No, that’s conditioned behavior. Learned behavior Is pretty much everything you ever do.
People with speech impediments often have them because they didn’t learn how to talk correctly. I doubt a nickname like “Little Johnny Stutters” would be borne with a sense of pride, but that does not mean that little Johnny must have been born stuttering.
You seem to be suggesting that someone must have told the kid to stutter - otherwise, he wouldn’t have done it. Praytell, where is the man in the park with the dark trenchcoat convincing children to pronounce ‘s’ as ‘th’?
It’s not a product of any discrete section of society that you can point to and say “there it is! that’s where the queers are coming from!” It’s just like being left/right handed: where some people zigged, you zagged. It has nothing to do with genetics. It’s just the way you developed.
Yeah, I agree that learned behaviors are any behaviors one may be exposed to and adopt.
E.g. (got this one from Cinemax):
New girl Jane comes to all-girls school. Older girls decide to evaluate her. Decide she needs a little hazing/punishment. Cut to her being spanked for being a naughty, naughty freshment. Or, upper class girls decide that she needs to be introduced to the communal shower system. Fast forward to next semester, when Jane is checking out the new crop of frosh. To judge from Cinemax, this happens ALL THE TIME.
More serious hypothesis: country X has a history of elite all-boys private schools. New boys at private schools are expected to act as servants to older-form boys (and are explicitly called “fags”). One of the forms of social interaction in this hierarchical situation is, um, “sexual experimentation,” with which we would assume the newcomers are sometimes acquainted by the old hands (sorry). Country X obtains a bit of a reputation for having a fair number of homosexuals in the upper rungs of society/academia/government (cf. Cambridge spy ring).
Again, I’m not saying this necessarily happens or that homosexuals result from (if they “result from” anything other than genetics) from some organized curriculum or formal tutelage or deterministically-predictable behavioral progression; just saying that the fact we live in a “heterosexual society” or come from “heterosexual households” doesn’t logically dictate that there are no influences or behavioral exemplars that would even be available to a (theoretical) candidate for “learning” homosexual behavior.
No, that’s what **you’re{/b] suggesting as I never mentioned stuttering and stuttering isn’t caused by not being taught to speak properly. I don’t know what your point is, but using stuttering to make it, isn’t helping. Using a blanket statement like “often” doesn’t help either…what percentage?
Stutter
There has been considerable research and even more speculation regarding the cause of stuttering. Three factors have emerged:_
_
Genetics and neurophysiology: There is some evidence that stuttering runs in families and that differences in hemispheric processing may be involved in either a reduced capacity for linguistic development or a time delay in processing. However the evidence is not conclusive that stuttering is inherited or that it is the result of a neurological disturbance._
Learning and environmental factors: These theories focus on a child’s learning environment and opportunities to learn speech. While there is some evidence linking the physical environment with stuttering, again it is only suggestive and not conclusive._
Emotional/psychological factors: In the past stuttering has been seen to be an emotional or anxiety disorder. The current view is that any negative emotions associated with stuttering are the result of having a stutter rather than the other way round. But many theorists believe there is a connection between the emotional or psychological state of the child and the severity of a stutter. Once again there is no conclusive evidence._
And how is learning to speak a conditioned behavior? That was** my** example…if you’re going to quote me, at least quote me in context.
No, that’s what ** you’re** suggesting as I never mentioned stuttering and stuttering isn’t caused by not being taught to speak properly. I don’t know what your point is, but using stuttering to make it, isn’t helping. Using a blanket statement like “often” doesn’t help either…what percentage?
Stutter
There has been considerable research and even more speculation regarding the cause of stuttering. Three factors have emerged:
Genetics and neurophysiology: There is some evidence that stuttering runs in families and that differences in hemispheric processing may be involved in either a reduced capacity for linguistic development or a time delay in processing. However the evidence is not conclusive that stuttering is inherited or that it is the result of a neurological disturbance.
Learning and environmental factors: These theories focus on a child’s learning environment and opportunities to learn speech. While there is some evidence linking the physical environment with stuttering, again it is only suggestive and not conclusive.
Emotional/psychological factors: In the past stuttering has been seen to be an emotional or anxiety disorder. The current view is that any negative emotions associated with stuttering are the result of having a stutter rather than the other way round. But many theorists believe there is a connection between the emotional or psychological state of the child and the severity of a stutter. Once again there is no conclusive evidence.
And how is learning to speak a conditioned behavior? That was** my** example…if you’re going to quote me, at least quote me in context.
The problem is those males don’t consider themselves homosexuals, what they’re doing is a form of dominance, it’s not sex. It’s no different than a rapist or a guy having male sex in prison (sex is used not only for release, but as a weapon). As you know, they pray upon the younger/weaker boys and after they leave school, they most often never have another homosexual incident. That’s doesn’t mean that some aren’t homosexual, I’m saying that they were already before they attended school and weren’t taught something they didn’t already know.
