A new theory of sexual orientation

[Satya]

Moot it may be, but my beef is with the misuse of the word 'orientation.'

Let's see how it is used in the dictionary...

1. the act of orienting
2. an integrated set of attitudes and beliefs

Hm...it seems that both definitions are accepted, and it is clear that from the beginning I have been using the second definition. Good day to you sir and your semantics.

 

[Satya]

In this sense, Satya, I would argue to state that personality traits, for the most part, are defined from birth and if we are comparing personality and homosexuality, if they follow the same lines, conclusively we can say both originate at birth.

You can see a difference between even infants in the way they interact with the world. Some cry 24-7, there have been others, who do not cry at all. You can only see these develop as personality traits as they get older because it is easier to spot; there are, in obsevational senses, always clues of behavior of a child's personality since birth, but it just isn't plainly obvious. Which could be why people are prone to believe that adolescence defines personality, because at that period of time the personality traits become much firmer and the easiest to spot. All of this would apply to homosexuality, too, if we were to go by your model.

I'm in uncharted territory by making this theory. There is no theory that argues that personality alone selects for sexual orientation. I'm not sure the degree to which sexual orientation is a temperament like introversion/extroversion or more influence by psychosocial factors. What is clear is that personality develops in stages. First the temperament that an individual is born with, followed by the emotional, behavioral, and mental components. By the time an individual is 18 months old, most of their personality is probably decided. Early behavioral interactions with the parents and other children cause some ages up to the age of 6. Emotional development through adolescence add a few more. And finally some cognitive stages in early adulthood solidify a person's personality for most of their life.

I recognize this because the reverse occurs as an elderly person begins to die.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Let's see how it is used in the dictionary...

1. the act of orienting
2. an integrated set of attitudes and beliefs

Hm...it seems that both definitions are accepted, and it is clear that from the beginning I have been using the second definition. Good day to you sir and your semantics.

That is funny, because if you read my posts, I am also using the second definition. Attitudes and beliefs operate on the concious deliberate level. Instincts/dispositions do not.

Whatever aspect of the homosexual disposition is not subject to free choice, should not be referred to as orientations, because it is clearly not an attiude/belief - it is a physical/emotional disposition. Whether this come about by nature or nurture, is open to debate.


Indigo: your detestation of semantics was already noted in your prior posts, by your failure to make any attempt to engage the content of my posts when replying to them.

 

[the]

Identity selects for sexual orientation.


I have been leaning more towards this for the past several years but I have never fleshed it out like this. Thanks.

 

[Satya]

That is funny, because if you read my posts, I am also using the second definition. Attitudes and beliefs operate on the concious deliberate level. Instincts/dispositions do not.

Whatever aspect of the homosexual disposition is not subject to free choice, should not be referred to as orientations, because it is clearly not an attiude/belief - it is a physical/emotional disposition.

The problem is you aren't contributing anything to the discussion, you are only detracting from it. You aren't commenting one way or another on the validity of the theory I have presented. You haven't made a valid argument of your own. You are simply suggesting that you believe that orientation should only be used to refer to conscious behaviors. Fine. Go start a thread on how you feel that the world should redefine "orientation" to suit your particular view. However, that does not change how it is used in this thread or by most other people in the world and it has no relevance to the topic of discussion in this thread. This is not a thread on semantics.

 

[88chaz88]

I agree with 2. Twin's aren't identical genetic copys. One twin can have a genetic illness when the other will be fine. I'm pretty sure this can be the same for homone levels.

 

[Poetic Justice]

Ok, there is a fairly obvious solution to this which will probably make you kick yourself.

They both have an affect!

Beliefs, attitudes, emotions, desires, orientation all have a base starting point at birth. They are then modified through experience as you age. These modifications may sometimes not be enough to overide the base starting. Sometimes they are not.

Children are not blank slates when they are born. We are pre programmed with certain dispositions. But the programmes are flexible and can be adapted if needs be.

Some people are born gay. Some people have a slight interest which blossoms later in life. Some people through expereince decide it would be better to be gay and try it out only to find they love/hate it. some people are almost entirely hetro and will never become gay. Some people like both

 

[Satya]

Ok, there is a fairly obvious solution to this which will probably make you kick yourself.

