Poll: Is sexual orientation a recent invention?

[Epic Bear Man]

First off, I'm not a scientist, just someone who asks way too many questions, so take anything I say (well, type) with a grain of salt (and some finely ground black pepper!).
When I say recent, I don't mean within the last century. Obviously homosexuality is observed in a plethora of other species, and we've found that homosexual relations have existed (and been accepted) in places such as Ancient Greece. In fact here's a little trivia for you, the term "lesbian" originates from the Isle of Lesbos, a small island off of the coastline of Greece.

While homosexuality isn't that hard to understand (even if it is hard to accept), there are other sexual orientations that exist as well, ranging from bisexuality to pansexuality, and of course we have other things tied to sexuality such as gender dysphoria.
While trying to explain all of those would be rather confusing, let's mainly just look at (what seems to be) the biggest of the other sexualities/sexual orientations: bisexuality.

If we look at bisexuality, plenty of "straight" girls seem to have no issues with having sexual relations with another female. While this may be an attempt at attention for some, it obviously had to have started somewhere even before it became popular, correct?
My hypothesis is that women (at least back before civilizations came into existence) were attracted to males when they were young when they needed someone who could help them spawn an offspring(s), and protect the mother and child as she raised it. Later on if the male had not changed his attitude, the woman would be drawn away from the aggressiveness of the male and want a more caring relationship; since it's likely not many caring guys probably would've lived long back then, women would have had to go for other women to develop that caring relationship. Over time this may have become a sort of natural birth control, where women would go with other women after they left their prime ages of birthing, and soon it even began to transfer into the male offsprings. Once civilization came into existence and we stopped relying so much on almost (if not all) males being the hunter-gatherers, the trait still existed.

This is a loose concept, and there's many plotholes, but I didn't want to write a great wall of text. Anyways, onto the discussion:
Do you think the concept of sexual orientation, such as being strictly attracted to the same or opposite gender, is a recent invention/concept or do you disagree? Based off of your answer, explain why.
Also, what do you think of my hypothesis/theory/whatever term you'd like to use? Does it seem like a relatively good one for someone with no experience, or does it have a lot of flaws?

((P.S. I know the poll is messed up. It's not letting me fix it. Just choose yes, no, or other instead.))

 

[Darken12]

Homosexuality (or any non-straight orientation) is not an invention, recent or otherwise. It's a natural part of the animal kingdom and is just as normal, valid and integral as heterosexuality.

Some theorists say that bisexuality is the default state of humanity (with pure heterosexuality being as rare as pure homosexuality) and that the reason so many people have a problem with same-sex sexual interactions is a result of heteronormativity and sexism, the idea that gender roles are rigid and that men who display attraction to other men (or other traits associated with the female gender) are unmanly and therefore inherently wrong and disgusting. That theory would explain why bisexuality, bicuriosity, "experimenting" and homosexuality are seen as more acceptable among women than among men (because of the sexist notions that men who do traditionally feminine things are disgusting because femininity itself is a bad thing, and that same-sex interaction for the pleasure of men is encouraged, while women's pleasure is dismissed).

I don't know if I necessarily agree with that theory as a whole, but I definitely agree that homophobia and the tolerance of lesbianism or female bisexuality are almost certainly the product of heteronormativity, sexism and rigid gender roles.

Your theory is actually very problematic, in many different ways, because it implies that female sexuality revolves around men or childbirth. According to what you're saying, women are straight for reproduction purposes (and are also invariably attracted to male aggressiveness, as if aggressiveness was a male biological trait and not part of the social gender construct. Also you imply that women are biologically attracted to protectors (and that only men are capable of being protectors), ignoring the fact that the whole myth of women seeking protection from men is a sexist construct perpetuated by the patriarchy as a way to sell women that the presence of a man is necessary in their lives because they are incapable of taking care of themselves), and then turn to bisexuality or lesbianism to conveniently absolve men of responsibility for their child (also implying that men "cannot help themselves" when it comes to aggressiveness and other undesirable traits), and that while men are able to explore their sexuality as they see fit without consequences, for women their sexuality is either a form of reproduction (heterosexuality) or birth control (homosexuality), and they switch back and forth as is most convenient for men. It also makes the awful, awful assumption that homosexuality started exclusively with women and then was "passed down to men" as if homosexuality in men was so inconceivable that it needed to be "passed down" from the other gender. That is actually kind of sexist, if you think about it, because it implies that women are solely responsible for homosexuality, regardless of whether you mean "pass down" in terms of genetics or behaviour.

