Can sexuality change over time?

Exactly. The same goes for any rape. Rape is about the power not sex, and as a result, many rapists can and have raped other than their preferred sexual attraction.

 

And you can enjoy the act of sex without actually being attracted to the person, I think.

 

Like anything, over self indulgence can result in exploration to new things. A 'graduation" from the natural order of things is undertaken by those that thirst for a different pleasure and a perception that narcissism is just a form of liberty.

 

What is amazing to me is that both homosexual activity and rape are viewed as "sex" in the first place. I thought sex had to do with the joy of the possibility of bringing forth new life and the real love and partnership that is attached to that.

 

Studies have been done on prison relationships from 1930s and on...and consensual sex and partnerships happens between people who previously considered themselves straight. In my opinion sexuality is not black and white matter. Some women choose women as their partners when they have had bad experiences with men. Ultimately a man has to get a hard on. A woman can't have an orgasim without attraction.

 

Of course we can, if stimulated in the right manner. An orgasm is due to stimulating the nerve endings and doesn't have much to do with an actual attraction.

 

Most women (myself included) would NOT have sex with a person who they were not attracted to at least on some level, however.

 

Rape victims, victims of child sexual molestation, etc., have reported having orgasms, but that does not in any way mean that they "enjoyed" being raped or were "attracted" to the perpetrator. It is just a normal human reaction to the type of stimulation.

 

And yet homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, at about the same rate as humans.

Sex is an action. Period. Any positive or negative attachment to that action is purely subjective. Rape may or may not be actual sex, depending on what you count as sex. If a woman shoving a bottle up a man's arse is sex to you then most rape, if not all, will be sex to you. And when it comes down to it, there is not a single sex act that a gay couple can do that a straight couple can't. Mutual or single oral stimulation? Check. Anal sex? Check. Mutual or single manual ("hands on") stimulation. Check. Basically you are saying that something that is outside the statistical norm, such as left-handedness is, must be unnatural. Oh wait, it used to be said that left handedness was unnatural also!

 

That last line is blatantly false. I won't accuse you of lying because you might actually believe that, but it is false nonetheless.

What someone is attracted to and what someone is willing to do are two different things. Just because an individual is willing to have sex with a person of their same sex, it does not automatically follow that they are attracted to that sex.

 

Perhaps we all aren't black and white. Just like the subject matter. But my opinion is that stimulating nerves have to come with some sort of mental eroticism , or a person might end up simply sore.

 

That may be your opinion, but that is not what science has borne out.

 

That is not always the case, which is proven by some rape victims who didn't even know and/or couldn't even see their attacker.

 

Here is a parallel that might make sense.

 

I have read on these cases...though it's been a while...but what I do remember is that victims feel guilty because they made a choice to participate mentally to try to get through it.

 

I don't think so. Nerve endings react to being stimulated. It's as simple as that. You can't control it. It is involuntary.

 

To be fair, knowing or seeing your attacker might not be the factor to say whether they are aroused or not.

 

Well to be attracted to someone it most certainly is a factor.

 

So then, you can be "aroused" which is sexually turned on by a person who you are NOT attracted to. Sex is a physical act. Attraction is not.

 

I think you misunderstood. Maybe the better way to put it is that even seeing and/or knowing the attacker doesn't mean they will be aroused either. If they are being actually raped (versus say a BDSM rape fantasy role play) then seeing or not seeing or knowing or not knowing the attacker isn't going to factor into the lack of "mental eroticism" as CKW put it.

Also some people use "aroused" for the physical body response was well. So the word does have a contextual factoras to how it is applied.

 

I know, that's my point! Haven't you been reading my posts? I'm saying that you CAN be aroused sexually by someone who you are not attracted to. That does not mean that I am saying that just because you saw the person you would attracted to them in any way. That was not my point at all.

 

Ok maybe we're crossing lines along the way. Let's backtrack a bit.

You seem to be saying that this "mental eroticism" of CKW's would not always be the case as evidenced by the rape victims who didn't know or see their attacker. I am saying that seeing or knowing, or lack thereof, hold no factor overall on whether the body is aroused. Now maybe that is what you have been saying all along, and I just can read into it enough to pull out that message. I came away with the concept that you were attributing a factor to potential bodily arousal that simply didn't exist. If I am misreading, my apologies.

 

I'm saying that in some cases, attraction is irrelevant.

 

Ah in which case, we are on the same page.

 

There is a spectrum, yes. I like to view it from the lens of the Kinsey scale.

Actually, it is possible to have an orgasm during rape, so it really has nothing to do with attraction. However, an orgasm can cause attraction; if two strangers meet and have intercourse, oxytocin, dopamines and other crap are released in their brains which might result in a strong bond between the two and each time the two meet, these chemicals will be triggered (Pawlovian magic) making both "fall in love".