Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

The nature of "sexual orientatation"

SarcasticMethod
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 8:17:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I wanted to explain here my general views on the concept of sexual orientation.

The way I see it, as a general rule sexual orientation is not at all tied to the gender or sex of the target of attraction.

Think about it like this. If I were to see someone, and say to myself, "Wow, the way they have XX chromosomes really gets me excited", would that be reasonable? No.
Similarly, it would not be reasonable to be attracted to someone because of their gender identity, i. e. "The way he identifies as a man is so hot". Sexual attraction is actually unrelated to genetic sex or psychological gender. Rather, it has to do with traits.

Imagine a set of physical traits 'S', which contains all the traits that Jeremy considers attractive. The traits within 'S' are more common among those of the female sex, so Jeremy naturally assumes he is 'heterosexual'. Now imagine Jeremy were to encounter a man named Ethan, who is both genetically and psychologically male. However, it happens to be the case that Ethan has many of the traits within 'S'! Jeremy, again quite naturally, feels attraction to Ethan. So, is Jeremy bisexual?

This brings into question our use of words like 'gay' and 'straight', among others, to describe sexual orientation.

Your thoughts, DDO?
TheChristian
Posts: 1,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 8:30:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 8:17:06 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
I wanted to explain here my general views on the concept of sexual orientation.

The way I see it, as a general rule sexual orientation is not at all tied to the gender or sex of the target of attraction.

It Does.
Think about it like this. If I were to see someone, and say to myself, "Wow, the way they have XX chromosomes really gets me excited", would that be reasonable? No.
Similarly, it would not be reasonable to be attracted to someone because of their gender identity, i. e. "The way he identifies as a man is so hot". Sexual attraction is actually unrelated to genetic sex or psychological gender. Rather, it has to do with traits.

Very much so.
Imagine a set of physical traits 'S', which contains all the traits that Jeremy considers attractive. The traits within 'S' are more common among those of the female sex, so Jeremy naturally assumes he is 'heterosexual'. Now imagine Jeremy were to encounter a man named Ethan, who is both genetically and psychologically male. However, it happens to be the case that Ethan has many of the traits within 'S'! Jeremy, again quite naturally, feels attraction to Ethan. So, is Jeremy bisexual?

Possibly.
This brings into question our use of words like 'gay' and 'straight', among others, to describe sexual orientation.

It Does.
Your thoughts, DDO?
Very intriguing.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 10:32:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would say that its not so much about attraction to a person's outward appearance, but the enjoyment of sexual activity (be it real or fantasy) with that person. Sexual orientation comes down to who you enjoy having (or fantasize about having) sex with.

Its possible to find a person attractive yet have no sexual desire for them. For instance I can admit that Caitlyn Jenner is attractive, yet I don't have any sexual desire for her because I know what's really going on under there.
SarcasticMethod
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 11:36:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 10:32:35 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
I would say that its not so much about attraction to a person's outward appearance, but the enjoyment of sexual activity (be it real or fantasy) with that person. Sexual orientation comes down to who you enjoy having (or fantasize about having) sex with.

Its possible to find a person attractive yet have no sexual desire for them. For instance I can admit that Caitlyn Jenner is attractive, yet I don't have any sexual desire for her because I know what's really going on under there.

I disagree on that point. This article by the American Psychological Association states: "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes."
http://web.archive.org...
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 12:08:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 11:36:57 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 6/11/2015 10:32:35 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
I would say that its not so much about attraction to a person's outward appearance, but the enjoyment of sexual activity (be it real or fantasy) with that person. Sexual orientation comes down to who you enjoy having (or fantasize about having) sex with.

Its possible to find a person attractive yet have no sexual desire for them. For instance I can admit that Caitlyn Jenner is attractive, yet I don't have any sexual desire for her because I know what's really going on under there.

I disagree on that point. This article by the American Psychological Association states: "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes."
http://web.archive.org...

I don't see a functional difference between the two. How is that definition significantly different from mine?

Even that definition boils down to who you prefer having sex with or who you would like to have sex with in the future.

They use 3 words to describe the nature of attraction. Emotional, romantic and sexual.

The word emotional is useless in this context because many other kinds of relationships can be emotional without being sexual in nature. I have an emotional relationship with my parents, my siblings, and my friends; but none of that has any bearing on my sexual orientation.

