Political Crossfire Forums

[ToonArmyIsComing]

We always hear "scientists" do research on what causes homosexuality ... if one is born with it or one is "recruited" to be gay at a later time. However, in all this rush to study homosexuals [and possibly to use these studies to eradicate them], there seems to a be a lack of focus on heterosexuality and its causes. This is a typical of many biases in "science" and it shows that at the end of the day "science" is a political tool more than anything else because what is chosen to be studied and corrected is a choice of the "scientist", albeit constrained by the nature.

Quote: Born gay or made gay?
New research claiming gayness is biologically determined does not add up. Something as complex as human sexual life is bound to evolve from a multiplicity of factors.

Why are scientists so preoccupied with what causes homosexuality, to the near-total exclusion of the factors that lead to heterosexuality? I don't object to research into sexual orientation. It is the one-sided obsession that bugs me.
The presumption seems to be that straightness is normal and therefore does not need explanation; whereas queerdom is a deviation from the norm and this requires investigation and answers.
The latest theory of why gays are gay suggests that birth order influences male sexual orientation. According to new research by Anthony Bogaert, a psychologist at Brock University in Canada, gay men tend to have older brothers. Indeed, the more biological older brothers a man has, the greater his likelihood of being gay.

This leads Bogaert to conclude that a man's sexual orientation is influenced by the conditions in his mother's womb when he was a foetus; with successive male children triggering changes in the mother's body that increase the chances that subsequent male children will be gay. This so-called fraternal gay birth effect creates a prenatal environment that fosters homosexuality in younger sons.
Nice theory, shame about the exceptions. I hate to rain on Bogaert's research, but I am a first-born son and definitely capital GAY. Oh well, never mind. There are bound to be exceptions. Just because I don't personally fit his theory doesn't automatically invalidate it.
If Bogaert is saying that birth order may be a factor that influences sexual orientation, I have no problem with that. His research does, indeed, suggest that the order of male birth may impact on whether a man is gay or not.
But impacting or influencing sexuality is not the same as causing or determining it. Something as complex and pivotal as human emotional and sexual life is bound to evolve from a multiplicity of factors, rather than from any single, simple origin.
Bogaert's research is the latest in a long line of theses that argue people are "born gay". They posit sexuality as being a biological given.
Other biological determinist models of gayness suggest that same-sex attraction is largely or entirely determined by our genes and hormonal influences in the womb. It is an innate desire, fixed at birth. Forget Freudian theory and all the other psycho-babble. Biology is destiny.
This was the central thesis of the recent book, Born Gay, by Glenn Wilson, a reader at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, and Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in psychobiology at the University of East London. Their book is easily the best summary of evidence from dozens of biological studies into the causes and correlates of homosexuality.
They conclude that sexual orientation is overwhelmingly innate. Social or family influences have little or no impact. Blaming parents and childhood upbringing for a child's gayness is mistaken and unfair. The idea that people become gay by seduction or choice is, they say, not supported by scientific research and empirical evidence.
I agree. No one sits down one day and decides to be gay - or straight. Most lesbians and gays say they felt "different" from a very young age, long before they had any awareness of sexual desire. While this suggests that sexuality is formed unconsciously by early childhood at the latest, it does not necessarily mean we are born with a pre-fixed sexual orientation.
The authors are right to say that biological factors play a role. Studies of identical twin brothers show that in 52% of cases where one twin is gay the other twin is also gay. This is a much higher concordance than the 2% to 10% distribution of gay people in the general population, as recorded by various sex surveys. It suggests a significant genetic component in the causality of homosexuality - and, presumably, in the origins of heterosexuality as well.
Wilson and Rahman argue the other determinant of sexual orientation is hormonal exposure during pregnancy. They document studies showing differences between gay and straight people with respect to a number of physiological traits that are associated with hormonal influences. These include physique, hearing, brain structure, finger lengths, penis size (gay men tend to be better endowed than straight men), and the age of puberty (on average lesbians mature later than straight women, and gay men earlier than heterosexual men).
This is convincing stuff, but not entirely so. If genes determine our sexual orientation we would expect that in cases of identical twins where one was gay the other would be gay too - in every case. But, in fact, in only just over half the cases are both twins gay. The same lack of complete concordance is found in hormone-associated physical attributes. Not all gay men, for example, have a larger than average penis.
These exceptions lead me to conclude that while genes and hormones may, like male birth order, predispose a person to a particular sexual orientation, they do not determine it. They are significant influences, not the sole cause. Other factors are also at work. Social expectations, cultural values and peer pressure, for instance, help push many of us towards heterosexuality. Without these pro-straight influences, more people might be lesbian, gay or bisexual.
Wilson and Rahman's biological determinist thesis has another major flaw. If we are all born either gay or straight, how do they explain people who switch in mid-life from fulfilled heterosexuality to fulfilled homosexuality (and vice versa)?
The singer Tom Robinson was a happy, well-adjusted gay man who, to his own surprise, one day met and fell in love with a woman. He is now equally happy and well-adjusted in his straight relationship. If he was hard-wired at birth to desire men, how can he now desire women?
The authors have no credible explanation for bisexuality; claiming it barely exists. Some research measuring sexual arousal shows that men who claim to be bisexual are predominantly turned on by other men, not women. But this is highly suspect. Swapping gossip with the girlfriend of a man who was previously my long-term lover, we agree he was definitely aroused by both the male and female form; equally delighted and sexually voracious with a **** or a ****.
Much as I would love to go along with the fashionable "born gay" consensus (it would be very politically convenient), I can't. The evidence does not support the idea that sexuality is a fixed biological given.
Wilson and Rahman inadvertently reinforce my doubts. As evidence that people do not become gay by seduction, they cite the example of the Sambia tribe in New Guinea. Cultural expectations dictate that from puberty until their late teens all young boys have sex with an unmarried male warrior as part of their rite of passage to manhood. Once their initiation into the manly arts of hunting and fishing is completed, they become warriors and initiate the next generation of male youths. Then they turn straight, find a bride and marry.
If sexuality was predetermined by genes and hormones (or by Bogaert's male birth order effect), it would be impossible for young Sambian males to switch to homosexuality and then back to heterosexuality with such apparent ease. This suggests there is an element of flexibility in sexual orientation, and that cultural traditions and social mores are also influential factors. In an enlightened, gay-affirming society, more people might be inclined to explore same-sex desire.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2006/06/born_gay_or_made_gay.html

