You asked for them. We made them. You hated them. We killed them.
Welcome to the new media revolution.
It’s a two-way conversation, and we hope you brought some cheese and crackers
Sex is more fun when you share!
Episodes:
RECENT NEWS:
Plans B Damned
4 comments
Sex in the City May Help You Stay On Top of Fashion
2 comments
MTSS regular Neil Arsenty stars in “Big City, Small World”
7 comments
Gee guys, I don’t know. Having the words “HOMOSEXUALITY” and “CANCER” in big bold letters together like that makes me afraid of the associations folks might make (and already make).
Also, knowing that the idea that homosexuality is a choice is generally considered a “conservative” idea, with the implication being that people can (and *should*) NOT choose it, the slogan on the shirt almost could be read a threat of what would happen if you did choose homosexuality (choosing homosexuality gives you cancer, just like choosing to smoke). Eww.
Like I wrote in the comments sections for the program on homosexuality, I think we are actually doing a dis-service by insisting that (homo-)sexuality isn’t a choice.
People should get the message that there are endless varieties and choices where sexuality is concerned and that it’s fine, fun, normal and good to explore all your choices, all your possibilities.
The only ones making the rules are you and whoever (or whatever!) you’re having fun with. As long as you’re happy and safe, and you’re helping your partner(s) stay happy and safe, too, explore and enjoy, and forget the labels. They just get in the way and usually end up *limiting* your choices rather than expanding them.
Kelev,
Sexual Orientation is not a choice, ever. We know this after many years of trying to straighten people out. We know this after years of men and women marrying only to lead unhappy lives and eventually coming round to say “I cannot be something I am not.†We know this after cases of people deciding they are homosexual and then realizing that they couldn’t just be gay because they decided to be. (Yes, that last one has really happened.)
You are speaking of choices to explore sexuality, and that is just fine. I explore eye colors through the use of colored contacts from time to time, but biology determined my eye color long ago.
There are a lot of spots on the spectrum of sexuality that people can fit into, and there are a lot of choices people can make about trying new things to see where they fit. This is not even close to making a “choice†to be gay or straight or anywhere in between.
The only ones making the rules about what you try are you and your partner. The only thing making the rules about orientation is biology.
Nikol
If you force, coerce, guilt-trip and shame someone into being or doing something they aren’t or don’t want to be/do, you will be met with failure. This is as true for social constructs and institutions (like religion and politics) as it is for something like sex. Yet *no one * would ever claim that there is a biological basis for being a Baptist or a dyed-in-the-wool Nader-ite. Try arguing with one of those folks, getting them to *not* be what they are, and you will meet as much failure as someone peddling that “ex-gay” garbage.
Too, in the vast, vast majority of societies and cultures that are or have been tolerant (or even encouraging) of sexual variety, homosexuality was not something that was practiced *instead* of heterosexuality, but rather along with it. The ancient Greeks are the most famous example, but similar practices were common among the Persians, Etruscans, Romans, Celts, Goths, Phoenecians, Ottomans and Arabs during the Muslim Golden age, and Samurai warriors during the Tokugawa period, the “Sambia” of Papua New Guinea, etc. In all of these cultures (and many, many more) homosexuality was common and was, by and large, a *choice*. Yes, in all of these cultures there were probably folks we would identify as what we think of as “gay”, folks who *only* partner up with others of the same sex. Maybe biology was more of a determining factor for them, as well as the uber-heterosexuals at the other end of the continuum. But for the vast majority of the folks in the middle, they were just as likely or even more likely to choose homosexual relationships as heterosexual ones, depending on the circumstances.
Finally, look at the kind of homosexuality that occurs in single-sex boading schools, convents/monastaries, prisons, the military, frats and sororoties etc. etc. etc. You get *lots* of otherwise “straight” folks *choosing* homosexuality, and the idea that it *only* happens because they’re absolutely *forced* to and there’s no other choice is baseless.
You’re speaking from the perspective of someone who has grown up in one of the most sexually repressive, frustrated, confused, prurient and puritanical socieites to exist (at least in recent times). Americans in particualr and Westerners in general, for the last few centuries, have been brainwashed with the belief that sexuality is *never* a choice, an argument that was used to demonize gays and other sexual minorities/varieties. It’s really no surprise that supposedly “progressive”, “alternative” folks would embrace that argument, albeit on the other side now, in support of gay rights.