So really the two key words here are romantic and sexual. Not all sexual relationships are romantic, but all romantic relationships are sexual in nature even if its just in fantasy, and not yet in practice. If a romantic relationship lasts long enough it will eventually become sexual in practice and not just in fantasy.

So it still comes down to who you enjoy having sex with or who you enjoy fantasizing about having sex with. Which is precisely what I said originally.
SarcasticMethod
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 1:06:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 12:08:51 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 6/11/2015 11:36:57 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 6/11/2015 10:32:35 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
I would say that its not so much about attraction to a person's outward appearance, but the enjoyment of sexual activity (be it real or fantasy) with that person. Sexual orientation comes down to who you enjoy having (or fantasize about having) sex with.

Its possible to find a person attractive yet have no sexual desire for them. For instance I can admit that Caitlyn Jenner is attractive, yet I don't have any sexual desire for her because I know what's really going on under there.

I disagree on that point. This article by the American Psychological Association states: "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes."
http://web.archive.org...


I don't see a functional difference between the two. How is that definition significantly different from mine?

Even that definition boils down to who you prefer having sex with or who you would like to have sex with in the future.

They use 3 words to describe the nature of attraction. Emotional, romantic and sexual.

The word emotional is useless in this context because many other kinds of relationships can be emotional without being sexual in nature. I have an emotional relationship with my parents, my siblings, and my friends; but none of that has any bearing on my sexual orientation.

So really the two key words here are romantic and sexual. Not all sexual relationships are romantic, but all romantic relationships are sexual in nature even if its just in fantasy, and not yet in practice. If a romantic relationship lasts long enough it will eventually become sexual in practice and not just in fantasy.

So it still comes down to who you enjoy having sex with or who you enjoy fantasizing about having sex with. Which is precisely what I said originally.

If you don't see the functional difference, I suggest you get your eyes checked.
The word "attraction" isn't there for nothing. Attraction refers to a certain kind of feeling one has towards someone else, and my point was that this attraction comes from what the target's physical traits are.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 1:57:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:06:18 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:08:51 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 6/11/2015 11:36:57 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 6/11/2015 10:32:35 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
I would say that its not so much about attraction to a person's outward appearance, but the enjoyment of sexual activity (be it real or fantasy) with that person. Sexual orientation comes down to who you enjoy having (or fantasize about having) sex with.

Its possible to find a person attractive yet have no sexual desire for them. For instance I can admit that Caitlyn Jenner is attractive, yet I don't have any sexual desire for her because I know what's really going on under there.

I disagree on that point. This article by the American Psychological Association states: "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes."
http://web.archive.org...


I don't see a functional difference between the two. How is that definition significantly different from mine?

Even that definition boils down to who you prefer having sex with or who you would like to have sex with in the future.

They use 3 words to describe the nature of attraction. Emotional, romantic and sexual.

The word emotional is useless in this context because many other kinds of relationships can be emotional without being sexual in nature. I have an emotional relationship with my parents, my siblings, and my friends; but none of that has any bearing on my sexual orientation.

So really the two key words here are romantic and sexual. Not all sexual relationships are romantic, but all romantic relationships are sexual in nature even if its just in fantasy, and not yet in practice. If a romantic relationship lasts long enough it will eventually become sexual in practice and not just in fantasy.

So it still comes down to who you enjoy having sex with or who you enjoy fantasizing about having sex with. Which is precisely what I said originally.

If you don't see the functional difference, I suggest you get your eyes checked.
The word "attraction" isn't there for nothing. Attraction refers to a certain kind of feeling one has towards someone else, and my point was that this attraction comes from what the target's physical traits are.

You didn't answer my question. How is that definition any different than mine? Telling me to get my eyes checked is not an explanation.

Sexual orientation is tied to gender and sex. Its related to the sex of the person because the one physical trait that is overwhelmingly the most important in this context is what the genitalia are. That one trait dominates the discussion, and renders all other traits irrelevant. Sexual orientation is related to the gender of a person because its not just physical traits that are attractive, but behaviors and body language which are both profoundly affected by your gender identification.

