So it’s not that I’m unattracted to horses, I really just fear intimacy with them?
I don’t think this is the reason. It probably is for some, but definitely not for all, and I don’t think it’s the reason for most. I think your premise is a bad premise, except for the actual homophobes and bigots – and the ‘cure’ for those folks is to stop being homophobic, bigoted, or both.
No. But someone who is exclusively homosexual in their behavior may have unresolved issues regarding women, just as exclusively heterosexual men most likely have unresolved issues regarding intimacy with men.
Having more people to chose from is obviously better than having fewer, that’s all I am saying. Your’ argument is that there are enough women, so you don’t need to be bisexual in order to find a suitable partner. Fair enough. I’m saying that all else being equal, it would game theoretically (and this is what nature cares about) benefit you to have a bisexual strategy. The logic seems pretty solid.
Thank you for asking that question, because before I posted this I was actually thinking about that, but I decided I could check it out later. As it turns out, this IS the strategy in nature being used by our closest relative, the Bonobo chimpanzee. A study shows nearly all bonobos are bisexual. 
National Geographic
I was using a thought experiment to show the game theoretical validity of the strategy, as is common in evolutionary science. Another method would be to either check with yourself (deconstruct your own sexual identity through psychoanalysis). YOU are the one applying the moral imperative of ”should” which I think is completely unnecessary here. Even if bisexuality is game theoretically optimal, or our ”natural” state, that doesn’t mean there’s a moral imperative. That would be silly, like saying ”You have to learn to like sucking dick because that’s what nature wants”. Just like it’s silly to say ”You should not suck someones dick even if you want to because that’s not what god/nature wants”. I’m talking about the reasons for the behavior, not the moral value of a specific sets of actions or choices.
Actually I would state that on a certain level of cognition, that is exactly what it means. Before we develop a more complicated emotional spectrum, aversion and attraction is all we have. These then bifurcate into more complicated patterns, but everything can essentially be boiled down to those two ”primal emotions”. You could call it love and fear if you want. Essentially we want to be closer to what we love and further away from what we fear, and assuming our basic parameters are working properly (meaning we have coded the right symbols to the right emotions) this system works very well. Just like the colors on this screen are all made up of complicated patterns of 1’s and 0’s you could argue that essentially our vast emotional landscape is made up of complicated patterns of aversion/attraction or love/fear.
If you are arguing that there are more complicated emotions than fear, I of course agree. My argument would be that fear is the basic component making up the emotions. Anybody with a nervous system has access to the impulse/emotion of fear, but not everyone has access to shame or guilt, since those are cultivated emotions that need a social context among other things.
Actually I think you just proved the opposite point, that if there is avoidance there is fear somewhere in there.
I would say that it is a matter of degrees. I consider myself homophobic in the sense that I have a strong sexual aversion to men (I’d rather not have sex at all than with another man, and would pay or put up a fight in order not to have to). So psychologically I definitely suffer from homophobia. But politically I’m actually the opposite, since I see our socio-cultural context discriminating against those who are not using a heterosexual strategy for procreation or identity making. So no, if you by homophobia only mean overt action or speech signaling a resentment of homosexual behavior, then I absolutely don’t think that all heterosexuals are homophobes. But if we’re using the word literally to mean ”afraid of the same [gender]” then I would say we probably are. At least I am.
That is not how language works. I have clearly defined a logical system here that does not deviate much from normative definitions. My definition of homo- and heterosexual identities/strategies are not in essence different from the norm. I’ve defined them several times, they make total sense linguistically and logically.
Ok, maybe we don’t have the same world view so I will see if we can calibrate this.
The way I see it ”why?” is a question of intention and hence requires a subject (a person) with an interior world. ”How?” on the other hand is an objective question that describes the mechanics around something that happens. If you ask me why I went to the movies I will have to give you a subjective answer and you can only compare that with your own world view to see if it seems to make sense, because you are judging my sincerity. If I say I went to the movies because I was sad and wanted to distract myself, that is a subjective statement that can not be verified empirically. If you ask me how I got to the movie I can give you an objective description of it that could at least theoretically be shown to be true or false. The same goes for the movie itself. I can objectively say that it was X minutes long and had this or that actor in it, but if I want to talk about whether it was good or what the meaning of it was, I have to revert to the subjective arena.
