What do existentialists think of homosexual/gender compulsions?

[Ataraxia]

Existentialists like Sartre taught that "existence precedes essence"- meaning that people do not really have an essence, or true nature; that we are free to make any decisions we wish at any time. Such freedom is so radical that many of us don't want to face it. It gives us a "sense of vertigo" when in those rare moments we see the full extent of that freedom. Anyone who makes any claims that some option is not open to them because of appeals to some supposed inner essence or nature is acting in "bad faith". It is just an excuse.

"What is vertigo for Sartre? Vertigo is the realization of the totality of our freedom. And the realization of the totality of our freedom is necessarily related to the recognition of the fragility of our freedom. In other words, at any second I could decide to end my own existence. I have the absolute freedom to do so if I so wanted. And that is what makes the vertigo moment so unhinging. I realize I am in complete control of my life. That also means I can choose to end my life at any moment. Freedom includes the freedom to end freedom."
hesiodscorner.wordpress.com
Sartre: Vertigo (On the Fragility of Freedom)
One of the most famous sections in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness is his commentary over the moment of vertigo—dramatized with a person on the edge of cliffside looking down to his death below or h…
hesiodscorner.wordpress.com hesiodscorner.wordpress.com

But one of the arguments we hear from homosexuals is that they never chose to be homosexuals (or transgender, etc...). This seems to suggest that there is an inner compulsion, an inner nature, which makes them adapt that lifestyle. They do not have the freedom to choose their actions because it is part of the essence of who they are. To use existentialist terminology, their essence precedes their existence.

Is this, from an existentialist's perspective, acting in a sort of Sartrian "bad faith"? Any existentialists out there? How would Sartre, or any existentialist, respond to that claim by the homosexual?

[Agent Smith]

To the extent that I'm aware, LGBTQ is perfectly compatible with existentialism. That said, the OP asks a critical question that probes the existentialist creed's central thesis - as mentioned in the OP, freedom in its most recognizable form, self-determination . Is the notion I-can-be-whatever-I-want viable, the OP asks ... I hope.

The question that follows naturally is left as an exercise (me tryin' ta be cool) to those in whose footsteps I follow.

[Sculptor]

When I was about 11 or 12 I started to have an unquenchable desire for women. This was not the first time that my body had physically responded to the sight of womanhood, but at age 11 it became a daily experience.
At times it was quite an embarrassment, and would wake up having drempt about women, engorged and this would not subside for hours. My days were often distracted by the thought of sex and the lustrous hair and curves of a woman's body. This is the magic of nature.
Thankfully I went to a boys school so was free from the minute by minute pain of desire for classmates.

I did not ask for this to happen. It was automatic, innate, unbidden, unwanted.

Luckily the subject of my desire was the opposite sex..

Why would I ever think that this experience would not be the same for a homosexual? In other words NOT a choice , but an innate biological complusion?

So in the face of ridicule, and social ostracism, homosexuals who having to often be made to feel shame and hide their desire still despite all the negativities are still gay.
I have every reason to think that this is the same for trans, as well as gay and straight complusions.

It is so important to give all freedom to chose and to live their lives free from fear and bigotry.

[Agent Smith]

When I was about 11 or 12 I started to have an unquenchable desire for women. This was not the first time that my body had physically responded to the sight of womanhood, but at age 11 it became a daily experience.
At times it was quite an embarrassment, and would wake up having drempt about women, engorged and this would not subside for hours. My days were often distracted by the thought of sex and the lustrous hair and curves of a woman's body. This is the magic of nature.
Thankfully I went to a boys school so was free from the minute by minute pain of desire for classmates.

I did not ask for this to happen. It was automatic, innate, unbidden, unwanted.

Luckily the subject of my desire was the opposite sex..

Why would I ever think that this experience would not be the same for a homosexual? In other words NOT a choice , but an innate biological complusion?

So in the face of ridicule, and social ostracism, homosexuals who having to often be made to feel shame and hide their desire still despite all the negativities are still gay.
I have every reason to think that this is the same for trans, as well as gay and straight complusions.

It is so important to give all freedom to chose and to live their lives free from fear and bigotry.

