Homosexuality is curable

First off, it’s good if you read at least the first paragraph of this post before you reply, because even though I will end up claiming that the topic is true, I will get to that point in a way that will most likely end up pleasing those who identify as homosexual, and perhaps not so much those of us (males) who identify as heterosexual. So if the headline of this topic upsets you, that’s great, I’m actually on your side, but I think the conclusion is funny enough to warrant a bit of a “gotcha” to get the blood boiling, because the post is very much about emotions and rationality, or rather, rationalizations.
Let’s start by looking at what the words heterosexual and homosexual mean from different perspectives. Normally you would say that a heterosexual man (I’m only talking about male sexuality) is defined as a man who likes to have sex with women, and a homosexual man is defined as a man who likes to have sex with men. So far so good. But another, equally valid way, to look at it would be that a heterosexual man is someone who does not have sexual relations with other men, and a homosexual man is someone who does not have sexual relationships with women. Instead of looking at what they include to define them, we look at what it is they exclude. One says I will not have sex with an individual who shares my gender, the other says I will not have sex with an individual who does not share my gender.
So now we have a new perspective of homo- and heterosexual individuals, defined by what they are avoiding rather than what they are attracted to. And when we look at what it is we/they are avoiding, it’s a combination of certain emotional and physical intimacy. A heterosexual man does (in general) not only avoid sex (symbolizing the extreme of physical intimacy) but also a wide range of non-sexual or borderline sexual intimacy. Heterosexual men don’t just avoid touching the genitals of other men, they also tend to avoid cuddling, kissing, hugging and even holding hands. They have excluded other men from their physical sphere of intimacy, and my realization is that this is essentially a result of fear. Basically heterosexuality and homophobia are the same thing, at least if you look at it literally, since phobia simply means fear. Heterosexual men are afraid of other men, and that fear has been institutionalized by different cultures. This in turn leads to a pathological situation where the heterosexual fear of homosexuality tries to justify itself by declaring that not suffering from homophobia (i.e. having the capacity to love other men both socially, emotionally and physically) is wrong, immoral or even a disease. Basically I (as a heterosexual male) am sick, but in order to not feel shame about it I instead re-organize my worldview so that my dis-ease with male to male intimacy becomes ”normal” and intimacy between males becomes abnormal, thus trying to pass my shame off to those who are able to enjoy what I can not.
It’s also interesting how this is a completely psychological phenomena, because I can quite easily (now that I look honestly at it) detect that my body, as separate from my mind, has no gender based preference regarding sex and physical intimacy, it is all in the head. As a thought experiment any heterosexual male can imagine getting a blow job from a beautiful woman (let’s say Scarlett Johansson), this is great, I’m really enjoying it. Now let’s give me a blindfold (kinky!), and it is obvious I still enjoy it, maybe less (maybe more), but it’s obvious that this body likes the combination of sensations even without visual cues. But now let’s imagine we remove the blindfold and it is Zach Galifianakis down there instead of Scarlett. What’s the reaction? For a heterosexual male that is a dream turning into a nightmare. But at first only for the mind. Notice that the body enjoyed it and from a physical perspective nothing has changed, it doesn’t matter if the mouth touching your genitals is attached to a male or female body, because there is no relevant physical difference.
Except that is not totally true since Zach has a beard and Scarlett doesn’t, so feel free to swap Zach for a more feminine looking man and see if that makes you more comfortable. As it turns out it does make me more comfortable if it is a person without a beard, not so much physically (I would assume) but mentally. Because the beard is so obviously masculine. And here is where we get into the whole trouble with heterosexuality again, because as it turns out, heterosexuality is not as much about having sex with women as it is about *not]/i] having sex with men. The fear of male intimacy is actually stronger than the attraction to female intimacy. And assuming that attraction to intimacy is good, and that irrational fear is something bad, exclusive heterosexuality is actually pathological.
