# Homosexuality is curable **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 30, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035 "2015-11-30T17:26:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/103 "2015-12-01T13:06:27Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > How does your hypothesis account for heterosexuality in cultures that _don’t_ discourage “cuddling, kissing, hugging and even holding hands” between men? It seems to fit well with my hypothesis. In cultures where male intimacy is not discouraged it will naturally emerge. In cultures where it is not discouraged to hold hands, men will hold hands without encouragement. Where it is not discouraged to hug, they will hug without encouragement. That seems to indicate that the behavioral pattern of not hugging and not holding hands is the artificial or socially constructed one. This also holds true for out nearest relatives, the Bonobo, where practically the whole population is bisexual as well as poly-amorous. > [@WhyNot](#): > > Ah, see, now that’s a \*much \*more interesting discussion. I can well believe that _you_, personally, may be naturally bisexual, and have formed a culturally determined aversion to men that makes you functionally heterosexual. I can further believe that some others have this experience. I can believe that without evidence, because at the individual level, you’re talking about your experience, which I have no reason to doubt. I can believe it of a portion of the population, because there’s a wide range of sexual expression in the human animal, so the idea that \*some \*people are like X is probably true, no matter what X is. I also happen to believe that bi erasure is a very real phenomenon, and that more people might be bisexual if they felt that being bisexual was an okay thing to be. > > But when you start to expand that theory beyond yourself, beyond a subset of the human population, into a theory of humankind’s sexual development, now you’re moving outside the realm of anecdote and into dataland. At the macro level, you’re going to need evidence. And as this is an \*extraordinary \*claim - one that, as this thread shows, doesn’t immediately resonate as true with a lot of people’s own personal experience - then you need not only evidence, but \*extraordinary \*evidence. As I said, I have found this to be true for myself, and I am encouraging a discussion to see whether it holds true for others. The problem is that most of the responses so far is “prove it” or “I don’t believe it”, rather than “Well I identify as X and when I look inwards to see why that seems to be I find that it is because of Y”. For some reason people don’t seem to give their own experience any sort of validity at all. Another problem is that some people tend to turn it into a political or moral issue, which is not the most interesting to me. To me the moral/political “result” of this is quite insignificant. I’d say that it would be a motivation to move away from a cultural norm of exclusive heterosexuality and embrace a more diverse and tolerant view, but that seems like the most reasonable thing to do either way. I’m really more interested in how we build our different personas and identities. To me the issue is mainly psychological, not moral or political. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/104 "2015-12-01T13:12:34Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Bonobos are no closer to us than common chimpanzees, who are decidedly _not_ all bisexual. Someone asked why there was no example in nature of bisexuality as a primary sexual behavior. My reply to that was that there is, and that it also happens to be our closest relative. Those statements are absolutely true. The fact that there is another species that is equally close that is not pre-dominantly bisexual does nothing to change the value of that fact, since what I responded to was “Why does this not exist?” and my reply was “It does” not that “It’s the only thing that does” which would be absurd and blatantly wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/105 "2015-12-01T13:22:34Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 😕 Actually, the logic seems completely invalid. What “nature cares about”, from an evolutionary standpoint, is reproduction, not sexual fulfillment. > > Obviously it makes much more sense for a sexually reproducing species to have its predominant sexual orientation be heterosexual rather than bisexual. While there are some good evolutionary arguments for the development and persistence of homosexuality and bisexuality among _comparatively small subsets_ of such species, same-sex pairings do not result in offspring (even if they can increase the survival rates of the offspring of other pairings). > > So it’s not difficult to see why the human species has evolved with most of its members exclusively or mostly heterosexual (and also with a strong bias toward comparatively young and healthy potential mates). You need your mating population motivated enough to seek out fertile members of the opposite sex, rather than just enjoying themselves with whoever happens to be handy