries. You do this one thing and you're in the label, but if you do this one other thing you are out. It coerces behavior, which I don't have as big a problem with as the fact that it also subtly coerces our interpretation of our own thoughts and feelings into fitting the rubric (and language) of the label. And that, I think, is damaging.

Good points. Labels can be politically empowering, but also limiting, as you've described. As with all tools, you have to know where and how to use them, else you do more damage than good.

Thinking in discrete categories seems to come natural to us - it's often a useful cognitive strategy. But it doesn't always do justice to reality, and trying to chop up complex phenomena like human sexuality in this way is bound to produce significant problems.

[Guest]

Sexual orientation is a political label. It began because people hated gays and the transgendered, so they were naturally outcast. And when we have outcasts, we name them, and there began homosexuality. Bisexuals/ pansexuals (I still assert they are the same thing) jumped in because they felt ignored. Now lots of other people are jumping in because they feel ignored too. And while you'd think that the more people who jump in, the clearer things get, I think the exact opposite happens. Once a label exists, so do boundaries. You do this one thing and you're in the label, but if you do this one other thing you are out. It coerces behavior, which I don't have as big a problem with as the fact that it also subtly coerces our interpretation of our own thoughts and feelings into fitting the rubric (and language) of the label. And that, I think, is damaging.

Good points. Labels can be politically empowering, but also limiting, as you've described. As with all tools, you have to know where and how to use them, else you do more damage than good.

Thinking in discrete categories seems to come natural to us - it's often a useful cognitive strategy. But it doesn't always do justice to reality, and trying to chop up complex phenomena like human sexuality in this way is bound to produce significant problems.

Agreed. Categories tend to be both true and untrue at the same time. It is accurate to put all oranges into a basket and call them oranges. The problem is that once the oranges are in a basket, then apples go in another basket, and then peanuts in another basket, and then mandarins in another... and when you look around you think 'damn, mandarins, peanuts, apples, and oranges are all different from each other", but those baskets conceal the fact that some of them are also all fruits, and some of them are citrus fruits... and that oranges are oranges, yes, but there are countless other baskets they could also be in... they could be in the "has seeds" basket, or the "has a rind" basket, or the "can make juice with" basket, or the "requires sun to grow" basket.

It's not that labels are prima facie incorrect. It's that once we see a label our brain gets lazy and stops considering all the other possibilities that don't fit neatly into that label.

[Mr. Shuttershy]

Sexual orientation is a political label. It began because people hated gays and the transgendered, so they were naturally outcast. And when we have outcasts, we name them, and there began homosexuality. Bisexuals/ pansexuals (I still assert they are the same thing) jumped in because they felt ignored. Now lots of other people are jumping in because they feel ignored too. And while you'd think that the more people who jump in, the clearer things get, I think the exact opposite happens. Once a label exists, so do boundaries. You do this one thing and you're in the label, but if you do this one other thing you are out. It coerces behavior, which I don't have as big a problem with as the fact that it also subtly coerces our interpretation of our own thoughts and feelings into fitting the rubric (and language) of the label. And that, I think, is damaging.

Good points. Labels can be politically empowering, but also limiting, as you've described. As with all tools, you have to know where and how to use them, else you do more damage than good.

Thinking in discrete categories seems to come natural to us - it's often a useful cognitive strategy. But it doesn't always do justice to reality, and trying to chop up complex phenomena like human sexuality in this way is bound to produce significant problems.

Agreed. Categories tend to be both true and untrue at the same time. It is accurate to put all oranges into a basket and call them oranges. The problem is that once the oranges are in a basket, then apples go in another basket, and then peanuts in another basket, and then mandarins in another... and when you look around you think 'damn, mandarins, peanuts, apples, and oranges are all different from each other", but those baskets conceal the fact that some of them are also all fruits, and some of them are citrus fruits... and that oranges are oranges, yes, but there are countless other baskets they could also be in... they could be in the "has seeds" basket, or the "has a rind" basket, or the "can make juice with" basket, or the "requires sun to grow" basket.

It's not that labels are prima facie incorrect. It's that once we see a label our brain gets lazy and stops considering all the other possibilities that don't fit neatly into that label.

You know my problem, so you'll probably get why I 1,000percent agree with you.

I think we get so comfortable in one label, that we really forget to look at the big picture. It's easy to discount everything in one label, but in reality it's more of a situation-by-situation basis. (I am not even making sense to me.)

