And I agree with that sentiment. But that sentiment has absolutely nothing to do with that webpage. That page isn’t about self-determination. It’s about condemnation, blame, projection, and self-pity.
The dude doesn’t say, “I’m promiscuous and have a series of unsafe and empty sexual encounters that leave me deeply spiritually unsatisfied. I want to change that.” He says, “Homosexuals are promiscuous and have unsafe and empty sexual encounters, leaving them deeply spirtually unsatisfied. I am a homosexual. Therefore, I want to overcome my homosexuality.”
If he’s a slut and he’s not happy about it, go for it and change it, I say. If he’s a homosexual and he’s not happy about it, then try to change that too. From my experience, I’m highly skeptical he’ll have any measure of success at all, but hey, that’s not my business.
But when he refuses to take any responsibility for his own behavior, but instead goes and tells the world that it’s all because of a single personal trait – a trait that I happen to share, and which is the only thing I share with this asshole – that’s sure as hell my business. I’m going to protest that, and I’m going to protest anyone who “cheers him on.” That’s not my being defensive, and that’s not my investing too much meaning in a word.
Your point, in brief, as I understand it: the gay “community” has no more right to tell this guy he shouldn’t deny his homosexuality, than the “religious right” has to tell him his homosexuality is wrong and must be changed or supressed. That, I can agree with. But that’s not what was said.
I think it probably is possible to permanently change someone’s sexuality (orientation and behaviour), it may not be possible without causing irreparable psychological damage in the vast majority of cases, even if actual torture wasn’t used, but I think it probably could be done somehow. However I can’t see any good reason at all why it should be done.
So I suppose I’d have to say, to those asking if I could be turned gay, that yes, I think it could be done; I don’t particularly want this to happen and I’m not sure what sort of mental state I’d be in afterward, but I think humans are sufficiently malleable to make it not utterly impossible in every single case.
I see no reason to be angry with each other in this thread–Bryan Ekers and Mangetout are not antigay, they’re just big fams of willpower. I think they miss the point, but more on that in a sec. Airman Doors is a sweetheart and a genuinely good guy, and he can’t help the “ooginess” toward homosexuality that his environment planted in him, but he does his level best to transcend it, so you gotta love the guy for that.
As to the blogger–what a sad guy he is. See, what the “go, blogger” crowd do not seem to grasp is that this is not an exercise in the mastery of the will, but of intense, deep self-loathing. He’s isolated from other people, he hates his feelings toward men, and this has led him to become one very unhappy person. He’s trying to appease an angry God by suppressing his natural desires to love and be loved–what’s praiseworthy in that?
I can see that this blogger is reading these comments, so I want to tell him that even if he became hetero (a mighty big if), that will never be enough to gain acceptance from others. If he looks for validation externally, from God, from Christians, he will never find it because he will never be good enough, ever, by their standards that demand inhuman, unnatural perfection. I havent got a lot of use for a value system that values hate over compassion, intolerance and judgment over unconditional love.
He has to learn that, hetero or homo, he’s worthy of love, worth caring for, and that he is under no obligation to please others at the expense of his own sense of self. Eating pussy isn’t going to cure his deeper problems, specifically that he doesn’t value himself as a worthwhile person. When I read comments like, “The risk I’m talking about is with people. I rarely talk to others about my personal life. I’m just afraid to,” I feel very sad for the guy because he doesn’t seem to have anyone in his life who gives him unconditional love and support.
Excellent post gobear; I heartily agree; this guy’s problem isn’t his sexuality, but his conviction that his sexuality is A Very Bad Thing and A Big Problem.
I would like to clarify though, that I wasn’t really talking about willpower above, more like something along the lines of mental reprogramming at a very deep level; I just have an inkling that it is not quite impossible in all cases (although as I said, I think in most cases, it could cause terrible damage in other ways). I don’t think willpower would be very effective at all.
You’re right; this person needs someone to accept him, but part of the problem is also that, just like poison, one person explicitly despising him for his homosexuality can swamp the effect of hundreds of others who accept.
If you’re reading this you might want to join the Straight Dope board. We’re one of the largest, most sophisticated and powerful general Q&A boards on the planet, it’s free (for 30 days), and even if you don’t get the specific affirmation you’re seeking, it may help you to gain a better grasp of what is, and is not, behaviorally and philosophically achievable in your quest to change your sexual orientation.
Out gay dopers may not be the prettiest, or the most fabulous, but they’re fairly compassionate and (mostly) very smart.
Well said, although I wouldn’t draw such a defined line between willpower and “mental reprogramming at a very deep level.” Same thing, just at a different point along the continuum.
Is it possible to change one’s orientation through sheer force of will? Sure. To compare it to changing one’s height is a bad analogy. Height is in the genes. Gayness, as far as anyone has determined so far (and the jury is still out), is entirely in the brain. If it’s in the brain, it can be changed. The question is how much work it would take to affect such a change, and how much damage would be done along the way. But yeah, it’s possible.
As would be expected. I disagree with this. My standard “All Things Gay And Fabulous” witnessing follows.