regardless of gender. > > If any individual wants to maximize their personal sexual opportunities by deliberately cultivating their openness to bisexual attraction, that’s up to them and there’s nothing wrong with it. But it seems pretty absurd to ascribe that to any species-wide evolutionary strategy. Reproductive success, from an evolutionary point of view, does not favor having more than a small amount of same-sex noise in an overwhelmingly heterosexual signal. You are missing the point that there is no evolutionary disadvantage to bisexuality, only for exclusive homosexuality. In fact assuming a social species (like humans and bonobos) it could very well be an evolutionary advanced, since intimacy creates stronger emotional bonds and promotes group cohesion. But the main point is that if there are no drawbacks to it and it generates pleasure, it’s likely to happen, so it should show up in nature. Turns out it does, but not everywhere, which could lead to an interesting discussion about evolutionary biology and sexual/social behaviors. If that is what you want to discuss. To me it doesn’t really make much difference, because I have figured out how I work, and that can not change because of how chimps and bonobos work. It only serves to put it in a wider perspective (which is interesting). ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/106 "2015-12-01T14:21:35Z")
\*\*"Hey, heterosexual men! Do you watch Hugh Jackman at the movies and think, “Dammit! Why am I not sexually aroused by him?!” Well… STOP THE HOMOPHOBIA!!! Now, with our semi-proven system of hours of expensive sexual therapy, hormone injections, behavioral actualization, and a shock collar, you can finally realize your dream you never had of becoming bisexual!!! Why not do it? Because reasons and issues! So, sign up today!!!"\*\* ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/107 "2015-12-01T14:41:35Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > It seems to fit well with my hypothesis. In cultures where male intimacy is not discouraged it will naturally emerge. OK. So why are the majority of those men heterosexual then? By your hypothesis, being as they have no fear of physical intimacy with other men, they should be schtuping nonstop. > [@](#): > > As I said, I have found this to be true for myself, and I am encouraging a discussion to see whether it holds true for others. The problem is that most of the responses so far is “prove it” or “I don’t believe it”, rather than “Well I identify as X and when I look inwards to see why that seems to be I find that it is because of Y”. For some reason people don’t seem to give their own experience any sort of validity at all. Because your OP, for as long as it was, and a great many of your subsequent posts, did not make it clear that you’re looking for personal experiences, nor did the forum you chose to post the thread in. It wasn’t until post 81 that I picked up on your goal. Before that, there was no indication that you wanted discussion to see whether it holds true for others, and lots of indication that you wanted a debate. I’m curious…I can’t tell you my experiences as a heterosexual man, because I’m a wibbly-wobbly sometimes bisexual sometimes heterosexual woman (heterosexual at the moment, and predominantly). But tell me how heterosexual women fit into your hypothesis. Like those men in other cultures, physical intimacy on a non-sexual level with other women is not forbidden to us, nor is emotional intimacy. Why aren’t we predominantly homo or bisexual? Why am I, specifically, who has been sexually attracted to and sexually intimate with women in the past, no longer sexually attracted to women? I have no aversion to them at all, as demonstrated by several past lovers who are women. I’m just no longer interested. Kinsey stated that sexual orientation is only a valid label for a specific period of time in a person’s life, and that it may change. I’ve found that to be very true for me, although previous threads have cast doubt on it’s universality. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/108 "2015-12-01T15:09:38Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > OK. So why are the majority of those men heterosexual then? By your hypothesis, being as they have no fear of physical intimacy with other men, they should be schtuping nonstop. That does not make sense since handholding does not equal fucking, so that would not fit my hypothesis. My hypothesis seems to stipulate mainly that all forms of intimacy are naturally recurring between both genders and will emerge naturally if not repressed. If handholding is not repressed, it will emerge. In ancient Greece (AFAIK), homosexuality was not repressed and seemed to be very prevalent, even normalized. > [@WhyNot](#): > > Because your OP, for as long as it was, and a great many of your subsequent posts, did not make it clear that you’re looking for personal experiences, nor did the forum you chose to post the thread in. It wasn’t until post 81 that I picked up on your goal. Before that, there was no indication that you wanted discussion to see whether it holds true for others, and