 |
| |
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:36
|
|
Ask and ye shall recieve.
Thanks MrFun for the interesting and slightly concerning read, but the only thing this particular passage says is that therapy with the purpose of 'normalization' is absolutely hopeless, something with which I can only agree. It doesn't specifically address the point of whether sexual orientations change over the years due to other impulses apart from repression and the annulment thereof.
You know, I really don't think our positions are that far from each other. I quite agree that genes do play a part, but after your dismissal of people who allegedly changed their sexuality, I was beginning to suspect you're not putting not emphasis on environmental factors when you're saying only outwards behaviour and not sexuality changes. That's when I disagree. I know it's hardly empirical evidence I'm providing here, but I can't help but mentioning a gay friend of mine who partly explains his homosexuality as the effect of severe abuse by women in childhood and teenage years. It's fairly common for men realizing they're not in their prime anymore to suddenly seek out the companionship of younger women to compensate for lost youth, and I reckon priests are more likely to screw the altar boys if the holy men in question happen to be Catholic. Besides, if you get with a really freaky girlie, you might eventually develop a passion for wrapping each other in velcro while listening to Eurovision. Or so I've heard, anyway.
For the record, I'm absolutely, categorically not saying gay people are victims of abuse to a higher degree than the rest of us, or that behaviours like pedophilia or bestiality should be equated with homosexuality. I just like to use a few relatively extreme examples of sexual behaviour for the sake of clarification to reach the conclusion that sexuality is a dynamic process with plenty of potential for flexibility, even outside of childhood. General failure to direct and guide sexuality like this idiotic 'Reparative Therapy' doesn't logically mean sexuality cannot be mainly environmentally determined. Given the 'right' impulses (do take note of the quotes), anybody could probably have become anything.
I think it would be interesting to check around for studies on identical twins and whether instances have been reported where one was decidedly heterosexual and the other wasn't. Unfortunately the Google search for 'Gay twins' comes out rather fruitless if you're searching for psychological case studies, but I'll try a more sophisticated search on the other side of the hangover.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Monk
Ask and ye shall recieve.
Thanks MrFun for the interesting and slightly concerning read, but the only thing this particular passage says is that therapy with the purpose of 'normalization' is absolutely hopeless, something with which I can only agree. It doesn't specifically address the point of whether sexual orientations change over the years due to other impulses apart from repression and the annulment thereof.
You know, I really don't think our positions are that far from each other. I quite agree that genes do play a part, but after your dismissal of people who allegedly changed their sexuality, I was beginning to suspect you're not putting not emphasis on environmental factors when you're saying only outwards behaviour and not sexuality changes. That's when I disagree. I know it's hardly empirical evidence I'm providing here, but I can't help but mentioning a gay friend of mine who partly explains his homosexuality as the effect of severe abuse by women in childhood and teenage years. It's fairly common for men realizing they're not in their prime anymore to suddenly seek out the companionship of younger women to compensate for lost youth, and I reckon priests are more likely to screw the altar boys if the holy men in question happen to be Catholic. Besides, if you get with a really freaky girlie, you might eventually develop a passion for wrapping each other in velcro while listening to Eurovision. Or so I've heard, anyway.
For the record, I'm absolutely, categorically not saying gay people are victims of abuse to a higher degree than the rest of us, or that behaviours like pedophilia or bestiality should be equated with homosexuality. I just like to use a few relatively extreme examples of sexual behaviour for the sake of clarification to reach the conclusion that sexuality is a dynamic process with plenty of potential for flexibility, even outside of childhood. General failure to direct and guide sexuality like this idiotic 'Reparative Therapy' doesn't logically mean sexuality cannot be mainly environmentally determined. Given the 'right' impulses (do take note of the quotes), anybody could probably have become anything.
I think it would be interesting to check around for studies on identical twins and whether instances have been reported where one was decidedly heterosexual and the other wasn't. Unfortunately the Google search for 'Gay twins' comes out rather fruitless if you're searching for psychological case studies, but I'll try a more sophisticated search on the other side of the hangover. |
Well, I usually correlate something with being hopeless as something that is not possible. So in this instance, since changing your sexual orientation is hopeless, it's because sexual orientation cannot be changed.