He's trying to appease, not G-d, but his own guilt and angry church. He mentions his relationship with G-d needs work. I agree with him on this. If you think G-d hates gays, you really haven't had personal experience of Him. He should put down the Bible, and the various 'therapy' books and ask the Lord directly, without any intermediary. But, I fear his guilt and shame would keep him from hearing the answer 'You are as I made you. When any of my children turn to one another in love, it is a beautiful and holy thing. Be unashamed my child. Go forth and find a man with whom you may join not simply your bodies, but your spirits. And know that I love you.'
I think your notion about the brain’s fundamental mutability is both facile and wrong. The brain is not just a big ontological Tinkertoy set you can rearrage any way you wish if you have a big enough pair of pliers and a will to make changes. The brain is highly plastic in terms some behaviors, but to imagine that deep seated programming and wiring is not as “real” and fixed in function (esp by your 20’s) as other parts of human body is setting yourself (or others) up for frustration and disappointment.
Perhaps, although willpower implies conscious consent; brainwashing can override this (sort of)
I’m very wary of such absolute statements; it might be in the brain because it is in the genes (like breathing), some things in the brain might not be able to be changed, without destroying the organism, anyway. I wouldn’t like to say it is possible as much as I would prefer to say that, with our present understanding, we can’t absolutely say it is impossible.
I suspect a great deal of damage would be done in most cases, some of which might not surface until a lot later and some of which might trigger progressive states such as a gradual descent into manic depression.
Oh absolutely, I think it is a fucking moronic idea.
I looked at this guys links. There’s also a link to “Ex-Witch,” as well as a bunch of other extremely well-written blog sites (and a few that don’t fit in with anything). I think it might be some sort of put-on. Some of the anecdotes ring kind of false, too. The story of Paul for instance–it just seems to cover too many cliches, and I just don’t see them fitting together. They met at a bathhouse (cliche), but don’t have sex and just lie in each other arms (a separate cliche). And it turns out that his sexual orientation is due to some incest thing or whatever (another cliche).
It strikes me, in other words, as what an inexperienced straight, Christian man might perceive being gay and a Christian to be like. They’ve got the Christian part down–they just need to do some fact checking on the gay.
Then again, the thought that anyone could put themselves through such torment makes me feel pretty crappy, so I might be looking for ways it could be false.
True enough. As far as the whole “curing gayness” thing goes, the fact is we just don’t know yet. There is a lot of speculation as to why some people are gay, but as far as I know we’re pretty much lacking in any scientific fact. I don’t know if gayness is an immutable trait or not, and neither do you.
And I question the morality of trying to find out.
But consider this: We hetero men (for example) have a wide range of tastes in what we look for in a woman. Some like 'em skinny, some like 'em fat, some like blondes, some like redheads. These preferences come from somewhere, and I seriously doubt that it’s genetic. Most likely it’s due to childhood influences, including but not limited to media images. To me this suggests some malleability of sexual preferences, and I don’t think it’s a stretch to at least wonder if that doesn’t extend to orientation as well.
It’s not a behavior he’s trying to break. It’s an orientation he’s trying to change. That ain’t gonna happen. His behavior most certainly could, but he’d be living a lie.
And not in others. Of course. The thing is, we don’t really know where homosexuality lies in that continuum. Anecdotes suggest that it’s fairly well fixed, but I would at least entertain that there might be some wiggle room.
As an academic exercise only, of course. Trying to bring such an unfounded assertion to bear on an actual human is folly, I think we all agree.
I think it would do Ben, if he’s real, a lot of good to sit down with some actual gay Christians – ie, Christians who are out and comfortable with both their homosexuality and their situation with their religion. But if he’s preceding from an evangelical/fundamentalist background, chances are he’ll be unreceptive, unless he’s willing to move or consider more enlightened/liberal branches of the religion.
Homosexuality and Christianity are not enemies. They need not be at odds, and one does not preclude the other. I wish there was a way to show him that. It’d save him a lot of futile anguish and eventual disappointment.
[QUOTE=tdn]
True enough. As far as the whole “curing gayness” thing goes, the fact is we just don’t know yet. There is a lot of speculation as to why some people are gay, but as far as I know we’re pretty much lacking in any scientific fact. I don’t know if gayness is an immutable trait or not, and neither do you.
[quote]
Quite; in fact we don’t actually know whether it is the same cause (or set of causes) for any two individuals; there might be a whole range of pick ‘n’ mix factors, certain combinations of which are more likely than others to result in an individual that is identifiably homosexual.
I suppose, but we are curious monkeys; we like to find out why things are the way they are, but it is people’s lives that we’re talking about, so experimentation is sort of immoral.
That’s the sort of lines along which I was thinking; I’m well aware, though, that some people might find it deeply offensive to call it a ‘preference’, because that implies superficiality and I don’t believe our sexuality is superficial in nature.
Exactly. Much in the same way we might be naturally curious about what happens to people if we deprive them of sleep for a year. Interesting question, but it would be hazardous and irresponsible to do experiments.
