Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sexual Orientation and Choice

By Greta Christina, The Blowfish Blog. Posted June 12, 2008.


When I hear people defend gay rights by saying "It's not a choice, who would choose to be queer?" I raise my hand and say, "Me. Over here. I would."

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Greta Christina

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In the various and sundry debates about gay rights, the question of whether sexual orientation is a choice comes up with almost irritating predictability. And when it does, one of the things I've noticed is that bisexuality -- as it so often does -- gets completely ignored. So I want to talk a little about bisexuality, sexual orientation, and choice.

Because, speaking as a bisexual person, in my experience I do have something of a choice.

Of course it's true that I don't have a choice about who I'm sexually attracted to. And I didn't have a choice about who I fell in love with. I don't choose that, any more than anyone else does. But back when I was dating, I did have a choice about who I dated and who I socialized with. At the time that I fell for Ingrid, I was dating women, and socializing in the lesbian community, a whole lot more than I was with men and in the hetero community. And I was doing it out of choice.

On the whole, I like women more than men. Sexually I like both roughly the same (with something of a preference for women on the whole, but with that preference varying a lot over the years). But personally, emotionally, I tend to like women better than men. Not as friends necessarily -- I have plenty of male friends -- but as romantic partners. The personality traits that, in my experience, women tend to have more than men -- cooperation, empathy, emotional expressiveness, good listening skills, yada yada yada -- are traits that I like, and traits that I find central to a good relationship.

Now, of course, that's a generalization, and a very broad one at that. Not all women are like that, and plenty of men are. And if I'd happened to meet and fall for a man who was cooperative and empathetic and expressive and a good listener etc., then that would have been just ducky. But back when I was dating, dating women just seemed to make more sense. It was the smart way of playing the odds. It was loading the dice.

And it works the other way, too. I've known other bisexuals who date and socialize more heterosexually -- again out of choice.

Whatever It is, IMO, one of the differences between being bisexual and being monosexual (hetero- or homosexual). You can, in theory, be happy being sexual and romantic with someone of either gender ... and so you have at least some degree of choice about which gender you get involved with. Indeed, if your relationship preference is very strong indeed, you can actually flat-out refuse to get involved with potential partners of one gender or the other, even if your libido or your heart is temporarily pulling you towards them ... and unlike homosexual people who refuse to accept their homosexuality, you can still have a happy and satisfying sexual and romantic life. And even if you don't go that far, you can still generally date and socialize with the gender and the community you'd prefer to end up with. You can't choose who you get the hots for ... but you can hang out with the kind of people you'd be happy to hook up with if lightning strikes. You can load the dice.

So when I hear people defend gay rights by saying, "Of course it's not a choice, who would choose to be queer, who would choose to be oppressed and vilified and discriminated against?", my reaction is to raise my hand and say, "Me. Over here. I would." Of course I'd rather not be oppressed, etc. -- but even with all of those drawbacks, I'd still choose to be queer. And I'd still choose to be in a queer relationship. I did.

And this is a big part of the reason that I think the "choice" issue is a red herring in the gay rights debates. After all, you could argue that pedophiles don't choose to be attracted to children, and still think it's profoundly immoral to act on that attraction. The important question in the gay rights debates is not whether being queer is a choice, but whether there's any reason whatsoever to think that being queer is harmful. And by now, the evidence is overwhelming that it is not. Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant. It is still, flatly and unequivocally, none of anybody else's damn business.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: choice, gay rights, bisexuality

Read more of Greta Christina at her blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bi is Gay
Posted by: Woeful on Jun 12, 2008 1:22 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Non-selective gay, but a minority segment of the gay population nonetheless... To each his/her own.

I have many gay/bi friends, and I respect your right to choose, but this is also the kind of thing that makes the Religious Right think they can "Save" you... And this only makes it harder for everyone because they will project this onto the entire gay population to further their agenda.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be expressing how you feel, I'm just stating what the Right is going to do with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bi is Gay Posted by: AlexaD
Well said.
Posted by: Livemike on Jun 13, 2008 4:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You go girl! Don't let them turn you into an "invisible bisexual". http://www.alternet.org/sex/73908/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is this begging the question?
Posted by: supercrisp on Jun 13, 2008 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did the author "choose" to be bisexual? I don't see any arguments here that convince me that people choose their sexual orientation, only that a bi- person can choose his or her partners from male or female.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Choice
Posted by: mtnprivy on Jun 13, 2008 11:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree. The truth is, we all make our choices, then we live by the consequences of those choices. Relationships are a struggle at best, but hopefully with many rewards.
I heard a TV preacher once say. . ."everybody wants to be sexual(intimate), and if we have enough frustration with one group of people we will move on and choose a partner from a different group."
I have sat and listened to gay friends display some pretty shallow attitudes, then turn around and wonder why they haven't "found" a meaningful relationship yet. I was not surprised. What goes around comes around.
In reality it is not choice, but choices. There are hundreds of decisions each week, and they all add up to what kind of relationship we are gonna have with others. If every feeling is OK to act on, just because it is there, then we'd have a lot more murders, robberies, obesity, and any number of excesses. Evaluating our feelings, and making decisions about our actions is what our rational brain is for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why The Religious Right Likes Choice
Posted by: thirdmg on Jun 13, 2008 3:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The religious right promotes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice, because it's proven to be a highly effective political strategy for denying civil rights to LGBTs. They know that studies and polls show that the public is much less likely to support those rights if it thinks sexual orientation is a choice. Thus, claiming that it's a choice and using specious resources to back up the claim is a prime example of "catapulting the propaganda."

