Oh, I know. That’s the point. I’m straight. My imagination not straying to sexual thoughts about other women is a sign that I’m straight, not a product of my will.
If it takes you an act of will to banish that thought of becoming a burglar, then there’s something else going on.
If someone suggests something to me that I am not interested in, I don’t need an act of will to stop thinking about it. Once the conversation is over, it goes away on its own. That’s what not being interested in something means.
OK then don’t think of a pink elephant right now.
And as I stated, the thoughts presented to your conscious mind do not have to originate from yourself. You are female? Any female friend could suggest a sexual encounter with you, and there is the thought presented to you. It is in your mind. You have no choice but to either reject that thought or entertain the idea. So your reasoning is false in that it assumes that the ideas you have in your mind solely originate from yourself.
Well, maybe I’m poor and hungry, and my neighbor is wealthy with lots of food. So, from my perspective, stealing from my neighbor might be something that is tempting to me.
Does this mean I was born a thief or that I have some innate (and therefore unchangeable) orientation to thievery?
Crock.
I don’t have to do either. I can just sit here and it goes away. It’s like if someone says “Hey, jsgoddess, would you like this mint?” I don’t like mint. I don’t have to think about whether I like mint. I just don’t want it. There’s no necessity for either rejecting the thought or entertaining the idea. It doesn’t get a toehold.
By the way, are you claiming that these sexual thoughts you have about men are solely because men are suggesting sexual encounters with you? How often are you having these thoughts and how often are the encounters being suggested?
So, are you tempted to have sex with men?
You reject the thought of having a mint, but claim you don’t reject it? You don’t have to entertain an idea to reject it. You don’t have to hold it in your conscious mind and consider it to reject it.
Did I mention somewhere I was having sexual thoughts about men that I rejected? During the course of this thread, I also thought of sex with a pillow and some stuffed animals, and used this as an example. I don't have desires for sex with a pillow nor am tempted by stuffed animals, but I guess in your reasoning this also means I'm "repressing" them and that in fact, the mere thought of them indicates I was born with the orientation.
So your unconscious mind, which is not innate, is rejecting the idea of sex with men?
You are human. You have an innate need for food. That need manifests itself as hunger. Hunger prompts you to seek out food. If you are poor and cannot obtain food legally and your hunger becomes strong enough, if someone suggests to you that you might obtain it by stealing, then you very well might consider it and have to reject it.
That’s not because you have an innate orientation to thievery, but because you have an innate need for food and you know that stealing food will satisfy that desire.
If this is analogous to someone planting thoughts of homosexual sex in your mind, then it means you are saying that you have some innate need that you know will be satisfied by same-sex sexual activity.
I have experienced many periods of life in which I have experienced a strong, innate need for sexual pleasure that was being unsatisfied, but no suggestions of homosexual activity required me to execute an act of will to reject it, because homosexual sex would not satisfy my need.
I have no innate desire to not think of a pink elephant, so it takes no act of will on my part to reject your suggestion not to think of a pink elephant.
Pink elephants? (wearing skirts) Thanks a lot! I have just relapsed, and my conditioning was going so well, to boot. :mad:
This is twisty. I think the last clause says you are thinking of a pink elephant; and you say it overtly as well. Which was my exact point. Maybe you should diagram that last sentence.
You didn’t get my point.
(As an aside, I stopped thinking of a pink elephant without willing it. Indeed, trying to do it as an act of will would make me keep thinking of it.)
In any case, that’s not an analogous situation.
It is not more sick that the nonsense with which you responded. It was, basically, a facetious remark to get you to consider your position on the topic.
Your response is an effort to dodge the scenario that you set up. The reality is that some people are attracted, sexually, to members of the same sex. Not in the manner of a stray thought or an occasional question, but as a constant attraction. If one wishes to claim that those people are choosing to be homosexual, (which you did not explicitly claim, but which was certainly the tone of your implied comments), then one should be able to identify when one chose to be heterosexual. You simply dodged the question with this response.
Your earlier claims about the lack of genetic source for sexual orientation was also flawed on two points:
Even with twins, genetic expression does not have to result in identical outcomes, (e.g., fingerprints), so your claim is not established.
More importantly, serious researchers do not make a claim that sexual orientation is only genetic, usually referring, instead, to congenital issues in which genetics, intra-placental situations, and neo-natal situations combine. While this is sometimes expressed as “genetics,” attacking a genetic explanation is pretty much a straw man argument.
Again, given any inborn issues which affect reproduction negatively, where is the science that these should not decrease in incidence over time? Where should the burden of proof lie?
You are thinking of a pink elephant, drinking a strawberry milkshake, right now.
Stravinsk, do you believe sexual orientation is innate, or not? Or do you believe everyone is born heterosexual, but some people choose (for reasons you have wisely decided not to speculate on here) to deviate from the straight, as it were, path?
Do these things actually work on people? My thought upon reading your post was nothing more than “That’s dumb.”
Well, being gay doesn’t really impair reproduction, either. Gay people aren’t infertile, and they’re not any less interested in having children than straight people. Considering the essentially legalistic nature of marriage in pre-modern times, I suspect most of the people we would today consider homosexual had a kid or two, just to fulfill their social obligation to continue the family line. This would be even more the case for gay women, who would have been given even fewer options outside of being a wife and mother.
I think you’re being obtuse. Interest and ability, and social obligations, aren’t at issue. Noone says they are impaired. They simply don’t add to the gene pool in numbers comparing with heterosexuals. And how many children of gay couples have one or more straight parents?