Lovely!!

[Harbal]

So in the face of ridicule, and social ostracism, homosexuals who having to often be made to feel shame and hide their desire still despite all the negativities are still gay.
I have every reason to think that this is the same for trans, as well as gay and straight complusions.

It is so important to give all freedom to chose and to live their lives free from fear and bigotry.

I agree, homosexuality isn't a choice, but even if it were, I don't see why it should matter. If I were gay, I wouldn't give a toss what Sartre thought.

[Sculptor]

When I was about 11 or 12 I started to have an unquenchable desire for women. This was not the first time that my body had physically responded to the sight of womanhood, but at age 11 it became a daily experience.
At times it was quite an embarrassment, and would wake up having drempt about women, engorged and this would not subside for hours. My days were often distracted by the thought of sex and the lustrous hair and curves of a woman's body. This is the magic of nature.
Thankfully I went to a boys school so was free from the minute by minute pain of desire for classmates.

I did not ask for this to happen. It was automatic, innate, unbidden, unwanted.

Luckily the subject of my desire was the opposite sex..

Why would I ever think that this experience would not be the same for a homosexual? In other words NOT a choice , but an innate biological complusion?

So in the face of ridicule, and social ostracism, homosexuals who having to often be made to feel shame and hide their desire still despite all the negativities are still gay.
I have every reason to think that this is the same for trans, as well as gay and straight complusions.

It is so important to give all freedom to chose and to live their lives free from fear and bigotry.

Lovely!!

Cheers.
Apparently this POV makes me a woke moron.

[Sculptor]

So in the face of ridicule, and social ostracism, homosexuals who having to often be made to feel shame and hide their desire still despite all the negativities are still gay.
I have every reason to think that this is the same for trans, as well as gay and straight complusions.

It is so important to give all freedom to chose and to live their lives free from fear and bigotry.

I agree, homosexuality isn't a choice, but even if it were, I don't see why it should matter. If I were gay, I wouldn't give a toss what Sartre thought.

I'm not sue why Sartre has been included in the OP, but would hope that his existential musing might help us find the person we need to be.

[Agent Smith]

When I was about 11 or 12 I started to have an unquenchable desire for women. This was not the first time that my body had physically responded to the sight of womanhood, but at age 11 it became a daily experience.
At times it was quite an embarrassment, and would wake up having drempt about women, engorged and this would not subside for hours. My days were often distracted by the thought of sex and the lustrous hair and curves of a woman's body. This is the magic of nature.
Thankfully I went to a boys school so was free from the minute by minute pain of desire for classmates.

I did not ask for this to happen. It was automatic, innate, unbidden, unwanted.

Luckily the subject of my desire was the opposite sex..

Why would I ever think that this experience would not be the same for a homosexual? In other words NOT a choice , but an innate biological complusion?

So in the face of ridicule, and social ostracism, homosexuals who having to often be made to feel shame and hide their desire still despite all the negativities are still gay.
I have every reason to think that this is the same for trans, as well as gay and straight complusions.

It is so important to give all freedom to chose and to live their lives free from fear and bigotry.

Lovely!!

Cheers.
Apparently this POV makes me a woke moron.

There once was a teacher
He wasn't black or a preacher

[Impenitent]

Existentialists like Sartre taught that "existence precedes essence"- meaning that people do not really have an essence, or true nature; that we are free to make any decisions we wish at any time. Such freedom is so radical that many of us don't want to face it. It gives us a "sense of vertigo" when in those rare moments we see the full extent of that freedom. Anyone who makes any claims that some option is not open to them because of appeals to some supposed inner essence or nature is acting in "bad faith". It is just an excuse.