That is... I really would never agree with that theory. It has a lot of problems on a feminist level and it really does not sit well with me as a member of the LGBT+ crowd.

Also I'm actually not a fan of biological or evolutionary explanations for any aspect of society or human behaviour, as it is very, very easy to slide into biological determinism and eugenics (which are quite possible the most horrible misapplications of science I've seen). While I am neither for nor against the genetic explanation for homosexuality/bisexuality/etc (as there are evidence that go in both directions), I think that your theory in particular has a lot of problems that indicate you might want to educate yourself on feminism a little.

 

[Epic Bear Man]

Homosexuality (or any non-straight orientation) is not an invention, recent or otherwise. It's a natural part of the animal kingdom and is just as normal, valid and integral as heterosexuality.

This is why I was mainly speaking in terms of bisexuality and excluding homosexuality, and why I mentioned that homosexuality has been observed in a plethora of other animals in the animal kingdom. I should have labeled the thread differently, but this is mainly looking at bisexuality and other portions of the LGBT community, such as pansexuality, gender dysphoria, etc.

Some theorists say that bisexuality is the default state of humanity (with pure heterosexuality being as rare as pure homosexuality) and that the reason so many people have a problem with same-sex sexual interactions is a result of heteronormativity and sexism

That's the theory I'm revolving around. I wasn't aware that it was a theory some others had as well. It's just something I randomly pondered today.

Your theory is actually very problematic, in many different ways, because it implies that female sexuality revolves around men or childbirth. According to what you're saying, women are straight for reproduction purposes (and are also invariably attracted to male aggressiveness, as if aggressiveness was a male biological trait and not part of the social gender construct.

I'm not really suggesting that aggressiveness is a male biological trait, simply that back in pre-historic times it would make sense, and it may explain why a lot (not all, but a lot) of young women are attracted towards "bad boys", and why later on in life some of these women regret ever being with an aggressive man.

Also you imply that women are biologically attracted to protectors (and that only men are capable of being protectors), ignoring the fact that the whole myth of women seeking protection from men is a sexist construct perpetuated by the patriarchy as a way to sell women that the presence of a man is necessary in their lives because they are incapable of taking care of themselves)

Well again, we're talking pre-historic times. Back then of course women in general (not all communities necessarily, but most) would rely on men to be protectors. Nowadays it's not needed as much, and as such the idea that a woman needs a man to protect her is outdated.

and then turn to bisexuality or lesbianism to conveniently absolve men of responsibility for their child (also implying that men "cannot help themselves" when it comes to aggressiveness and other undesirable traits), and that while men are able to explore their sexuality as they see fit without consequences, for women their sexuality is either a form of reproduction (heterosexuality) or birth control (homosexuality), and they switch back and forth as is most convenient for men. It also makes the awful, awful assumption that homosexuality started exclusively with women and then was "passed down to men" as if homosexuality in men was so inconceivable that it needed to be "passed down" from the other gender. That is actually kind of sexist, if you think about it, because it implies that women are solely responsible for homosexuality, regardless of whether you mean "pass down" in terms of genetics or behaviour.

I can completely understand where my theory has plotholes and sexist moments in at this portion, and I apologize for that. I'm not trying to offend here, even though I'm sure I've offended you and others, just I'm wondering where people think bisexuality and the other areas of LGBT originated from. Perhaps it's not something that needs to be explored, but it's something I was curious about today.

That is... I really would never agree with that theory. It has a lot of problems on a feminist level and it really does not sit well with me as a member of the LGBT+ crowd.