And the religious right also isn't inclined to enlighten the public that there is an important distinction between orientation vs. behavior. Thus, the "ex-gay" movement regularly trots out "converts" who claim to have gotten over their homosexuality. But when questioned closely, they often admit that they still feel strong same-sex attraction and have only changed their behavior. Months or years later, many, if not most, including some of the leaders, end up leaving the "ex-gay" movement in complete disgust and disillusionment.

By the way, one of the best critics of the "ex-gay" movement and its disinformation about choice is Wayne Besen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

really a private choice
Posted by: brucerise on Jun 14, 2008 2:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
everybody wants to be sexual(intimate), and if we have enough frustration with one group of people we will move on and choose a partner from a different group."
I have sat and listened to gay friends display some pretty shallow attitudes, then turn around and wonder why they haven't "found" a meaningful relationship yet. I was not surprised. What goes around comes around.
bisexual,gay,lesbian community ### FindBilover.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you really want the religious right to run your life . . .
Posted by: hagwind on Jun 14, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and your politics, you can cling to the "we can't help it" defense. Plenty of gay people have done similarly since the late 19th century: clung to whatever line they thought would make them more acceptable to the nervous heterosexuals. Once upon a time "We're sick" was a step up from "We're sinners," remember that? (I don't either; at 57 I'm too young, but I read about it.)

Those "we can't help it" defenses are most attractive to those who want to assimilate into the status quo without changing it. Who want to and can assimilate into the status quo -- that excludes most women and most people without considerable class, color, and age privilege. In our post-Stonewall era the "we can't help it" brigade has been led mostly by class-privileged white gay men, some of whom are so assimilated that they're Log Cabin Republicans.

Even if my lesbianism were determined by genes, biology, upbringing, or something else over which I had no control (something I don't buy for a minute), how I act on it is my choice. That's what makes my lesbianism such an important part of who I am. It's not something I'm going to tone down to appease religious fundamentalists or right-wingers or squeamish heterosexual feminists.

Btw, something I've noticed over the years about religious fundamentalists and right-wingers and squeamish heterosexual feminists (among others) is that they aren't fooled for a minute by our attempts to be nicey-nice and assure them that "we're just like you except for whom we sleep with." No matter how small and inoffensive we make ourselves, they still freak out. Maybe if we stand up and take care of our business instead of their homophobia, they'll get over it on their own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What I want to know is
Posted by: GPFrank on Jun 14, 2008 9:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can people in the Religious Right help it?
I mean, wanting to "save" the others?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disagreed on some points but overall message was good
Posted by: JBravoEcho11 on Jun 15, 2008 11:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I hear people defend gay rights by saying "It's not a choice, who would choose to be queer?" I raise my hand and say, "Me. Over here. I would."

You didn't choose to be queer. You chose to be in a relationship with another woman. But it also seems that your preferences are so strong for women that you would have gone in that direction anyways. You didn't choose bisexuality. You chose the person you loved. That person happened to be a woman. Does that make you gay? No. I saw what you were going for but badly phrased.

If someone is bi but more attracted to the sex other than the one they are seeking, chances are they would be unhappy. I think there are very few absolute bisexuals (50/50). Most seem to swing one way or another.

After all, you could argue that pedophiles don't choose to be attracted to children, and still think it's profoundly immoral to act on that attraction.

Good job bringing pedophilia in an a gay article. This is just the fodder the religious right needs.

Pedos are different in that, even if their attraction is real and true (in many cases a stagnant sexual maturity due to incidents as children), the recipient is neither emotionally nor sexually mature enough to deal with the consequences. If they are sexually mature enough but not deemed emotionally mature enough by law that is a predator not a pedophile.

