Talk:Sexual orientation

	This Sexuality related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): It contains unsourced statements Tagged since December 2021

What is the evangelists' viewpoint of SM and dominatrixes? (Neither appear in the Bible) 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

BDSM as orientation

There is some "debate" (more accurately the internet equivalent of late-night bullshitting sessions) over whether BDSM counts as an "orientation" (here, for example). But who decides these things anyway? Is there a Bureau of Official Sexual Orientations you can get them approved at? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We can do better

Biological determinism is awful, even when it supposedly has good intents like here.

Of course we can 100% exclude sexuality is something you decide like taking a walk, no shit, but the same could be said about any other fairly mundane implicit attitude too. And while it's important to mention conversion theory, it's frankly insulting to associate it or the other BS with psychology (just because what? the witch hunters *talk* to you, after quitting the middle ages and stopping to pretend you are the literal manifestation of the devil?). I could bet there thousands of people that did change their orientation following actual therapy with actual professionals which actually cared for their well-being, as opposed to just trying to square a bible in your brain hole.

This said, anyhow, my point is that even in the best case scenario where genetic markers could explain everything alone.. nonetheless they could only do so through influencing your personality, temper and stuff (ie. all things that are surely hard to alter, but that definitively do accept feedbacks). Because to reject this basic hypothesis sounds equal to claiming the DNA has some kind of significant meme-like body-genital pattern-matching code (something that to me, sounds as straight-up dehumanizing as it is ludicrous).
I suppose this is a half-hearted appeal to consequences, but it seems even more bonkers considering there are hardly even studies out there dissecting the implications of this avalanche. --Mirh (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)