"What is vertigo for Sartre? Vertigo is the realization of the totality of our freedom. And the realization of the totality of our freedom is necessarily related to the recognition of the fragility of our freedom. In other words, at any second I could decide to end my own existence. I have the absolute freedom to do so if I so wanted. And that is what makes the vertigo moment so unhinging. I realize I am in complete control of my life. That also means I can choose to end my life at any moment. Freedom includes the freedom to end freedom."
hesiodscorner.wordpress.com
Sartre: Vertigo (On the Fragility of Freedom)
One of the most famous sections in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness is his commentary over the moment of vertigo—dramatized with a person on the edge of cliffside looking down to his death below or h…
hesiodscorner.wordpress.com hesiodscorner.wordpress.com

But one of the arguments we hear from homosexuals is that they never chose to be homosexuals (or transgender, etc...). This seems to suggest that there is an inner compulsion, an inner nature, which makes them adapt that lifestyle. They do not have the freedom to choose their actions because it is part of the essence of who they are. To use existentialist terminology, their essence precedes their existence.

Is this, from an existentialist's perspective, acting in a sort of Sartrian "bad faith"? Any existentialists out there? How would Sartre, or any existentialist, respond to that claim by the homosexual?

the essence (precariously defined) of any individual is a personal discovery that can only be found when one exists; existence precedes essence...

a given human animal is unlike any other given human animal (even fraternal twins) - although they are often stereotyped ...

acting upon preference isn't limited by essence

the "freely" chosen actions of a given individual are often the result of habit and motivation can easily be hidden/masked...

according to Sartre, only when one denies their freedom to act in a way other than they do, are they acting in bad faith...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpXNRrtuo38

-Imp

[Age]

Existentialists like Sartre taught that "existence precedes essence"- meaning that people do not really have an essence, or true nature; that we are free to make any decisions we wish at any time.

So, by just the act of teaching some 'thing', this then MEANS that 'the thing' that is being taught IS TRUE, correct?

Such freedom is so radical that many of us don't want to face it.

The ones who do NOT want to so-call 'face it' are just the ones who BELIEVE 'such freedom' does NOT exist. EVERY one "else" have 'faced it' and either agreed that 'such freedom' exists or just could NOT care less.

I am NOT sure that 'such freedom' is really that radical AT ALL.

It gives us a "sense of vertigo" when in those rare moments we see the full extent of that freedom.

WHY do 'you', and those "others", only have 'rare moments' of SEEING the full extent that 'you' and 'them' are FREE to make ANY decisions that 'you' and 'them' wish at ANY time?

And, how and why, EXACTLY, do those rare moments of SEEING that you have absolute FREEDOM, TO CHOOSE, cause a 'sense of vertigo'?

Also, and by the way, I thought that the FIRST time you REALIZED that you have absolute FREEDOM make CHOICES at absolutely AT TIME that 'you' are CONSCIOUS and AWARE, then that KNOWING would just LAST for as long as 'you' are AWARE and CONSCIOUS. I NEVER thought that you would KEEP FORGETTING, to only then just have 'rare moments' of AWARENESS when SEEING the FULL EXTENT of THE FREEDOM 'you' have of CHOOSING.

Anyone who makes any claims that some option is not open to them because of appeals to some supposed inner essence or nature is acting in "bad faith". It is just an excuse.

But SURELY 'the freedom', which you speak of here, IS an 'inner essence' or 'nature'?

If 'such freedom' is NOT an 'inner essence' NOR 'nature', then WHERE did 'it' COME FROM, EXACTLY, and HOW did 'it' START, EXACTLY?

"What is vertigo for Sartre? Vertigo is the realization of the totality of our freedom. And the realization of the totality of our freedom is necessarily related to the recognition of the fragility of our freedom. In other words, at any second I could decide to end my own existence. I have the absolute freedom to do so if I so wanted. And that is what makes the vertigo moment so unhinging.

WHY, EXACTLY, is the REALIZATION that one can just end 'its' own existence supposedly 'so unhinging', EXACTLY?

Is it also 'so unhinging' when one REALIZES that the could just end the existence of tens, hundreds, thousands, millions or even more "OTHER" human beings?

If yes, then WHY, EXACTLY?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

I realize I am in complete control of my life.

Okay, but have you REALIZED who and/or what the 'I' IS, EXACTLY, YET?

Also, when 'you' REALIZED that 'I' am in COMPLETE 'control of my life', did you also happen to chance REALIZE how big or small 'an area' 'my life' IS, EXACTLY?