I would really encourage you to explore this issue from a historical, sociological, cross-cultural perspective. There is so much more out there than the “genetic” argument, even though it’s all you see in pop culture and the media (sociologists use too many big words. Oprah hates that). The biologically-based medical model of sexuality and personality is popular because when you really *embrace* an identity, you *feel* it in your blood and bones, as if you were *born* that way. But again, it’s as silly to posit a genetic basis for Episcopalianism as it is for (homo)sexuality, and I’ve met some pretty devout Episcopals.
I’m a Phd student specializing, among other things, on the social construction of sex and identity. I have plenty of resources available to turn you on to if you want to do some further reading / study on the subject. It started as a hobby for me 20 years ago, now, and has become a profession I’ve followed around the globe. Perhaps you might do the same. I’m not saying you have to believe or accept what I’m saying, but it will only help to look at all sides of the argument in order to better support your own.
Cheers.
I am rather excited to see a discussion formulating. I would love it if our viewers could weigh in on their thoughts.
While I have read some takes on the matter, including historical references to bisexual behaviors, I have to date not found a single one that has convinced me that humankind chooses sexual orientation. Your comparison of orientation to things which are obviously choice based (religion, politics) do not really sway my opinion.
Are my gay male friends capable of having sex with a woman? Yes, and some of them have. But to say that their orientation is a choice would be most offensive, as it would indicate that they can also turn their desire to have a relationship with a man off.
The APA and human biologists have studied this one a lot, and while nature vs nurture is up in the air, with both seeming to play into the end result, scientific evidence is pretty clear that gays are gay and hets are hets.
To clarify my earlier point: Can we choose to explore sexuality? Sure. Are there choices within sexuality? You bet! Is sexual *orientation* a choice. No way.
“Gays are gay hets are het? eh?
Oh my! You *are* from the midwest, aren’t you? Well, let me take you out on the town some night in Amsterdam and see if we can’t disabuse you of some of these quaint, gingham tablecloth, white bread notions of sexuality you have. True, might not change your mind. But it’ll change you, somehow!
Seriously, though. Of course the APA and biologists are gonna default on the side of a genetic basis for sexual orientation. They’re *biologists*. Brain-based, medical model, nuts & bolts technicians. They know next to nothing about history, culture and sociology (and let me tell you they’re *horrible* in bed).
Check out some of the work on postmodern “Queer” theory (if you Google those terms you’ll probably find plenty). In fact, the rising popularity over the last 15 years or so of the term “Queer” itself has largely to do with the dissatisfaction many folks have with how overly simplistic, essentialistic and biological discussions about sexual orientation have become.
Judith Butler, Carol Queen, Michel Foucault, Gloria Wekker, are just a few of the critical theorists who have written about this issue and whose work is easy to come by (though not always easy to read…). There are some Dutch writers whose work hasn’t been translated into English yet, but I’ve summarized some of what they say in some of my own writing on the topic of “postmodern sex-ed”. I’d be happy to e-mail that to anyone who might be interested.
Even Freud, for all his shortcomings, had some wise things to say about how heterosexuals are made, not born that way. We are heterosexualized by society. Prior to that, we’re all pretty much pansexual seekers of unspecified sexual/sensual pleasure. I never grew out of that.
And yes, I’ll be interested to see how the discussion continues. In any case, the fact that these things are being discussed is only good. Thanks for the opportunity.
Kelev,
Sex is indeed a choice, but I do not agree that sexuality is a choice. The very concept of true carnal satisfaction entirely precedes choice. That one thing that gets you hot and makes your heart pound in your chest can not be chosen. There are ways that it can be trained over time, but that’s not the same thing as sexuality. There is no intellectualizing this, as that completely disproves itself.
Mr. Right
On a non discussion-related point…YAAAAY! I’m buying the shirt right now. Thanks guys!
Husband/Mr. Right
What about when that “one thing that gets you hot and makes your heart pound” is women’s underwear? Not women. Their underwear. Could be a trained monkey wearing them, as long as there’s those little satin beauties from Victoria’s Secret?
Or satin / leather / latex / PVC / rubber / stainless steel? Or “yiffy/fursuit” (seen any of that stuff)?
Are you saying there’s a biological basis for every one of these? Some allele, some combination of cytosine, guanine, adenine, thymine and uracil that codes for “lace”, or “doberman”, or “choir boy” or *all* of the countless other “paraphilias”?