And since this is obviously a psychological issue and not a biological (my body likes all non-violent intimacy, it’s my mind that is discriminating) it can theoretically be ”cured” by psychodynamic work. For example when I deconstruct my own psyche I find that I have certain fears associated to the concept of male physical intimacy. There’s a fear of being dominated, a fear of being penetrated and a magical taboo around other mens penis. On top of that there are social norms about when, how and with whom it is ”appropriate” to express emotion. For example my psychological programming (a result of culture) used to allow me to cry rather freely in front of a women, but not in front of a man. Once again this seems fear based. I am afraid that crying (showing emotional intimacy and vulnerableness) with a man will cause him to think I am weak, thus lowering my status, but I know that (most) women don’t have that perspective so I feel safer crying with them. So my homophobia (i.e. my fear of other men) is not only preventing me from physical intimacy, but emotional and social intimacy as well. This in turn leads to repression and can take all kinds of more or less unhealthy expressions, such as trying to cover up my shame by condemning others. A horrible example would be gay bashing, which when looking at it like this would be fear turned into hate. This is a standard psychological mechanism where we project what we have disowned from ourselves onto the exterior world. I beat up homosexuals because deep down I want intimacy with men and I hate myself for it.
So does that mean that a homosexual identity is more healthy than a heterosexual one? That seems to depend on two factors, first how we define it and second on how we arrive at it. I would suggest that there are two sorts of homosexuality when viewed like this. One would be pathological homosexuality, where you only share intimacy with members of the same sex because you have fears or unresolved issues around the other sex, and the other would be preferential homosexuality which would be someone who is essentially bisexual but has a strong aesthetic/emotional/social preference for males (in this case, still talking about male sexuality). And here we arrive back at the topic statement that ”homosexuality is curable”, because if you define it as a pathological inability to connect intimately with women in an emotional/physical sense it is. But the result will not be that the ”patient” stops being attracted to men, only that they are now capable for being attracted to women as well. So the cure for homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality but bisexuality.
The obvious conclusion now is that bisexuality is optimal (both physically, biologically, mentally) and that excluding one gender from your sphere of intimacy will result in a pathological hetero- or homosexuality. But does that mean that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally pathological? I would argue that no, it does not seem so. Homosexual men, in my experience, do not have the same ”hangups” around heterosexual intercourse as heterosexuals do about homosexual intercourse, which indicates that homosexuals are in general less phobic (very obvious generalization here, I’m sure there are exceptions). The other is that homosexual men often show a higher capacity for emotional and social intimacy with women, which makes a lot of sense from a psychological perspective since the homosexual male will be more likely to evolve emotionally by confronting the psychosexual issues. This seems to be a positive feedback loop where women are also more comfortable around homosexual men (and hence can be more intimate) because they are not feeling the pressure of aggressive male sexuality directed towards them. So looking at it from this perspective, heterosexuality would seem to be almost always pathological, and homosexuality even when it is pathological (as in exclusive and based on fear) would be much less so (still capable of social and emotional intimacy).
The conclusion is of course rather radical. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality can be viewed as a dis-ease, but one is much more common and much more unhealthy than the other, and bisexuality (with or without strong preferences) is the only really healthy option from a psychological point of view. Heterosexuality is almost always homophobia in disguise, but homosexuality is not necessarily heterophobia since it is often just an expression of (actually bi-sexual) preference.