[spearsy23]

if you find out what causes homosexuality you find out what causes heterosexuality.

[cap'n queasy]

Heterosexuality is how humans reproduce. These studies are to find out why sometimes an abnormlity is present in this mechanism.

[Aim-64C]

I have/had a friend (haven't seen her in a long time) who was a lesbian - but then decided that she wasn't, and then was straight, then moved to live with her dad - so I don't know anymore.

She was most likely confused to begin with. Her mom would not let her date guys - darn near paranoid of them (but her guy-life was .... well... you get the idea...). However, I quickly got the impression that she was closer friends with me than she was with her girlfriend. That doesn't determine arousal - that's kinda hard to determine, given her nature - which is a goofy series of jokes with sexual connotations.

From every experience I have had with people - I have always come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a psychological mechanism, rather than a physical one. It can have many different causes and roots - like asking someone when they first showed interest in their carreer (which is, hopefully, what they're interested in).

[Demonic Spoon]

...Hormones.

[Æ]

Probably a genetic predisposition to pheromones of the opposite sex.

[F'losrix]

Interesting article, though I find a couple of the premises questionable:

1) Quote: Social expectations, cultural values and peer pressure, for instance, help push many of us towards heterosexuality. Without these pro-straight influences, more people might be lesbian, gay or bisexual.

This doesn't wash. People turn out gay despite growing up in environments where:

- The social expectation is that everyone is supposed to grow up straight and get heterosexually married.

- The culture values heterosexuality and devalues homosexuality.

- They face enormous peer pressure to conform to the heterosexual model.

There definitely has to be something more operating to determine orientation than mere social expectation, cultural values and peer pressure.