I decided to word my "theory" as a hypothesis just on that notion. Sure, theory has two meanings (a tested hypothesis and a general question/idea someone has), but it was more of a spur of the moment idea rather than something I truly believe in.

Also I'm actually not a fan of biological or evolutionary explanations for any aspect of society or human behaviour, as it is very, very easy to slide into biological determinism and eugenics (which are quite possible the most horrible misapplications of science I've seen). While I am neither for nor against the genetic explanation for homosexuality/bisexuality/etc (as there are evidence that go in both directions), I think that your theory in particular has a lot of problems that indicate you might want to educate yourself on feminism a little.

I can understand that. The past is the past, and we want to mainly move forward. Certain things should be explored, and other things may be of less priority (not necessarily excluded, just put further down on the list of things to research). Again, it was just a random thought I had that I wanted to share with the community and see their opinions.

Thanks for your input, and again, I apologize for any offense it may have brought you.

Also I'll have to look into heteronormativity (I probably spelled that wrong) to see what you were talking about. Thanks for telling me about it as well, since it's something I agree with.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Do you think the concept of sexual orientation, such as being strictly attracted to the same or opposite gender, is a recent invention/concept or do you disagree? Based off of your answer, explain why.

Yes...well, sort of.

Homosexuality, as a pigeonhole to put people in, has only existed for a century or two (heterosexuality for even less, and as a response to that).

Now, it's true that in ancient Athens (for example), you have older males taking young boys under their wing, teaching them how to become a man, and having non-penetrative sex with them. Then they'd grow out out it, have wives and kids, and their find a younger boy of their own.

So, you have sex between males, and in that sense it's homosexuality. But it's in a form unlike what we mean by "homosexuality" today. It just doesn't fit modern ideas of heterosexuality.

That's why you have the LGBT acronym having any numbers of letters after that, because sexuality is a complicated and varied thing, and pigeonholing people is of limited use.

...

You will note, though, that the ancient Athenian system had to be due to cultural reasons, and that environmental factors definitely influence sexuality. Not to saying that people "learn" to be gay, or by extension, they can be taught not to be (often by "beating it out of them" or somesuch nonsense), but that if society was more accepting or encouraging of other sexualities, we'd see more of them, it's not just a proportion based on genetics.

 

[Vault101]

I think I once heard (probably a gross oversimplification) that romans didn't have "straight or gay" but "submissive or dominant"

 

[smithy_2045]

Sexual orientation, and which specific category you happen to fall into, is worried about much more these days.

 

[felbot]

no I don't think they are, as sexuality is not something a scientist could invent nor is it something you can turn in to, you are just born with whatever sexuality you have and that's the sexuality you'll have for the rest of your life.

so no sexual orientation is not something people suddenly invented, we just happened to label them around this time.

 

[bananafishtoday]

I think I once heard (probably a gross oversimplification) that romans didn't have "straight or gay" but "submissive or dominant"

^ Yup, this is pretty much true. A man who penetrated a man was seen as powerful and virile, while a man who allowed himself to be penetrated was seen as weak and degenerate. (By the same token, lesbianism wasn't even really seen as sexuality. Of course, some women still had what we'd call sex, but the Romans didn't see it as sex. The only mentions of it as sex presume the use of a dildo... and presume that the woman using the dildo is the only one getting off.) Rome is a fascinating case study because their notions of sexuality permeated their entire society, and while their mark on modern Western society is still felt, their notions of sex are very different from ours.

The interesting thing is, this is essentially the foundation of Roman law: the inviolability of the body of the citizen.

Our modern understanding of citizenship largely stems from the protection of natural rights ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights") or the idea of the social contract, ideas that come from Enlightenment philosophy.

The Romans, on the other hand, held the body to be sacrosanct. For them, the purpose of government was to protect the bodies of citizens from violation: murder, assault, rape, slavery, etc. Not everyone got to be a citizen, and not all citizens were equal. In fact, there was a whole complex system of varying levels of citizenship that denoted the "superior" and "inferior" peoples, and upgrading/demoting people or groups on this ladder was a common reward/punishment for loyalty/rebellion.