Now let me be clear, just because something isn’t biological, doesn’t mean you can just switch it on and off. That’s not what I mean by ‘choice’. Once you find something that turns you “on”, it’s hard to turn it “off”. By ‘choice’ I mean that you can (and *should*!) always be looking for new, fun and exciting things to turn you on. There’s always the potential for something new.
But the only biological basis for this is simple, root, undefined ‘lust’, let’s call it. That’s nature. How that lust is shaped (boy/girl, whips/chains, dog/cat) comes later; culture, environment, experience, etc. Again, these things seem harder to turn off once they’ve been turned on (perhaps even impossible, who knows?) And maybe *that’s* the biological part; once you find something that gives you pleasure or associate pleasure/love/affection with a person/object/type/sensation, maybe we are biologically engineered to imprint on that and seek it out indefinitely.
But that doesn’t mean there’s some “gay gene” (or a “phone-sex gene” or an “internet porn gene” etc.).
Discussions of “gay genes” come perilously close to eugenics, and considering recent history where that subject is concerned, I don’t know why any “progressive” would want to play with that fire.
Did anyone even mention “gay gene” before you did, Kelev? To say a bioligist will say anything is bilogical is as basic and silly as saying a baker will say that anything is cake.
These doctors may come up with an idea, which in third grade we were told was a hypothesis, and then they test the idea until they come up with conclusive evidence. There is conclusive evidence that there are differences in the brain chemistry of people of different sexual orientations.
You are not really presenting a great argument on your own hypothesis here. Comparing “yiffy/fursuit” interests to sexual orientation is like comparing apples to squickers. (By the by, you are not the only person enlightened enough to have heard of the various kinks that exist. Even people in the states have access to the internet.)
There is no one factor that plays into the role of my sexuality. I am gay. I like men. I also like to pretend I am a cupcake when my lover is pleasuring me. I am not a pastrysexual, but I never want to see a woman’s vagina for the rest of my life. Once was enough. Tried it. Hated it. Pretty damn sure it is not for me. Pretty sure that makes me gay.
By the way, isn’t Savage clear on this one? He’s not a midwesterner, and he believes that homosexuality is NOT a choice. He must just be hanging out with midwestern people to be that wrong. I bet he could choose to munch box and find it enjoyable.
I have to agree with Kelev. Nothing dealing with human behavior is 100% purely biological. Even Schizophrenia and bipolar aren’t a 100% biological, even though they are highly genetically linked. How can you say something that is so complicated as sexuality is completely explained away by genetics.
On a more abstract note, it really takes the power away from a person when you say “its not a choice”. That is like saying “oh they can’t help themselves, so let them be”. It really sends the wrong message to people when they hear that.
I reality it shouldn’t matter if it is a choice or not, We shouldn’t be judging peoples lifestyles.
I’m still not sure how my gay friends would react to having their sexual orientation equated to cancer. I think they’d be amused (all my friends have a sense of humor, or they wouldn’t be able to deal with me), but I’m not sure. Couldn’t you chosen something else like, say, elephantiasis? (That last sentence has nothing to do with anything, I just never got to use “elephantiasis” in a sentence before.)
I’m brand-new to this website (have only watched the first few shows) and I like most of it, but I’m very puzzled as to your preoccupation with “jokes” about cancer. One of your videos says that teens should want to date people with cancer as little as they would want to date pedophiles. Wha?! So I guess pedophiles are as disgusting as people who have cancer?…I just don’t get the joke…
(BTW, people DO choose to get cancer when they choose to smoke cigarettes.)
Hi Bruceo,
Nobody chooses to get cancer. Many smokers never get it, many non smokers do. Smoking can lead to cancer. So can drinking water containing radium, which is a pretty big problem in the area I live in, so I guess our entire town is choosing to get cancer if we can’t afford bottled water or RO.
Guess what I did this weekend, everyone? Resubmitted our yearly donation to the Breast Cancer Awareness fund.
We have no preoccupation with cancer jokes, honestly. What happened was, we made one and people either squirmed, complained, or laughed really hard. Our response was to show that we were joking by making yet another joke. I am pretty sure we are running low on cancer jokes at this point, but if we come up with one that we find fresh, we’ll probably use it.