I guess what I'm saying, and don't eat me people, is that we can't really justify making our label absolute, when we've only been judging ourselves on the situations up to that point. Since we haven't experienced all of life, can we really label ourselves -absolutely-? I'm not saying we can't have labels based on trends, but we can't get blinded by them. we can't get so caught up in them that we have to bend and shove our feelings and experiences until they neatly fit into the box.

I'll just come out and say it;

Just because you've never wanted love, or never felt it before, especially since you're only 17 and have only dated once; and one gender, doesn't mean all situations will be like that. While using the aromantic label is fine; you really don't expect your feelings will ever change, it comes to the point where you bend and twist your feelings just to fit in the safe platonic box.

Labels, especially sexuality and romance, are even further loose, because feelings run them. It is not how our bodies react, but how we feel. So, how can you know you're labeling your actual romance or sexuality, and not your fear of commitment, or abandonment issues?

Once more, I state that labels are fine, but because of what I said, I don't believe we can rightly cling tight to them.

I am a homo-demi-romantic asexual. Will I never date a guy? Maybe not, but it could happen. Will I ever fall in love at first sight? Possibly. Could I wake up one day sexual? You betcha. But it isn't likely, so I feel the label is good. But I won't cling to it so tight that I need to force all my feelings into a pre-concieved notion of what they should be.

[Guest]

We all do it. I can say "I'm a lesbian so when I'm turned on by a man, it isn't because of him because lesbians don't get turned on by men". And then twist and turn a million different ways to come to some intellectual conclusion that what I really felt was an aesthetic appreciation coupled with taboo eroticism.

Had I never had the label lesbian, I would have just said "I'm attracted to that guy."

I've seen asexuals twist and turn and try to jam their attractions into weird little boxes because those are the boxes that have "asexual" written in sharpie on the top, but had they just not had the label asexual, they'd have just said "I'm kind of attracted to dominant women."

Whenever descriptions of emotions or bodily responses become intellectual, I know there's some twisting to fit into a box. Why? Because emotions and bodily responses are simple. There's no reason other than social construction to call them anything other than what they actually are.

[Vinita]

We all do it. I can say "I'm a lesbian so when I'm turned on by a man, it isn't because of him because lesbians don't get turned on by men". And then twist and turn a million different ways to come to some intellectual conclusion that what I really felt was an aesthetic appreciation coupled with taboo eroticism.

Had I never had the label lesbian, I would have just said "I'm attracted to that guy."

I've seen asexuals twist and turn and try to jam their attractions into weird little boxes because those are the boxes that have "asexual" written in sharpie on the top, but had they just not had the label asexual, they'd have just said "I'm kind of attracted to dominant women."

Whenever descriptions of emotions or bodily responses become intellectual, I know there's some twisting to fit into a box. Why? Because emotions and bodily responses are simple. There's no reason other than social construction to call them anything other than what they actually are.

Pretty excellent reply. I am really impressed by all the above replies. Yes,if we were to look at the age before the concept of sexual-orientation evolved, we would know that women did not think 'lesbian' when they developed passionate to tender feelings for other women. Same with men and that included many heterosexual men as well. Labels are meaningless.You can get turned on by anyone, you need to be open to that.I can say today I am a biromantic female, but if one day comes when I am also turned on by a transgender? Well, biromantic would then be replaced by panromantic. And panromantic to polyromantic and the list is endless.....

[sonofzeal]

I think there's a certain inevitability that humans will try to categorize their sexual feelings (or lack thereof) and sort things into boxes. It's kind of something humans do. We're like machines for turning food into sorted boxes. It's also kind of inevitable that some things just aren't going to fit perfectly, or that we occasionally pick the wrong box and either have to switch box midstream or try to creatively reinterpret things to make them fit.

So... "orientation", like any other set of boxes, is generally going to be flawed. On the other hand, it is generally going to capture legitimate trends. Most straight-identifying people are indeed going to overwhelmingly find that any sexual attraction they feel is directed towards the opposite gender. Most bi/pan-identifying people are going to experience sexual attraction to both/any gender with reasonable frequency.