As a result, a man allowing himself to be penetrated was incredibly disgraceful. It was like spitting on his status as a free Roman citizen. (Edit: I wasn't sure so I double-checked, but actually, a citizen who willingly allowed himself to be penetrated could straight-up lose his citizenship for it.) On the other hand, a man penetrating someone else came with no stigma. All about dominance and submission. (As you can prolly guess, this whole thing was caused by and/or the cause of a shitload of misogyny in Roman society.)

Edit: I was trying to find this anecdote, and lo, it was on Wikipedia!

An incident related by Plutarch in his biography of Marius illustrates the soldier's right to maintain his sexual integrity despite pressure from his superiors. A good-looking young recruit named Trebonius had been sexually harassed over a period of time by his superior officer, who happened to be Marius's nephew, Gaius Luscius. One night, having fended off unwanted advances on numerous occasions, Trebonius was summoned to Luscius's tent. Unable to disobey the command of his superior, he found himself the object of a sexual assault and drew his sword, killing Luscius. A conviction for killing an officer typically resulted in execution. When brought to trial, he was able to produce witnesses to show that he had repeatedly had to fend off Luscius, and "had never prostituted his body to anyone, despite offers of expensive gifts." Marius not only acquitted Trebonius in the killing of his kinsman, but gave him a crown for bravery.

OT: Homosexual behavior is natural, and sexual orientation/preference are rooted in biology. "Homosexual" as a label applied to people is a relatively recent invention, somewhere around the Victorian era. I'd highly recommend Foucault's "History of Sexuality" for more on this.

Basically, it used to be in Western society that no one was "a homosexual." The word was "sodomite"--one who has committed sodomy. That is, society's understanding of same-sex relations was based around behavior rather than identity. A man who has sex with a man was thought of as having engaged in a discrete act, not as being inherently different than anyone else. They had committed a "sin," in the same way that "blasphemer" describes someone who has blasphemed in the past, rather than someone who is naturally inclined toward blasphemy.

I'm of the opinion that it's likely that "natural" sexual preference is a bipolar spectrum and that heterosexuals and homosexuals are likely about as common as each other and may even be in the minority, collectively. Societal reasons explain why this doesn't seem to be the case. (Fun fact from Okcupid's blog: 33% of self-identified straight people on the site self-reported they'd either had or would like to have a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex.)

I agree with Darken on why this is more prevalent among women than men and that your theory is very problematic. Evopsych is a reeeeally... iffy field, as a lot of it get frighteningly close to eugenics and biological determinism, and a lot of its loudest voices use it as a bludgeon to justify all sorts of societal inequality. ("Women should stay in the kitchen, it's God's will" -> "Women should stay in the kitchen, they evolved that way.") Aaaand gender dysphoria is not related to sexuality.

 

[Darken12]

This is why I was mainly speaking in terms of bisexuality and excluding homosexuality, and why I mentioned that homosexuality has been observed in a plethora of other animals in the animal kingdom. I should have labeled the thread differently, but this is mainly looking at bisexuality and other portions of the LGBT community, such as pansexuality, gender dysphoria, etc.

How do you know there are no bisexual animals? These "instances of homosexuality" are just observed cases of animals having sex with members of their same gender. How do you know they don't have sex with members of the opposite gender too? In fact, I'm pretty sure that in many of those cases, those animals were reported to have sex with members of the opposite gender as well.

That's the theory I'm revolving around. I wasn't aware that it was a theory some others had as well. It's just something I randomly pondered today.

It's most definitely a thing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_bisexuality]. There is a lot more written on the subject, but I leave you with the wikipedia article just to show you that Freud Did It First.

I'm not really suggesting that aggressiveness is a male biological trait, simply that back in pre-historic times it would make sense, and it may explain why a lot (not all, but a lot) of young women are attracted towards "bad boys", and why later on in life some of these women regret ever being with an aggressive man.

That's pretty much a form of patriarchal oppression. Telling women that aggressiveness is a "male trait" (and therefore, discouraged in women) is a form of control (and a way to assure that you will remain in power, as your oppressed group is discouraged from being aggressive and therefore threatening your supremacy). The idea that women find aggressiveness attractive is also another patriarchal form of control, as they not only convince women that aggressiveness is an intrinsic part of maleness (along with the logic that they should be attracted to aggressiveness because it's manly), but they also insidiously convince women to embrace violence and domination against them (because aggressiveness is closely linked to violence and domination), and the reason they later regret it is because they realise that they societal messages they grew up with are really, really fucked up.

Of course, men wholeheartedly embrace the ideal of aggressiveness as a desirable male trait because it gives them an excuse to get away with antisocial and misogynistic behaviour.

Well again, we're talking pre-historic times. Back then of course women in general (not all communities necessarily, but most) would rely on men to be protectors. Nowadays it's not needed as much, and as such the idea that a woman needs a man to protect her is outdated.

As I posted in another thread, that's another form of patriarchal oppression. We segregate the genders and socialise them differently, and socialising boys to exercise and develop their muscle and bone structure, while socialising girls to let them atrophy, ensures that women will be weaker than men when they reach adulthood and that the patriarchy's narrative of a male protector becomes an avoidable necessity.

I can completely understand where my theory has plotholes and sexist moments in at this portion, and I apologize for that. I'm not trying to offend here, even though I'm sure I've offended you and others, just I'm wondering where people think bisexuality and the other areas of LGBT originated from. Perhaps it's not something that needs to be explored, but it's something I was curious about today.

I decided to word my "theory" as a hypothesis just on that notion. Sure, theory has two meanings (a tested hypothesis and a general question/idea someone has), but it was more of a spur of the moment idea rather than something I truly believe in.

I'm not really offended by the content of a post itself, I'm usually offended by poster attitudes, and your attitude isn't offensive at all. You're approaching this respectfully, so I don't feel offended at all.

As for bisexuality and the rest of the LGBT+ community, I'm pretty sure they didn't originate with a particular gender. Personally, I think that while I can't condemn curiosity and the desire to explore, it's kind of important to remember that there are people out there looking for excuses to oppress us. Whether it's biological determinism, religious dogma or social conditioning, they are looking for any reason to cast the LGBT+ community into a bad light.

Which is why people should kinda be careful with the theories they construct, as you never know if the person is genuinely curious/speculative or if they are looking for an excuse to justify their prejudice.

Basically what bananafishtoday said at the end.

I can understand that. The past is the past, and we want to mainly move forward. Certain things should be explored, and other things may be of less priority (not necessarily excluded, just put further down on the list of things to research). Again, it was just a random thought I had that I wanted to share with the community and see their opinions.

Thanks for your input, and again, I apologize for any offense it may have brought you.

Also I'll have to look into heteronormativity (I probably spelled that wrong) to see what you were talking about. Thanks for telling me about it as well, since it's something I agree with.

Yeah, I'm not advocating for the exclusion or the censorship of any exploration, I'm just saying it can wait a few decades until the right-wing (religious or atheist) deterministic nutjobs stop trying to find ways to institute and justify prejudice or prevent positive change.

Heteronormativity is a lot of what bananafishtoday said. The way ancient Rome divided things into dominant/submissive, the way same-sex relationships have been portrayed in the past and continue to be portrayed today, and many other cultural and historical examples, are based on the notion of heterosexuality and gender binary as the norm. The reason why the media portrays the "butch lesbian and the girly lesbian" or the "effeminate gay guy and the masculine gay guy" tropes or why the gay community has such an obsession with whether you're a top or a bottom, are definitely the consequence of imposing heteronormativity onto same-sex relationships. This is also why I loathe yaoi with a passion (besides all the rape, of course), because the conceptions of the "seme" and the "uke" are deeply entrenched into the idea that A) Gay relationships are just like straight relationships, and B) that our arbitrary gender constructs are a yin-yang-style bullshit where every relationship needs a balance of a stereotypically male partner and a stereotypical female partner.

But I'll stop myself now. Once you get me going on heteronormativity and harmful gender constructs, I generate enough rage energy to power several turbines.

