Sexuality

[NewYorkRoark]

While researching volition [as a social reality], I came across a few articles that also included sexuality as a social reality.

Here is a more comprehensive article of what I found: Sexual Response

Hypothesis: Sexuality is a social reality.

I consider myself a straight male. Moreover, I cannot imagine being attracted to the same sex. To me it seems to be a self-evident fact. I am sexually attracted to women. But after further thought, I don't think that I'm "naturally" straight anymore. In fact, I don't think ANYONE is "naturally" straight, nor do I think anyone is "naturally" homosexual. I think I'm SOCIALLY straight.

To my knowledge, there's only been one study that showed any kind of chemical/neurological difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals, but that data was taken from very few individuals and could easily explained by neural plasticity (how the sensory environment affects the development of a brain). A friend of mine recently claimed that he was straight and that sexuality is self-evident. First I asked him whether it's natural for a heterosexual male to be sexually aroused by a naked woman. His answer was "Yes." I then asked him, if that was so, why aren't Yanomami tribesmen walking around with erections all day long? He had no answer. I then asked him, if he liked to see naked women, why? If he liked to see breasts, why? He reverted again to self-evidence.

I realize that volition and sexuality are not exactly the same, but I thought that if one might be convinced that sexuality is a social reality, one might be convinced that volition is a social reality. Conversely, I thought that if I might be convinced that sexuality is self-evident, that I might be convinced that volition is self evident.

So my question is:

Do you think sexuality is a social reality or do you think it is self-evident or something else?

Why?

Edited December 19, 2005 by NewYorkRoark

[HaloNoble6]

I'm genuinely interested in helping you solve this dilemma, but first please clearly define what is meant by "social reality."

Edited December 19, 2005 by Felipe

[Inspector]

NewYorkRoark,

I'd like to point out that I consider the phrasing of your post to be bad etiquette for OO.net. You’ve managed to smuggle an argument against volition into a post about sexuality. It was fine to note that you came upon this when researching volition, and that you are concerned about the implications of it as regards what can be considered self-evident… but this post crosses the line into being an argument against Objectivism.

Edited December 19, 2005 by Inspector

[HaloNoble6]

I agree with this, now having read the whole post. I had originally read the last line which contained the question. I.e., it's an underhanded swipe at self-evidency as such.

[Inspector]

I'd like to add that there are ways you could have said all the same things that you just said without it having been an underhanded attempt to argue against volition.

Instead of this:

I realize that volition and sexuality are not exactly the same, but I thought that if one might be convinced that sexuality is a social reality, one might be convinced that volition is a social reality. Conversely, I thought that if I might be convinced that sexuality is self-evident, that I might be convinced that volition is self evident.

So my question is:

Do you think sexuality is a social reality or do you think it is self-evident or something else?

Why?

You could have just as easily said this:

I realize that volition and sexuality are not exactly the same, but I had always considered sexuality to be self-evident. Was I using self-evidence correctly or incorrectly in my previous determination of the cause of sexuality?

Am I using self-evidence correctly or incorrectly now that I am doubting the cause of sexuality?

Is this at all relevant to other things which are considered self-evident, such as consciousness, existence, or volition?

Finally, what do you think sexuality is? Is it a “social reality” or do you think it is self-evident or something else?

[FeatherFall]

I believe sexual orientation is volitional. It is the result of countless value judgements. Some very basic value judgements are questions such as:

Do you value feminine traits in a partner or masculine traits? Do you value a partner who's biology is more conducive to sexual interaction with yours? Or rather, do you value one who might better know how to interact with your biology because their own is similar?

The list of questions certainly isn't exhaustive. One must also consider whether or not one values a family. Under the current social climate, it will be more difficult to raise children for a homosexual.

I have yet to see convincing evidence that supports the notion that sexual orientation is deterministic.

[NewYorkRoark]

NewYorkRoark,

I'd like to point out that I consider the phrasing of your post to be bad etiquette for OO.net. You’ve managed to smuggle an argument against volition into a post about sexuality. It was fine to note that you came upon this when researching volition, and that you are concerned about the implications of it as regards what can be considered self-evident… but this post crosses the line into being an argument against Objectivism.

I realize that my recent posts may be construed as attacks on Objectivism. However, that depends on how you define Objectivism. I define it first and foremost as a philosophy for living on earth. In this way, Objectivism isn't a rigid, unmoving philosophy, but one that mirrors the progress of human knowledge. As humans progress, I hope that Objectivism will progress with it - and the only way human knowledge can expand is by asking questions and demanding answers. Otherwise, the world would still be flat, yeah? Wasn't that self-evident at one point?