It's a spectrum though, and each box encompasses a fairly poorly-defined range. It's like trying to sort an artist's palette into colours (ignoring spectrographs for the moment). We can see things that most of us will agree is "green", or "blue", but to really define the boundary between the two is going to require precision that simply isn't available, and likely an ever-expanding list of terms for increasingly subtle variations in shade.

So.... does "green" exist? If yes, then I think it's fair to say that "heterosexual" also exists.

[Olivier]

Prescriptive labels are stupid, almost everyone agrees.

But descriptive labels are just descriptive. I'm 45. In the 30+ years since I hit puberty I'd imagine the number of people I've found sexually attractive to some degree would number well into the thousands, maybe even tens of thousands. And every one a woman. There's so clearly something going on here that oughta be a word for it, and there is.

[Sally]

Labels are meaningless.

Not if you feel that they fit you. I'm a romantic asexual who's never in my long life felt romantically interested in a woman. I'm very comfortable with the label hetero-asexual.

While it's not cool to apply labels to other people, it's also not cool to deny them the right to apply a label to themselves.

[Goldberry]

We all do it. I can say "I'm a lesbian so when I'm turned on by a man, it isn't because of him because lesbians don't get turned on by men". And then twist and turn a million different ways to come to some intellectual conclusion that what I really felt was an aesthetic appreciation coupled with taboo eroticism.

Had I never had the label lesbian, I would have just said "I'm attracted to that guy."

I've seen asexuals twist and turn and try to jam their attractions into weird little boxes because those are the boxes that have "asexual" written in sharpie on the top, but had they just not had the label asexual, they'd have just said "I'm kind of attracted to dominant women."

Whenever descriptions of emotions or bodily responses become intellectual, I know there's some twisting to fit into a box. Why? Because emotions and bodily responses are simple. There's no reason other than social construction to call them anything other than what they actually are.

Thank you for this! ...And for your earlier posts which I haven't quoted.

Trying to put a label on myself has had me in a spin for the past two months. Basically I appreciate this whole thread because I think we have to realize that it always isn't necessary to fit in one category--lately I've been having fantasies about a dude I know. So I've been trying to prove to myself on some days that I really am sexual, but then I'm sure on other days that I really am ace but think about sex hypothetically, or maybe demi or...?

I just need to take is easy and just go with whatever I am. Countless times have I ever changed my sexuality on my profile until I just went with "a-spectrum fluid."

[oneofthesun]

I haven't read the articles but I've been saying that sexual orientation is an outmoded concept for years now. Maybe it was needed at first to fight off religious intolerance of homosexuality etc., but now all it's doing is dividing people. As long as queer people are thought of as being "other" they can never be normal. The reality is that nobody can control their sexual responses. We're more the same than we are different. Only by recognizing that can we eliminate all excuses for bigotry.

I also know several people would have suffered a great deal of anxiety over what sexual orientation they might be. More often than not it's not the act of being sexual with men/women that bothers them so much as the label that goes with that and all it implies. It's all so unnecessary.

[Guest]

I haven't read the articles but I've been saying that sexual orientation is an outmoded concept for years now. Maybe it was needed at first to fight off religious intolerance of homosexuality etc., but now all it's doing is dividing people. As long as queer people are thought of as being "other" they can never be normal. The reality is that nobody can control their sexual responses. We're more the same than we are different. Only by recognizing that can we eliminate all excuses for bigotry.

I also know several people would have suffered a great deal of anxiety over what sexual orientation they might be. More often than not it's not the act of being sexual with men/women that bothers them so much as the label that goes with that and all it implies. It's all so unnecessary.

[Sally]

So -- what if we finally found AVEN and find that asexuality really suits how we feel, and how we've felt all our life? Since that is me, are you saying that my asexuality -- which completely suits me and I don't have any questions about --is an invalid concept?

Geez.

[Lady Girl]

It seems to be 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, as usual. There are valid (very valid) reasons to talk about and realize asexuality as a legitimate concept, as well as other sexual orientations. Just because there are studies saying having sexual orientations is not real, doesn't make it so. There are also times and places not to talk about or validate it, because it really has no application (AVEN is probably one of these places on the rare occassion). This is how it is with everything under the sun.

Treating others in a loving manner might be the only exception to this rule.

[Rivan Vox]

Oh, I'd say there is always a time and place for brutality, Lady Girl.

Orientations are extremely valid, what are you talking about, of course you need to simplify your feelings into a mode that anyone can easily understand, how else would this dating process work.

