Because I was born a physiological male, I own a male sexuality: My natural inclinations to mating and dating are of a more narrow broadband than those born a female. Like other males (at least most), my brain is shallow in terms of folksing on looks. It can do with sex even without commitment; love and sex are two seperate components... I don't like this! Females have access to a much wider spectrum of rich feelings and love when it comes to dating and sex, something that I've envied for an extremely long time. I know that this may sound weird, but is it possible to switch sexuality? The problem with me is, I'm a sensualist, not to mention a heart rules over mind. The idea of sex based on looks and attraction, my biological inclination, just doesn't do it for me. Knowing myself, I the person would never act seriously on such an instinctual inclination, but I was just wondering if I can get rid of it, period. It's as serious as hurting my life, because when it comes to sex, I want to LOVE the person. Again, the love and the sex are two seperate components, so when I look for a date, I'll have to monitor myself and try my hardest to fuse these two components together (how successful I might be is a different story). It's freakin' annoying!! . :frown: :frown: :frown: I mean, this brain structure is such a naturally inclined whoremonger. Is there anything more that I can do about it than what I'm already doing?
Ok, if I understand correctly, you're a guy who wants to love someone and have a serious relationship rather than meaningless sex? Well plenty of guys are exactly the same, me for one. Sure I enjoy meaningless sex every once in a while, but one day I hope to fall in love and spend the rest of my life with someone, you don't have to be female to want that. Forgive me if I misunderstood, your post seemed a little confusing to my slow brain
I know how you feel, I often wish I had a more feminine mindset, but you really are fighting your masculine biology. Maybe some kind of hormonal treatment might make some kind of change in that department, but I really don't know. I've kind of given up on my desire to become the opposite sex, and resigned myself to this cage of flesh I was born into.
na-ah... Not what I mean. I can have a serious relationship (as a matter of fact, I would have a serious relationship). However, my natural neuro instinction of sex is just annoying. Meaningless sex is what I was getting at. Even though I don't have meaningless sex (except this one time, which totally made me feel depraved of myself), my sexuality is inclined to it. It's distroying my life, and I want to get rid of it.
LOL! The only masculinized part of my biology is this one alone. Every other part (at least mostly every other part), is feminized. I'm happy with my brain structure, just not this part of it. I want to get rid of it soo bad. Personally, my inner being and self awareness is a female. I don't have to become a physiological female to show that. :icon_wink But anyways... I don't think hormonal treatment will work. As it's known currently, the brain structure of humans are permanent once set at pre-birth.
In that case I prescribe masturbation, and lots of it! lol Seriously though, there's not much you can do to fight your animal urges, and actually a lot of women are the same. Remember if you feel that strongly about it no one can force you to have one night stands if you aren't comfortable with it
Bill, you offer really good advices, but I don't think you really understand the situation presented at hand. While I can do these things, my biological urge is what I'm getting at.
Well sorry I couldn't help much, I'm sure some others on here will grasp what you mean a little better than me or have been in a similar situation and will have some great advice for you, hope it works out for you
I think anyone can enjoy meaningless sex, the basis on which you have these encounters is what matters. On the same plane, anyone can have a sexual relationship built around love. I don't believe this has to do with gender. Also, girls do not never have urges and inclinations to go out and get laid. I have them, and I've never even had sex. I know you're focused on your BIOLOGICAL urges at this moment, and I'm sorry to say that there's not much you can do about them. There's probably some crazy drug out there to quell the sexual stirrings in people (if you've ever read The Giver, I'm talking about something like that.) But suppressing your sex drive is not natural. If you want to try something to get rid of it, try the rubber band method. I've done it for things before and it all depends on your pain tolerance if it works or not. Put a thick rubber band around your wrist and when you have your urges that you talk about, snap it hard. The theory behind it is that it will associate these with pain and thus quell them. I can't say how it works, I have a fairly high pain tolerance so of course it didn't do anything for me. Also, it could completely backfire (depending how masochistic you are) and make them stronger, or quell all sexual feelings. I don't really recommend doing that, so this probably sounds like horrid advice. But I tried.
Hormonal treatment and actually repeating to yourself in the mirror every day that you will grow to equate sex with love (or something to the effect).