My interest in this forum is due to the fact that I am deeply interested in the nature of the world around me and consequently, the manner in which I should live. I find that many members of this forum (and Ayn Rand) share that same desire. Ultimately, I am here to learn how to live and not here to learn about Objectivism as somebody else defines it.

I think it's important to continue this discussion. If it is an attack on Objectivism, it should be defendable.

Also, I realize that I don't usually defend Objectivism on this forum. This is largely due to the fact that I often agree with what is being said. If I agree then I'm satisfied, and I don't have any further questions.

I apologize for sounding pathetically epic in the beginning, but hopefully, you'll understand my approach?

[HaloNoble6]

My interest in this forum is due to the fact that I am deeply interested in the nature of the world around me and consequently, the manner in which I should live. I find that many members of this forum (and Ayn Rand) share that same desire. Ultimately, I am here to learn how to live and not here to learn about Objectivism as somebody else defines it.

I think it is crucial that you understand the idea of self-evidency before any discussion carries on. Self-evidency is not a matter of social-convention or the state-of-the-art in some specialized science. What do you understand self-evidency to be? Edited December 19, 2005 by Felipe

[JMeganSnow]

Oh no. I really suggest you do a search on the forum on "Objectivism as a Closed System" before someone bites your head off, NewYork.

If you want to write your own philosophy then you can't call it Objectivism, that name specifically refers to the philosophy created by Ayn Rand. In other words, the ONLY Objectivism is AYN RAND's Objectivism.

[softwareNerd]

Oh no. I really suggest you do a search ...

I second that. Here is a link, and here is another one. There are more. Edited December 19, 2005 by Felipe

[NewYorkRoark]

Oh no. I really suggest you do a search on the forum on "Objectivism as a Closed System" before someone bites your head off, NewYork.

If you want to write your own philosophy then you can't call it Objectivism, that name specifically refers to the philosophy created by Ayn Rand. In other words, the ONLY Objectivism is AYN RAND's Objectivism.

If it is such a strict philosophy, then why is there so much difficulty in its application?

Leonard Peikoff voted for Kerry. Did you?

I did make a mistake, in capitalizing Objectivism. Or perhaps I shouldn't have even referred to it as objectivism. Perhaps I should have called it a philosophy for living on earth.

Are you really interested in Objectivism as an end in itself or are you interested in living on earth / objective truth? Which is the priority?

That's like saying I'd rather be a good Christian than do what's right. And if being a good Christian is what is right, then why not just do what is right?

Edited December 19, 2005 by NewYorkRoark

[Inspector]

I realize that my recent posts may be construed as attacks on Objectivism. However, that depends on how you define Objectivism.

You are confused at least in part because you do not understand what Objectivism is or, as a consequence, the forum rules.

Objectivism is defined as the Philosophy enumerated by Ayn Rand. It is not a “living philosophy” but a closed system. It is not open to revision or additions.

If new knowledge is discovered that invalidates Objectivism, it will not change Objectivism… it will simply make Objectivism incorrect.

Think of it this way: suppose that someday someone stepped forward with conclusive proof that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was incorrect and that evolution occurred through some means other than natural selection. Would this mean that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution would suddenly include this new data? No. It would mean that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was wrong and that a new theory must be developed.

Now…

The regular forum is not a place to argue against or attack Objectivism. If you want to do so, then there is the debate forum for you.

All your “I’m here to learn how to live and not to learn Objectivism” talk is useless until you prove that the two are not one in the same. I know that they are in fact one in the same: that is, that Objectivism is entirely true. If you think you can prove otherwise, then go ahead and try to prove it… but don’t try it outside the debate forum!

Are you really interested in Objectivism as an end in itself or are you interested in living on earth / objective truth? Which is the priority?

I’ve heard this argument before so many times that I’m showing a great deal of restraint by not just yelling at you.

Listen: whether someone is interested in the truth or not has no bearing on the fact that Objectivism is a closed system.

As to whether that is what I am interested in: yes, I am interested in the truth. But this is a forum for Objecti-freakin-ism and the rules are that you must confine attacks on Objectivism to the debate forum. That does not represent a disinterest in the truth, but rather two things:

1) Confidence in the FACT that Objectivism is true.

2) A recognition of the need to not confuse newbies as to what does and does not represent Objectivism.