So in my world view everything has an objective and a subjective aspect, and these two worlds can not be reduced to each other, you need them both in order to get the whole picture. For example my mind and my brain are not the same thing. The brain is the surface which is physical, the mind is the subjective experience which can not be reduced to the physical without completely losing its meaning. For example when I think of the phrase ”Sex on a moonlit beach” that will cause an electro-chemical process in the brain, but no matter how much you look at that process it will not tell you anything about what is in my mind.
The definitions are not the conclusions. The definitions are not controversial (you now call them tautological which would be the opposite of controversial) but the conclusion is. To put it extremely, I am saying that the sexual strategy of the majority population is rationally flawed and a cause of psychological issues that have been perpetuated by culture. I think it IS pretty controversial to say that heterosexuality is a psychological issue, since all current civilizations and cultures celebrates it as a norm.
Everyone, there have been too many personal comments in this thread. Let’s keep it focused on the argument and debate, please.
An interesting question but I am dealing mainly with human-human sexual relation here. Might get back to you later when I have given it some thought. How about in the mean time, you try to get the answer yourself and we can compare notes.
Two things that tie directly to the OP:
- May we conclude from your OP that the “cure” for homosexuality(as you see it to exist), and perhaps the “cure” for heterosexuality(as you see it to exist), is for people to choose to be bisexual?
- How does one choose to become bisexual?
Zach Galifianakis grosses me out in any context.
Anyhoo, forget homo- or hetero-, I’m willing the grant for the sake of argument that sexuality in general might be “curable”, in the sense that if you throw enough psychological conditioning, hormone injections and surgery and someone, you could dramatically alter (remove, probably) whatever sexual interests they started with.
A good reason for doing this is unclear to me, though.
Sure, but throw enough psychological conditioning, hormone injections and surgery at someone and you could cure them of being HUMAN, if that’s what your goal is.
That is wrong because you can’t directly chose to become bisexual (at least I can’t). If you want to become bisexual I would suggest that it is possible through psychological work. The controversial bit is probably that I suspect that “becoming bisexual” is more about getting rid of aversions (fear) than developing attractions. I already like sex, so I don’t need to “program myself” into liking sex, it’s the fact that I don’t like penis that is “the problem”. Now if I want to start liking penis it makes sense to figure out why I don’t like it right now. That goes for the sexual part, which I frankly think is the least interesting from a life quality perspective.
More interesting is why don’t I like emotional and physical intimacy with men. Why does the idea of cuddling with a man or crying in front of a man differ so much from the idea of doing the same thing with a woman. Obviously this is a mental construct as there is no differentiation being made on the level of the body. My body likes warmth and human contact, it’s my mind that has decided to deny it that from men.¨
But what I would actually invite people to do is to simply look within themselves. This is what came to me after doing a lot of psychological work, and I think there is a universal truth to it, but I’m looking to expand my perspective and get input. As far as I can tell this holds true for me (I am afraid of intimacy with men and that has created an exclusively heterosexual identity among other patterns) but in order to find out if it is universally true I need to connect with others who are interested in deconstructing their own personality and its traits/strategies. The moral and political implications are (at this point) mainly distractions. Whether heterosexuality is a result of psychological pathologies or not has nothing to do with morals or politics.
That’s not fair. I didn’t read the OP but I doubt that Sweden has any responsibility for it. It’s a wonderful country* – in fact, wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër? See the løveli lakes. The wøndërful telephøne system. And mäni interesting furry animals. Including the majestik møøse. Do not get tøø close, mynd you, as møøse bites Kan be pretti nasti.
- Seriously, it is.
I think the phenomena is interesting enough in itself, but if you want a reason why someone would pursue this course I can think of several. But first let me point out that all that I am suggesting to remove (if I am suggesting anything) is fear, and irrational fear at that. I am not suggesting removing or altering an existing sexual interest, but rather removing blocks for sexual interest. Less fear, blocks and phobias means more actual freedom.
First of all:
My post
Your head
Second, your OP is very much incoherent rambling.
Third, and most importantly, you can’t cure homosexuality, or anything for that matter, with semantic games, which is all you have.
But it’s something you think about quite a bit, obviously.
A fine suggestion.