Further the greater majority of society isn’t exposed to this type of behaviour. As homosexuality crosses all levels of society, where’s say is the ‘average’ son of a miner, learning to be a homosexual? It’s not in a UK Public School, at home or Jail…then where?
The only thing that can account for the randomness of homosexuality, is the randomness of genetics.
My experience is similar to most other gay men I have talked to. I have lost the video tape chronicalling my life so you will just have to take my word.
I first knew that I was interested in boys (especially naked boys) when I was 9 or so. I never had any similar interest in girls. I never acted on these feelings until I was 18, or so, and, of course, the age of those I was attracted to increased as I aged. And, incidentally, I have never had a relationship with a female (other than friendship).
The OP proposes that I learned to be gay. I’m not sure, and he doesn’t clarify very much, just who he thinks I learned this from. My family lived in a very small town. If there was a homosexual there, he would quickly been kicked out of town. Queer uncle? Nope. Queer cousin? Nope. Queer beest friend? Nope. So? Who was this teacher that I learned this behavior from?
Now, I have just said what the other gay men on this board have also said.
Now, Adman, as has been challenged, just when did you decide to be straight? You have to walk a mile in my shoes before you can know what my life has been like.
I can see where the temptation to put the shoe on the other foot comes from.
However, I’ve got two logical problems with the ‘right-back-at-you’ posing of the reciprocal “how’d you choose your sexual orientation?” question.
It doesn’t necessarily follow, from the perspective of the “choice/volition” crowd, that if members of group X affirmatively chose X, then members of group not-X affirmatively chose not-X (except in the somewhat-trivial sense that we all “choose” millions of not-X states by not going out of our way to take the steps that lead to X status). For instance, persons are generall born with non-purple skin, but are free to tatoo their entire body purple, and some may do so, as a matter of volition. While we can perhaps identify the moment when these folk chose to tatoo their body purple , it doesn’t necessarily follow that we can identify the moment the other 99.9% of the populace “chose not to become purple.” Nor does the fact that the non-purple people can’t identify such a moment of choice necessarily, or even likely, mean that the purple crowd was destined to be purple and had no choice in the matter. Or: most people eat what we think of as some normal combination of “food,” but some may decide a diet of, I don’t know, reconstituted Jetsons-style nutrient tablets is the way to go. Asking one of the (many) omnivores when he “chose” not to become a Jetson is not really advancing the case that the Jetson guy had no choice in ending up where he is.
I’ve been keeping the examples silly and arbitrary for a reason – I don’t want to make either of the two sets of alternatives inherently bad/pejorative. But – from the perspective of those who believe homosexuality is a deviation from “normal” human behavior – another analogy might be to assert that “baseline” human behavior is to cooperate, to some extent, with one’s neighbors, and to refrain from killing/exploiting them so extensively that the social order breaks down (thus ensuring survival of the race). But, some bad eggs learn/choose bad behavior and become sociopathic and systematically exploitative of their neighbors. The fact that the non-sociopaths never consciously chose non-sociopathy doesn’t mean that the sociopaths had no choice in becoming sociopaths. Obligatory disclaimer: Not equating homosexuality with killing everyone you meet, eating babies, etc. Just an example.
In short, it wouldn’t even be logically inconsistent to say that heterosexuality is innate/not chosen/genetically programmed-for/“normal” but homosexuality is chosen. If you admit the possibility of any choice in sex preference (and I know, many don’t), the possibility of some choice doesn’t mean that everyone affirmatively chooses in analogous fashion.
N.B., as to my last paragraph, it’s certainly also the case that there is no logical inconsistency to saying homosexuality is the baseline/normal/un-chosen state, whereas heterosexuality is a chosen/anomalous state. There is, however, a statistical barrier to saying so, viz., the minority preponderance of homosexuality in the population. Obviously there could be arbitrary and uneven distributions of purely-genetic traits in a population; regardless, it’s true that homosexuality is, if only numerically, the exception, not the rule. Thus, homosexuality simply is (in the most neutral, statistical sense) an aberration or minority case, in a way that heterosexuality simply isn’t, and homosexuality “requires” or is seen as requiring a (genetic and/or behavioral) explanation in a way that being in the non-outlier group simply doesn’t.
So, let me see, Huerta: while I concede that the statement in your first sentence does make sense – that some people choose to be Catholic priests, for example, does not mean that everybody else chooses not to; for most people, the question doesn’t even come up for decision.
But, while this may be so, you seem to be arguing that people choose to be gay. My initial response to Adman, based on statements of gay people galore both here and elsewhere, and refuted by no gay men (a few women who identify as Lesbian do claim to have “chosen” that – being bisexual in attraction-orientation and to have elected to identify as exclusively Lesbian after the failure of bad heterosexual relationships).
