azurelunatic | Phrasing peeve: "Lifestyle" as applied to non-heterosexuals

Entry tags:

Phrasing peeve: "Lifestyle" as applied to non-heterosexuals

Why in the Bastard's hell do people use the word "lifestyle" to mean "not straight"?

When I think "lifestyle", I think ... I'm not sure what I think. I think "Lifestyles of the rich and famous." I think of it as something that one can change at will, or something that can be changed with the help of a fashion consultant or with a change in income.

I don't think of it as a sexual preference. An expression of sexual preference, sure. I can be living a "lifestyle" where I'm getting it with somebody different every night, with bars usually involved. I can have a "lifestyle" like Hugh Hefner. But to say, "I don't approve of your lifestyle, but it's your choice," to one's single (and not getting any) gay college student son, and not feel that one's single (and not getting any) straight college student son has a "lifestyle" worth commenting on... that leaves me with the distinct feeling that the person using the word "lifestyle" is using it as a weasel word because they don't feel that "sexual preference" or "sexual orientation" is quite the thing.

I think that the reason that "lifestyle" used in place of "sexual preference" or "sexual orientation" is that "preference" and "orientation" both imply that it's something that is less likely to change, with the cause for the sexual orientation more because that's just the way it is (why do I prefer chocolate over coffee? Because.) rather than by a conscious choice of the person's.

I think that people have three or four settings on their sexual orientation. The first setting is probably hardwired into the brain; I read some article several years ago saying that there was some similarity between the brains of straight men and lesbians, where straight women had something different. This is the broadest setting.

The second setting is early development; I've read also that someone's psychological sexual preferences are usually mostly formed by experiences before the age of four or so.

Third is later conditioning and experience, where things that one might before have seen as attractive are labeled by experience as being bad, and things that one might never have before associated with attractiveness coming to be attractive because it's associated with other attractive things. Before the age of 15, I found long hair on men unattractive. After the age of 15, I started seeking it out. I used to find a certain casual disregard for the rules attractive. At the age of 23, I realized that due to some experiences (Shawn) I found it extremely unattractive. I do not believe that biologically heterosexual women can be "turned lesbian" by trauma; I do believe that biologically bisexual women formerly identifying as heterosexual can traumatically have their attraction to men turn off, and notice their attraction to other women in the absence of the overriding preference. This third layer can be tweaked around by counseling and focused self-mind-hacking, but no matter what the counseling does, the underlying biological and early psychological preferences are still present.

The fourth layer of sexual orientation, the choice of expression, is the only one that can be reliably consciously chosen by the person. I can choose whether I want to act on my desires. I can choose whether I actually go up and speak to the person I want to flirt with. I can choose to go to bed with someone I actually have no desire for. Having sex with someone, except for cases of rape, is always a choice. Choice can be affected by beliefs and other information. Sexual identity can be a choice. Before I knew that bisexuality was possible, I was still attracted to women from time to time, but chose to identify as heterosexual, because I believed that there was no middle ground possible between straight and lesbian, and I was more often attracted to men. When I learned that bisexuality was a possibility, I found that it more accurately described my orientation. Another woman believed that she was bisexual, but upon experimentation discovered that she had no actual attraction to women, and chose not to have sexual intercourse where there was no attraction, and afterwards identified as heterosexual. People can be pressured to choose a socially acceptable orientation; someone who would be bisexual but oriented primarily towards the opposite sex can choose to not act on the occasional impulses to interact romantically with the same sex, or be conditioned into thinking that all heterosexuals occasionally get the impulse to interact romantically with the same sex, and that it doesn't mean anything.

I do not believe that it is possible for someone who is biologically heterosexual to be "turned gay". Someone who is biologically heterosexual can become a part of the gay culture, and become just as fabulous as the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy men, but they will always be heterosexual and fabulous (I hate the term "metrosexual", but that means the same thing) and not actually gay. The supposed heterosexual clean-cut football hero who goes off to college and comes back flaming gay and also a drag queen? Never biologically heterosexual to start with. Culture and mannerisms and social mores are contagious. Biological orientation is not.