So while we will allow you to post up untrue things that attack Objectivism, we don't want you to do so in a place where they might be confused with Objectivism. We want people to judge Objectivism based on what it is, rather than on your personal opinion of what you think it should be.

Fixed bizarro double post--JMeganSnow

Edited December 20, 2005 by JMeganSnow

[NewYorkRoark]

You'll have to forgive me, I apologize. I really thought that the debate forum was for one on one discussions and not only for objections. Otherwise, I would not have taken up everyones time. I won't say anything else, until I'm in the debate forum.

I respect and understand the fact that this forum is privately run and if you wish that I not question Objectivism on this forum, I will abide or take it to the debate forum. When I joined, it seemed that there had been a precedent set that allowed for objections in general topics, and I didn't realize how important it was that those rules be followed. It was not my intention to be this much of a problem.

[Inspector]

Ultimately, I am here to learn how to live and not here to learn about Objectivism as somebody else defines it.

This statement, of everything you said, is particularly false and worth mentioning. What is to be shown on this forum is emphatically not Objectivism “as somebody defines it,” but Objectivism as its creator, Ayn Rand, defined it. Nobody else is authorized to define it in any other way. If someone has a different idea to express, they can call it something other than Objectivism. (To do otherwise would represent some kind of libel, I think)

You'll have to forgive me, I apologize. I really thought that the debate forum was for one on one discussions and not only for objections. Otherwise, I would not have taken up everyones time.

As it currently stands, the debate forum is the only place where arguments against Objectivism are allowed. I believe that the rules state that as the topic starter you can make it one-on-one, or allow anyone to debate you.

I respect and understand the fact that this forum is privately run and if you wish that I not question Objectivism on this forum, I will abide or take it to the debate forum.

Speaking personally, I’m glad to hear this from you. Your recognition and respect for the rules means I am more inclined to listen to what you have to say.

When I joined, it seemed that there had been a precedent set that allowed for objections in general topics, and I didn't realize how important it was that those rules be followed. It was not my intention to be this much of a problem.

I’d like to re-emphasize my original point: that it was the fact that you phrased your question as an argument against volition that was a breach of etiquette, not that you were asking those kinds of questions at all. If you had phrased it in the way that I indicated, instead of the inflammatory way that you did, then this discussion would never have taken place.

Please take a moment to contrast your original post with the example I gave, and try to see if you can tell what makes the two different. If I can help to make it more clear, let me know.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Inspector

[softwareNerd]

Folks, since we have enough threads on what Objectivism is and is not, and on Objectivism as a closed system, at some point I intend to move the posts that address that topic and merge them with one of those threads.

Let's restrict further posts in this thread to "sexuality", "social reality", "volition", etc..

[JMeganSnow]

I split off Inspector's last post and made a new topic here.

[softwareNerd]

Do you think sexuality is a social reality or do you think it is self-evident or something else?

From the rest of your post, I do not see that it is one or the other. Indeed, I don't understand the flow of your thinking.

You seem to be saying:

1. Sexuality is probably not a metaphysical fact. (As evidence, you point to differing reactions of a primitive tribal man and a modern man to the sight of a naked woman.) (You conclude that your other example -- of homosexuality -- is inconclusive.)
   
2. If sexuality is not a metaphysical fact, human beings must be choosing their sexuality
   
3. If it is a choice, it is an arbitrary one, not made with any basis in metaphysical facts
   
4. Therefore, the choice is probably being made based on the man-made. i.e. people might be making their choices of sexuality based on what they are taught is socially-acceptable
   

Is that what you are trying to argue?

[NewYorkRoark]

From the rest of your post, I do not see that it is one or the other. Indeed, I don't understand the flow of your thinking.

You seem to be saying:

1. Sexuality is probably not a metaphysical fact. (As evidence, you point to differing reactions of a primitive tribal man and a modern man to the sight of a naked woman.) (You conclude that your other example -- of homosexuality -- is inconclusive.)
   
   
2. If sexuality is not a metaphysical fact, human beings must be choosing their sexuality
   
   
3. If it is a choice, it is an arbitrary one, not made with any basis in metaphysical facts
   
   
4. Therefore, the choice is probably being made based on the man-made. i.e. people might be making their choices of sexuality based on what they are taught is socially-acceptable
   

Is that what you are trying to argue?

I'd like to not agitate anyone further, but to respond:

I'd like to say:

1. Sexuality is not a metaphysical fact. (A heterosexual male is wrong to claim that it is his nature to be sexually aroused by women just as a homosexual male is wrong to claim the same about being sexually aroused by men.)