I can grant that “being born gay” may be modified by the idea of early-childhood experience – I tend to agree with Priam and Captain Amazing in the idea of a genetic or congenital predisposition that is “triggered” by a potentiating factor – or not, while recognizing that it is merely an untested hypothesis – but you seem to be arguing for an active choice.
Let me point out that the old joke about the plumber is not relevant – we are talking about what people’s exclusive or predominant attraction/orientation is, not what they might do in a situation where their choices are limited or nonexistent. That a boy in an all-boys boarding school or a man in an all-men prison might prefer gay sex over exclusive masturbation is not relevant. What this might be likened to is placing the option of a willing nubile female and a willing nubile male, both of what is normally considered attractive appearance, before a given group of persons, and determining which choose the partner of their own sex.
One point that’s being missed and needs to be addressed: bisexuality. Everyone seems to be treating this as a binary question, you’re either one or the other (heterosexual or homosexual). The real world shows us that sexual expression, exists along a continuum, from purely heterosexual to purely homosexual.
Can any of the above theories account for this variety?
My belief is that human sexual expression is simply too complex to be tied down to one particular cause, (ie: nature or nurture), it’s a complex phenomenon arising from complex conditions that we don’t fully understand.
Could someone learn to change their sexuality? How might they do it? Can someone who was exclusively Hetrosexual and at a different time in life exclusively Homosexual really have changed their sexuality?
Has anyone gone on record as having at one time in their life been exclusively Homosexual (no sexual attraction to the opposite sex) and at some different time been exclusively Heterosexual (no sexual attraction to the same sex)? Are there cases of this behaviour where the person seems objective and truthful?
Not exactly; I’m just saying the “choice to be a priest” possibility is not excluded by the inability of the non-priests to identify the moment they “chose not to be a priest” – this in the context of several challenges to Adman that at least implied he was equally/more obligated to “go first” and explain his presumed “moment of heterosexual conversion,” if he wished to posit “moments of homosexual conversion.”
Beyond the logic-problem aspect of it, I agree that you get into murky fact-specific (and often anecdotal) debates over what “causes” a complex of behaviors and desires. Reasonable men can differ on this point (which is why I no more think the argument should end with “The APA (now) says . . .” than I think that “Leviticus said it’s wrong” should be the sum and substance of a (logical) argument.). If I knew for sure what caused desire, I wouldn’t be posting messages here (no offense).
BTW, as long as we’re throwing out anecdotes, any G.U.T.has to account for the “Anne Heche Phenomenon,” which is contra your example (and seems more prevalent in women than men). Go figure.
See supra my Anne Heche e.g. I can’t definitively state that she’s now repudiating any Sapphic impulses, but it seems like a pretty big 180.
**
Anne Heche, at least, seems like a nut. I never really bought the Sapphic interlude, but she could be lying about one phase, the other phase, both, or neither.
Part of me wonders if we DO make too much of the “absolutely, 100% no way can anyone learn a new sexuality” thing. I mean, I’ve been honestly het so far in my life, never really even feeling for bi, but I certainly <I>feel</I> like I could learn to like men, even exclusively. David Bowie’s haircut in his unplugged gig and Afraid of Americans era definately did something for me, and I could probably work on that.
The problem is that people who don’t like homosexuality would see that (being able to change) as a weakness, not as an honesty. Personally, I think the far stronger position to take is simply that when it comes to society’s legal and cultural feelings about homosexuality it doesn’t matter whether it’s learned or genetic. Unless someone can produce a reason why homosexual sex and marriage and life partnerships are bad in any real sense, I just don’t see that they have any ground to stand on in the first place.
This is just a hypothesis, but I think the need to defend the “it’s not a choice” position at ALL costs (when it ultimately doesn’t seem that important as a point in this cultural/legal struggle, and the more numerous phenomenon of bisexuals really muddles the water) is given more attention than it really deserves because of the needs of religious people who need a reason to justify to themselves theologically why homosexuality is okay (well, if God made them that way then I guess it’s not their fault…). While part of me is happy to leave it there, another part of me wants to say: “why is it even an issue in the first place, or a matter to which “fault” is attached? It’s not something that needs an excuse.”
Once again you have fallen to the fallacy of the excluded middle. No, we don’t want a link to a lousy website that isn’t credible. We would prefer a link to a good website that is credible. Are there no such websites which support your claim? If not, what do you think the reason for that might be?
I was under the assumption that this was a debate (being in the “Great Debates” forum). When debating a claim that is disputed by others, you have to cite some evidence supporting that claim. Otherwise it’s not a debate; you’re simply stating your opinion, and most people probably don’t care what your opinion is if it’s not substantiated by evidence. Not in this forum, at least.
Might I suggest that you post in the “In My Humble Opinion” forum if spouting opinions is all you are going to do?
In elementary school, long before I had or knew about adult-type sexual appetite, I had a fascination with girls’ bodies. It didn’t translate into wanting to do anything but it had a rather specific flavor of delicious-naughty-compelling emotional content.