I believe that most humans are neither pure biological heterosexual nor pure biological homosexual, but anywhere on a sliding scale of biologically bisexual (pansexual?). Most are oriented more towards heterosexuality, and if the dominant culture is focused more on reproduction than hedonism, then the dominant culture will be heterosexual. It was originally, I believe, my mother or father's thought that when a culture experiences high population pressure, and expansion isn't an immediate option, there will be more social focus on non-reproductive forms of sexual pleasure; I would have to agree that this would make biological sense.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm not so sure about the limiting of the biological factors from the extreme ends - it's not that I disagree, I just don't agree, if you see what I mean. I lack data to determine which fits better. :o)

Otherwise, I think you've described what a lot of people who /think/ about these things think, and what people who /study/ these things are turning up.

I certainly agree with you.

But having said that, there are places where 'lifestyle' is appropriate, regarding sexuality. I think it's an appropriate word to use regarding BDSM, and from what I've seen it's often used /inside/ the BDSM subculture to describe itself. But then, while you may have biological or deep-rooted psychological tendencies in those areas, the choice to participate is still a /choice/, so 'lifestyle' is fitting from that sense.

There are definitely places where it is appropriate, but it is a specific Americanism to use "lifestyle" instead of "sexual orientation", particularly among those who are homophobic and putting a Politically Correct face on it, especially when making blanket statements about the orientation. There is an attitude that goes with it, which is basically, "I can say anything I want to, and as long as I phrase it using Politically Correct terminology, however misapplied, you can't contradict me or poke at the logical flaws in my arguments, which of course there are none, because I am correct, and you are T3H F@GG0TS!1!!!!1!"

(Faggots in American, of course, is an offensive-but-being-reclaimed term for homosexual men.)

The term is known here. But I'm still reminded of Good Omens:

"What's this here," [the American guard] said suspiciously, "about us got to give you faggots?"
"Oh, we have to have them," said Newt. "We burn them."
"Say what?"
"We burn them."
The guard's face broadened into a grin. And they'd told him England was soft.

-- Terry Pratchett / Good Omens

Hehe.

I was howling with laughter at that bit.

Aren't you, in your last paragraph, somewhat repeating what

azurelunatic said? That the tendencies are innate, the expression thereof can be called choice, and therefore lifestyle?

I am a sadist as seen from desires and lusts.
I do not practice a BDSM lifestyle.

Not quite.

People's tendency toward being a submissive or a dominant, for example, could very likely be traced back to biological or deep-rooted psychological factors, but it's not as direct as sexuality.

I'm thinking that it's something you have a lot more choice over, so the term 'lifestyle' is less offensive - or not offensive at all - in this context.

Hmn. Actually, if it were used the same way that the Homophobic Policitally Correct Asshats use it against people of non-heterosexual orientation, offensively --

A certain person who I know is extremely submissive by nature, but does not generally act on these tendencies. One of these asshats would probably phrase it, "Well, she is a member of a certain lifestyle."

But if she doesn't act on it, then she's not.

I suppose the usage of the word in the BDSM context is different because it helps to differentiate between people who just have kinky sex, and people who live 'the lifestyle'.

Using silly furry handcuffs does not mean you're living a BDSM lifestyle, but it is technically bondage.

I'm sure that people could use the term offensively - but there's people that can make 'hello' into an insult. :o)

A lifestyle is something I do.
A preference is something I choose.
An orientation is something I am.

The specific US weaselwording that hacks me off the most is this:

"Members of alternative lifestyles," whereby they mean, "People doing things out of the norm and especially anyone of a non-heterosexual orientation."

I may be strict vanilla, of a mainstream political party, dressing like every other person in my conservative business office, employed in a 9-to-5 desk job, driving the mode transportation, with a long-term opposite-sex legally wedded partner, a member of the local most popular religious group, attending just as often as the next person but not more often -- but if I am not of a heterosexual orientation, I am a "member of an alternative lifestyle."

THAT is how those people use that word.

This is not only a common use of the word, it is the common use of the word. "Members of alternative lifestyles" is the politically correct way to say "Queer as a three dollar bill" these days.

I would make efforts to correct them, then, where I could.

I am a member of an alternative lifestyle, and I'm almost completely straight. :o)

The phrase, when I've seen it, has been used by Americans, and often in the context of 'lifestyle choice', and usually used by those who oppose gay rights. When I've seen it used here, the only example that springs to mind is the 'lifestyle' in the west of Scotland - which is to say, fatty foods and too much alcohol, all contributing to insane levels of heart disease and all illnesses.

But if she doesn't act on it, then she's not.