 

[Nickolai77]

I think the labels "hetero/homo/bisexual etc" come from a 19th/20th century trend in classifying everything scientifically. Like sub-species of animals, plants, or races of people. I think the recent de-promotion of Pluto from planet to planetoid shows we still do this and that labeling things is (whilst often convenient) isn't always accurate. Nature doesn't cohere to labels as science would like it to, but we do our damn best to try and make labels fit nature. That said, i don't think that means we should abandon labels all together.

In the past, homosexuality or bisexuality was probably viewed as a behaviour someone may choose to indulge in if they were that way inclined. A man could have a wife but may also have slept with other men. Nowadays we would recognise him as a bisexual, but back then people didn't have those labels.

 

[Angie7F]

I think sexual preferences existed but people didnt label them.
I was just reading the story of the genji again, and thought how funny the story covers every possible sexual orientation possible, but not make a big deal out of it.

 

[Loonyyy]

Nope.

Orientation is not an invention. The words that describe it are. The gays, lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals asexuals and what have you exist independant of being categorised. However, the language that's used to describe them has evolved significantly and become part of the common vernacular.

And everything else just seems a lot of guesswork. There were studies done where, if I recall correctly, it was found that women were more likely to accept sexual propositioning from women, and the cause was determined to be assurance of sexual gratification. I'd think that's far more important than some speculation about what is more a discussion of gender roles than anything else.

 

[JoJo]

I've got to agree with the general consensus, it's clear that everyone has their own preferences and kinks but these are always seen through the prism of the culture we live in. The Romans put more importance on being dominant or submissive than the gender of their partner as bananafishtoday described, the ancient Chinese often saw homosexual intercourse as a youthful phase rather than a permanent orientation and many Native American tribes recognised some individuals as "two spirits", containing a male and female spirit, where they would fulfill roles that the opposite gender usually would and often marry a non-two spirit of their physical gender so the family unit would have someone to do masculine and feminine tasks.

Human sexuality is fairly fluid and while orientation is a useful way to look at sexual behaviour, they clearly aren't the only possible view. Similar to race or ethnic groups really, where practical and historical concepts are as important as actual biological reality.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Nope.

Orientation is not an invention. The words that describe it are. The gays, lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals asexuals and what have you exist independant of being categorised. However, the language that's used to describe them has evolved significantly and become part of the common vernacular.

I was going to answer. Instead I'm just going to quote you and point to it.

So, yeah.

That.

 

[Lieju]

Sexual orientation, and which specific category you happen to fall into, is worried about much more these days.

That's because it's no longer assumed everyone is straight, and people who aren't, can be more free to express themselves and not hide and pretend to be 'normal'.

or why the gay community has such an obsession with whether you're a top or a bottom,

They/we do?

Not really in the circles I hang out in. That kind of thinking is kind of assosiated with the 70's and 80's 'cruising' culture.

From what I've seen, that kind of thinking is more prevalent amongst straight people, gay couples often complain how people ask them which one is the woman and which one the man, and joking about attitude like that is common in the gay forums I frequent.

 

[BrotherRool]

I knew a friend who was studying history who said that the concept of sexual orientation didn't exist a couple of hundred years ago. A man could be seen as taking an interest in another with it having no implications as to his relationship towards women.

I don't have a source for that, but she told me this with no prompting on my behalf before I'd ever heard the topic raised by someone else, and this was the sort of thing that she was particularly interested in hearing.

And somewhere else I heard it works much more like a sliding scale than clearly defined categories, but I can't remember the source on that either

 

[Lieju]

since it's likely not many caring guys probably would've lived long back then, women would have had to go for other women to develop that caring relationship.

Why wouldn't 'caring ' males survive?

The ability to understand how others feel and make them happy is an important quality for social animals.

 

[Jenvas1306]

just to add a little, gender dysphoria aka transsexuality isnt new either. for certain native americans such people were holy, we all know that also applies to the indian culture. Its simply a natural occurance just like homosexuality, just today we got means to actually do something about it. A lot of people might see it against nature or something, but changing a transsexuals body to fit their spirit is as close to a cure as we can get today.