2. As far as neural plasticity is concerned, human beings cannot choose their sexuality; rather their sexuality is determined by their experiences during development. Neural plasticity describes the plasticity of the brain (especially during development). Their future sexuality will depend on what kind of associations they make regarding sexual arousal. This happens at such a young age that one cannot remember the cause of such associations and therefore, sexuality seems to be a metaphysical fact.

4. It is a social reality in that we often believe that our sexuality is a metaphysical fact or that we associate one gender with sexual arousal. In reality, perhaps there is a bit of "nature" involved - regarding ones chemical [and resulting hormonal] makeup - but maybe the more important factor is the "nurture" and our experiences during early development. To the extent that we can "choose" our sexuality, I'm not sure. It may be more appropriate to say that it's "chosen" for us.

I really think neural plasticity (during childhood development) is a fascinating field (especially since we seem to have no episodic memory of our early development) and if anyone has any articles / extensive knowledge of the field, I'd be very grateful if you could send a link or something similar.

[FeatherFall]

I'd like to clarify my previous post. I think the type of value judgments that determine sexuality are usually made very early during development. Because of this, people do not necessarily even know that they are consciously deciding their own orientation. But, it is still a consequence of volition.

[Actaeon]

I'd like to say:

1. Sexuality is not a metaphysical fact....

2. As far as neural plasticity is concerned, human beings cannot choose their sexuality....

4. It is a social reality in that we often believe that our sexuality is a metaphysical fact....

In this context, I strongly urge restraint in stating what you "know." I assume you do realize that "knowing" is an epistemological term referring to a very specific status of a concept.

The ideas expressed here were earlier introduced as an hypothesis. I further note that they arose (apparently) by reading some rather interesting studies. All of this is good; a person should enjoy his interest in a topic and his desire to learn more.

But to go on to state that sexuality is a metaphysical-this, impossible-that, social-reality-some-such-other-thing, and so on, represents some enormous levels of confidence about topics that have only been lightly introduced. Furthermore, I know professionally some very brilliant and learned scientists who would not dare to speak with such confidence about their theories of sexual origins and the status of sexual identity. This is not because they are wimps. Far from it. It's because they work in a field that recognizes and actively enforces the meaning of "knowing". It's not the same as "believing."

By the way, this is not intimidation. If you do in fact know these things, then post away. By all means, tell the world what you know.

[Inspector]

By the way, this is not intimidation. If you do in fact know these things, then post away. By all means, tell the world what you know.

LOL, well put and distinctly parallel to my point:

If you want to ask a question, ask a question; don't make an argument.

If you're unsure about a point of Objectivism, ask a question; don't claim that you know that this or that point of Objectivism is faulty.

[JMeganSnow]

I'd like to clarify my previous post. I think the type of value judgments that determine sexuality are usually made very early during development. Because of this, people do not necessarily even know that they are consciously deciding their own orientation. But, it is still a consequence of volition.

I have read some information along these lines as well. I also know a few people who chose to switch orientation when they were adults, so I don't think it's especially cut-and-dried.

NewYorkRoark, do you realize that by saying that your experiences determine your sexuality you are, in effect, saying that it is a metaphysical fact. Unless, that is, that you had some choice about those experiences, in which case it is your choices, not your experiences that ultimately determined your sexuality.

[Dismuke]

I'd like to clarify my previous post. I think the type of value judgments that determine sexuality are usually made very early during development.

Let's just assume for a moment that this is completely true (I have no way to prove or disprove it one way or another).

Because of this, people do not necessarily even know that they are consciously deciding their own orientation. But, it is still a consequence of volition.

But is correct to regard children that young as possessing volition? Remember, according to Objectivism, volition is something very specific - the ability to focus one's consciousness. Are young children capable of such focus? Certainly they are to some degree - but are they capable of a level of sufficiently full focus that the concept of volition is applicable to them?

A child, for example, is definitely capable of making selections from various alternatives which are presented to it. But is a child capable of making such a selection while holding the wider context of how it might impact his long range hierarchy of values - which is what is expected of a full-focused mentally healthy adult? Or are such selections by children under a certain age more similar to what, in adults, we would classify as whims based on earlier value judgments - with some children's "whims" being more reality oriented than others? Isn't this why children under a certain age are considered morally innocent even if they happen to be little monsters?

