Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes it does. It proves that there is no such thing as “straight” or “gay,” we are all varying degrees of bisexual. Kinsey showed this decades ago, why is this still in doubt? How extreme the circumstances need to be for an individual to vary from what they consider their norm is just a matter of showing how strong the preference is.
Or…we could insist that those insisting it’s a choice prove their claim. No need to make the counter claim at all. Isn’t that what we generally do in debates (including this one) - put the onus on the person making the claim to prove it?
You’re talking about a group of people who are not big fans of science. Telling them the burden of proof is on them wouldn’t matter. To a large degree the facts show they’re wrong and with luck that opens the door toward a more balanced view of gays without the whole sinful-predatory-converting people angle.
This isn’t holding up for me - why would a man seek release from another man when he could just masturbate? The Navy guys are legitimately attracted to each other.
Relating it to my cognitive dissonance angle, it’s somewhat like the Milgram experiment - you take someone out of society and create a new mini-reality for them. You make it okay for them to perform this behavior in the new min-reality and they perform behaviors that cognitive dissonance would normally have prevented.
(edit - I was actually thinking about the Stanford prison experiment, although the principle may be the same)
Actually, no, it does not.
That some number of people, (whether very large or very small, depending on how accurate Kinsey’s work might have been), have both heterosexual and homosexual urges at one time or another does not address orientation, which is the topic of alterego’s thesis.
Kinsey might have been right that all people are capable of being attracted to other people of both sexes. However, alterego is discussing orientation, the way that people react to others, sexually, on a day to day basis. It is simply not true that the vast majority of people spend their days being distracted by lustful thoughts of both men and women. For the majority of people, our sexual fantasies and attractions tend to stay oriented to one sex or the other. Kinsey’s (and later, better) studies, might explain why we are willing to engage in sexual actions with people outside our normal attractive range in stressful situations, but it does not provide any reason to believe that such attraction is “learned,” or that it ould be redirected.
If you are capable of being attracted to one sex or the other then my thesis suggests you are capable of eventually learning to prefer that one. “Orientiation” is really just a measure of learning strength. Kinsey’s penis-meter might provide relevant evidence as well. I think this whole thing is close to settled - we’ve gotten to the point that the alternate argument is merely “it’s just attraction, not orientation.” Which is not much.
I really don’t care whether it “holds up” for you. You are the one making the assertion and you are the one who has failed to bring a single shred of evidence to the discussion. Even the one anecdote that you have provided falls short in that you have provided no evidence that the men you described continued in a different orientation after the stress situation was relieved. (For that matter, you have not even demonstrated that any particular number actually engaged in sexual behavior beyond nervous joking and horseplay. What percent actually engaged in sex? How many engaged in associated behavior that was closer to romance or dating?)
While I am disinclined to think that your proposal has any merit, that disinclination is based on your utter lack of hard, factual evidence. With nothing but unsupported speculation, this is pretty much the sexual equivalent of arguing over how many angels dance on the point of a pin.
It shows. But there’s basically nothing here that would convince anyone else.
Why does it have to be either genetic or a choice? Almost 100% of my personality is neither genetically determined nor a conscious choice. It doesn’t make any sense that sexual preference has to be either one way or the other.
Well, I am certainly willing to agree that it is settled: it is a silly idea with no substance.
Done.
Kinsey suggested that everyone is attracted, to greater or lesser extent, to everyone. Your thesis requires that one’s principle attraction be re-directed outside of extraordinary situations and we have seen no evidence to support that supposition. It seems far more likely that one’s orientation is innate and can only be changed under pressure and, like the elastic memory of steel, it will return to its original shape when the pressure is removed–just as your sailors went out to brothels on leave and went out and got married when they had served their enlistment.
I notice that you seem to have avoided addressing the counter to your thesis. If this “learned” behavior is malleable, then hundreds of years of social pressure should have turned the vast majority of gay men and women straight, yet there is no evidence of that happening. Men and women who have been homosexually oriented have often, (particularly prior to current times), married heterosexually as the social norms required, yet we see case after case of a person breaking out of such marriages because they could not tolerate the way that the relationship seemed wrong to them.
There is lots of scientific evidence regarding sexual orientation. Start your journey here.
- Honesty
Gosh, I wonder what would happen if you did it the other way around, and put gay people in a situation where it would be okay to engage in heterosexual activity.
Oh wait, that experiment’s already been done. It’s called “all of human history”, but universal acceptance of heterosexuality has somehow failed to turn everyone in the world straight.
This is an issue where I have grown and evolved. As a teen and young adult, I was all for queer bashing. (no, I never committed assault on a gay person…but I would not have condemned it.)
The two main things that changed my mind:
-
I did not choose to be straight.
-
A huge percentage (perhaps more than half) of my preferred physical “type” of women are lesbians. See Maddow, Rachael for a prime example. Or pretty much any competitive women’s basketball team. I think a lot of physiological factors that are making them tall and not stereo typically feminine also make them prefer naked girls to naked boys. Trust me, it is not that boys don’t ask them out: Many of my tall male friends have made the same observation. After getting shot down for inappropriate plumbing a few times you start working on improving your gaydar.
I suppose the question ultimately resolves back to one of the fundamental questions of psychology; how much of who we are is determined by nature? and how much by nurture?
Certain pleasurable experiences growing up can certainly trigger certain connections in the brain (it’s easy for a teenager to get off, and whatever he is viewing or thinking about is certainly going to be positively reinforced). It is not unreasonable to hypothesize that some experiences like that may act as trigger mechanisms that reinforce homosexuality, and ultimately lead up to being homosexual. However, I would never go so far as to say that being gay is a conscious choice that one makes at a given time – that seems ludicrous to me.
I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t believe sexual orientation is necessarily inborn trait, I think it is something that is developed gradually over one’s lifetime.
It may not sound unreasonable to hypothesize that sexuality is learned, but the question creates a chicken-and-egg problem in any case - and some counter-evidence has already been posted to this thread.
shrug Why would a baby monkey choose to cuddle with the non-food producing furred mother doll instead of simply stroking its own fur?
Because most people feel that sex with another person feels better than masturbation. Otherwise why would anyone bother with the hassles of having to deal with someone else for sexual release, unless they wanted children?
Again, how did people growing up 50 years ago “learn” being gay? Watching Milton Berle? Liberace? If someone learned being gay from less than 1& of the stimulus he or she gets and ignores the 99% I don’t think you can just call it learning.
Interesting.
Here’s a thought: why don’t you expand the scope of human knowledge and learn to be gay? Don’t worry about the “ick” factor; you can always learn to be straight later on. And if you document the processes well enough, there could be a Nobel Prize in it for ya.
1.2 MILLION smackers. That’ll buy a LOT of shots of scotch. You know, to get the taste out of your mouth…
AlterEgo You handwave away evidence that does not agree with you, rather than explaining why it is wrong. You also have yet to provide evidence supporting your hypothesis.
And WhyNot
We only have your word for that. You could be a sentient AI. Or you could have an MIB thing going on and be a squid under that suit.