Unless heterosexuals know something they aren't confessing to, then I have to believe that their orientation isn't the outcome of social expectation, cultural values or peer pressure, either.

2) Quote: If sexuality was predetermined by genes and hormones (or by Bogaert's male birth order effect), it would be impossible for young Sambian males to switch to homosexuality and then back to heterosexuality with such apparent ease.
I'll agree that Boogaert's conclusions from the research are questionable. That doesn't mean that we should so easily swallow the premise put forth by the author of this article that orientation determines behavior. We know that sometimes gay men still get heterosexually married, stay heterosexually married, produce and raise children. It doesn't make them heterosexual in orientation, only in behavior. Behavior does not equal Orientation. That being the case, I don't find his example from Sambian culture all that surprising, nor enlightening on the matter.

I think most of us can agree that the results from studies of identical twins offer proof that orientation isn't 100% genetics. This doesn't mean that genetics and/or biology aren't strong factors influencing the orientation of many (though clearly not all) gay men.

Can you socialize someone to engage in homosexual behavior? Sure. Does that make them gay in orientation? No.

The only thing we clearly know at this point:

1) Most gay people don't have any recollection of making choices that would have led them to develop a homosexual orientation.

2) For most people, their orientation is NOT something they can change. Many have tried and failed, sometimes with disastrous results. Exceptions to the rule are just that - exceptions - and we don't even know why they're exceptions.

Assertion: It's highly unlikely that one can develop an effective 'therapy' to 'cure' homosexuality if one doesn't have a solid understanding of the possibly many elements that play a role in its development as an orientation. There is no scientific basis for saying we possess such an understanding at this time.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: This doesn't wash. People turn out gay despite growing up in environments where:

- The social expectation is that everyone is supposed to grow up straight and get heterosexually married.

- The culture values heterosexuality and devalues homosexuality.

- They face enormous peer pressure to conform to the heterosexual model.

There definitely has to be something more operating to determine orientation than mere social expectation, cultural values and peer pressure.

Unless heterosexuals know something they aren't confessing to, then I have to believe that their orientation isn't the outcome of social expectation, cultural values or peer pressure, either.

The fact though remains that culture plays a HUGE part in how sexuality manifests itself. In cultures where homosexuality coexists with heterosexuality, people fullfill their roles in the traditional family units while at the same time engage in sexual activity with the members of the same sex.

[F'losrix]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: The fact though remains that culture plays a HUGE part in how sexuality manifests itself. In cultures where homosexuality coexists with heterosexuality, people fullfill their roles in the traditional family units while at the same time engage in sexual activity with the members of the same sex.
Agreed.

[George W Bush]

This issue is far from being so black and white. That is, no side is wrong when it comes to what is natural, or what is not.

Its then a matter of individuals ideals. Reject societies ideals and do what feels good. If you dont like the feelings of BEING GAY, you can change if you want to.

[Mare Tranquillity]

From every experience I have had with people - I have always come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a psychological mechanism, rather than a physical one. It can have many different causes and roots - like asking someone when they first showed interest in their carreer (which is, hopefully, what they're interested in). Quote:

There seems to be a very common misconception that being heterosexual or homosexual is a black and white distinction. People actually fall onto a very classic Bell curve where sexual orientation is concerned. A lot of people are out on the ends of the curve and are unchangably hetero or homo sexual, but the majority of people fall somewhere in the middle and under the right circumstances can go both ways. The immense pressure that this culture puts on people to be heterosexual tends to push the top of the Bell curve off to the hetero end of the spectrum thus weighting the evidence towards the Christian contention that it is only a tiny minority of degenerate people who choose to be homosexual.

There is an excellent DVD available called A BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR HUMAN SEXUAL ORIENTATION based on the research of Cynthia Chappell, PhD. She is a researcher who has two sons, one of whom is gay. Wishing to understand more about the issue she researched the scientific literature to find out what science has discovered. There is a lot more known about the genesis of homosexual behavior than is getting any air-time in the popular press. Her presentation is very straight forward and in no way inflammatory, in fact her slightly dry, scientific approach lends credibility to her words.