I totally, absolutely, completely, and utterly do not believe that men are any more or less sexual than women biologically. The things you're talking about (the urge to just go have sex based purely on looks) might be founded in biology but the fact that as a guy you feel that urge more keenly than you think women do (and talk about overgeneralisations) is because guys are encouraged to be unattachmentedly sexual while women are taught to suppress that urge and seek "meaningful" relationships. You've framed the issue as if you're totally at the mercy of your masculinised biology, and if you think that way, you most certainly will be. The whole point of being human is that we're way more than our biology, but if you believe that there is nothing more to you than animal urges (which is ridiculous) then you might as well go live in the forest/jungle. I think you really need to approach the situation from a totally different perspective. If you stopped fighting/railing against your hormones, you might find you can better handle dealing with them. There's nothing wrong with being hot for a guy just because you find him sexually attractive. In fact, there's nothing wrong with doing a guy just because you find him sexually attractive--now if that's how you live your whole life, you might want to pause and reflect. But if you occasionally indulge in some meaningless sex, what's wrong with that? Who said sex has to be romantic and meaningful ALL the time? Oh wait.. Christianity... but then it says tons of stuff that is appalling stupid, so I wouldn't give it much credit on this one.
Might I add to this thread that some of the lesbians I've met in my life have more sexually active (I'm talking promiscuous sex here) than most gay men I know.
I know I may not be very helpful, but this is what I think. Personally, before I ever had sex with a guy, I'd want to get to know him first. I'm actually kind of jealous of someone who is naturally inclined to have meaningless sex because I wish I could have that instinct. I think if you just let your first instinct of wanting to have sex with the woman wear off, you might be able to get over just wanting to have sex with her immediately, and get to know her a little better and have meaningful sex. I know it's hard to resist temptations, but sometimes you just got to do it, especially if you know it's not what you really want.
JoeConnick, thanks for your reply. However, while you seem to have gotten this better than Bill9854 and Jersey4Life did by a slight, I don't think you understand the situation presented at hand either. I didn't say men were more sexual than women due to biological urges, nor was I speaking of a "Masulinized" biology (I was a bit insulted when this was said a few times, because I really don't have one beyond my physiological appearance and perhaps certain biological activities, but this is off-topic anyways). Lastly, my hormones were not the problem to begin with. I'm not very sexually active, if anything. I was speaking purely about the sexual brain structures of a human being. Science was what I was getting at exclusively. Really, my problem was simply this: woman and men possess two different sexual biologies. Those who are born a male (XY), reguardless of sexual orientation, will have an inborn male sexuality; those who are born a female (XX) will have an inborn female sexuality. Roughly, the spectrum of female sexuality is wider and has access to emotional feelings, while males possess a more narrower spectrum; the emotional feelings for males is a seperate component from the sexual component. I, either by biology or choice (or a mix), am a sensualist. From what scientific texts describe, female sexuality would apeal to me more and I think it fits my very perception of what sex should personally be for me. However, it's out of reach! That was all I was getting at. I was simply wondering if present technology allows such a switch as male to female sexuality (and vice versa). My whole talk about this hurting my life was perhaps wildly-exxaggerated, and I understand it might have contributed to some of the misunderstanding of my problem. Lastly, while I have been a Christian in the past, Christianity doesn't have anything to do with my being a sensualist. Concluding, male sexuality, as I understand, is just another beautiful creation of God or nature (depending on your religious stance). However, because of who I am sexually, it just doesn't work for me.
Jersey4Life, thanks for your reply as well. However, "meaningful sex" wasn't quite what I was getting at. I understand how you might have misunderstood. I explained all I needed to in my previous post to JoeConnick, so if you read everything that I said there, I think you might understand my situation better. If I may say so, I consider sex an important activity in my life, and it will be extremely important to the intimacy that my future life-time husband and I will share. There is barely a doubt he and I will have monogamous meaningful sex with him, love included. But again, this is something different from my problem which I speak.
I didn't mean to point finger if anyone felt that way, so I apologize if anyone took offense to that. Really, a lot of people didn't understand at first what I was really talking about. They believed the situation I presented was that I wanted meaningful sex but was biological inclined to casual sex, or something along that line. NO, not at all! I re-explained everything in my post to JoeConnick, so if you read that, you might understand better what I mean. But thank you for everyone's reply and attempt to help. And if I may point out, Guitargirl was the closest to answering my question. Although, girl, urges wasn't quite what I was getting at either. Not quite.
I think I do... you and I just totally disagree about how much of human behaviour/urges/desires/whatever depend on biology. That's exactly what my phrase a "masculinised biology" is encompassing. I wasn't talking about you specifically. The "sexual brain structures" phrase you use implies you believe your sexuality is rendered/defined/influenced by your biology, and more importantly by a biology defined as male/masculine. I used "masculinised" to try to imply that science has been done for generations by men who had incredibly strong bias towards the idea that men and woman are nearly separate species. So I used "masculinised" because the notion that there are masculine/male biogical characteristics and feminine/female ones is totally a HUMAN construction and if there's ANYTHING humans are biased about and is subtly shot through society, it's gender. Please note I don't mean to say there aren't biological differences between men and women. But to claim this: is incredibly reductive... we already know that pure genetics does not come close to explaining all the variations seen in nature, let alone humans. There are, for a start, more chromosomal variations than you've listed, and there's womb-time exposure to hormones, and then once we're born there's the whole "nurture" half of the "nurture vs. nature" debate. To claim that: is pretty presumptuous because you're claiming there's only 2 (roughly) sexual spectrums for everyone and that they're 100% determined by one's biology, i.e. in your definition by what chromosomes we possess. You're limiting yourself (and me, and every other guy) by insisting that for men, sex and emotion are two totally separate things and I can assure you, for me, that is not true at all. That isn't to say people can't compartmentalise their sexual and affectional feelings, and maybe--even likely--men can do it better than women in our society, but the chances that the ability to do that is chromosomally-based is, well, pretty unlikely if you ask me. Conversely, you're also limiting women by insisting that for them, sex and emotion are always one and the same. So then with that assumption any woman who enjoys casual sex by definition becomes abnormal. No, it's not out of reach. That's what I was getting at: it's only "out of reach" if you subscribe to a purely biological, exceptionally narrow, and completely divorced from the complexity of human nature view of humanity, the same thinking, as it happens, that proclaims that homosexuality is "unnatural" because obviously men and women "fit better" and were "designed" for procreation. It's called biological determinism. It is, in my opinion of course, pretty stupid. However, they still teach it and its assumptions, as we see here from your discussion of "scientific texts," pervade our literature, our science, our religion, everything. It sounds FAR more likely to me that you are enamoured with the idealised (and femininised, as it so happens) view of love/romance (that sex and partnership should be about emotions, not "base" urges/lusts/physical yearnings)--which is a completely normal, ordinary thing because as Disney and a thousand other sources tell us, this is the epitome of love/romance. And yet you are physically drawn to guys you either don't know (or do know and don't really like or respect) or don't have "higher" feelings for and so you feel ashamed/guilty that you are "betraying" your own ideals--and "betraying" them in the worst way, by feeling sexual towards these guys. And if you do indeed have a Christian background (as many of us do, not simply just churchgoers, because Christian default values are super-highly promoted in Western culture), it is not any kind of a leap to say that there is a default guilt associated with feeling unabashedly sexual about anyone, and so we try, generally, to rid ourselves of this shame by insisting that sex be married to love. So in your case, you know you're not "in love" and you want some kind of explanation for how this could be because you know you're not a bad person... and that's where the narrowly scientific dogma of biological determinism comes to your "rescue," because it conveniently states that for men, sex is "naturally, biologically" divorced from emotion by way of the (biological) structure of our brain. However, it doesn't really "rescue" you because then this new(ly discovered) biologically-determined you is still at odds with your beliefs that sex and love should work in concert/be partners. So there's two things you have to realise: you are labouring under two really fundamental "teachings" of a white Western society: that sex is fundamentally unclean or at least a lot less desirable than "purer" "higher" emotions like love and compassion; and that sex is only appropriate in the context of love. And what I guess I was trying to get at is that if you can only realise that sex for sex's sake is not a bad thing, then you will be free to pursue your (internalised) ideal that sex should involve love because you'll recognise that if you have purely sexual feelings, it's not you betraying your ideals or you just "being a man," it's you being human and having the capacity for sexual arousal. It seems to me it's the fighting against our sexual urges that causes a lot more internal conflict than simply sitting down with ourselves and saying, "You know what? I have sexual urges, sometimes for people who would be incredibly wrong matches for me--and that's okay because if there's anything I'm 'biologically determined for,' it's sexual arousal." If we don't do this kind of inventory, it's like we're abdicating our free will. Yes, we are biological beings--I mean, obviously. But the notion that we all "work" the same way owing to our purportedly shared biology is not a very usual assumption.