Remember on the playground when the kids would tease you (or maybe that was just me getting teased) and the grown ups would say that if you let it bother you the kids would pick up on that and keep doing it? See the correlation?
Matt, people with elephantitis are going to be emailing you soon. Get ready!
Much love to all of you.
Nikol
Nikol, I can hardly wait. (I love attention.) To get serious for a moment, though (it won’t hurt a bit), I’d like to point out that the debate about choice versus genetics distracts from the real issue, to wit: Do you have the right to love whom you will, as long as no one gets hurt? Whether you’re born that way or choose that path, it’s really none of my business.
And before the nitpickers get started: No, I don’t condone rape or child molesting (actually a form of rape). As for bestiality, my guess (and yes, it’s only a guess so stop smirking) is that anything with teeth claws, antlers, and like that will be able to let you know in a quick hurry if you’re doing something that isn’t fun. So go ahead, play your little reindeer games, I don’t care.
(Yay! I got to use “to wit” in a sentence too! I love this place.)
To Matt- Anyone has the right to love anyone they choose. I love men, and by defenition that makes me gay, especially considering that I have tried to have loving, sexual relationships with women and found it off putting. I can choose to be romatically involved with any man I’d like to be (hopefully they choose the same). But I do not and cannot choose to be in romantic love with a woman. My biological make up prevents it.
Lets talk animal LOVE! Animals do not communicate with humans. They can’t say no. I think screwing your pooch is wrong.
And I still say, whether you want to or need to, you have a right to. And the question of whether it’s a choice or an imperative is a distraction from the issue that there are people trying to force you into a lifestyle that isn’t right for you.
And as long as Fido has teeth, Fido can say no. (Is it necessary for me to say that I don’t have pets? Didn’t think so.)
I don’t want to get into any argument about anything, but I just want to say that I love the shirt. Hysterical!
i know there’s a smarter way to articulate it, but i’m going to say it like it is: this shirt is really hurtful.
i know that you meant well, but given the history of how homosexuality was pathologized as a disease, its is not cool to liken the two, even in jest. and if you’re going to maintain that sexuality is a static biological fact, please, please don’t compare it to cancer. if it were 100% biological (and on that point and i implore you to please, please take kelev seriously. his ideas are absolutely in line with current intellectual thought. as a former midwesterner, i know that “sexuality is a choice” is still taken to be progressive in the midwest. of course, it’s far better than the other commonly articulated opinions — ex. that gays are sinners, but the idea that sexuality is 100% biological is deeply problematic. i think that kelev articulated these points very nicely, and i was hoping that he might be able to include a url to an article that summarizes the basic ideas in queer theory), but as i was saying, even if sexuality were 100% biological, i don’t think it should be compared to cancer. homophobia is a powerful, powerful thing, and so many of us LGBTs spend lifetimes struggling to accept ourselves. has that mainstream idea called “gay pride” not reached the midwest? cause this shirt is really doing a disservice to LGBTs everywhere.
p.s. is there any way to get in touch with kelev? i’d like to read his stuff on postmodern sex-ed. thanks!
Normally, I try to take a backseat to all the discussion, but I have to say I’ve been utterly fascinated by everyone’s comments. We received many requests for this T-shirt, and I did not initially expect such a reaction from the community. I have to say it’s pretty awesome! I have not seen this kind of discussion anywhere outside the closed doors of academia. Keep it coming!
In terms of the the shirt, it was intended as a pointed statement at groups who feel homosexuality is strictly a choice. It was not intended to be an end all declaration on people’s sexual orientation (of course my fellow Midwesterners may disagree).
Bottom line: I find the shirt funny. And while clearly many of you don’t, I’m glad it has opened up a dialogue I have not seen elsewhere.
Can’t wait for your reaction to our next episode! And please keep the comments coming!
-g
Hi all.
Below is an e-mail address where people can get in touch with me. I’d be happy to help folks find links/websites/sources etc. having to do with postmodernism and Queer Theory. If anyone wants, I’d even be happy to send along excerpts from some of my own stuff.
Though like I mentioned, if you start Googling some of the folks I’ve referenced or things like ‘Queer Theory’, I’m sure you’ll find plenty.