[F'losrix]

George W Bush wrote: Reject societies ideals and do what feels good. If you dont like the feelings of BEING GAY, you can change if you want to.
These are misconceptions. Gay people are not being homosexual in orientation because it 'feels good', nor are we all 'selfish hedonists' (quoting Allen Keyes) nor as a rejection of 'society's ideals'. Most of us actually subscribe to the bulk of them (which is why we're having such a fight over the issue of marriage - but that's for a different thread).

It doesn't matter how much one hates being gay in orientation - it's not something one can change 'at will', as you seem to be suggesting. If it were that simple, there'd be a lot fewer gay people, as we're taught by society to hate what we are, and conforming to the heterosexual model would remove a number of legal roadblocks.

Nor would most gay people succeed at pursuing exclusively heterosexual behavior in opposition to our orientation. It's a thoroughly unreasonable demand to make of us.

We do not consciously choose to be attracted to others of our own gender. Unless heterosexuals know something they're not telling the rest of us, I have to assume that they don't choose to be attracted to the opposite gender. Seriously - do you really believe that attraction is a learned behavior? How does one 'learn' to be heterosexual, and why do some people 'fail' to learn that lesson? It's certainly not from a lack of exposure to positive heterosexual role models (my own parents have been married 61 years, so I hardly think I lacked an example).

[sparsely]

I say f**k them all, it doesn't matter.

Regardless of the cause, if two people choose to know each other that well physically, there's no one that could or should stop them.
Sex is not merely some perfunctory function, it's enjoyable and personal and whatnot. Babies will continue to be made, rest assured.

To amplify the point I'd like to make, imagine a incestuous relationship with either your parent or sibling of the opposite sex.
Most people cringe at the thought. While we may be attracted to almost every other member of the opposite sex we see, we place certain
boundaries around the types of relationships we allow ourselves to form with other people.
These maybe be groups like family members, or even entire sexes.
Is this good?
I dunno. can't really say.
Does it seem healthy, right, and normal for people to choose who they enjoy having relationships with, and to what level they'd like to pursue those?
I think so.

I think it's all about choice.
I mean...I'm not saying I'd do it but why is it against the law to f**k a chicken, but not to kill it :?

[George W Bush]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: George W Bush wrote: Reject societies ideals and do what feels good. If you dont like the feelings of BEING GAY, you can change if you want to.
These are misconceptions. Gay people are not being homosexual in orientation because it 'feels good', nor are we all 'selfish hedonists' (quoting Allen Keyes) nor as a rejection of 'society's ideals'. Most of us actually subscribe to the bulk of them (which is why we're having such a fight over the issue of marriage - but that's for a different thread).

It doesn't matter how much one hates being gay in orientation - it's not something one can change 'at will', as you seem to be suggesting. If it were that simple, there'd be a lot fewer gay people, as we're taught by society to hate what we are, and conforming to the heterosexual model would remove a number of legal roadblocks.

Nor would most gay people succeed at pursuing exclusively heterosexual behavior in opposition to our orientation. It's a thoroughly unreasonable demand to make of us.

We do not consciously choose to be attracted to others of our own gender. Unless heterosexuals know something they're not telling the rest of us, I have to assume that they don't choose to be attracted to the opposite gender. Seriously - do you really believe that attraction is a learned behavior? How does one 'learn' to be heterosexual, and why do some people 'fail' to learn that lesson? It's certainly not from a lack of exposure to positive heterosexual role models (my own parents have been married 61 years, so I hardly think I lacked an example).

Attraction to the opposite sex/same sex is not always as engrained in genetics as you would like to believe. There are people who have made transitions between either side.

Therefore, it all depends on what the person wants. If its to resonate with the common norm, why is that something bad? If its to be gay and reject the common norm, why is that something bad? Either way, a person must do what makes them feel good.

Is attraction a learned behavior? I believe it can be. A boy who never hears about how good it feels to have his organ lodged between the legs of a very well endowed blonde will not understand the value of it without trying it.