They both have an affect!

You missed the point.

Beliefs, attitudes, emotions, desires, orientation all have a base starting point at birth. They are then modified through experience as you age. These modifications may sometimes not be enough to overide the base starting. Sometimes they are not.

I never argued otherwise. In fact, my theory specifically states that sexual orientation is the result of both biological and psychosocial factors.

Children are not blank slates when they are born. We are pre programmed with certain dispositions. But the programmes are flexible and can be adapted if needs be.

Yeah. It's called "temperament". It's the basis for our personality. All I suggested was rather than our sexual orientation being independent of personality, that sexual orientation develops alongside, and as a part of, our personality. In other words, our personality selects for our sexual orientation.

Some people are born gay.

You can see my reasons that counter this claim in the OP. It is far more likely that sexual orientation develops in early childhood.

Some people have a slight interest which blossoms later in life. Some people through expereince decide it would be better to be gay and try it out only to find they love/hate it. some people are almost entirely hetro and will never become gay. Some people like both

All of these are covered under my theory.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The problem is you aren't contributing anything to the discussion, you are only detracting from it. You aren't commenting one way or another on the validity of the theory I have presented. You haven't made a valid argument of your own. You are simply suggesting that you believe that orientation should only be used to refer to conscious behaviors. Fine. Go start a thread on how you feel that the world should redefine "orientation" to suit your particular view. However, that does not change how it is used in this thread or by most other people in the world and it has no relevance to the topic of discussion in this thread. This is not a thread on semantics.

I agree that it is a minor point - the origin of this part of the discussion (the part I am discussing) in another thread seems to have been misconstrued and imported into this thread - in its opening post. My principal interest in this discussion is to see a consistent and intuitive use of terms employed, so that theories may be understood with greater precision and less ambiguity/equivocation. Crisp reasoning and terminology makes the development/testing of theories such as those of this thread interesting and worth reading. Random, vague, abmiguous, equivocal statements detract from good theories.

If people insist on objecting to refinements I think are necessary to be able to discuss this topic more clearly I could ignore them, or simply adopt a more vague terminology, so that the discussion is not interrupted.

However, a distinction in terms would help one address a distinction in fact: the aspect of sexual attraction which is not subject to choice; and the aspect which is subject to free choice. (Much like personality type is not chosen, but type development is actually choosable.)

The hypothesis which I again wish to introduce is: whether an unchosen homosexual disposition in fact must always determine orientation (chosen identity/function). Given your theory, that disposition is developed in a similar way to personality, and given that personality influences, but does not determine indentity or function - orientation - (as so many threads on this forum seem to illustrate) - one can at least begin to postulate that the homosexual identity is chosen.

 

[Poetic Justice]

Ok, thanks for the clarification Satya.

I agree that it develops over time, however this development is part of the pre-programming. The programme is sitting there waiting to be activated when puberty approaches. So you could argue that it is from birth.

Could you clarify, are you saying that, lets say, 1 month old babies have no pre disposition to turn out gay? if so I disagree

 

[88chaz88]

Ok, thanks for the clarification Satya.

I agree that it develops over time, however this development is part of the pre-programming. The programme is sitting there waiting to be activated when puberty approaches. So you could argue that it is from birth.

Could you clarify, are you saying that, lets say, 1 month old babies have no pre disposition to turn out gay? if so I disagree

Agreed.

 

[Satya]

I agree that it is a minor point - the origin of this part of the discussion (the part I am discussing) in another thread seems to have been misconstrued and imported into this thread - in its opening post. My principal interest in this discussion is to see a consistent and intuitive use of terms employed, so that theories may be understood with greater precision and less ambiguity/equivocation. Crisp reasoning and terminology makes the development/testing of theories such as those of this thread interesting and worth reading. Random, vague, abmiguous, equivocal statements detract from good theories.

If people insist on objecting to refinements I think are necessary to be able to discuss this topic more clearly I could ignore them, or simply adopt a more vague terminology, so that the discussion is not interrupted.

However, a distinction in terms would help one address a distinction in fact: the aspect of sexual attraction which is not subject to choice; and the aspect which is subject to free choice. (Much like personality type is not chosen, but type development is actually choosable.)