That also means I can choose to end my life at any moment.

Which I would say most human beings, in the days when this is being written, from about the early teenager years have ALREADY WORKED OUT.

Freedom includes the freedom to end freedom."

WHY?

Does 'freedom' STOP for EVERY one "else" just because let us say 'you' for example CHOSE to 'end your life'?

If no, then WHERE, EXACTLY, does 'freedom' end?

What happens to 'freedom' once one ends 'their life'?

Surely it is NOT the end of 'freedom', itself, also?

hesiodscorner.wordpress.com
Sartre: Vertigo (On the Fragility of Freedom)
One of the most famous sections in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness is his commentary over the moment of vertigo—dramatized with a person on the edge of cliffside looking down to his death below or h…
hesiodscorner.wordpress.com hesiodscorner.wordpress.com

But one of the arguments we hear from homosexuals is that they never chose to be homosexuals (or transgender, etc...).

Well this is OBVIOUSLY False.

'Homosexuality', or having sex with one's own gender IS a behavior, and ALL behavior arises from 'thought/s' FIRST, which also includes CHOICES, and being attracted to one's own gender only is ALSO just a 'thought', which again included CHOICES.

Now, being FREE to make ANY decisions we wish at ANY time only applies to adult human beings. Children do NOT have the ABSOLUTE FREEDOM, and in a much BETTER 'world' they would also NEVER be made to FEEL like they have the RESPONSIBILITY that comes WITH ABSOLUTE FREEDOM.

But BECAUSE who one ends up be attracted to, romantically or sexually, arose and WAS LEARNED, USUALLY, in childhood, and USUALLY at a time earlier than when being FULLY AWARE or FULLY CONSCIOUS OF, which MAKES or PRODUCES a sense of 'I NEVER CHOSE TO BE THIS WAY'. Which, ultimately, IS True, but only BECAUSE children do NOT REALLY have A CHOSE in what 'Life' (for lack of a better word) THROWS AT them. USUALLY children ended up LEARNING to be 'the way' that they ended up being. HOWEVER, and a VERY BIG HOWEVER, as an adult one is ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE for ABSOLUTELY EVERY CHOICE they MAKE.

AND, WHO and/or WHAT one CHOOSES to have sex with or TO BE sexually or romantically 'attracted' to IS 'their' CHOICE and THEIR CHOICE, ALONE.

That IS; as an adult 'you' were ABSOLUTELY FREE to MAKE ALL OF the CHOICES that you HAVE MADE and WILL MAKE, and ABSOLUTELY NO one can MAKE 'your' CHOICES, FOR 'you'.

So, if for example, as adult and you WANT TO BE so-called a ''homosexual'', then by all means you are ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY FREE TO CHOOSE TO DO, BUT PLEASE REFRAIN FROM BLAMING some 'one/thing' ELSE FOR the CHOICES that 'you', ULTIMATELY, MAKE.

This seems to suggest that there is an inner compulsion, an inner nature, which makes them adapt that lifestyle. They do not have the freedom to choose their actions because it is part of the essence of who they are.

ABSOLUTE NO one has the FREEDOM to CHOOSE 'their actions'. BUT, ABSOLUTELY EVERY adult human being has the FREEDOM to CHOOSE EACH and EVERY one of 'their behaviors' or 'misbehavior'.

SEE, LEARNING the DIFFERENCE between 'actions' or, maybe more correctly, 'reactions' AND 'behavior' and 'misbehavior' helps in UNDERSTANDING ALL-of-'this' FULLY.

To use existentialist terminology, their essence precedes their existence.

ONCE 'examples' ARE PROVIDED, then we WILL have some 'thing' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS here.

Is this, from an existentialist's perspective, acting in a sort of Sartrian "bad faith"? Any existentialists out there? How would Sartre, or any existentialist, respond to that claim by the homosexual?

[Age]

When I was about 11 or 12 I started to have an unquenchable desire for women. This was not the first time that my body had physically responded to the sight of womanhood, but at age 11 it became a daily experience.
At times it was quite an embarrassment, and would wake up having drempt about women, engorged and this would not subside for hours. My days were often distracted by the thought of sex and the lustrous hair and curves of a woman's body. This is the magic of nature.
Thankfully I went to a boys school so was free from the minute by minute pain of desire for classmates.