But, lets not assume sexuality is a science. I disagree that people are either straight or gay. were all potentially gay or straight every single second of our lives because we cant be certain what will 'turn us on' as life goes by. We can generalise about how we usually react. But, I believe its wrong to say you can NEVER be straight or gay because of your current mindset. Ultimately, it is up to you to decide what feels good and to go with it. You give society a little too much power when you say society is to blame for people wanting to change themselves to straight. Since were social creatures, it may be worthy for the person to become straight. But, that is their choice. Society didnt force them.

[F'losrix]

George W Bush wrote: Attraction to the opposite sex/same sex is not always as engrained in genetics as you would like to believe.
I’m on record as saying we don’t know for sure to what extent genetics plays a role. That said, it isn’t as flexible as you would like to believe, either.

George W Bush wrote: There are people who have made transitions between either side.
A minority of people are closer to being truly bisexual in orientation. People who 'transition' from one orientation to the other are either somewhat bisexual in orientation, or changing behavior to better fit their actual orientation. Seriously - there's no shortage of gay men - and it's probably even more common for lesbians - who have tried to conform to heterosexual behavior in opposition to their orientation. That you think something else is going on here tells me that you're clinging stubbornly to a theory about sexuality that has no basis in reality in my experience.

George W Bush wrote: Therefore, it all depends on what the person wants.
NO, IT DOES NOT! Do you really think that gay people want to be gay? You have absolutely no freaking idea what we go through in the struggle to come to terms with our difference in orientation.. I did not want to be a homosexual. I tried to overcome it, change it, suppress it. None of those efforts succeeded. Many aspects of my life would be considerably easier if I wasn't gay.

George W Bush wrote: If its to resonate with the common norm, why is that something bad? If its to be gay and reject the common norm, why is that something bad? Either way, a person must do what makes them feel good.
It isn't about what 'makes us feel good'. It's about the only way that we can have a fulfilling relationship with another person. If it was merely about doing what feels good, I'd be out shagging anyone willing to participate. Instead I was celibate for five years (which I can assure you, didn’t feel good) before settling down in a monogamous relationship with my current partner.

George W Bush wrote: Is attraction a learned behavior? I believe it can be.
And I believe you're totally nuts if you believe that.

Edit: Well, not totally nuts. Certainly misguided if you're trying to say that one's core orientation is a totally learned behavior. How would one 'learn' such a thing? I certainly don't know of anyone making an active, conscious effort to teach it!

George W Bush wrote: A boy who never hears about how good it feels to have his organ lodged between the legs of a very well endowed blonde will not understand the value of it without trying it.
That is such BS that it’s not even worthy of a reasoned response.

George W Bush wrote: But, lets not assume sexuality is a science. I disagree that people are either straight or gay. were all potentially gay or straight every single second of our lives because we cant be certain what will 'turn us on' as life goes by.
Maybe that’s how it works for you – but I can assure you that’s not the case for me. I know what turns me on and what doesn’t.

George W Bush wrote: We can generalise about how we usually react. But, I believe its wrong to say you can NEVER be straight or gay because of your current mindset.
You’re attempting to make a subtle argument here that would blur the lines between behavior vs. orientation. For example, if one plies the average male – gay or straight - with just the right amount of alcohol, you stand a pretty good chance of being able to interest them in sexual behavior they wouldn’t normally pursue. Does engaging in that behavior make them suddenly the opposite of their usual orientation? No, because behavior isn’t orientation. Orientation describes how a person will generally react – you can’t just divorce it from this concept to say someone might be gay for one night and then go back to being straight the rest of the time. That isn’t a change in orientation, it’s a temporary aberration in behavior more likely based on an urge for sexual gratification being influenced by extenuating circumstances, than on feeling a strong attraction to someone of the same gender as the very core of your sexuality.

George W Bush wrote: Ultimately, it is up to you to decide what feels good and to go with it. You give society a little too much power when you say society is to blame for people wanting to change themselves to straight. Since were social creatures, it may be worthy for the person to become straight. But, that is their choice. Society didnt force them.
Is it a choice to conform one’s behavior to the pressures of society? Sure – but for a lot of people it doesn’t feel like they have much choice at all. But again, behavior is NOT orientation. The specific behavior pursued is usually the manifestation of one’s orientation, but not always.