lots of indication that you wanted a debate. > > I’m curious…I can’t tell you my experiences as a heterosexual man, because I’m a wibbly-wobbly sometimes bisexual sometimes heterosexual woman (heterosexual at the moment, and predominantly). But tell me how heterosexual women fit into your hypothesis. Like those men in other cultures, physical intimacy on a non-sexual level with other women is not forbidden to us, nor is emotional intimacy. Why aren’t we predominantly homo or bisexual? Why am I, specifically, who has been sexually attracted to and sexually intimate with women in the past, no longer sexually attracted to women? I have no aversion to them at all, as demonstrated by several past lovers who are women. I’m just no longer interested. > > Kinsey stated that sexual orientation is only a valid label for a specific period of time in a person’s life, and that it may change. I’ve found that to be very true for me, although previous threads have cast doubt on it’s universality. I don’t have a hypothesis for heterosexual women since my discovery was a result of self-deconstruction, and then analyzed and fit into a bigger perspective (including the biological or evolutionary aspect). Simply put the process was ”Oh. So this is how I work. That was a bit of a surprise. Well… it does make sense from a biological perspective too… I wonder how much of it is deep structure (universal) and how much of it is surface structure (individual)”. So far most arguments have been either moral, political or semantical and I frankly don’t think the feedback in general has provided very much, since so many people seem to have confused it for a political debate. I’m willing to take a bit of responsibility for that since I could obviously have been more clear (and will be if I present this perspective again in the future), but from my perspective it’s mainly an issue of different cultures clashing. I’m from a consensus/sharing culture and this board has more of a argumentative and conflict oriented culture. You could of course argue that I could have posted this somewhere else, and I did, and the type and quality of feedback is very different. On another forum I got answers that were mainly affirmative, and people sharing their own experience and perspective on the issue. The only difference was that there I used the topic ”Heterosexuality is curable”, which I doubt would have made any difference here. Maybe if the topic has been ”sexual preference is mainly a social construct” the reception would have been different, but I usually find it funny to use more extreme and direct phrasing. But it would really make much more sense to hear YOUR perspective on female sexuality than for me to try to fit something I have no first hand experience of into the hypothesis. The logical framework is already there and it would seem fairly easy for you (assuming you are self reflective, which you seem to be) to trace and identify what parameters or causes where relevant to developing your strategies. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/109 "2015-12-01T15:24:40Z")
> [@](#): > > That does not make sense since handholding does not equal fucking, so that would not fit my hypothesis. Then I’m afraid I misunderstand your hypothesis. I thought your hypothesis was that under cultural conditions where men are taught to avoid physical contact with other men, they develop a fear (or aversion) of male touch, and therefore become heterosexual, avoiding not just touch but sex with other men; remove this cultural conditioning and men would be bisexual. Can you explain where my understanding veered from your actual hypothesis? > [@](#): > > You could of course argue that I could have posted this somewhere else, and I did, and the type and quality of feedback is very different. We have a forum here called “In My Humble Opinion,” which solicits personal opinions and experiences. It is far less argumentative and debatey, and probably would have gotten you very different responses. > [@](#): > > But it would really make much more sense to hear YOUR perspective on female sexuality than for me to try to fit something I have no first hand experience of into the hypothesis. My own experiences, I think, arise from a combination of hormonal shifts through the lifespan and some personal religious stuff I was working on that’s not going to be universal at all. Basically, my most bisexual phase, when I was equally receptive to both men and women, was when I was doing some very intense, guided, intentional spiritual work embodying the Goddess for a full year for a spiritual community. She loves everyone, and so therefore did I. It’s…let’s just say it’s not a conversation that’s going to be warmly received on this predominately atheist message board. But I also don’t think it’s remotely universal in experience, nor why bisexual people are bisexual in general. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/110 "2015-12-01T16:20:33Z")