Sure a person's physical traits have an affect on the attraction that determines your sexual orientation. But given that one specific trait is so dominant, and the fact that physical traits alone can not entirely account for attraction, I think that you are oversimplifying with your conclusions.
TruthS4yer
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 9:56:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:57:37 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
I would say that its not so much about attraction to a person's outward appearance, but the enjoyment of sexual activity (be it real or fantasy) with that person. Sexual orientation comes down to who you enjoy having (or fantasize about having) sex with.
Sexual orientation is tied to gender and sex. Its related to the sex of the person because the one physical trait that is overwhelmingly the most important in this context is what the genitalia are. That one trait dominates the discussion, and renders all other traits irrelevant.
I've modified the post at the below link to include a digram I made in response to your comment. It seeks to clarify the nature of attraction, though is still a bit of an oversimplification.
http://homoresponse.blogspot.co.uk...

There are asexuals who do not wish to have sex of any kind with anybody yet may still pursue romantic relationships and biromantic people, such as myself, who have the potential to be romantically attracted to members of both biological genders but lack physical attraction to one or more.

The genitalia of somebody I'm attracted to are of minimal significance in that if I am attracted to somebody with their clothes on, it is extraordinarily unlikely that this will cease to be the case should their clothes be removed. The desire to see them naked is specifically motivated by the attraction to them with clothes on, rather than the anticipation of particularly shaped/sized genitals.

I generally don't care about dick size for instance, though there are "size queens" for which such a thing is fetishised. I suspect they are in the extreme minority however and that many others, who express that it is important, merely do so because they've been culturally conditioned to claim that it holds some relevance. The concept of being attracted to genitals, in isolation from a specific individual, is alien to me personally.

My "lust", though it is likely as carnal as anybody else's is often directed more towards loving interactions (E.G. cuddling, though perhaps preferably naked) than towards sex itself. It is ironic, given this, that, as I'm an ephebophile, many people would assume me to be "predatory", totally inaccurately of course.

Ultimately, sexual orientation (SO) is likely deduced introspectively from a rudimentary statistical analysis of our past instances of attraction. That is certainly the basis for my self-description. Involuntary attractions are necessary and sufficient to ascribe SO, while actions are neither. I can demonstrate this if needsbe.
Please avoid quoting all of large posts - it needlessly means we have to scroll through them to navigate a thread.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 11:02:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 10:32:35 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
I would say that its not so much about attraction to a person's outward appearance, but the enjoyment of sexual activity (be it real or fantasy) with that person. Sexual orientation comes down to who you enjoy having (or fantasize about having) sex with.

I would say that who you are emotionally attracted to plays just a big a role as sexual attraction.

Its possible to find a person attractive yet have no sexual desire for them. For instance I can admit that Caitlyn Jenner is attractive, yet I don't have any sexual desire for her because I know what's really going on under there.

Is your attraction to Caitly emotional or merely an appreciation of physicality?
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 11:05:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 12:08:51 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 6/11/2015 11:36:57 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 6/11/2015 10:32:35 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
I would say that its not so much about attraction to a person's outward appearance, but the enjoyment of sexual activity (be it real or fantasy) with that person. Sexual orientation comes down to who you enjoy having (or fantasize about having) sex with.

Its possible to find a person attractive yet have no sexual desire for them. For instance I can admit that Caitlyn Jenner is attractive, yet I don't have any sexual desire for her because I know what's really going on under there.

I disagree on that point. This article by the American Psychological Association states: "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes."
http://web.archive.org...


I don't see a functional difference between the two. How is that definition significantly different from mine?

Even that definition boils down to who you prefer having sex with or who you would like to have sex with in the future.

They use 3 words to describe the nature of attraction. Emotional, romantic and sexual.

The word emotional is useless in this context because many other kinds of relationships can be emotional without being sexual in nature. I have an emotional relationship with my parents, my siblings, and my friends; but none of that has any bearing on my sexual orientation.

So really the two key words here are romantic and sexual. Not all sexual relationships are romantic, but all romantic relationships are sexual in nature even if its just in fantasy, and not yet in practice. If a romantic relationship lasts long enough it will eventually become sexual in practice and not just in fantasy.

So it still comes down to who you enjoy having sex with or who you enjoy fantasizing about having sex with. Which is precisely what I said originally.