Oh, and if you haven’t read Judith Levine’s ‘Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Kids From Sex’ DO IT!!!!! A review I wrote for her book is partly what put me on the path of the Postmodern Sex Ed I talked about previously. In a nutshell, it’s the idea that we need to get away from the idea of ’sex-as-biology / sex-for-reproduction’ and embrace the idea of ’sex-as-social’ and even ’sex-for-pleasure’ (is that really so “out there”? No, didn’t think so).
Sexuality/sensuality is one of the most fundamental and profound ways we *sense* and *make sense* of the world, ourselves, and others. Penises, vaginas, foreskins, nipples, buttholes and clits are as useful, informative, *communicative* as hands & fingers, mouths, eyes, ears and noses in helping us sense and make sense of things and people.
(And being the sensualist monkeys we are, we often mix and match the tools at hand: mouth to penis, finger to butthole, tongue to nipple, nose to nose! These things tell us something about each other, and let us tell others about us).
What’s your favourite? Oh no, don’t make me pick! Is there some “identity” in there? Oh no, don’t make me pick one of those either : )
Anyway, cheers to all and feel free to get in touch:
klavlav5@gmail.com
If you copy the text from Britney’s Cast “bio” and paste it into the box in the free translation site of your choice, I’m actually not sure what you get. But I sure thought it was funny:
—–
Grew hard and grew quickly with those children of Indiana in those nights of Indiana but is only a girl of small town, living in a deserted world. So the train of midnight caught that went to any place. Now is working in the man each night and day. But never it lost a minute of worrying dream on how would they be able to have been things. Because it is beautiful not matter what do you say. Words cannot cause to fall. Is beautiful in each way…..Es as the wind.
—–
And, yes, this is the sort of thing I do when I’m trying to avoid working.
This whole conversation is pretty gay.
When I read the shirt I thought, “Okay, so homosexuality is like a disease?”
I don’t believe sexuality is a choice either,
but I just don’t like the message the shirt sends.
It’s pretty ambiguous.
Oh, and one of my best friends has cancer, and I would totally date her. She’s beautiful. And plenty of guys know she has cancer and still want to date her.
(in response to video equating pedophiles to cancer victems)
What next? Are the pedophiles going to star getting pissed because they are nothing like cancer patients?
Meg- Can I get your friend’s number. She sounds hot.
That Dude- Do you think this conversation is choosing to be gay or was is born that way?
Meg- Does the shirt say “Homosexuality is a Disease, Like Cancer.”? The joke is that cancer is not a choice.
Sarah- I bet you’re a lot of fun at parties.
Is it this show’s job to be a public service announcement or to make us laugh our asses off? Maybe they should run all of their scripts past you first to make sure they aren’t making fun of anything that is off limits.
I’m not an idiot, I understand it’s a joke, but in text it looks a lot different than said out loud, like in the video. It’s a risky thing to equate a cancer victim with a gay guy or girl or a pedophile in any sense. Especially in text.
Above all, cancer kills and homosexuality does not.
I looove love love this website, and I think it’s wonderful. I’m just saying this shirt is a tad distasteful.
And, Bopper, she is hot. Really hot. And no, you can’t have her number.
Ariel and Beth, I can say what I want, too. Don’t hate just because I’m representing my opinion.
I’m fine with the fact that you disagree with me, but why do you feel the need to be sarcastic and spiteful?
Get over YOURSELVES.
I think a valid point is raised in the presentation of the shirt. All you see at first are the words Homosexuality and Cancer.
Since I didn’t design it, though, I have no idea how easy it would be to fix. Guy worked pretty hard on getting it ready. I love wearing message shirts with all the same sized font, like the ones the Onion sells. Simple, clean and small. Makes people have to really stare at my chest if they want to read it.
Meg, I don’t think Beth was blasting you. Bopper seemed to be the most sarcastic of them all. What type of cancer does your friend have, by the way? I did some research a few years ago regarding the types of cancer prevelant in different age groups and sexes and I am always curious to know if some of my theories hold true.
Everyone here is allwed to say what they’d like to say. It may not change anything we do, but this is a pretty open forum.
Now a moment from Mom. “Be nice to each other or I’ll come up there and beat some nice into you.”
She has leukemia, she’s had it since she was a small child. It came back twice, and she fought it off. She is 17. I have another friend from work who has stomach cancer. She is 19 and the doctors told her she has about 9 months to live.
I’m going with the rule of 23. If it’s been around for more than 23 years, it’s funny. Like AIDS. F-ing hilarious!