I will never understand people who can’t distinguish between behavior and orientation. Didn’t you know you liked girls before you actually engaged in the behavior? Are heterosexual feelings something that ambush a person out of the blue? Or do you pursue behavior based on the fact that you’re overwhelmingly oriented on the opposite sex as the objects of your affection and attraction in the first place?

Is being heterosexual something you have to learn, not something that comes naturally to straight people? I tried to learn how to become a heterosexual, and it just never worked for me. Being homosexual in orientation is what came ‘naturally’ to me – it wasn’t something I had to actively think about. I didn’t have to learn how to be attracted to other men – I just always have been.

So what did cause you to be heterosexual (or bisexual) in orientation? The way some people talk, I'm beginning to wonder if it's viral (j/k).

[Arcenius I]

What causes heterosexuality??

A mental illess or a mental belief which states that the only purpose to life is to procreate the next generation. The flaw with heterosexuality is that it is based upon the belief that it is the only way humanity can survive. That, however, is far from reality. While it may take two OPPOSITE gametes to create new life, heterosexual sex between a male and female is NOT needed to create new life. Thus, I see no usefullness in heterosexuality.

When you consider the other alternative methods of creating a child that does not involve sexual intercourse between a male and female, the current method we use to procreate seems rather useless and slow.

I would much rather see research done on how to produce genetically engineered babies without the requirement of a vagina in the first place, but rather an artifical womb, which can most certainly create healhtier, bigger, taller, more sophisticated human beings.

Heterosexuality made sense back in the good old days, where technology had no means to provide us other methods to reproduce. Now that it does...

After all, a woman is used for creation, and a man is used for recreation.

[George W Bush]

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
George W Bush wrote: Therefore, it all depends on what the person wants.
NO, IT DOES NOT! Do you really think that gay people want to be gay? You have absolutely no freaking idea what we go through in the struggle to come to terms with our difference in orientation.. I did not want to be a homosexual. I tried to overcome it, change it, suppress it. None of those efforts succeeded. Many aspects of my life would be considerably easier if I wasn't gay.


So, youve chosen to accept your homosexuality. That is exactly what I am referring to when saying it depends on what you want.
I'll say it again: if you want to change, you can. That is the power of will. To deny it, youve resigned to the fact that you do not have the will to change something you dislike about yourself.

In anticipation of this response: "well, can males become women at will"
Yes. Physically, however, surgery is needed. Until then, men can dress as women and act as womenly as THEY CHOOSE.


Skeptical Mystic wrote:
It isn't about what 'makes us feel good'. It's about the only way that we can have a fulfilling relationship with another person. If it was merely about doing what feels good, I'd be out shagging anyone willing to participate. Instead I was celibate for five years (which I can assure you, didn’t feel good) before settling down in a monogamous relationship with my current partner.


Of course its about what feels good, and that is not primarily sexual gratification. Why were you monogamous? Something in you wanted that. You can only blame yourself unless someone had you locked away without the ability to meet like-minded folks, for your monogamy.

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
George W Bush wrote: Is attraction a learned behavior? I believe it can be.
And I believe you're totally nuts if you believe that.

Edit: Well, not totally nuts. Certainly misguided if you're trying to say that one's core orientation is a totally learned behavior. How would one 'learn' such a thing? I certainly don't know of anyone making an active, conscious effort to teach it!


I'll tell you how I understand it
Growing up, boys will idolise their fathers or their favorite comic book character.
Note the beginning of the following sentence: Many gay men ... have grown up in various situations where their fathers have been absent either physically or mentally/emotionally.
As they grow older, the idolisation can turn sexual: they have these feelings for other men. needs unmet in childhood.
This isnt an exact science, but patterns like these are relevant with the theme consisting of lack of support from dad.




Skeptical Mystic wrote:
George W Bush wrote: But, lets not assume sexuality is a science. I disagree that people are either straight or gay. were all potentially gay or straight every single second of our lives because we cant be certain what will 'turn us on' as life goes by.
Maybe that’s how it works for you – but I can assure you that’s not the case for me. I know what turns me on and what doesn’t.