I think (though I may be wrong) that this is *exactly*

azurelunatic's (and others) point. If one doesn't ACT on a preference or orientation, then folks shouldn't refer to it as one's *lifestyle*. Identity, yes (if that's the case). Orientation, sure. Preference, even, if you like (though I have my own issues with that one).

Lifestyle should only be used to denote the way one's life is actually lived, not one's identity or orientation.

Nail on the head.

Hee!

We're arguing the same point here.

I'd suspected as much, but wasn't certain.

Sadly, "should be" is different from "actually is".

When I think "lifestyle", I think ... I'm not sure what I think. I think "Lifestyles of the rich and famous." I think of it as something that one can change at will, or something that can be changed with the help of a fashion consultant or with a change in income.

My thoughts exactly. I have had serious issues with this expression since I first saw it decades ago. Thank you for expressing this in such clear and eloquent terms.

You're welcome. I had issues with it over in my girlfriend's journal, and when a word or phrase gives me issues, I go and hash it out in my journal.

I read some article several years ago saying that there was some similarity between the brains of straight men and lesbians, where straight women had something different.

While I have heard of the results, but not read the article, I want to warn you about some brain research stuff:
1. Results, that are interpreted as general, are obtained from very small studies, containing only a few people, often very alike to the researchers themselves.
2. Results are interpreted in a desired way to fit the opinion of the week. ("See, this is why those damn dykes don't like us: they're practically men. And I didn't fancy them, anyway.")
3. Some research is done on animals, and not on humans.
4. Very many of the techniques used to study the brain are crude.

Heh.

That does make sense.

I wonder if there have been any genetic studies on sexuality, especially with adopted children (nature vs. nurture and all that).

I think there has been epidemiological studies on the frequency of homosexuality in children to homosexuals, and the results seem to be "no difference what we can tell." (We have recently allowed homosexual couples to be tried for adoption, and this has been making the rounds in the media.)

Of course, almost all that is based on homosexuality as an undesired outcome, which I find offensive.

I'm wondering if bisexual parents (even/especially "But it doesn't count because I married the opposite sex!" ones) are more likely to have homosexual children.

Heh.

I think my mom is bisexual. I'm bisexual, my brother has some homo experiences, though he settled down extremely straight, and our younger brother radiates the worst homo vibes. (Though he has discovered girls, so I'm not going to be surprised either way.)

Has to be something in the water.

swallowtayle is certain that Mama will thing she did something wrong if she finds out that neither of her kids is straight.

My mom would probably laugh, since she's got one grandchild already and a second coming real soon now, not to mention the kids we're planning to have in a few years or so...

Mama just worries. Heh.

There are things that show up with adopted children studies that are not genetic, also. I think one of the theories that was being floated around at one point (and may still be) was that sexuality was strongly influenced by hormonal levels during gestation.

At least one study did actual dissections on the brains of people who had donated their cadavers to science. Thus, it was not a behavioristic study but actual neurophysiology. When speaking about brain research, and especially when reading popular accounts thereof, one needs to be careful whether the research is to the psychology or the physiology.

But the caveat on the small sample size still stands. And I seem to recall some controversy on cause-of-death bias in the study; there as some doubt as to whether the difference was an innate property or an artefact of the illness that contributed to the exitus.

Dissektions are far cruder than PET, and PET is very crude.

The brain stuff I can rely fully on, is being done with electrodes in a living brain. Of course, then it's done on monkeys (or cats), so it's not much use for studying complex human behaviours.

Dissektions are far cruder than PET, and PET is very crude.

Is that so? In dissection, I can get stuff to put under microscope. I was not aware that PET, or other tomographic methods had reached such accuracies.

Yes, but you get _form_ not function.

PET at least give some hints to what's going on.

All true.

At least one of the studies that reported having found differences in the brain was referring specifically to brain anatomy. They were not claiming that there is a difference in function, only that there is a correlation between the size of a specific region (amygdala, if memory serves) and gender+orientation.

I do believe that this was the one I ran into.

"Lifestyle" to me also implies that whatever it is is the most obvious, defining thing about the person. It's a subtle way of emphasizing "us vs. them" on whatever characteristic is being called a lifestyle for the thems.

Hrm. I wonder if I can get away with calling blatant asshattery a "lifestyle".

No, because all they would say it that it is the lifestyle we should emulate.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Phrasing peeve: "Lifestyle" as applied to non-heterosexuals

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

no subject

Re:

no subject

Re:

no subject

Re:

Re: