The Folly of Claiming Innate Kinkiness

Some kinksters proclaim that they were born kinky, that there’s something innate in them that makes them kinky. I contend that’s not at all useful or important.

Kinksters and the kink-curious, let me say upfront that you’ll need to read a bit into this post before getting to the gist of why I wrote it. But the setup feels necessary to me. While my newsletter page is dedicated to sexuality and relationships generally, much of my reading audience is from some sector of the kink communities and that’s specifically who I’m writing to here though much of what follows is also interesting regarding LGBTQ orientations.

In LGBTQ-related research and punditry, there is often a nature versus nurture debate. Are queer people born that way? Are queer sexualities and identities created as the result of outside factors? Is it some combination of the two?

I doubt this will be decided within my lifetime, if ever. That said, I don’t think it’s an entirely useful argument to have except in the most academic of settings. Academia loves prodding out such data regardless of its usefulness in the larger social sphere.

In her TED Talk, Dr. Lisa Diamond suggests that perhaps focusing on the born this way argument isn’t such a great thing for LGBTQ equality.

Within Diamond’s talk is a clue as to why fostering the born this way mindset seems helpful.

Surveys have found that people who view sexual orientation as an innate trait, like eye color, tend to be more supportive of LGBT rights. Now why is that? When asked, folks typically say “Well it’s just wrong to discriminate against someone for how they are born.” It’s like ethnic discrimination. So, it makes sense.

Diamond then goes on to list three problems with the born this way argument. It’s not scientifically accurate. It’s not a legal necessity. But it was the final problem that Diamond feels is most important. It’s unjust.

In her own sexual orientation research, Diamond discovered women who changed camps, so to speak, over the course of her 20-year study. People with one proclaimed sexual orientation would find themselves feeling entirely different many years later.

That wouldn’t be a problem except that many of those women told Diamond that they felt there must be something wrong with them. What those women had experienced didn’t fit with the conventional wisdom that our orientation is innate. People who come out late in life, perhaps after a heterosexual marriage, are often looked upon with some suspicion by others because they entirely buy into the born this way narrative.

Sometimes one’s sexual orientation expresses itself strongly and consistently early on. That was certainly the case for me having relatively little interest in women from as early as I can recall having an active sexual drive. But often, those early tendencies don’t turn out to be lifelong or always consistent. Plus, think of all the social and cultural factors that go into one’s orientation identity.

In a 2022 Gallup poll, they found that one in five Gen Z (those born from approximately 1996 to the early- to mid-2000s), identified themselves within the LGBTQ umbrella community. Are Gen Z people suddenly becoming more innately queer? I don’t think so. What it points to is social norms and societal permissions changing, thus allowing people to self-identify in ways that feel most authentic at the time.

Diamond points out that gender and sexual development demonstrate much more variability than most people realize or that the born this way argument suggests. Multiple studies from esteemed research institutions have concluded that our sexual attractions are more fluid than the born this way argument might suggest.

Even though there are some indications that there may be genetic contributions to sexual orientation, so what? What does that really contribute to the overall social discussion about orientation? Not much really except to appease those in our society who will only accept that someone is a “true” queer person if their orientation is entirely due to genetics.

An important caveat Diamond points out is that just because sexual orientation may not be determined exclusively genetically does not mean trying to change someone’s sexual orientation through conversion therapy works. It doesn’t. It’s damaging. It’s founded in hate, not love. There is nothing about conversion therapy that’s good. It’s ineffective, unethical, and harmful.

Diamond expands on her second reason for the born this way argument’s inappropriateness, that it’s legally unnecessary. I’m not going to say more about that here, but I do suggest people watch the entire video because it’s superb.

Finally, Diamond mentions that using the born this way argument is unjust. Perhaps it was a slice in time useful tool to procure LGBTQ rights when LGBTQ hatred was off the charts and all queer sex was considered disgusting and immoral by a wide swath of society. But times have changed, despite some rather horrific setbacks on LGBTQ rights of late. (Here’s my pitch to vote for Democrats to help stop the rollback of LGBTQ rights.)

LGBTQ people don’t want the pity that can often emanate from a born this way argument, our queerness being seen as an unfortunate fault that happens to be encoded into us. Rather, what queer people (everyone really, and that’s my main point I’ll get to momentarily) want and deserve is dignity, autonomy, and self-determination.

Also, the born this way argument is unjust because it implies that certain LGBTQ people who fit specific cultural stereotypes are more deserving of acceptance and equality. I’ve witnessed this myself living much of my life in a deeply entrenched all-gay life. I live in the gayest zip code in the United State by design, not chance. But that same all-gay-all-the-time culture can look askance at anyone who doesn’t fit the cultural stereotype of someone like me. Bisexual men in the midst of gay men’s culture have certainly felt this effect many times.

OK, thanks for staying with me. Now to my main point despite all that being quite fascinating.

Except for those academics who enjoy studying such things, those people who navigate within one or more of the various kink communities need to abandon talk about being born kinky, dominant, submissive, or any of the other such proclamations I often hear coming out of some kinksters’ mouths.

Why are such claims problematic?

For example, imagine two people who self-identify as dominants within some aspect of the power dynamics realm of the kink scene. One states they were born that way. The other states they developed their dominant interests later in life through exposure to information and kink culture. Trust me, the person proclaiming they were born that way is making an argument that their dominance is somehow “better” than the other person’s.

Verbiage you’ll sometimes hear in kink circles, especially in those realms in which power dynamics are an important component, is that they’re a “true” dominant or “real” submissive or something similar. Among those who strongly identify with that subset of kink now commonly referred to as leather, the same bullshit about a “real” or “true” leather person persists.

In my experience, this is all utter nonsense. And even if the born this kinky way argument held some statistical weight, it means absolutely nothing whatsoever in terms of judging who is a better kinkster or more worthy of inclusion in a community. We shouldn’t be ranking kinksters that way anyway.

Ultimately, it matters not one iota from a day-to-day sexuality or kink cultural standpoint whether someone was born kinky or developed their kinky proclivities through the happenstance of being in the right place at the right time. It simply doesn’t matter. It doesn’t. Each kinkster emerges into their own identity and sexuality in myriad ways and we need to stop judging the different paths people take.

All kinksters, regardless of how or why they got to where they are, deserve equal dignity, autonomy, and the right to self-determination.

You can use this link to access all my writings and social media and ways to support my work.