Homosexuality is NOT A CHOICE. You CAN CHOOSE to engage in HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIORS if you want, but to really enjoy those experiences, and crave more, THAT is NOT A CHOICE.
I like a lot of the discussion here, but it’s almost too analytical. Let’s not put love and sexuality under such a powerful microscope, hmm?
Homosexuality is NOT a choice. I know, I’m gay, so I’m right and you’re wrong. Get over it.
(Just Kidding…)
By the way… Honda Dude,
Your gay, and you love Honda’s? I like you already! Let’s hook up and do it or get cancer or something!
Love you Bitches,
Scott
Who cares whether its a choice, genes, or conditioning - though it has elements of all 3.
The point is, the physical expression of it, what men do, is not exactly wholesome is it? - in fact for the majority of heterosexuals, what they do is wierd and repelllent. Why don\’t you be honest, and judge homosexuality accordingly? And that will balance this happy-clappy, gee guys just experiment talk that is ultimatley a kind of propaganda.
Joe
Those who find homosexuality “weird and repellant” do so because of the anti (homo)sex propaganda that has deluged society for thousands of years.
Sex, including gay sex, is naturally, innately pleasurable. Many (most?) kids engage in homosexual sex play as a natural part of growing up. They only begin to have problems with it once the propaganda of our shame/guilt-based society succeeds in brainwashing kids that the natural, simple pleasure of sex is “dirty”, “bad”, or in your words, “weird and repellant” (as opposed to the “wholesome” pleasure of praying to a violent, bloodthirsty war-god who commands his followers to cut off babies’ foreskins, kill their enemies in Holy Wars, and worship the image of His naked, bleeding son nailed to a stick. *That’s* OK…but not sex).
I think you need to re-examine where the “propaganda” is coming from.
Oh, I forgot to mention that the very term “propganda” was coined by the church, in reference to its work of spreading (propagating) its message around the world.
I am a heterosexual Canadian. This T-shirt must be a pathetic joke. I am of the opinion that this shirt is not only shocking but totally repugnant, prejudicial and totally ignorant. I had higher hopes that a midwesterner website on sexuality would be a little more evolved and sophisticated and not devolve to produce such invidious comparisons.
Grow up and produce something positive for the world!
Toronto Calling.
Hi,
I’ve been reading a couple of interesting books by Helen Boyd, who is a women dealing with her husband going through stages of transitioning as a woman. The books are _My Husband Betty_ and _She’s not the Man I Married_. They explore both the range of gender variance, and what can make someone hot (she is attracted to her husband who presents as a women most of the time now, and when Betty is dressed in silky lingerie). (The books also explore the struggle of still being hetero–the worry about what will happen to their sexual relationship if one day there’s no more penis.
Anyway, just thought it interesting and relevant.
Not being able for one to change their sexual orientation and it also being a choice are two ideas that do coexist well. You might think that because you can\’t change (or it is rather difficult and uncomfortable to be someone you are not) automatically means that your sexual proclivities are biologically based but this is a fallacious conclusion because you do not have all of the evidence.
I am a student of psychology and am very interested in neurology. What most people don\’t understand is that our brains change constantly, every time we sleep or interact with our environment. The entire structure of our brain can change due to serious life events (such as trauma).
There have been experiments with mice teaching them to find their way through a maze. The faster the mice were able to maneuver through the maze was directly correlated to the amount of REM sleep that they were experiencing every time they slept (side note: REM sleep is the time during which your mind processes the things that it has experienced and organizing it into your existing brain structure, which is why it is very important to get sleep before tests because that is were all your efforts to learn the material really get stored into long-term memory).
The point is that homosexuality is a choice and can be difficult to change. Especially when you are a child and your brain is developing the most and at its fastest rate, certain philias can be programed into the structure. We are all born as sexual beings and from then on the way in which we experience and express our sexuality can evolve and adapt but once our brains are more developed and our orientation has been determined it is more difficult to change it.
This might sound contradictory because I said both that we can change our brain and it is difficult if not impossible to change our sexuality. This is because our brain is easier to change when we are young, when our sexuality is shaped. And, orientation is not a habit it is a more permanent, integral part of the brain structure.