I did not ask for this to happen. It was automatic, innate, unbidden, unwanted.

Luckily the subject of my desire was the opposite sex..

WHY do you say, 'luckily'?

Why would I ever think that this experience would not be the same for a homosexual? In other words NOT a choice , but an innate biological complusion?

BECAUSE of how STUPID and RIDICULOUS your CONCLUSION is here.

So in the face of ridicule, and social ostracism, homosexuals who having to often be made to feel shame and hide their desire still despite all the negativities are still gay.
I have every reason to think that this is the same for trans, as well as gay and straight complusions.

AND, what about for those who are sexually attracted to having sex with 'the dead' or with non human animals, for example?

It is so important to give all freedom to chose and to live their lives free from fear and bigotry.

What about for those who had NO choice, and have what you would call 'an innate biological compulsion' to rape "others"? Is it important to give 'them' all freedom to CHOOSE and to live their lives FREE from fear and bigotry?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then WHY NOT for 'these human beings'?

[Sculptor]

When I was about 11 or 12 I started to have an unquenchable desire for women. This was not the first time that my body had physically responded to the sight of womanhood, but at age 11 it became a daily experience.
At times it was quite an embarrassment, and would wake up having drempt about women, engorged and this would not subside for hours. My days were often distracted by the thought of sex and the lustrous hair and curves of a woman's body. This is the magic of nature.
Thankfully I went to a boys school so was free from the minute by minute pain of desire for classmates.

I did not ask for this to happen. It was automatic, innate, unbidden, unwanted.

Luckily the subject of my desire was the opposite sex..

WHY do you say, 'luckily'?

Because LGTBQ suffer from prejudice.

Why would I ever think that this experience would not be the same for a homosexual? In other words NOT a choice , but an innate biological complusion?

BECAUSE of how STUPID and RIDICULOUS your CONCLUSION is here.

So in the face of ridicule, and social ostracism, homosexuals who having to often be made to feel shame and hide their desire still despite all the negativities are still gay.
I have every reason to think that this is the same for trans, as well as gay and straight complusions.

AND, what about for those who are sexually attracted to having sex with 'the dead' or with non human animals, for example?

It is so important to give all freedom to chose and to live their lives free from fear and bigotry.

What about for those who had NO choice, and have what you would call 'an innate biological compulsion' to rape "others"? Is it important to give 'them' all freedom to CHOOSE and to live their lives FREE from fear and bigotry?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then WHY NOT for 'these human beings'?

FUCK OFF YOU MORON

[Sculptor]

AND, what about for those who are sexually attracted to having sex with 'the dead' or with non human animals, for example?

I am sorry you feel that complusion.

Clearly when there is no consentual outlet for your personal desire you can only have recourse to other means to control or direct your desires.

Have you considered using simulated manikins?
Maybe you could buy a blow up doll or other sex dol and make him look a bit more zombie like with make-up?

Do you want to talk about it?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

When I was about 11 or 12 I started to have an unquenchable desire for women. This was not the first time that my body had physically responded to the sight of womanhood, but at age 11 it became a daily experience.
At times it was quite an embarrassment, and would wake up having drempt about women, engorged and this would not subside for hours. My days were often distracted by the thought of sex and the lustrous hair and curves of a woman's body. This is the magic of nature.
Thankfully I went to a boys school so was free from the minute by minute pain of desire for classmates.

I did not ask for this to happen. It was automatic, innate, unbidden, unwanted.

Luckily the subject of my desire was the opposite sex..

WHY do you say, 'luckily'?

Because LGTBQ suffer from prejudice.

Why would I ever think that this experience would not be the same for a homosexual? In other words NOT a choice , but an innate biological complusion?

BECAUSE of how STUPID and RIDICULOUS your CONCLUSION is here.

So in the face of ridicule, and social ostracism, homosexuals who having to often be made to feel shame and hide their desire still despite all the negativities are still gay.
I have every reason to think that this is the same for trans, as well as gay and straight complusions.