Did you think all this up all by yourself, or are there others we can blame for this silliness?

If you don’t want to engage in debate, feel free not to. Since this was an unwarranted ad-hominem, and very un-constructive, I have reported the post,

Mr. Stoneburg, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Don’t see the point in defining orientation as what is avoided rather than what is preferred (or actually engaged in). In #3 paragraph, strongly disagree that heterosexuality is or implies homophobia – it’s entirely possible to be repulsed sexually by men without being afraid of them. And even if it wasn’t, the fear would be a fear of men, or a fear of being touched by men, not a fear of homosexuality or homosexuals.

Didn’t get much further than that, though it looked like at least some of your later points required this one, which I think is bunk.

What studies do you base your “two types of homosexuality” on?

But there’s this:

Anyone else getting turned on just a little?

Without even getting into all the rest, your initial premise is incredibly flawed. Not all men who choose to not have intimacy with other men are straight, and not all men who choose to not have intimacy with women are gay.

So, using your logic approach one who avoids sex with adults is a pedophile?

I avoid sex with anyone who isn’t my wife, which means I’m incredibly racist.

It’s not rambling nor i incoherent, and I would suggest that if you think so you didn’t read the argument properly.

It’s also not necessary to agree with it, I’m only asking people to entertain the viewpoint as it is a new one (at least to me). It’s definitely not necessary at all to take it personally, or attribute qualities to me because of it. This is a perspective or an opinion that I am entertaining, not a political cause I am advancing. That should be apparent since you can read from the argument that I am indeed a male heterosexual, and my conclusion is that my own heterosexuality is actually an avoidance of intimacy with men, which I have through psychodynamic work and deconstruction concluded stems on fear (i.e. phobos).

I agree that there is a semantic problem of definition and roles here, where sex gets confused with different degrees of intimacy, and perhaps the argument would be better if the translation of the term homosexual and heterosexual was more clear. So in order to address that…

Homosexual in this case means the combined behavior of seeking intimacy with members of the same gender and avoiding (certain forms of) intimacy with the opposite gender. Heterosexual means the opposite of that, bisexual means seeking intimacy with both genders and asexual would mean avoiding specifically sexual intimacy with either gender.

What fucking difference does it make? Sex between any two consulting adults should be viewed as acceptable.

I don’t have sex with anyone. Am I asexual or am I just people phobic?

You’ve invented a bunch of “new” ways to look at sexuality, and you expect us to just accept them as true, and your inferences based on them as true as well, based only on … how you see them as revelations.

A couple of basic flaws in your attempts at logic have been pointed out. I see no reason to go through the bother of picking out more. Sexuality is complex and fascinating, your hypotheses are simplistic and dumb.

If I avoid sex with your wife, what does that make me?

Disclaimer, I TLDR the OP.

Well, there are other possibilities. You might be unattractive. :smiley:

You are less rambling and incoherent today than you have been recently, but there is no support for any of your premises.

Note that I am defining hetero- an homosexuality as the combination of seeking and avoiding. They are both seeking one thing and trying to avoid another, what I am getting at here is the psychological reasons for the avoidance.

Sexual orientation in this argument is defined as a combination of attraction/avoidance. You would have to be attracted to having sex with children AND avoid having sex with adults to be ”exclusively pedophile” in my system. That could be subdivided further into something like a homosexual non-exclusive pedophile, which would be someone who avoids sex with people their own gender, but is attracted to people at non-normal ages of maturity. Or however you want to define it. I don’t think the concept is very radical, in fact I think it makes a lot of sense. Your sexuality is a combination of likes and dislikes, some of them are healthy/rational, some are not.

Only if the reason you avoid having sex with them is their ethnicity.

Note that we already have established definitions for both of those words. Perhaps you should come up with new words to fit your rather unique definitions.

:smiley:

Stoneburg, can an obsession with the sexual habits of others be cured?

There is no moral judgement intended in the OP, neither do I think it is present. I will of course agree that consent is the only thing that matters from a moral perspective, I am initiating a discussion about why some people are hetero- or homosexual when bisexuality is the rational choice. My conclusion is that it is based mainly on fear, some of it which is rational (social repercussions for example) some of which are not (taboos about body parts).

What your sexuality is seem to be up to you to decide. My suggestion is that arranging your different preferences and aversions in a rational system is a good way to communicate it to others. When I say I am a heterosexual male what I mean is that my behavioral patterns is to seek sexual intimacy exclusively from females, and avoid sexual intimacy with men. There is no moral judgement possible here in my view, other than that seeking intimacy in itself is a healthy strategy. If you can expand the sphere of people who you can be intimate with, it would (all other things being equal) be net positive. More consensual intimacy = better, would perhaps be the moral lesson of the argument, if there is one to be found.