See : A Clockwork Orange.
AFAIK, that’s pretty much what “gay reassignment” camps boil down to, too.
Only by overindulging until you’re sick and tired of it. And that treatment, I understand, has only a 5% success rate.
Child support enforcement.
Yes, I pretty sure that a combination of torture Pavlovian conditioning, and brain washing techniques can turn someone who started out gay into someone who is viscerally repelled by the thought of gay sex, but such methods would be totally unethical and leave the person severely damaged.
Sadly, there are probably “Christian” support groups out there that would consider that an acceptable option.
The main problem you’ve got here is that you’re trying to find an explanation for the behavior of a group of people that doesn’t actually exist. There was never a time “in the past” when treatments for homosexuality were effective. Such treatments have always been dangerous, inhumane quackery.
On the other hand death by Snu Snu has a 100 percent success rate.
[quote=“RivkahChaya, post:32, topic:725173”]
Recessive genes. Same reason most Deaf peo people have hearing parents.
Does that really make sense? It doesn’t to me.
How about this: some research suggests that, rather than being genetically determined, homosexuality (at least for men) is heavily influenced by hormonal events in the womb during gestation. If this is true, then homosexual attraction is truly not a choice, but is influenced by events outside of one’s control. It also opens up a parallel but separate question: can male homosexual attraction be prevented by performing some kind of hormonal therapy during gestation?
I can imagine a world in which the answer is yes, but any such solution would be expensive. So then male homosexual attraction will only happen among the poor, or those who eschew medical intervention. That will make for some interesting situations.
I understand that there are twin studies that are interpretable as saying there is a genetic factor. I have also heard that such factors could be stronger in a darwinian sense when they are applied to both males and females, cancelling each other out.
But I’m trying to get to the question of whether any biological factors in parent or child predisposing gayness to the child would be lesser and lesser as generations went on and the gene pool would presumably be less containing of them. How could gayness be at a steady state, or increase, in society?
I’ve seen various people – well, one fictional character and one person who evinces a broad range of weird ideas – suggest one can turn oneself bisexual if one wants to. Both of these people are female and say they started out straight.
It may be possible, if seldom worth the effort, to acquire an attraction. And of course it’s perfectly possible to have attractions and forswear acting on them. I doubt it’s possible to deliberately rid oneself of an attraction, and I know of no evidence saying it is.
Probably, but it’s still pretty hard wired and difficult to alter. The people saying sexual orientation is purely genetic are flat out wrong. When you hear them say that, know they they are saying an incorrect thing.
All one needs to do is look at identical twins to see that while sexual orientation is more highly correlated, it is NOT 1:1. That right there eradicates the notion that it is purely genetic. Some some insecure people would take that to mean all is lost, that they have no more rhetorical tools which which to fight off conservative arguments. If you see these people, tell them to calm the hell down and cool their brain off. Just because THEIR own personal mind is too confused to mount an effective defense does not mean none has or can been made. It turns out that while sexual orientation is not purely genetic, it still tends to be hard wired through some combination of genes and environmental stimuli (perhaps while in the womb). As such, it is STILL not something a person chooses on a dime like what kind of food they will eat today.
It’s more like a stronger and stickier version of taste/personality, not purely genetic/environmental, but very resistant to alteration.
That said, the brain is a physical thing, I’m sure it could be done if we knew enough and could control and condition a mind the right way. Are we anywhere close to that? I doubt it.
I think all behavior can be modified. Homosexual behavior is the same thing. Whether you can create attraction where one doesn’t exist is a different matter
It isn’t exactly the same, since being deaf doesn’t impair reproduction. The point, though, is that recessive genes can be passed through collateral lines of descent. The “gay gene” comes, not from your mother, but from her gay brother. Both she and he carry the gene, it just didn’t express fully in her as it did in him.
In exactly the same way, your mother might not have been deaf, but if her brother had been, then you likely carry the recessives, and it means that you, or your children, have a higher risk of deafness.
(Simplifying gravely, as there is probably not a single gene involved.)
(As might not be obvious, I’m using “you” as a generic term, and not literally pointing at drad dog, whose mother and uncle I have never met.)
You can create an attraction where one does not intrinsically exist, or there would be no such thing as guys with a fetish for high heels or women’s panties, neither of which “occur in nature” but both of which cause an actual erotic response in some people who have been conditioned to them as representing sex. Whether you can do so intentionally, in some relatively short turnaround time, working with a post-pubescent individual who has already been significantly socialized, that’s a rather different question.
I don’t see any reason why being gay has to be involuntary, genetic, and/or immutable in order for it to be OK.
No one has any goddam right to go around reprogramming anyone’s behavior, tastes, interests, predilections, etc. That’s unforgiveably invasive to whatever extent it is less than 100% the free choice of the person being reprogrammed.
lol, I knew someone would counter with this. Every rejected thought is “repression” and such repression is indicative of something innate and unchangeable. What a crock. I have a co-worker (female) who I intensely dislike but have also briefly entertained sexual thoughts about (and ultimately rejected as it would be not only inappropriate but highly damaging to me to be with this female). Does this mean I’m destined for her? Soul mates? Any of that other bullshit?
Pretty sick thinking and reasoning, if you ask me.
Well wouldn’t all things equal out over time? The familys gay gene is less well represented in future generations in this case as well. A families number of reproducing members and other variables average out. The smaller the example it is it seems less convincing. I can’t see the science in it.
I don’t know about sick, but it’s certainly incoherent.
No, but it means you feel some attraction. If you have to reject sexual thoughts about other men, you are thinking the sexual thoughts in the first place. To give a contrary example, I’ve never had to ultimately reject sexual thoughts about other women because I don’t have the sexual thoughts to begin with. It doesn’t take an act of will for me to stop thinking sexual things about other women. It would take an act of will for me to start.
Sorry, false.
Your imagination is not solely an act of your will. A mere suggestion can put the thought there, it is not as if you have a filter that blocks out certain thoughts being initially suggested. For instance, a female friend could make the suggestion or hint at a sexual encounter with you. Wham, the thought is in your head. Now that the thought is there, it is an act of your will that either entertains that thought or rejects it.
To connect the initial thought with something innate is false.
Someone could suggest to me that it might be to my benefit to steal from my neighbor. Bam, thought is presented. If I reject this thought does that mean I’m repressing innate thoughts of burglary, and that I’m really a thief pretending to not be one?
Again, crock.