Then why this resistance to the idea that people can change how they feel about attraction? Since you only know what works for you, it is unreasonable to hold that others feel the way you do and that they cannot change themselves.

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
Is it a choice to conform one’s behavior to the pressures of society? Sure – but for a lot of people it doesn’t feel like they have much choice at all. But again, behavior is NOT orientation. The specific behavior pursued is usually the manifestation of one’s orientation, but not always.

I will never understand people who can’t distinguish between behavior and orientation. Didn’t you know you liked girls before you actually engaged in the behavior? Are heterosexual feelings something that ambush a person out of the blue? Or do you pursue behavior based on the fact that you’re overwhelmingly oriented on the opposite sex as the objects of your affection and attraction in the first place?

Is being heterosexual something you have to learn, not something that comes naturally to straight people? I tried to learn how to become a heterosexual, and it just never worked for me. Being homosexual in orientation is what came ‘naturally’ to me – it wasn’t something I had to actively think about. I didn’t have to learn how to be attracted to other men – I just always have been.

So what did cause you to be heterosexual (or bisexual) in orientation? The way some people talk, I'm beginning to wonder if it's viral (j/k).

I choose to be asexual.

What you seem to believe is that people cannot do these things with their sexuality; to change it. But note something: you should not stand in the way of someone wanting to change.

[sparsely]

George W Bush wrote: I choose to be asexual.

:lol: Well, go f**k yourself.

sorry, I had to say it. :-P

[F'losrix]

George W Bush wrote: So, youve chosen to accept your homosexuality. That is exactly what I am referring to when saying it depends on what you want. I'll say it again: if you want to change, you can. That is the power of will. To deny it, youve resigned to the fact that you do not have the will to change something you dislike about yourself.

In anticipation of this response: "well, can males become women at will"
Yes. Physically, however, surgery is needed. Until then, men can dress as women and act as womenly as THEY CHOOSE.
Well, you anticipated poorly. Dressing as the other gender and sexual reassignment surgery are both still physical acts, not a changes brought about by sheer force of will. There is no physical act I can perform to change my sexual orientation. None. I cannot simply 'will' it away. I can choose to change my behavior (have sex with women instead of men, or be celibate), but that WILL NOT change my orientation.

You have no clue how psychologically damaging it is for a gay person who tries desperately to change their orientation based on the misinformation from various sources insisting that they could change it if they really wanted to. It's especially hard on those of devout faith, raised to believe their orientation is 'immoral', and that they're 'evil' and 'hellbound' for their inability to change it.

Seriously you have NO idea what I went through growing up, thanks to the very idea your espousing.

Do I want to be gay? No. Do I want to find a way to be at peace with the things I can't change and lead a happy life? Yes. That is the only piece of this that has ANYTHING to do with it being a matter of what I WANT!

George W Bush wrote: I'll tell you how I understand it. Growing up, boys will idolise their fathers or their favorite comic book character. Note the beginning of the following sentence: Many gay men ... have grown up in various situations where their fathers have been absent either physically or mentally/emotionally. As they grow older, the idolisation can turn sexual: they have these feelings for other men. needs unmet in childhood. This isnt an exact science, but patterns like these are relevant with the theme consisting of lack of support from dad.
:roll: Meaningless psychobabble. I did not idolize my father, nor was he physically or emotionally absent, unsupportive, nor any of the other crap that people put forth looking for a source to blame for my so-called 'mental problem' of being gay.

George W Bush wrote: Then why this resistance to the idea that people can change how they feel about attraction? Since you only know what works for you, it is unreasonable to hold that others feel the way you do and that they cannot change themselves.
It's equally unreasonable for you to assume that most of us can.

George W Bush wrote: I choose to be asexual.
So you feel no strong feelings to attraction or affection toward either sex, and this is something you claim to have accomplished by sheer force of will?

While I'll buy that some people are asexual in orientation, I don't believe that accomplish it by force of will. And I'll emphasize again that behavior is not orientation and vice versa.

