Not my opinion, but would like some feedback on how to respond to this. Thanks.

"The current state of thinking about homosexuals in America is interesting to me. I have a theory that we are conditioned into our sexual preference at a young age. It is an ongoing theory that I have and I'm open to other theories, but this, to me, is the leading theory. I've dated a few girls who were molested at a young age and this appears to affect their sexual preference to at least some degree.

Some don't trust men, and they appear to be more likely to be bi-sexual, and in some cases completely lesbian. Therapy, which is used today for sexual preferences of undesirable nature, i.e. being attracted to trees, violence, animals, etc., has the individual masturbate and then look at an ideal image (usually their spouse) right before ejaculation. This associates the feeling with the stimulus, and can make them desire the image after repetition. This is conditioning and why I think it may be why people have different preferences.

Society, at least a majority of religious society, appear to intuitively believe we are conditioned into it. It would explain why so many people look down on the behavior, and in turn are constantly discouraging the behavior. I believe we should accept homosexuals for who they are and I don't judge them. However, religion may be right about it."

I don't know if a Mormon made that statement. If they really thought it was about "conditioning," they wouldn't send 18 year old males off to live together with instructions to stay away from girls.

I'd like to know how my gay friend got "conditioned" acquire mannerisms that are uniquely gay- not that all gay people have them, but they are associated with the gene set.

I can see both sides. A large majority of LGBT individuals would say that it wasn't a choice. On the other hand, I have two friends that don't say that they were born gay. One is a non-member that was engaged when he caught his fiance in bed with another guy. He turned to a close friend that happened to be gay and ended up in a long term relationship with him. The other was raised in the church. He didn't have much luck dating and was also embraced by gay friends. Now, they both might have been supressing feelings that they didn't fully recognize as youth...I don't know. I have other friends that say they knew when they were 7 or 8. I have a 5 year old son that is already girl crazy, so I don't doubt that these attractions are developed that early. In any case, the large majority would not say they made the choice. Put yourself in their shoes...if you're straight, what would it take to make you gay?...could you somehow turn off your opposite-sex attraction? I don't think so.

Piffle. This person is basing their theory on the sole research of their own opinion. Not even worth considering. Anyone formulating any opinion should be doing so after massive unbiased research. It would be a joke if it was not dangerous.

This person is also presenting this like it is a new theory. In fact, it is the oldest, most tired theory ever and was discarded by the psychiatric community decades ago. For it to be true, the youth of every gay person would have to have the same experiences at the same young age. That has never happened. Many gay people went through no traumatic experiences at all, passed for straight, found out late, and were popular, came from loving families, were well adjusted, and never molested. So how would this person explain that?

This sick kind of thinking is what led to the ridiculously cruel Evergreen as well as the ugliness of the electroshock therapy performed on gay people at BYU.

Why is it so hard for some people to accept that gay people are born that way?

+1

+1,000,000,000

+1 should have read all comments before I commented :)

Becuz Jeezus!!

Isn't he describing the kind of "conversion therapy" that BYU performed to cure homosexuality? That is now regarded as brutal and completely ineffective, not to mention immoral and idiotic?

How would I respond?

What a CROCK!

;o)

Therapy involves masturbating and looking at an image?

That sounds more like entertainment than therapy. Ridiculous.

Well, looking at a picture of one's spouse just before climaxing when one would rather be fantasizing over a, um, TREE, might not be so entertaining :-P

So...

How long have you been using this therapy?

How is it working out for you?

The problem is the assumption that homosexuals need to change, that there is something wrong with them.

I think your friend needs to question their assumptions more.

I think it'd be easy to test the theory of social conditioning at a young age, although it would probably be against research ethics in most countries. Get 100 female infants and 100 male infants. Raise them in isolation from society at large (Lord of the Flies style, perhaps) and see how they form mating pairs later in life.

Also, you could just look at children raised by same-sex couples: are they more likely to identify as homosexual? Of course there may be increased genetic influence in those situations also (ie, if homosexuality is genetic then perhaps the son of a gay man would have a greater chance to be homosexual), which would complicate it.

There was a research doctor who based his career on this premise. He convinced multiple families that they could "adjust" the sexual preference of their hermaphrodite children to accept the sexual preference of their dominate genitals. He was proven totally wrong at the expense of many innocent children. For the most part, hermaphrodite children paid no attention whatsoever to sexual preference based on external forces. But many became seriously depressed when their parents and doctors tried to force them to accept a sexual preference that went against their nature.

