Can sexuality change over time?

I don't either but i have a bit of history in Behavioral Sciences and there is a bit of overlap. All i know about endocrinology is that it's much more complex than i thought it was.

Well...so did I. Once i started mingling that quickly fell away.

 

Sexual URGES are chemical, everything associated with it (variances in expression etc) is behavioural.

And yes, theoretically it can be 'unlearned', but in practice it's as difficult (perhaps more so) as unlearning gambling. PS, I'm not equating it to addiction, only using addiction to demonstrate degree of difficulty.

 

Exactly. But the flavour of victim you prefer will have been 'established' earlier.

 

No we don't. It's conjecture. No correlation proven.

 

It's actually only a theory. As in, the lay understanding of theory.

 

Works on hair, not so much on sexuality.

 

"It makes more sense to me" throws zero weight behind your argument, Ritz.

 

It doesn't 'have' to be all or nothing, but from where I sit, it just is. I would prefer it wasn't all or nothing.

 

'Trans-sexuality' is a symptom of mental illness. Nothing whatsoever to do with sexual preference.

 

Indeed. It's bad enough that mainstream YA tv now insists on including lesbians in every series, but having to see them snog is beyond the pale. Why on earth it can't be gay boys in these shows, I'll never understand. Buffy started it.

 

Long observation and practice by certain cultural groups, Poly.

I'm saying that modelling does play a role in behaviour, but that in the case of sexuality it's not specifically modelling. Of course it CAN be, but isn't always.

 

Well this is disingenuous because you're arguing that it is.

You are sitting at a biased place. I'm sorry. But until you leave it, You're position will not have much credibility.

You said your only reason for your position was people in cultures that place taboos on it finding happiness in faking it. Sorry, every homosexual Christian boy that wanted to please their parents wasn't gay either.

 

What did you do to remove your biases?

No, you're just now saying that. Which is good.

I can accept that there are environmental factors, It's rather hard to deny at least an inborn factor. But as for proportions of things, I don't know, it could be different for every individual there could be an idiopathic component. I simply don't know. This has been my position all along.

 

I'm not sure what you mean, here. It has nothing to do with religion. It's tested and tested and tested practice, 100% pragmatic.

And yes, absolutely I'm biased. I have no interest in denying that. Like I said, I was once biased in the other direction, but exposure to so much 'wisdom' on the topic moved me (reluctantly) to the other side.

 

I didn't wilfully remove my initial biases in a single act, they were removed via weight of evidence. I fought it for years. It absolutely is not in my social interests to hold this view, trust me.

 

I think that's probably the most reasonable position. It leaves you open to whatever is discovered down the line, and able to adjust your position accordingly.

 

Im going with (as usual) its different for each individual.

Which probably means that it *can* change over time, under the right circumstances.

Prisons are a good example. Some people who never would have considered gay sex seem more likely to change their tune when confronted with a prolongued restriction of access to their preferred gender.

 

yes, the prison example is a serious fly in the ointment to the 'born this way' theory.

 

Than i think you completely lack awareness. Religion influences culture culture makes taboos. You're have blathered about other cultures repeatedly. And i was pointing out that we really have these same taboos here.

It eliminated the discrepancy of culture you trotted out as a sacred cow.

So you're just a contrarian?

 

Produce the evidence.

 

Yet you don't hold it? Why?

 

Because I've personally seen too much to convince me that 'reasonable' is the right answer.

Besides, it's clear (to me) that there is vested interest in concluding 'born this way'. There is zero to be gained from the environment argument. It's actually the hardest and least accommodating road. When there are two possible truths, one 'easy' and heavily weighted by 'interests', the other pretty much all pain and hard work, which is likely to actually be true? It's a good question to ask yourself, generally.

 

By which you mean word of mouth from laymen?

That is incorrect there was vested interest in the concept that it was chosen. The born that way mantra was simply a reaction.

Let's not forget the complete lack of evidence.

Well neither could be true, something else you never considered could be true. Nothing is likely to be true based on a hunch. That is why I asked for your evidence. I'm still waiting.

I think you're just a contrarian.

 

What about gay men who are attracted to "feminine" gay men? Or gay women who are attracted to "masculine" women? I always found that really strange. If you are gay and you like "men" then what is with the femininity? If you like feminine men, why not women? Is the sexual organ all that is gay people are concerned with? I just don't really get it.

 

The thing is, there just isn't any good reason to choose to believe it's environmental. For a vested interest to be valid, there will be a payoff. In the total absence of religious imperative, what would you suggest the personal payoff is?

And yes, absolutely laymen. Laymen who've observed and learned over many many decades ... centuries, even. Which further adds weight to my discomfort. I'm a 'woman of science', and the human condition sciences at at that. I'm not usually convinced by mere opinion.

Again .. there is no benefit to me to take the contrary position. In the end, my prior position could simply no longer be comfortably or honestly supported.