Is that true of homosexuality also, because it sure seems like a lot of people see a moral and/or political angle at play.
But you have yet to show it to be fear at all, let alone irrational fear.
Well, I would state that it doesn’t. See, ‘state’ does not an argument make.
Well, Aristotle thought something of that kind, but thankfully, we’ve progressed regarding psychology since then. Trying to shoehorn everything into a simplistic dichotomic framework is misleading at best. Such simple manichean worldviews have held great attraction historically—love versus hate, dark versus light, good versus evil. But the world doesn’t slice neatl along such lines. The bad guys aren’t always the ones with the black hats.
Again with the definitions. Sure, one could call it love and fear; but one would then be calling a lot of things love and fear that other people don’t consider to be love and fear, and hence, would be looked at funny hen one says one is afraid of tomatoes, just because one prefers not to have them on one’s sandwhich.
Again, you’re not arguing here; you’re stipulating.
But not fear of the object one avoids. If I am afraid of situations in which I experience disgust (which I not necessarily am), that doesn’t mean I am afraid of the object of my disgust.
Again, this simply isn’t homophobia. Even if, for the sake of argument, you are right in calling it ‘fear’, it would be a fear of men, not of homosexuals, and hence, just not homophobia.
In fact, in addition to the problems I already noted, if you want to get formal about it, they’re contradictory: an asexual, on your definition, is heterosexual, since he does not engage in sexual reltions with his own sex; however, since he doesn’t engage in sexual relations with the other sex, he is also homosexual. Since however heterosexuality is the same as non-homosexuality on your account, he is both homosexual and non-homosexual, which is contradictory. So, unless you are advocating some form of paraconsistent approach, your logical system blows up, and all conclusions are trivially true.
Why did the stone fall down? Because of gravity. Perfectly objective. How did you come to believe that heterosexuality implies homophobia? Because of a (faulty) reasoning process. Absolutely subjective.
No, I’m not calling your definitions tautological, I’m saying that due to their idiosyncratic nature, your intended conclusion follows tautologically. You define ‘heterosexuality’ as ‘non-homosexuality’, ‘being afraid’ as ‘showing any kind of aversive behavior’, and ‘homophobia’ consequently as ‘showing sexually aversive behavior towards’ (all of which are very controversial, in my opinion, and seriously flawed). From this, ‘heterosexuals are homophobe’ follows trivially, but only due to your bad definitions.
So am I afraid of children because I don’t engage in pedophilia?
What is your evidence that this is possible, and what kind of psychological work will achieve it?
Regards,
Shodan
I have no moral or political angle, what I have is an insight into my own psychology and I am checking to see if it is universal. I now understand that my own strategy of searching for intimacy was not just based on attraction towards women, but a fear of men. I did not come to this conclusion as a result of political or moral reasoning, but as a result of a long period of introspection and psychological work. I also did not start it from a point of attempting to find a pathology, but rather from a point of curiosity. I basically wanted to find out why I am “heterosexual” and what that means, the result was a bit surprising in some ways but now that I am integrating it, it makes more and more sense.
In my experience almost everyone on this forum is incredibly paranoid when it comes to other peoples intentions. People in general seem to see hidden agendas and conspiracies everywhere. I don’t work like that, I simply communicate what I see and (currently) understand from the best of my ability. I can understand why that culture is the norm here (because hostile debate is the norm) but I am really not interested in partisan sniping, moralism or “proving people wrong”. I’m interested in a frank, open and fun sharing of ideas. Of course I sometimes get miffed when I feel I am attacked or intentionally misunderstood/misrepresented, but I try to stay out of those sort of conflicts (and sometimes fail).
I think it is wrong to interpret homophobia as a literal phobia, a fear; in the most common usage these days, it simply implies the “yuck” factor that many feel toward gay sex. It’s really only applied to the aversion, not to a true panic/fear response (the way I react to spiders…)
All that aside, the OP was kind of weird. I suppose sexual orientation could be changed, forcibly, by drugs, torture, sensory deprivation, and heavy-handed emotional manipulation. The same techniques could convert someone to a different religion, make liberals into conservatives, make brave people into cowards, and so on. Destroying a person’s emotional integrity in order to re-frame them as a wholly new person seems excessive. A lot easier just to accept gays as neighbors.