At any rate, while some of a child's value judgments and evaluations about himself and the world might indeed be formed consciously, it is important to keep in mind that a young child's mind does not have the skill (and perhaps even the capacity??) to make evaluations which are necessarily rational. Nor would it be appropriate to call them irrational. Perhaps a better term would be something along the lines of "pre-rational." I don't think there can be any doubt that such evaluations and judgments a child makes at an early age about himself and the world around him can have a profound impact on his psychological development. And since his mind does not yet have what is necessary to form evaluations and value judgments on his own which consistently reflect reality, that is why good parenting is so crucial.

I don't think that a young child's evaluations and value judgments are a matter of "choice" nor do I think they are biologically "hard wired" or are passively absorbed from his environment. Clearly the child's consciousness plays an active and important role in the process. But I suspect it is a consciousness which is more or less trying to grope its way through a world of epistemological chaos making judgments and evaluations in a contextless, trial and error sort of way. I question whether it would be accurate to describe judgements and evaluations that arise from such a state as being a product of "volition" or "choice."

[Hal]

The idea of being 'naturally straight' (or indeed, being 'naturally' anything) seems to rest on an oversimplistic model of how genetics works. The idea that there is a serious dichotomy between nature and nurture is fairly pervasive in popular interpretations of biology/psychology, but its not something thats often taken seriously in the literature. Behavioral traits in animals generally arent determined exclusively by either genes or environment, but by a complex interaction of the two. It's very rare that you will find a case where "gene X causes behavior Y" - the normal situation will be something like "gene X can increase the rate of Y occuring in conjunction with environmental factors A, B and C". Finding direct causal relations for even simple behavioral traits in 'low' animals is an exceptionally difficult task, so its unlikely that we're going to find conclusive evidence of what 'causes' homosexual behavior in humans any time soon.

So yeah, I would guess that the idea that people are 'naturally' (biologically) heterosexual is just as mistaken as the idea that sexual roles are entirely a construct of society. I think its obvious that cultural factors do play a large role in producing certain types of sexual behavior (look at how male-male sexual relationships were viewed in Greece compared to today for instance - when these things were considered normal, you had an incredibly large percentage of society being happy to engage in them), and rigid sexual identities like 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' are fairly modern notions which probably have no scientific basis. The Greeks werent 'homosexual', despite their views on male-male sex.

But even within the context of some fixed set of social parameters, you still have the fact that some people will tend towards certain types of sexual relations while others wont. And its possible that genetics plays a role in producing this individual variation, especially when you consider that homosexual behavior also occurs in other species But then, a lot of other factors will also play a role, such as the events which took place at critical stages in a person's development, perhaps their value judgements (although its not clear what specific value judgements would be relevant to favouring sexual relations with men over women), along with various other things.

Do people 'choose' to be heterosexual or homosexual? Well if this implies that the average person makes a conscious decision to be attracted to men/women, then of course not. But given that people can choose their environment to some degree, along with their values, they probably have the possibility of affecting their sexual outlook indirectly. For instance, if someone consciously decides to involve himself in gay culture for whatever reason, then its possible that he might become more open to the idea of a same-sex relationship than he was previously (similar to how people making certain lifestyle choices can lead to them being attracted to 'goth-girls' or 'geeks'). However, simply being attracted to men doesnt constitute being 'homosexual', nor does being attracted to women constitute 'heterosexuality'. These are primarilly terms of identity, which go beyond mere behavior and give people ways to define themselves. And choosing to adopt any identity is certainly a volitional action.

I dont think this has anything to do with free-will in the philosophical sense though - noone sane has ever claimed that everything a person likes/dislikes is volitional. Its obvious to me that icecream tastes better than pasta, that obese girls are less sexually attractive than those with nice bodies, and that the fashionsof today look better than those of 1950. But I havent reached any of these conclusions by explicit choice, and if I had been brought up in a different culture then I probably wouldnt hold these opinions. However, this certainly doesnt imply that nothing is volitional, or that every aspect of our character is determined in advance.

edit: the term 'metaphysical fact' is misleading here, because it seems to imply that human sexuality is somehow a matter of philosophical metaphysics in the same sense as 'existence exists'. The terms 'biological fact' or 'scientific fact' are probably more sensible.

Edited December 21, 2005 by Hal

[Hal]

But is correct to regard children that young as possessing volition?

Well, AR held that concept-formation involved volition so, assuming that young children form concepts, this would commit Objectivism to the view that they're volitional.

Edited December 21, 2005 by Hal