.

You say there's a conversation to be had. To me, this seems to imply that you believe that a socially constructed sexual identity in some way influences sexual nature.

Either you are avoiding admitting this or you are not implying that. If you are not implying that then I don't see how it would be interesting to have a conversation about it at all.

what do you mean by sexual nature?

ya we might have to enforce a strict "define your terms" policy for anyone that says "sexual ______" It's pretty horrible thus far ITT

I guess fundamental sexual desires?

Is there such a thing? I mean, Id be (fairly) happy to accept "sexual desires", but fundamental sexual desires? What does that mean ?

You don't think there is a genetic, physiological component to sexuality? Why do boys think girls have cooties and then all of a sudden become sexually interested in them? It's not just a conscious choice or environmental influence.

I didnt say that, I just asked what fundamental sexual desire was

plus, girls do have cooties..

I'm with everyone else so far in that I have no idea what this means.

Here's what I think it means:

Sex and even arousal are learned via life experiences and myriad of differing stimuli. I think you (Aaron W.) and others are confusing sexual stimuli or preference with innateness. For instance, a heterosexual man may in time, learn to become sexually satisfied by other men. Just look to our prison system where long term inmates turn to homosexual activities for sexual release. I prefer blondes with big breasts, but it does not mean I won't date other women. This is not what I and others mean when we talk about sexual nature or desire.

Many homosexuals claim that they knew from a very early age that they were "different" from most people. Sex aside, they realized that they did not have the same male/female orientation that most others do. Even in childhood when a heterosexual boy thinks girls are yucky, he recognizes that if all goes well, he'll one day be married to a pretty wife. Ditto with girls. While this is going on, gay children struggle with the fact that they don't feel this way, but don't yet understand why. A gay boy will be told he'll one day marry a girl, but something is off for him. Many even go through the motions of dating girls and trying to be happy. Some go so far as to actual marry a woman before realizing something is wrong and they cannot find happiness.

My point is that it goes beyond preference or desire. That's what I mean when I say, it's who they are. It's their identity. You can't seriously say it's social construct that defines their identity when that same social construct is telling them their identity should be different and they are still compelled to go against the tide to be who they really are.

For the record, the "standard" trichotomy is between sexual orientation (one's sexual and romantic attractions), sexual behaviour (having sex, signalling of desires, etc), and what is by far the most subtle of the three, sexual identity (one's perceptions of ones self). I'm guessing the craig is trying to reference the first of these with nonstandard nomenclature.

Note that it is possible to speak meaningfully about all three regardless of whether one is out or not. Particularly for the latter two, while society may undoubtedly influence one's perceptions of one's self, or one's behaviour, they remain characteristics of an individual and in particular sexual identity can be very introspective, created with little regard for the influences and social views of the times.

There is some room for confusion because there is also a concept of how one signals one's sexual orientation publicly and likewise would get the same term that they "identify" as gay or straight. This "public identity" may or may not be very different from one's actual, or internally held, identity. The former obviously does change when one comes out, the latter doesn't necessairly.

The bolded just isn't the standard concept of identity here, orientation is a much better word. I think the issue is that you want orientation to be a stronger thing than one's more flippant desire of for blondes or feet (or blondes' feet), but some sort of deeper, more "fundamental" characteristic. So you are labelling that as "identity". However, I think these kinds of connotations are already built into our understanding of "sexual orientation". Sexual identity relates to one's perception of one's self. For instance, one can despise oneself for one's orientation, find it a disgusting sinful nature or something of this fact. That doesn't minimize how deeply felt that sexual desire is, but it as a meaningful additional concept.

You don't discriminate against someone with cancer so don't discriminate against homosexuals. It's not an exact analogy but it's close enough. The bible is wrong about homosexuality - this is not easy to accept for many. The woman who wrote that article and so many others are suffering unnecessarily.

But you're making the assumption that homosexuality is all about sex. I don't believe it is. While sex is certainly a part of a heterosexual relationship, it does not encompass the entire relationship. Ditto for homosexual relationships. I'm sure I didn't get married just for the sex and I don't think most people do. By the same token, my relationships with females are meaningful in different ways than the ones I have with males.

This happens with almost every exchange I have with Aaron W. He eventually focuses in on a single word where he can point to some minor difference in definition and then ignores every other point that is made. In this case, that word is identity. It was looking as though it would be fear, but I guess he decided that identity was more vague and misunderstood making it easier for him to claim victory.