George W Bush wrote: What you seem to believe is that people cannot do these things with their sexuality; to change it. But note something: you should not stand in the way of someone wanting to change.
I don't stand in the way of people wanting to change it. If they ask my advice, I'll tell them honestly what I believe about the situation, but it's ultimately their choice to waste their time and put themselves through a needless hell.

[Enoch]

George W Bush wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote:
George W Bush wrote: Therefore, it all depends on what the person wants.
NO, IT DOES NOT! Do you really think that gay people want to be gay? You have absolutely no freaking idea what we go through in the struggle to come to terms with our difference in orientation.. I did not want to be a homosexual. I tried to overcome it, change it, suppress it. None of those efforts succeeded. Many aspects of my life would be considerably easier if I wasn't gay.


So, youve chosen to accept your homosexuality. That is exactly what I am referring to when saying it depends on what you want.
I'll say it again: if you want to change, you can. That is the power of will. To deny it, youve resigned to the fact that you do not have the will to change something you dislike about yourself.

In anticipation of this response: "well, can males become women at will"
Yes. Physically, however, surgery is needed. Until then, men can dress as women and act as womenly as THEY CHOOSE.


Skeptical Mystic wrote:
It isn't about what 'makes us feel good'. It's about the only way that we can have a fulfilling relationship with another person. If it was merely about doing what feels good, I'd be out shagging anyone willing to participate. Instead I was celibate for five years (which I can assure you, didn’t feel good) before settling down in a monogamous relationship with my current partner.


Of course its about what feels good, and that is not primarily sexual gratification. Why were you monogamous? Something in you wanted that. You can only blame yourself unless someone had you locked away without the ability to meet like-minded folks, for your monogamy.

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
George W Bush wrote: Is attraction a learned behavior? I believe it can be.
And I believe you're totally nuts if you believe that.

Edit: Well, not totally nuts. Certainly misguided if you're trying to say that one's core orientation is a totally learned behavior. How would one 'learn' such a thing? I certainly don't know of anyone making an active, conscious effort to teach it!


I'll tell you how I understand it
Growing up, boys will idolise their fathers or their favorite comic book character.
Note the beginning of the following sentence: Many gay men ... have grown up in various situations where their fathers have been absent either physically or mentally/emotionally.
As they grow older, the idolisation can turn sexual: they have these feelings for other men. needs unmet in childhood.
This isnt an exact science, but patterns like these are relevant with the theme consisting of lack of support from dad.




Skeptical Mystic wrote:
George W Bush wrote: But, lets not assume sexuality is a science. I disagree that people are either straight or gay. were all potentially gay or straight every single second of our lives because we cant be certain what will 'turn us on' as life goes by.
Maybe that’s how it works for you – but I can assure you that’s not the case for me. I know what turns me on and what doesn’t.

Then why this resistance to the idea that people can change how they feel about attraction? Since you only know what works for you, it is unreasonable to hold that others feel the way you do and that they cannot change themselves.

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
Is it a choice to conform one’s behavior to the pressures of society? Sure – but for a lot of people it doesn’t feel like they have much choice at all. But again, behavior is NOT orientation. The specific behavior pursued is usually the manifestation of one’s orientation, but not always.

I will never understand people who can’t distinguish between behavior and orientation. Didn’t you know you liked girls before you actually engaged in the behavior? Are heterosexual feelings something that ambush a person out of the blue? Or do you pursue behavior based on the fact that you’re overwhelmingly oriented on the opposite sex as the objects of your affection and attraction in the first place?

Is being heterosexual something you have to learn, not something that comes naturally to straight people? I tried to learn how to become a heterosexual, and it just never worked for me. Being homosexual in orientation is what came ‘naturally’ to me – it wasn’t something I had to actively think about. I didn’t have to learn how to be attracted to other men – I just always have been.

So what did cause you to be heterosexual (or bisexual) in orientation? The way some people talk, I'm beginning to wonder if it's viral (j/k).

I choose to be asexual.

What you seem to believe is that people cannot do these things with their sexuality; to change it. But note something: you should not stand in the way of someone wanting to change.
What that all boils down to is this: You have absolutely no basis for your claims that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Therefore, you have no credibility and all you are doing is making things up as you go along.