I really doubt that environmental factors affect one's sexual orientation. I was raised in a rural, Catholic town of 300 people in eastern Iowa. My parents were married, never separated or divorced. My father was slightly, physically abusive. I have one older brother, and three older sisters -- I'm the youngest.
I never thought or considered the possibility that any of these environmental factors determined my sexual orientation. In fact, given where I lived as a child if environmental factors is what can determine sexual orientation, you would think I would have become a flamboyant straight guy.
And as for environmental factors affecting an adult's sexual orientation -- that's even more ridiculous. But let's hypothetically accept environmental influence as a factor for sake of argument.
IF this is the case, environmental factors would have even LESS of an influence on an adult's sexual orientation than a child or teenager because the adult has already gone through puberty and has sexually matured. If we hypothetically accept the environment argument, then the adult person's sexual orientation is much more "hard-wired" so to speak than a child's or a teenager's and therefore, no environmental factors could change that person's sexual orientation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Well, I usually correlate something with being hopeless as something that is not possible. So in this instance, since changing your sexual orientation is hopeless, it's because sexual orientation cannot be changed. |
No, the fact that we can't forcibly provoke people into being straight, or gay or whatever doesn't necessarily mean people's sexualities are static. Even if we wanted to 'help' somebody we'd get nowhere with psychotherapy, electric shocks, hypnosis etc, possibly because your personality is affected by so many delicate mechanisms it's hopeless to try and solve the problem by throwing hetero porn in somebody's face or talking about some dominant mother or whatever. Also, as you point out there's a lot more potential for change in people who have not quite reached adulthood, but again, your sexuality is part of your personality which does change over time albeit not at the speed of younger years.
This means that a drastic change in environment could possibly do the trick, like with long-distance sailors, arctic expeditions and prison inmates who suddenly begin practicing homosexuality as a sexual outlet. These well-known examples in mind, are you sure it's ridiculous to say environmental factors play a part? Logically this would work both ways and affirm my theory that you're born with a form of 'pure' sexual energy that could end up being directed anywhere, all or at least mostly depending on the circumstances.
You're right in that there's probably no obvious answer why you should be a homosexual man as opposed to the alternative. Then again, I'm confident that you and your four siblings can find more dramatic differences amongst yourself than that despite the fact that you share (roughly) the same genes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Remember -- I was making that argument as if to hypothetically agree with you. |
Point taken.
quote:
And all this talk about changing sexual orientation assumes the mindset that being gay in of itself is horribly wrong -- which it isn't. |
I understand the frustration, but you're seeing homophobic ghosts that aren't really there. I have no such mindset.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
It's simple -- two mutually consenting adults who are in a committed, monogamous relationship is a fundamental, human desire regardless of sexual orientation. |
Oh, and if the discussion hasn't turned too un-P.C by now, I'm curious as to how you'd know monogamy is a 'fundamental human desire'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
What, am I not "enlightened" or "intellectual" enough for this thread?
|
Evidently that is secondary to you being a ****.
quote:
At least others like Monk can argue on this issue of sexual orientation without blatantly seeking to offend.
Can't say that about you though.
|
quote:
Get a thicker skin ffs.
|
Get a better argument ffs
The proposition that it is "wrong" requires arguments to show that it is not neutral, so in other words, the burden of proof is on you to prove that "the mindset of being gay is horribly wrong".
quote:
You're still not proving anything. Sex, love is primarily there for reproduction - therefore homosexuality is a bastardisation of that process.
|
That argument holds about as much water as a sieve when one deals with higher mammals, who use often use sex to cement their relationships. Furthermore, the act of bearing children to the individual, as well as sex and said relationships is there (for that individual) is there to bring happiness to the individuals in question, which it does in homosexual relationships to the same degree as heterosexual relationships.
MrFun, the obsessive cult is generally composed of people who seem to fear anal sex, the cause of that fear can be the subject of much enjoyable speculation, PA, I'm looking in your direction 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-06-2004 14:27
|