> [@yawuntz](#): > > Yeah, need answer fast! Wait - homosexuality is an illness?? Well, sure enough. > **[Joseph Nicolosi: books, biography, latest update](https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B001IQZKKA)** > > Follow Joseph Nicolosi and explore their bibliography from Amazon.com's Joseph Nicolosi Author Page. And it’s all caused by crappy parenting. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/111 "2015-12-01T16:37:31Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > 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. This is what we call poisoning the well. This isn’t a good way to start the debate, but… okay, I’ll still bite, why not. > [@](#): > > 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. This is a bad place to start. This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. It is only fair to say that p(x) = 1 - p(y) and p(y) = 1 - p(x) IFF p(x) + p(y) = 1. This is clearly not true as the spectrum of sexuality is not just heterosexual and homosexual. It includes, among other things, bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, and other things I don’t know the names for like attractions to inanimate objects and animals and whatever else. So, your premise is provably false. Second, even putting aside that your premise is provably false with basic logic, it still doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. There’s variations even amongst a single one of those two groups. For instance, some heterosexual men will have sex with pretty much any woman willing, others are far more choosy, and yet others voluntarily refrain from having sex. This is true for homosexual men, and women of both orientations too. Hell, even for asexuals, even though they generally don’t have a sex drive, that doesn’t mean they refrain from sex entirely either. > [@](#): > > 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. What? The idea of saying that heterosexual men don’t have sex with other men because of fear is a HUGE leap. Maybe that fits your experience, but it certainly doesn’t fit mine. I have no problems with various forms of physical intimacy with both men and women, up to a point, and past that point, it’s only with the PERSON I choose to be sexually intimate with. That is, sex, at least for me, isn’t about just getting my rocks off. It is itself a form of intimacy. I’m not afraid of getting a blow job from a man, I simply have no desire for it, not really all that much different from having no desire to get a blow job from a random woman either. Further, the idea that closing one’s eyes changes it is silly. Sex is more than just stimulation of the genitals. Sight, smell, sound, emotional attachment, all of that is important to sexual stimulation and enjoyment. That is, I’m just as unlikely to find no pleasure in a woman I’m unattracted to putting my dick in her mouth as I am a man. I’m not “afraid” of women I’m unattracted to, I’m just not attracted to them. > [@](#): > > 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. Again, maybe this is true for you, it is not true for me. My two closest friends, one is male, one is female. I’m equally physically intimate with both, and I have no desire to have sex with either; that’s just not the nature of that relationship. Basically, it seems to me that you’re stuck on this idea that intimacy = sex. It does not. Sex can be incredibly intimate, as in making love to one’s husband or wife, or it can be incredibly not intimate, like sex with a prostitute or rape. > [@](#): > > 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. Again, this sounds like it has WAY more to do with you, than it does with anyone else. My body doesn’t crave all non-violent intimacy, nor does it crave all non-violent sexual contact. Intimacy isn’t something that exists between any two random people, nor should it. That would imply that the only reason I don’t go down the street having sex with random people, or at least some other form of intimacy like hugging, is because I’m somehow scared of them. No, I have intimacy with people proportional to how close we are and appropriate to the nature of the relationship. That is, some relationships have more physical intimacy, some less of that and more emotional intimacy, etc. I’m quite intimate with my closest male friends, just not in a way that involves our penises. And I never attacked or bashed any gay acquaintances either. Quite frankly, if you’re having these kinds of revelations about only have a part of your brain turned off by a man giving you a blow job and you were lashing out at gays… maybe you’ve repressed some latent attraction to men yourself? > [@](#): > > 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. What? You seem to be begging the question here with the assumption that bisexuality is somehow the norm and then working out this bizarre circular logic to come to that conclusion. You even specifically mention “aesthetic/emotional/social preference”. That’s why I’m attracted to women, there’s something aesthetic, emotional, whatever about them that like. That I don’t get that same thing from men isn’t something wrong with me or vice versa for gay men. As an analogy, it’s like talking about taste in music. I have a particular taste because I like the aesthetics, subject