If I ask you if you're into men, you'd better answer "yes" or "no", not "on sundays" or some crap. Unless you are using humour, in which case it would be okay.

Still though. Sexual orientations are a social construct (at the very least, there is definitely some biology in there too) and they are doing a very good job of sorting people into dating pools.

[Lady Girl]

Oh, I'd say there is always a time and place for brutality, Lady Girl.

Orientations are extremely valid, what are you talking about, of course you need to simplify your feelings into a mode that anyone can easily understand, how else would this dating process work.

If I ask you if you're into men, you'd better answer "yes" or "no", not "on sundays" or some crap. Unless you are using humour, in which case it would be okay.

Still though. Sexual orientations are a social construct (at the very least, there is definitely some biology in there too) and they are doing a very good job of sorting people into dating pools.

Maybe you didn't read my post...I didn't say it wasn't valid. At the grocery store deciding what we want for supper might not be a good time or place to bring up my husband's asexual orientation (as I said it really has no application in that particular setting). Not sure what or why you posted after me, I should have quoted Sally, I was sort of responding to her post.

Carry on with your brutality Rivan...that was most definitely an idealistic sort of statement for another world, not this one! :lol:

[Hap2]

So -- what if we finally found AVEN and find that asexuality really suits how we feel, and how we've felt all our life? Since that is me, are you saying that my asexuality -- which completely suits me and I don't have any questions about --is an invalid concept?

Geez.

Hardly. The feelings are valid and they are what should be concentrated on, whereas whatever terms we refer to those feelings are arbitrary. Sexual orientation, rather than being a very general and arbitrary term for linguistic convenience of organizing particular feelings, it is often abused in this era as if it were a thing or object in itself, as if it were the core of one's identity and furthermore the cause and limit to all one's actions and feelings. Hence we get all of these individuals trying to adjust their behaviours to fit a particular label, when it is the feelings themselves that define the label in the first place. E.g. Stereotypes such as straight men having to appear and act manly, gay men and women being expected to appear have immense pride in their sexuality (when it may be arbitrary to them), people trying to explain away and distinguish attraction so to appear like a 'true' asexual.

What is invalid about the conception of sexual orientation is people's use of it as if it were a strict set of laws about how one must behave or feel. When it should be the case that it is fine to feel anything or nothing at all and the label merely refers to a set of feelings, so that one does not have to list them out every time they wish to speak of them. People are placing too much stock in sexual identity as something that must be essential to recognize for being considered normal or human.

[Guest]

So -- what if we finally found AVEN and find that asexuality really suits how we feel, and how we've felt all our life? Since that is me, are you saying that my asexuality -- which completely suits me and I don't have any questions about --is an invalid concept?

Geez.

No, not when specifically targeted to refer to your feelings. yes, when you take into account the totality of our culture's assumptions and uses of sexual orientation. I think it was Hap who earlier said that descriptive labels make sense (a word to describe your personal feelings), but our society uses them prescriptively. Gay people can't adopt. Asexual people can't understand relationships. Straight people are narrowminded. We use the labels to encompass about a million attributes that don't actually apply to sexualities... and you see that on AVEN all the time too, where kids will come on here and say "I must be asexual because I sure do hate sex scenes in movies"... they are confusing culture with sexual orientation. I would go so far as to say that as soon as a label is adopted (not by an individual but by society) it ceases to be distinguishable from general culture. Maybe once upon a time being gay meant sleeping with someone of the same sex, but now it means so much more than that. It means you love Ellen and have bad hair and are vegetarian (if a woman) or a slut (if a man). The labels take on entire personality profiles and inform legal rights, dating options, familial relations... it's totally out of hand.

[Sally]

Hence we get all of these individuals trying to adjust their behaviours to fit a particular label

Frankly, I can't imagine someone adjusting their behavior to fit a label. Do you mean that if a guy decides he's gay, he'll have sex with men even if he doesn't want to? Or he'll not have sex with a woman, even if he's attracted to her? Or someone who's gotten the idea that she's asexual will ignore the feeling of sexual attraction she has to someone?

I really doubt that. People may be taking society's clues (whatever society they pay attention to) about what they think they are. I had romantic relationships with sexuals and they wanted sex, but if I hadn't been with them, I'd have remained very happily sex-free, no matter what label I put on myself.

People adjust to other people, not to labels.