You can claim the victim card if you want. I'm simply telling you that the language you are using to describe what you want to describe is wrong. And rather than learning something new, you seem content to insist on the rightness of your position.

So be it.

I don't disagree at all, and it is precisely such things being lumped under "romantic attractions" here:
The point is that there is a meaningful distinction between orientation and identity, and you were conflating the two. It isn't that your concepts were necessarily wrong, they just were not aligned with standard terminology.

Vintage Aaron. But at times, terminology can still be important.

Haha Speck strikes again.

Gore Vidal said he he didn't believe in homosexuality, only homosexual acts.

Aaron, what are you hoping to hear discussed? I don't see a connection between your OP and the rest of the thread. Perhaps I'm missing the point, but...what is this thread actually about?

I still believe in the rightness of my position. I don't know what you think I'm supposed to learn other than that "fear" and "identity" can also mean something different than my intended use for them. My main positions are as follows. Please for god's sake, just let me know what you disagree with and not turn this into a Merriam Webster dictionary showcase.

1). 20 years ago, a big reason many gay people didn't come out or continued to hide their sexuality, was due to the very real possibility of being shunned and ostracized by family, friends, and the community at large. You can call it fear or something else. However, fear seems to be a completely appropriate word to use.

2). Homosexuality is not a choice. This almost certainly wasn't known in biblical times. People don't wake up one day and decide they're going to be gay. Since they cannot change their sexual orientation, it becomes part of who they are. You can call this identity or something else. Identity seems to be a perfectly appropriate word in describing who somebody is, or who they feel they are. You can nitpick about social constructs and subtle variations of meaning, but I still see nothing wrong with using identity here.

Now forgetting words and their

While I agree with you, I would also say that fetishes arent a choice, but you seem to think they are. I dont see the distinction and was asking you what it was.

Well, I still don't get it. A homosexual person feels they have no choice but to be gay. Person A is a heterosexual. Person B is a homosexual. It is who each of them are. When describing who somebody is, or who they identify with, I see nothing wrong with my use of the word identity.

I identify myself as a white middle class male. I identify myself as a heterosexual. I identify myself as a poker player, a father, an atheist, etc. Who cares if some of these are social constructs and some are not? It's who I consider myself to be.

Of these 3 things there is only one I can change. I can stop playing poker. So maybe I shouldn't identify myself as a poker player? The rest is who I am. Period. What's wrong with using the word identity?



iden·ti·ty noun \ī-ˈden-tə-tē, ə-, -ˈde-nə-\
: who someone is : the name of a person

: the qualities, beliefs, etc., that make a particular person or group different from others
plural iden·ti·ties

Full Definition of IDENTITY

1
a : sameness of essential or generic character in different instances
b : sameness in all that constitutes the objective reality of a thing : oneness
2
a : the distinguishing character or personality of an individual : individuality
b : the relation established by psychological identification
3
: the condition of being the same with something described or asserted <establish the identity of stolen goods>
4
: an equation that is satisfied for all values of the symbols
5
: identity element
See identity defined for English-language learners »
See identity defined for kids »
Examples of IDENTITY

The identity of the criminal is not known.
They produced their passports as proof of their identities.
They arrested the wrong man. It was a case of mistaken identity.
As children grow, they establish their own identities.
people who seem to lack individual identity
His art reflects his cultural identity.

I don't think fetishes are a choice either. But I do think they are a learned process (whether conscious or subconscious) derived through sequences of different events and stimuli that one experiences in life. Again, I think genetics may very well play a role for people who are susceptible to fetishes. I just think that sexual orientation is more hard wired at birth. You're either born straight, gay, or bisexual. Whereas, I don't think anyone is born with a propensity for arousal at the sight or thought of feet.

Again, homosexuality isn't just about sex. Or sexual desire. I think a lot of people are overlooking that.

I'm also very quick to point out that I'm in no way qualified on these topics. I'm just going off of what I've read and learned on my own. I have no official study or education in genetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_identity

"Sexual identity is how one thinks of oneself in terms of whom one is romantically or sexually attracted to.[1] Sexual identity and sexual behavior are closely related to sexual orientation, but they are distinguished, with identity referring to an individual's conception of themselves, behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and sexual orientation referring to romantic or sexual attractions toward the opposite sex, the same sex, both sexes, or having no attractions."

Hmm. I see nothing about social construct here. It also seems identical to how I meant identity. If not, I definitely have a verbiage problem that needs to be corrected.