This is why pedophilia and bestiality are different, although often compared to, homosexuality. Sometimes the religious right also tries to throw polygamy in there as well because they can't count. A homosexual partner is just 1 not 3 or more.

The important question in the gay rights debates is not whether being queer is a choice, but whether there's any reason whatsoever to think that being queer is harmful. And by now, the evidence is overwhelming that it is not. Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant.

This is a good point,(Took you long enough to get there.) but most of the religious right use choice as there main reason for bigotry. They now realize that intolerance innate differences is unacceptable, regardless of how they actually feel about it. We haven't reached a place where tolerance for choice is an acceptable message (we have only done that with religion, ironically enough). The only way we can do that is with education.

People become more tolerant when exposed to different lifestyles. It is proven that the more gay people someone knows the more tolerant and accepting they are. That's why coming out (which is also what you did here) is the best form of education there is. I wish I had realized that sooner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Essentialism and Male Privilege
Posted by: Survivor77 on Jun 18, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debate about same-sex rights is hindered in some ways when we subscribe to the notion of essentialist views of sexual orientation. The range of how one becomes straight or gay or bisexual is wider than biology alone can explain, by far. Putting our eggs in the "I was born gay" basket suggests that we deserve rights because we can't help it when in reality we should have the rights afforded to straight people because we live in a democracy where separation of church and state should be the law of the land. Objections to gay rights are religiously based and should not be adopted by government. Here's my thinking - though I don't expect everyone to agree, certainly - some are born gay, some not, and some straights are born straight and some are not; it matters not even a little bit. It doesn't matter how we got gay or straight or bisexual; what matters is that we live in a country that is supposed to adhere to a Bill of Rights and Constitution that permits me the freedom to sleep with the adult of my choosing.

Notably, women more than men, seem to subscribe to a mix of influences with regard to being gay - as opposed to only being born gay. I attribute this to the deleterious effects of male domination on the suitability of some men for meaningful emotive partnerships with women. And, in no small way, our concerns about gay vs. straight are shaped by that system of male privilege. All things "feminine" are less than - and that includes any orientation that does not adhere to the rigid heterosexual model of masculinity. Dismantling heterosexual white male privilege would go a long way in securing a more tolerant society for the lgbt community.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Science not political pressure is the true picture.
Posted by: hankhawk on Jun 27, 2008 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's no compelling evidence that homosexuality (bi) is
determined by genetic
or biological factors.
There's much compelling evidence that homosexuality (bi) is determined by psychological factors.
A very large number of gays and lesbians,
including many hard-core ones, become
totally heterosexual in behavior and desire
when receiving the proper assistance and
by putting in long-term effort.

Much of the shift in the general perception of
homosexuality has been done under the influence of
medical and psychiatric "experts." After all isn't it better to let the "experts" guide our views
rather than religion and prejudice?
In his book Homosexuality and the Politics of
Truth, Jeffrey Satinover, MD traces some
significant developments in the early 1960s
when "gay liberators" were seeking to push for
new legislation and greater tolerance.

Part of their stategy was to influence the Amer. Psychiatric Assoc. to redifine and
destigmatize homosexuality.

In 1963 the NY Academy of Medicine,concerned that
there seemed to be an increasing acceptance
of homosexuality, charged its Comm. on Public
Health to investigate the issue.

The committee researached the subject , consultled among themselves, and reported that
"homosexuality is indeed an illness. The
homosexual is an emotionally disturbed individual who has not acquired the normal
capacity to develop satisfying herterosexual
relations." The homosexual group went beyond
the plane of defensiveness in certain actions.

However in just 10 years in 1973, the APA voted
to remove homosexualtity from its official list
of psychiatric illnesses. What happened?

Santinover, a former Fellow in Psychiatry and
Child Psychiatry at Yale U, comments, "Normally, a scientific consensus is
reached ove the course of many years, resulting from the accumulated weight of many properly designated studies. But in the case
of homosexualtity, scientific research has only now just begun, years
AFTER the question was decided... The APA vote to normalize
homosexuality was driven by politics, not
science.

When the APA voted on changing its classificatioin of homosexuality in 1973 a
majority of its members who responded voted to
change the classification of homosexuality.

But, only one-third of the membership responded
and had their views counted. The vote was
not representative of the will of the body.
Four years after the change in classification
the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality
reported the results of a survey it had
conducted. The survey demonstrated that
69% of the psychiatrists disagreed with the
decision and still considered homosexuality
a disorder.

One researcher concluded that "the result was
not a conclusion based upon an approximation
of scientific truth as dictated by reason,
but was instead an action demanded by the
ideological temper of the times."

There's much more work needed to give the
entire story of homoxexuality (bi) to let
the public know fact from fiction and
reality from prevarication

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]