Is it right to label sexuality?

you don't have to meet all the people in the world to be labeled as straight or gay.. i know a lot of attractive guys but i never thought of shagging them !! do i have to meet everyone in the world to make sure am straight ? come on

Just a thought I've had for a while:

If somebody says "I'll only date black men," or "I'm only attracted to blonde women with massive breasts," it isn't (generally) acceptable - it's seen as shallow, or even discriminatory, to only be attracted to a certain group of people because of physical qualities. Should it not be the same for saying "I'm only attracted to men/women?"

For example, I am male and have only ever been attracted to women, and if asked would call myself 'straight.' But I don't think that I should: I haven't met every man in the world, much less got to know them closely, and though there is no precedent, it is entirely possible that I would meet a man whom I am romantically attracted to.

Surely people shouldn't make sweeping generalisations such as this without full evidence: if we remove the romantic element and say, for example: "I hate all black people," this is considered wrong, as whilst someone may have disliked every black person they've met, they can't rightfully apply that to the entirety of the group. Why should it be different for romantic attraction to a gender?

Just wondering if anybody else has an opinion on the matter

Gender, race and sexuality are completely different entities.


Posted from TSR Mobile

You make a very interesting point, OP, and while initially I disagreed, you persuaded me otherwise.

Some people may remember a TV series called 'Bob and Rose', which was about a gay man who fell in love with a woman, and apparently is based on a true story, and kind of supports the point you're making here.

Such situations may be rare, and I do think that for most people the sexuality they and/or others 'define' themselves as would hold true even if they did meet every person in the world.

I don't believe it's discrimination though to say 'I'm not attracted to any man/woman', but it's widely accepted that human sexuality can be fluid.

**** that man. There's a reason behind liking one sort and disliking the other. People look, sound, smell different and so do our tastes. Some people like chocolate, some people like milkshake. Of course, there will be exceptions like in every statement that we make in our lives.

It's not a judgement it's a reflex.

Heterosexuals don't see members of the same sex and make the conscious decision to not find them sexually appealing. It just happens as an innate response. It's not even registered mentally.

Interesting point...but from that viewpoint, shouldn't a heterosexual man by reflex not be attracted to women with, for example, small breasts or disabilities? As the innate instinct to reproduce successfully would mean they are unable to find them attractive?

No, attraction doesn't work that way.

Fundamentally they're still female. "small" breasts are still feminine and serve no decreased reproductive value. Disabilities range in severity but most still allow for reproductive success at some level thus from a purely evolutionary perspective there is no reason in a climate in which the disability doesn't increase the likelihood of mortality to not find them potentially attractive.

But your example of "small" breasts you would also predict that women would never find shorter or less muscular males attractive which is also fundamentally untrue.

Forgive me, but doesn't this logic suggest that homosexuality is unnatural?

Would you mind elaborating on that? Obviously I realise they are different, but racism and sexism are comparable, so shouldn't attraction due to race and due to gender be comparable also?

No it doesn't. Difficult to explain maybe but not unnatural. It occurs widely throughout nature and homosexuals do not feel any difference in the 'normalness' of their attraction to heterosexuals.

There have been several ideas consistent with evolution for the stability of homosexual but one of the strongest is an extension of kin selection whereby particular genes may promote different outcomes in either sex. For example, it's been shown that female siblings of homosexual males have a higher reproductive output than those of heterosexual males. Thus along the female line, homosexuality at the genetic level can be maintained by the inclusive fitness of the genes across relatives.

So if homosexuality isn't unnatural, why should someone labelled as heterosexual be innately inclined against it, to the extent that they could never feel any attraction towards someone of the same gender, regardless of the circumstances?