Frankly FA, your posts come across as equivocation. Orientation has two meanings and it sounds like you are trying to mislead people by glossing over its meaning as it is intended in this thread.

The hypothesis which I again wish to introduce is: whether an unchosen homosexual disposition in fact must always determine orientation (chosen identity/function). Given your theory, that disposition is developed in a similar way to personality, and given that personality influences, but does not determine identity or function - orientation - (as so many threads on this forum seem to illustrate) - one can at least begin to postulate that the homosexual identity is chosen.

Homosexual identity is chosen just as your identity as an INFJ is chosen. You can choose to not act like an INFJ but it doesn't change the fact that you are one. No matter how extroverted you act, your personality is still fixed as an introvert.

Also, the bold part makes no sense. Identity is a person's distinct personality. The terms are synonymous. That is a pretty ridiculous mistake to make when you are making a big deal about the semantics of the word "orientation".

 

[Satya]

Ok, thanks for the clarification Satya.

I agree that it develops over time, however this development is part of the pre-programming. The programme is sitting there waiting to be activated when puberty approaches. So you could argue that it is from birth.

I don't think temperament alone selects for sexual orientation. I think as a person develops the other aspects of personality, namely the behavioral, emotional, and mental components, that they also begin to develop their sexual orientation.

Could you clarify, are you saying that, lets say, 1 month old babies have no pre disposition to turn out gay? if so I disagree

I would say that some 1 month old babies have a biological predisposition to turn out gay, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will. Other factors in their personality may select against it as they develop.

 

[Poetic Justice]

I don't think temperament alone selects for sexual orientation. I think as a person develops the other aspects of personality, namely the behavioral, emotional, and mental components, that they also begin to develop their sexual orientation.



I would say that some 1 month old babies have a biological predisposition to turn out gay, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will. Other factors in their personality may select against it as they develop.

Ok, I agree

 

[dark_angel]

When I read this thread my mind keeps going back to my first encounter with my sexuality which I would like to share here, if it is out of place, my apologies (I am a feminine gay female):

I was 12/13 and it was our lunch break at school and I was sitting on the grass with my best friend when a girl walks past and I was staring at her beautifully smooth, sexy, feminine tanned legs and my best friend asked me disgustedly what I was staring at. In that moment I realized what I was doing and the emotions that came with it, which was being turned on ofcourse, and I was disgusted at myself, nauseated actually. I was raised in a strict Roman Catholic home and being Portuguese was raised with very old traditional beliefs. In that moment it felt like I had no choice in the matter of staring at her legs and being sexually turned on, it was as if it was an automatic reaction, there was no thinking, I was not consciously aware that I was doing it and it went against everything I was raised to believe.

 

[Poetic Justice]

When I read this thread my mind keeps going back to my first encounter with my sexuality which I would like to share here, if it is out of place, my apologies (I am a feminine gay female):

I was 12/13 and it was our lunch break at school and I was sitting on the grass with my best friend when a girl walks past and I was staring at her beautifully smooth, sexy, feminine tanned legs and my best friend asked me disgustedly what I was staring at. In that moment I realized what I was doing and the emotions that came with it, which was being turned on ofcourse, and I was disgusted at myself, nauseated actually. I was raised in a strict Roman Catholic home and being Portuguese was raised with very old traditional beliefs. In that moment it felt like I had no choice in the matter of staring at her legs and being sexually turned on, it was as if it was an automatic reaction, there was no thinking, I was not consciously aware that I was doing it and it went against everything I was raised to believe.

Thats a pretty definitive argument for it being biological. In you at least.

BTW I like your distinction on being a feminine gay female. No spiked hair and tattoos then? lol

 

[Satya]

Thats a pretty definitive argument for it being biological. In you at least.

BTW I like your distinction on being a feminine gay female. No spiked hair and tattoos then? lol

That is a definitive argument for it being unchosen, not necessarily biological.

 

[Poetic Justice]

But if she was raised in a strict catholic household and her friends at the time also disaproved then how could it be learned?

 

[dark_angel]

BTW I like your distinction on being a feminine gay female. No spiked hair and tattoos then? lol

lol I am what they would term in my community as a lipstick lesbian :love:

 

[Poetic Justice]

Lipstick lesbians are awesome!

I think I love you