I think you must be pretty shallow if all you consider is romantic and sexual, and exclude emotions.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 12:58:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 8:17:06 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
I wanted to explain here my general views on the concept of sexual orientation.

The way I see it, as a general rule sexual orientation is not at all tied to the gender or sex of the target of attraction.

Think about it like this. If I were to see someone, and say to myself, "Wow, the way they have XX chromosomes really gets me excited", would that be reasonable? No.
Similarly, it would not be reasonable to be attracted to someone because of their gender identity, i. e. "The way he identifies as a man is so hot". Sexual attraction is actually unrelated to genetic sex or psychological gender. Rather, it has to do with traits.

Imagine a set of physical traits 'S', which contains all the traits that Jeremy considers attractive. The traits within 'S' are more common among those of the female sex, so Jeremy naturally assumes he is 'heterosexual'. Now imagine Jeremy were to encounter a man named Ethan, who is both genetically and psychologically male. However, it happens to be the case that Ethan has many of the traits within 'S'! Jeremy, again quite naturally, feels attraction to Ethan. So, is Jeremy bisexual?

This brings into question our use of words like 'gay' and 'straight', among others, to describe sexual orientation.

Your thoughts, DDO?

No personal offense intended, but I tend to believe what the professionals in the field have spent enormous time studying, as opposed to uninformed personal opinions.
SarcasticMethod
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 9:41:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/13/2015 12:58:09 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 6/11/2015 8:17:06 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
I wanted to explain here my general views on the concept of sexual orientation.

The way I see it, as a general rule sexual orientation is not at all tied to the gender or sex of the target of attraction.

Think about it like this. If I were to see someone, and say to myself, "Wow, the way they have XX chromosomes really gets me excited", would that be reasonable? No.
Similarly, it would not be reasonable to be attracted to someone because of their gender identity, i. e. "The way he identifies as a man is so hot". Sexual attraction is actually unrelated to genetic sex or psychological gender. Rather, it has to do with traits.

Imagine a set of physical traits 'S', which contains all the traits that Jeremy considers attractive. The traits within 'S' are more common among those of the female sex, so Jeremy naturally assumes he is 'heterosexual'. Now imagine Jeremy were to encounter a man named Ethan, who is both genetically and psychologically male. However, it happens to be the case that Ethan has many of the traits within 'S'! Jeremy, again quite naturally, feels attraction to Ethan. So, is Jeremy bisexual?

This brings into question our use of words like 'gay' and 'straight', among others, to describe sexual orientation.

Your thoughts, DDO?

No personal offense intended, but I tend to believe what the professionals in the field have spent enormous time studying, as opposed to uninformed personal opinions.

No offence taken. I understand why you think that. But I just wanted to make a statement on my point of view. If you have any experts who disagree with me on this position, please do provide links!
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 11:07:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/13/2015 9:41:24 PM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
At 6/13/2015 12:58:09 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 6/11/2015 8:17:06 AM, SarcasticMethod wrote:
I wanted to explain here my general views on the concept of sexual orientation.

The way I see it, as a general rule sexual orientation is not at all tied to the gender or sex of the target of attraction.

Think about it like this. If I were to see someone, and say to myself, "Wow, the way they have XX chromosomes really gets me excited", would that be reasonable? No.
Similarly, it would not be reasonable to be attracted to someone because of their gender identity, i. e. "The way he identifies as a man is so hot". Sexual attraction is actually unrelated to genetic sex or psychological gender. Rather, it has to do with traits.

Imagine a set of physical traits 'S', which contains all the traits that Jeremy considers attractive. The traits within 'S' are more common among those of the female sex, so Jeremy naturally assumes he is 'heterosexual'. Now imagine Jeremy were to encounter a man named Ethan, who is both genetically and psychologically male. However, it happens to be the case that Ethan has many of the traits within 'S'! Jeremy, again quite naturally, feels attraction to Ethan. So, is Jeremy bisexual?

This brings into question our use of words like 'gay' and 'straight', among others, to describe sexual orientation.

Your thoughts, DDO?

No personal offense intended, but I tend to believe what the professionals in the field have spent enormous time studying, as opposed to uninformed personal opinions.

No offence taken. I understand why you think that. But I just wanted to make a statement on my point of view. If you have any experts who disagree with me on this position, please do provide links!

Try the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, et al. Too many links to post here.