Another way to approach this is by thinking of sexuality as a spectrum, which I believe was already alluded to by other posts. Like all things human there is gray area. People are not strictly gay or straight, their orientation slides along a continuum of sexuality. Bisexuality is oft made fun of because it is the orientation that does not make a choice. But, these our just people who understand that they are at the middle of the spectrum. If you are somewhere on the spectrum that is not one of the two extremes than you are making a choice to label yourself as one extreme or the other.
Thanks for listening,
Anastasia
I would just like to point out that there are a few things that are purely biological. Most of the time they will result in death before the end of childhood, but they do exist. Also I personally think the confusion people see about the “choice” of being gay is the action. I think that you either are, aren’t or somewhere in between, and that is something that both genetics and environment play a part in. The part where you get the choice is whether or not you decide to act on it. Most people, at least from the ones I have talked to or heard from would be utterly miserable to deny a part of who they are, and really who wouldn’t be. But you could still make that choice. So who you are is irreversible, but how you deal with and act on it is your choice, or so goes my opinion anyway.
Toronto, you may have called, but nobody has accepted the charges.
How anyone could get in such an uproar about this shirt is silly. I suppose it must be because, as has been said, there is too much of France in Canada, and that just can’t be good any way you look at it.
Lighten (or harden) the f*** up, dude, and stop being so serious. You’ve got a national health care program - isn’t that enough for you? Or, will you not be satisfied until you steal the right to laugh at something that’s made to elicit such a response?
Although I believe it isn’t as black-and-white as either choice OR biology…
…can all the straight people who think sexuality is a choice please tell me exactly when they decided to be hetero, because I’ve been wracking my brain about this for ages and I can’t remember when or where I had to register mine!
“Above all, cancer kills and homosexuality does not.”
–Meg.
A nice truism–I feel the need to point out the early AIDS scare: pretty much gays, for the most part. I’m not trying to nitpick, but I think we should watch out for making misstatements just because they sound nice. Also I can be kind of a smart ass sometimes, so maybe I’m just trying to be disagreeable. My mind is a mystery.
Obviously I have no problem with gay people. I think Scott the Homosexual is quite funny. =D
Anyway, my point was that you should be careful of making statements that have the slightest holes in them, because then people will seize on it and totally ignore your main point.
Also, I just thought, Meg, that you were looking for some justification, demanding why we thought we could equate the two. Well there you go! The solution wasn’t to make them both lighthearted, it was to make them both incredibly depressing! Yay!
I’m certainly coming late to the debate - late enough that I haven’t actually seen the shirt, although if I’ve guessed its content accurately, I think I would have loved it. All that aside, there seems to be a lot of “It’s a choice” vs. “It’s genetic” in the discussion to date that ignores the available evidence. Kelev states that lust is biological and orientation is choice; this flies in the face of the twin studies, which pretty clearly established that there is an inheritable aspect to sexual orientation.
As a psychologist, Anastasia argues that homosexuality is a choice, but then seems to undercut that position by stating that it is shaped “when we are young”. This too seems to ignore the twin studies showing that shared genetic identity produces a much increased likelihood of shared sexual orientation. Whether the inheritance is genetic or epigenetic is unclear (or was, the last time I looked), but there doesn’t seem to be much question that it happens. In any case, a “choice” that happens before we know we’re making it doesn’t fit my understanding of the meaning of “choice”. In my opinion, using the word “choice” for something that happens without the individual’s conscious involvement is a misuse of the word and provides ammunition for the bigots who continue to argue that gay folk could change if they just tried hard enough.
Bruce argues that we shouldn’t say it’s not a choice, because it takes power away from someone to say they have no choice. This is an approach to life I’ve never been able to understand - how is my life improved by remaining ignorant of the forces that shape me? Remember the Serenity Prayer? “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” If it’s not a choice, then it’s not a choice, and ignorance of that fact only empowers me to beat my head against a wall I’ll never be able to break down that way.
It seems to me that too much of this discussion comes from people’s difficulty in distinguishing what is true for them from what is true for people in general. If, as I have heard for decades, sexual orientation ranges from exclusively straight through bi to exclusively gay, with most people falling somewhere in the middle, then sexuality may well be a meaningful choice for many, possibly most, people, but not everyone has a choice in their sexuality. Well, a meaningful choice, anyway. For some of us, the real choices are gay vs. nothing, or straight vs. nothing. If some people have no choice in their sexual “orientation”, then laws (and, for that matter, customs) that punish their sexual orientation without very powerful justification are inhumane.
