(August 26, 2013 at 7:49 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Just posing a question for which I have no answer,...
If homosexuality is NOT a choice, then to what extent should we consider other types of sexual attraction involuntary? For example, foot fetishes, beatiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, i.e. the whole range of human sexual expression, both mundane and extreme.
If homosexuality is a choice, then the implication is that human sexuality is largely plastic and gender identity open to change. Like the OP suggests, an otherwise heterosexual person could cultivate homosexual desires. And likewise a homosexual could cultivate hetro- desires.
It seems to me that the vast range of sexual habits suggests it is more plastic and less fixed. Maybe 70-30%, respectively. Now as I've been writing this it occurs to me that perhaps a distinction should be made between biological sex, gender identity and sexual habits.
Biological sex is pretty much fixed. Even radial surgery cannot eliminate the Y chromosome. Gender identity may or may not be voluntary depending on the extent to which it is a cultural artifact. And sexual habits seem very plastic, especially considering people can have sexual responses to unnatural artifacts like gas masks.
The error here is regarding the nature of choice.
Assume, for example, that one's sexual attraction towards an entity X is a choice. What would that mean? Does it mean that the person decided one day "I want to be attracted to X" and then went on to cultivate that attraction? Because if that were the case, the most fitting candidate for X would be run-of-the-mill, age-appropriate heterosexuality.
I think that the development of any form of sexual attraction would, as a matter of course, be involuntary. It may be as a result of genetics or biological environment or subconscious processes. The "choice" in the matter can only come in after one becomes aware of the existence of that particular sexual attraction. All other things being equal, a person may then have the choice as to whether continue having those sexual urges or eliminate them from their psyche.
(N.B. Absence of choice in development of sexual attraction is not always the case. The corollary to the given scenario would be that once a person becomes aware of absence of a particular sexual attraction, he'd have the choice of whether or not to cultivate it. With reference to the current discussion, the phrase "X-sexuality is not a choice" refers to the fact that the particular sexual attraction developed involuntarily and without conscious input.)
However, all other things are not equal. The various causes and their relative significance to different forms of sexual attraction - form mundane to exotic - are not very well known. Therefore, we do not know whether or not the choice to change the particular attraction is available to us.
For example, I might say "You choose to remain a homosexual. If you wanted to change, you could've negated your urges for same-sex intercourse by chemically castrating yourself. There's your 'cure' for homosexuality. It won't make you straight, but you won't be gay any longer either and therefore, your homosexuality is your choice".
Whenever people throw around the word "choice" in the context of human sexuality, all parties involved in the debate consider only one aspect of it - whether or not a person chose to be a homosexual as compared to whether he chose to be tall or blond-haired or myopic. One group says that it is an exact analogy - you didn't choose your height, hair or eyesight, while the other regards it as the opposite. What everyone ignores is that even those features are subject to change as well which means the 'choice' of changing your sexual attraction could be available anytime.