matter, rhythms, scales, timbres, vocals… whatever. There’s also styles that I don’t like. There’s nothing “wrong” with me for liking or not liking that. And using your logic it, the musical equivalent would be because I just haven’t been exposed to the right songs in that genre. You know what, there’s plenty of genres where I can appreciate the skill, musicianship, lyrics, whatever… it just doesn’t move me. Similarly, as much as I’m moved by the stuff I like, I’ve had conversations with people who don’t like the styles I do. Sure, some of them dislike it based on bad experiences or incorrect assumptions, but there’s also some who seem to me to have given it an honest shot, can appreciate the level of talent, whatever, and it just doesn’t speak to them. There IS such a thing as a difference in taste. Sexual orientation, in that sense, isn’t all that different from liking certain foods, liking music, liking certain movies, whatever. Hell, I’m adventurous when it comes to trying food. I can definitely acknowledge that there are some foods other people love, but when I try them, they’re just gross… to me. On that visceral level, I can’t understand how someone likes that flavor, but intellectually I understand that different people have different tastes, so obviously they do. Do I have a fear of intimacy with, say, ranch dressing or radishes? No, they just don’t work for me, but clearly plenty of others like those things just fine. > [@](#): > > 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). Again, this may be your experience, but it certainly doesn’t match mine. I have many female friends, and many of them say they’re more comfortable talking to me about a lot of emotional things than anyone else they know. Just because I’m male and she’s female doesn’t mean there needs to be sexual tension there. Similarly, in my experience, the repulsion that homosexuals have for heterosexual sex seems roughly on par with heterosexuals for homosexual sex. The only exemption to that are people who fundamentally believe homosexuality is fundamentally wrong, and I exempt that because that’s clearly not due do any physical repulsion, but due to intellectual or religious reasons. And, again, you’re begging the question here that somehow bisexuality is “optimal” and it seems this line of reasoning is designed to prove what you’ve already assumed to be true. > [@](#): > > 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. You didn’t prove ANY of this. And, Occam’s Razor, there’s a much much simpler explanation. Heterosexuality is more common because evolution favors the ability to reproduce. How homosexuality evolved still has a whole bunch of theories, and I’m not going to hazard a guess as to which one of those may be correct, but it seems pretty straightforward to just go with the evolutionary response that heterosexuality is going to be the norm for reproduction and other orientations either provide some other benefit (perhaps helping raise children of others in the same gene pool), was incidental (perhaps in old times, even if gay, many would still have sex with opposite gendered mates for survival), or was largely irrelevant (even with a certain percentage the gene pool carried on). This whole reclassification thing is just a solution in search of a problem. And, one last time, I really think you may need to do some more soul searching in understanding your own sexuality before making assumptions about how that may or may not apply in a generalized fashion to other people. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/112 "2015-12-01T16:43:55Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Then I’m afraid I misunderstand your hypothesis. I thought your hypothesis was that under cultural conditions where men are taught to avoid physical contact with other men, they develop a fear (or aversion) of male touch, and therefore become heterosexual, avoiding not just touch but sex with other men; remove this cultural conditioning and men would be bisexual. Can you explain where my understanding veered from your actual hypothesis? I separate between different kinds of intimacy, mental/emotional and physical. And within those two broader categories there are more differentiations since not all emotional intimacy is of the same sort or same intensity, and the same holds true for the physical. For example my hand touching another mans hand in a certain way may not be taboo, but touching another mans genitals may. To me there’s a vast difference between shaking someones hand and jerking them off, one is completely accepted and the other is completely taboo (in my programming/cultural context). Emotional intimacy is the same, certain emotions are normal to share with men (joy, anger…) and certain are not (grief, sadness). Maybe in this context heterointimacy and homointimacy would be better words. > [@WhyNot](#): > > We have a forum here called “In My Humble Opinion,” which solicits personal opinions and experiences. It is far less argumentative and debatey, and probably would have gotten you very different responses. Good point, too late for that now though. Also, I find the quality of feedback in this