AND, what about for those who are sexually attracted to having sex with 'the dead' or with non human animals, for example?

It is so important to give all freedom to chose and to live their lives free from fear and bigotry.

What about for those who had NO choice, and have what you would call 'an innate biological compulsion' to rape "others"? Is it important to give 'them' all freedom to CHOOSE and to live their lives FREE from fear and bigotry?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then WHY NOT for 'these human beings'?

FUCK OFF YOU MORON

You forgot the + dickhead. That's the aim. Have to be 'inclusive', and that means 'inclusive' of EVERYONE. Shove your 'queer theory' up your arse. Gays are divorcing themselves from your bullshit, ever-increasing acronym and standing up for women and women's rights, not to mention the children who are being brainwashed with pseudoscientific garbage and experimented on. Mengele would have been a hero today. Ed Gein would be considered perfectly normal. Men don't have to kill women any more to create their 'womanface' suits, they can buy latex 'womansuits' complete with faces. They go out in public like this. Yeeha. This is the 'new normal'. Anything goes.

[Age]

When I was about 11 or 12 I started to have an unquenchable desire for women. This was not the first time that my body had physically responded to the sight of womanhood, but at age 11 it became a daily experience.
At times it was quite an embarrassment, and would wake up having drempt about women, engorged and this would not subside for hours. My days were often distracted by the thought of sex and the lustrous hair and curves of a woman's body. This is the magic of nature.
Thankfully I went to a boys school so was free from the minute by minute pain of desire for classmates.

I did not ask for this to happen. It was automatic, innate, unbidden, unwanted.

Luckily the subject of my desire was the opposite sex..

WHY do you say, 'luckily'?

Because LGTBQ suffer from prejudice.

Why would I ever think that this experience would not be the same for a homosexual? In other words NOT a choice , but an innate biological complusion?

BECAUSE of how STUPID and RIDICULOUS your CONCLUSION is here.

So in the face of ridicule, and social ostracism, homosexuals who having to often be made to feel shame and hide their desire still despite all the negativities are still gay.
I have every reason to think that this is the same for trans, as well as gay and straight complusions.

AND, what about for those who are sexually attracted to having sex with 'the dead' or with non human animals, for example?

It is so important to give all freedom to chose and to live their lives free from fear and bigotry.

What about for those who had NO choice, and have what you would call 'an innate biological compulsion' to rape "others"? Is it important to give 'them' all freedom to CHOOSE and to live their lives FREE from fear and bigotry?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then WHY NOT for 'these human beings'?

FUCK OFF YOU MORON

Just as EXPECTED from one who has NOT REALLY CONSIDERED ALL 'things' here.

See, to this 'one', BECAUSE 'it' BELIEVES that 'it' is a so-called "heterosexual" BECAUSE being 'this way' WAS a so-called 'innate biological compulsion', then THEREFORE being so-called "homosexual", "transexual", and maybe "bisexual" also, these 'things' are ALSO 'innate biological compulsions AS WELL. BUT, from the 'FUCK OFF YOU MORON' quote, some might conclude that 'this one' here does NOT BELIEVE that ALL OTHER sexual or romantic attractions are NOT 'innate biological compulsions'. Which I now WONDER if 'this one' could in ANY WAY EXPLAIN WHY SOME 'sexual or romantic attractions' are 'PERFECTLY NORMAL innate biological compulsions' while other 'attractions' ARE NOT?

We will now just HAVE TO WAIT, to SEE.

Oh, and by the way, I have ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED the very reason WHY 'you' BELIEVE that 'your' sexual attraction IS just an 'innate biological compulsion', which, OBVIOUSLY 'it' is NOT.

The human species, like ALL species IS 'biologically, and thus innately, programmed, or compulsed if you like, TO PROCREATE. However, who and/or what 'one' ENDS UP being 'sexually attracted TO' IS a LEARNED response, to which they CAN or CAN NOT 'CHOOSE' to be CONTINUALLY ATTRACTED TO. That is; OF COURSE once 'that one' is Truly MATURE ENOUGH.