[legodt]

First you need to stop seeing it as a binary (being gay isn't a bit that gets 'flipped,' it's more of a range that you are predisposed to fall somewhere within) and then this will start making more compatible sense. If you're willing to accept that, here's a really good interview on the subject: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/22/the_invention_of_the_heteros...

[lost_name]

There was a very good documentary on the NatGeo channel here in the US just this week that did an excellent job of explaining all of it to me.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/gender-revolution-a-jo...

One thing I found especially interesting is toward the end, where Katie Couric sits down with Renée Richards and Hari Nef. It was interesting seeing Hari talk with Renée and realize they disagree on the binary topic.

[sp332]

Yeah, but that's always been true. So why was the emphasis on immutability for a long while?

[EvilTerran]

Bluntly, because when we still had such things as sodomy laws and the "gay panic" defence[0], society wasn't ready to deal with that nuance in a productive way. You need to keep your message simple when you're trying to change deep-seated beliefs, lest people perceive a loophole in the minutae to excuse clinging to their prejudices.

Both the notions "anything but complete heterosexuality is unnatural" and "sexuality is a strict binary" were widely-held misconceptions in need of correcting, sure, but it was prudent to dismantle western sociey's attachment to the former before tackling the latter. If the idea of sexuality as a gradient had been popularized first, it would have been misused as a stick to beat down the campaign for acceptance of minority sexualities: "Why should we allow homosexual behaviour? As you've just been telling us, it's not a binary thing, so surely you're all a little bit straight? Sorry, you'll just have to put up with living according to only that part of your inner self. Stop complaining - according to you, we're all a little bit gay, and you don't see us grumbling about not getting to act on it."

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense

[M_Grey]

Maybe look at the various social consequences in places where the "immutability" line is or has been sold, versus places and times where it isn't or wasn't.

[sp332]

Could you be more specific?

[notahacker]

there's a spectrum of sexuality which expresses itself in different ways to different degrees in different people /= sexuality is [almost] invariably mutable

Especially when the argument over mutability is usually framed as "people attracted to the same sex or inclined to gender nonconform are bad influences on others and they can and must adapt their behaviour to conform to social norms" vs the argument that it's imposing the obligation to change one's sexuality that causes some people psychological harm

[lightedman]

"First you need to stop seeing it as a binary (being gay isn't a bit that gets 'flipped,'"

Are you as gay as I am? I had NO disposition towards men until I hit about 17 years of age. Suddenly, I couldn't stop dominating them in bed.

Something sure as hell 'flipped' in me to suddenly make me go from banging tons of girls in high school to dominating men almost exclusively.

And I've done modeling. I can pull whatever I want any day. Why did I suddenly prefer men? I still can't answer that.

[tokenizer]

Most people ignore women's general bisexuality, and confuse this by equating sexual preference as "complicated".

Not for men (for the most part, as in 99%). They either love vagina, and are disgusted by penis, or vice versa.

On the other side, most "straight" women, fantasize and experiment with the same sex, and to them, preference is usually on a sliding scale.

That all said, sexual preference is further confusing when we have a large subset of straight males, being attracted to very feminine transsexuals, like Bailey Jay.

To me this means male sexual preference is holistic, meaning if you pass as a woman, but have a penis, you may attract many straight males, who would gag at the idea of a well toned and very masculine male.

Even if the masculine "man" was a woman passing as one, with a vagina.

[manarth]

  Not for men (for the most part, as in 99%).
  They either love vagina, and are disgusted by penis, or vice versa.

In ancient Rome, "It was considered natural and unremarkable for men to be sexually attracted to teen-aged youths of both sexes, and pederasty was condoned as long as the younger male partner was not a freeborn Roman." [1]

Most people would agree that genetically, men haven't changed all that much in the last 2000 years or so, which lets us discount the idea that a genetic bit has recently been flipped.

That leaves the notion that sexuality is - at least in part - a social construction.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome

[tokenizer]

If little boys were raped in culture, they would likely replicate that behaviour no?

An example being pederasty of little boys in Afghanistan being common, similar to your example. Completely cultural and I would argue traumatic.

[foldr]

>They either love vagina, and are disgusted by penis, or vice versa.

I don't think it's normal for straight men to be "disgusted" by penis or for gay men to be "disgusted" by vagina. There's often social pressure on both groups to pretend that they have these feelings, but I don't think it's actually very common.

[tomp]

> To me this means male sexual preference is holistic, meaning if you pass as a woman, but have a penis, you may attract many straight males, who would gag at the idea of a well toned and very masculine male.

Hm... I'm generally attracted to (some) people who look like women, but that's just an assumption, open to change/dispute. I'm pretty sure I'd equally gag at the sight of that "pretty lady"'s penis...