forum to be _generally_ higher or more serious, but it also seems more likely to devolve into sniping, mudslinging and semantics. Next time I’ll probably go to IMHO instead, thanks for the tip- > [@WhyNot](#): > > My own experiences, I think, arise from a combination of hormonal shifts through the lifespan and some personal religious stuff I was working on that’s not going to be universal at all. Basically, my most bisexual phase, when I was equally receptive to both men and women, was when I was doing some very intense, guided, intentional spiritual work embodying the Goddess for a full year for a spiritual community. She loves everyone, and so therefore did I. It’s…let’s just say it’s not a conversation that’s going to be warmly received on this predominately atheist message board. But I also don’t think it’s remotely universal in experience, nor why bisexual people are bisexual in general. Personally I differentiate very clearly between ”spiritual” and ”mythical” or ”religious”. I like Habermas and Wilbers scale which basically show us developing through the stages archaic -\> magical -\> mythical -\> modern -\> post-modern -\> integral -\> Holistic -\> Unitive. The mythical/religious world view is based on the concrete operational cognitive function, modernism and post-modernism is based on the formal operational (rational) and the later stages are based on vision logic, which is where I believe spirituality begins. Unfortunately (most) rationalists do not differentiate between what is pre-rational and what is post-rational, they basically assume that rational (or formal operational) cognition is the ”highest” mode available, until they themselves develop the cognitive ability known as vision logic or network logic. That is (IMO) why there is so much hostility towards rational-spirituality, because it is confused with pre-rational mythology. The non-dual perspective is not available. I view (valid) spiritual work (such as vipassana, yoga etc) as higher forms of psychology, basically adhering to the “Spiral Dynamic”, “Integral Theory” and “AQAL” models of consciousness development. But I also see the difficulty to differentiate between the different levels (confusing low level “magical thinking” with genuine spiritual insight). ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/113 "2015-12-01T16:46:48Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Someone asked why there was no example in nature of bisexuality as a primary sexual behavior. My reply to that was that there is, and that it also happens to be our closest relative. Those statements are absolutely true. Nope. “One of…” would be true. “Our closest”, not so much. Bonobos are also pretty much all paedophilic- I’m not sure they’re the best comparator for natural human sexuality. In general, we’re a lot more like chimps, socially, than we are like bonobos. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/114 "2015-12-01T17:12:52Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Nope. “One of…” would be true. “Our closest”, not so much. They are pretty much identical to chimps. They have just as much a claim as “our closest” as chimps do. If chimps could claim stuff. > [@](#): > > Bonobos are also pretty much all paedophilic- I’m not sure they’re the best comparator for natural human sexuality. But humans practice pedophilia too. > [@](#): > > In general, we’re a lot more like chimps, socially, than we are like bonobos. I think we’re both. We are extremely sexual and extremely violent. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/115 "2015-12-01T20:44:09Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > They are pretty much identical to chimps. They have just as much a claim as “our closest” as chimps do. If chimps could claim stuff. That’s my point. > [@](#): > > But humans practice pedophilia too. Not as a rule, the way bonobos do. > [@](#): > > I think we’re both. We are extremely sexual and extremely violent. We don’t use no-holds-barred all-in sex as a group stress reliever, we’re nowhere near “extremely sexual” if we’re using bonobos as a yardstick. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/116 "2015-12-01T22:51:39Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > You are missing the point that there is no evolutionary disadvantage to bisexuality, only for exclusive homosexuality. Hell yes there’s an evolutionary disadvantage to bisexuality, if it’s sufficiently widespread in the population. Human beings have only finite amounts of time, opportunity and energy for sex. If the sexual desires of most humans can be equally well satisfied with a partner of any gender, then reproductively fruitful sex will form a significantly smaller percentage of total sexual activity than it would in a mostly heterosexual population. Consequently, mostly heterosexual populations will end up outbreeding mostly bisexual ones. That’s the evolutionary disadvantage of (universal or near-universal) bisexuality, right there. Again, I’m not in any way disparaging bisexuality or homosexuality, which as you point out occur in very many non-human species too. I’m just saying that there are fundamental biological reasons why heterosexuality is much more prevalent than bisexuality (and far more so than exclusive homosexuality, of course) in species that reproduce sexually. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/117 "2015-12-02T02:10:03Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Hell yes there’s an evolutionary disadvantage to bisexuality, if it’s sufficiently widespread in the population. > > Human beings have only finite amounts of time, opportunity and energy for sex. If the sexual desires of most humans can be equally well satisfied with a partner of any gender, then reproductively fruitful sex will form a significantly smaller percentage of total sexual activity than it would in a mostly heterosexual population. > > Consequently, mostly heterosexual populations will end up outbreeding mostly bisexual ones. That’s the evolutionary disadvantage of (universal or near-universal) bisexuality, right there. > > Again, I’m not in any way disparaging bisexuality or homosexuality, which as you point out occur in very many non-human species too. I’m just saying that there are fundamental biological reasons why heterosexuality is much more prevalent than bisexuality (and far more so than exclusive homosexuality, of course) in species that reproduce sexually. I think this is what economists call “opportunity cost”. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/118 "2015-12-02T06:10:26Z")
I think I’m going to deny your major. Heterophobia is not exactly the same as homosexuality, and homophobia is not exactly the same as heterosexuality. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/119 "2015-12-02T07:14:23Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![ZebraShaSha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/eada6e/32.png) [@ZebraShaSha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZebraShaSha)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/120 "2015-12-02T08:03:35Z")
“You know these commonly used words that have widely accepted definitions both academically and colloquially? Well, I’m going to define them like _this_ instead – aren’t I smart?” “No.” ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/121 "2015-12-03T05:03:50Z")
I take issue with your blowjob hypothetical and the flaws it in cause the rest of your theory to come crashing down. Yes, I agree that being blindfolded and unknowingly being fellated by a man would be pleasurable. You take that fact and extrapolate it to mean that I would otherwise be sexually attracted to men if not for my irrational fear of intimacy with men that society has conditioned me to accept. I do not believe that is supported by your example. My penis could be licked by a dog while blindfolded and if I somehow didn’t perceive it to be a dog I would think it felt good. Same goes for 90 year old women, mechanical devices, a sibling, and children. It does not follow that I am sexually attracted to old ladies, dogs or vacuum cleaner hoses but only suppress that attraction because of fear or societal influences. It is pleasurable to masturbate, but that doesn’t imply a sexual attraction to myself. There is so much more to sexual attraction than a blindfolded blowjob. Sights, sounds, looks, smells, talk, etc. The reason why the blindfolded blowjob works is that I am filling in the remaining details with my imagination of what I am typically attracted to. There is also much more than oral sex. Since you cannot say I would likewise enjoy customary types of intercourse with these men, old women, my sister, dogs, or vacuum cleaners, then I’m not sure why only one type of sex, while blindfolded, proves your point. The societal influence is waning. I have yet to see a single example of an otherwise heterosexual man (not the ones just pretending) seeing the sea change in public opinion coming to your realization that “Hey, I really am attracted to guys. Let’s give it a shot!” It doesn’t happen anymore than hooking up with your sister in a strange town where nobody would judge you. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035/122 "2015-12-03T05:14:53Z")
Missed the edit window: I further disagree with your notion that the label of (male)heterosexual should be defined as the lack of attraction to men. The definition is terribly underinclusive as I am also not attracted to children, inanimate objects, and animals. I am also not attracted to all women. Not my mother and sisters, for example. Not 90 year old women. I am also not attracted to chain smoking heroin addicts that weigh 75 pounds with pock marks on their faces, nor am I attracted to 700 lb. women. Are you suggesting that I would be banging all of these people if it just wasn’t for my irrational fear or societal pressure? Are all of these types of people who I am not attracted to based upon fear or societal pressure? Which ones and what evidence do you have to support it? Why would you single out men, to the exclusion of all of the other objects, animals, and other women in the world I would also not have sex with for this treatment? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-is-curable/739035.md?page=7)