On the other hand, claims that Western (and especially American) culture has a long way to go in matters of sexuality will get no argument from me!
It’s amazing that some of the best discussion on the topic of sexual orientation that I have EVER come across shows up on a comment blog for a t-shirt purchase. MTSS must be doing something right - correction, you’re doing something GREAT. Keep it up. My wife and I are both teachers (elementary and secondary), and while sex ed has gotten way better (at least here in Canada, but my uninformed, generalist, pie-in-the-sky assumption is that overall it is improving on a global scale), we are restricted by the diversity of clientele we service, having to respect a broad range of cultural backgrounds and family perspectives. So we tend to be a bit dry in the prepared material we offer (just the facts, ma’m). The class discussions are another story - but generating discussion is always the tricky part, so sites like yours are another tool to this end, whether observers agree or disagree with what they think you are saying. Good on ya.
On the T-shirt message issue, I found it funny AND poignant in the context of the video, but the shirt just has the wrong delivery to be as funny, and the message without the humour becomes tragic. Which it is, that a persons sexual persuasions have to be such a main stage polarizing issue when we have so many other far more impactful controversies that need to be dealt with. ( I mean impactful on the global/societal stage, I don’t mean to imply sexuality does not play a pivotal role on a personal level).
On the issue of sexuality as a choice vs. biological imperative, I place my flag firmly in the uhm, middle, kinda? I have friends who are strongly het (they get the “willies” when they think of man-on-man or girl-on-girl action), friends who are strictly gay (they have never mentioned being repulsed by the thought of het love, at least), friends who are staunch bi’s (get the best of both is the their mantra) and friends who have meandered through the massive and wonderful spectrum in between (and I do mean meandered). What drives them? IMHO, too many factors to shoehorn into one concept or another.
I was born with an imperative to eat, not only because it allows me to survive and thus propagate my species and genetic material, but because gosh darnit I love to eat! It’s yummy and makes me feel good. As a baby I loved peas, couldn’t get enough of them. At some point, that changed, and the taste of them made me vomit in my teens. Somewhere in my twenties, I allowed them back into my diet as long as they were mixed with potatoes or some other medium. At this stage (late 30’s), they’re palatable, not desirable. I don’t believe this is genetic (though my brother has had an almost mirrored response to eggs - weird, huh?), and our school board left pea-education out of the curriculum for some reason. Likewise, looking over my media exposure I have to say that the pea has always been treated fairly if not overly in depth by the society I grew up with (as opposed to those “pea-nazis” over in the land of the Green Giant), and my parents have been pretty non-judgemental of the whole green vegetable issue, just as long as we were getting something. So my love/hate/tepid relationship with peas - nature vs. nurture? Choice vs. imperative? I don’t know. And frankly, I don’t give a rat’s tukkus. I don’t choose to eat them now, but if a friend serves them, I can down them without a problem. Twenty years ago, if I had tried to force them down (and I did, leading to said vomit), it would only enforce my disgust with them, and thank god my parents were wise enough to recognize that.
Everything can be considered a product of choices, but if those choices are forced upon us, or lead to a life of unhappiness and dissatisfaction, can they really be called a choice?
Thank you for the amazing discourse, and the opportunity to exercise my pea catharsis, they’ve shut me out of the canned veggie blog. Sorry for the length of the post, but hey, I’m a teacher and you control the scrollbar.
I guess, I’m a bit late in the discussion, but I’m in Sweden so I just found this website.
This is excactly like something me amd my girlfriends would joke about. If somebody overheard us and didn’t get the joke or got offended, we would probably explain it like this:
“Excuse us for not being PC, but most things we laugh hard about are off color or stereotypical. We do not think that homosexuality is a sickness, like cancer, and we do not believe that you choose to get cancer. But if you think that homosexuality is a sickness (like some people do)and a choice at the same time, you could argue that you are choosing to have a sickness. An example of a sickness is cancer. we are illustrating that equating homosexuality with being sick is a silly conviction. The result - a very funny joke that offend people. Sorry, we meant no harm, we were only in the fun .”
And when the offended person left we would roll our eyes, start on another bottle of wine and discuss at lenght how great our sense of humour is.
The problem is, when you get too public and monitored, you don’t get away with anything.
Thank you for this site, you have a true fan in Scandinavia!