It took YEARS before this doctor was discredited and he, himself, never admitted that he was wrong let alone damaged many lives.

That's the same type of mind that would remain a mormon for life, despite any evidence to the contrary. Inflexible construction of reality.

By the time an infant is born, their gender identification and their sexual preference seem to be fairly well established...to the point where (in some percentage of births) their external genitalia may be misleading. There may be some "firming up" of sexual preference down the line towards adolescence and into adulthood, but gender identification, in particular, seems to be near to immoveable once the human being in question is able to weigh in on their own sense of their own gender.

I don't think self-identification of gender can be changed.

I don't know whether self-identification of gender is "set" at conception, or whether circumstances during pregnancy, especially at what we may learn are critical periods or crossroads, may "push" gender identification in one direction or the other, but by birth, the BABY (in SOME way) KNOWS...or will, very soon, "know"--even if they don't have words yet to "explain."

I think there is ample evidence that SOME people do, spontaneously or because of circumstances and/or maturity, do APPARENTLY "change" their sexual preference (straight/gay/bisexual). Further research may refine this to say that they're not exactly CHANGING from one sexual preference to another, but sort of "coming into themselves" in ways they weren't conscious of before. In any case, I think that sexual preference may be at least substantially "set" at some point on the Kinsey scale as the baby exits the mother's body.

To answer the OP's question: I'm not sure that circumstances like molestation or rape CHANGE a person's sexual preference as much as it might REVEAL what was probably already there in some form, but was unconscious. I don't know whether this is actually so or not, of course, but further research will undoubtedly begin to refine our knowledge of how sexual preference, for some people, at least APPEARS to change during that person's lifetime.

It's a polarizing issue. The reality is, it's a combination of genetics, womb environment, *and* upbringing.

Twin studies show, conclusively, that if one of the twins is gay, the other twin has about a 50% chance of identifying as gay. However, that 50% is not 100%. So there is some other element -- either in upbringing or personal choice -- there.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html

It's fun to see how each side interprets as they wish. Those firmly on the side of "nature" say it's clear evidence homosexuality is inherited. Those on the "nurture" side claim that there is choice involved, as not all twins will identify the same way.

The other part of what the OP posted has to do with how upbringing may impact sexuality. Plenty of studies have indicated that growing up without a father will lead to promiscuous behavior for both men and women. See, eg,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2939716/

Finally, there's concern around what happens if somebody is abused (molested or raped) in their upbringing. Some studies purport to claim that being abused by a member of the same sex will lead to a higher proclivity for homosexuality.

Science is what it is. Those who put their ideology first will always find the science to fit it; those who put the science first will follow it where it leads them, even if it's into ideologically uncomfortable territory.

Thank very much for your responses.

He's looking for you to give him attention. I wouldn't give it to him.

I raised a daughter who is lesbian. I can tell you that she was born this way and I knew when she was very young. It did not influence how I raised her.

This is a huge sticking pile of crap. I really wish people would quit trying to figure out reasons people are gay. They just are.

End of story.

What about the recent studies which seem to suggest that in a family of many boys or in very large families (of natural born children vs adopted and stepfamilies), the youngest or one of the youngest among them is more likely to be gay than any of the oldest? Something about the more pregnancies a woman has, a drop in a hormone available to the developing baby (testosterone?) may have some influence on the baby later self identifying as gay.

Looking for the link to that info now, but I know it's been discussed here at rfm in some detail before.

Eta: This is not to say I care either way or any way, religiously it politically. Or should. I just find it interesting physically and biologically and do sometimes think about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2014 09:05AM by bookratt.

So....if this person is saying that every person who ever played same-sex, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" is thereafter conditioned to present later in life as gay or lesbian, I would assert that 9/10 of every person on earth would be so conditioned. Maybe I'm speaking autobiographically, but isn't that the most common pre-adolescent game ever played?

So the question really shouldn't be "Why are there so many gay/lesbian people today?" Rather, it should be, "Why are there not more gay/lesbian people? Or is most everyone just in denial and not acting on their conditioned responses and instincts?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2014 09:07AM by anatbrat.

Ask them how many of those "therapy" sessions they think it would take before they'd want to fall in love and have sex exclusively with people if their own gender.

haahaha I seriously doubt this "therapy" is accepted by the psychological community, methinks a bunch of closeted quack fundies came up with it. Athough it would be fun to "accidentally" change the dreaded last picture to Thomas S, or Boyd K

If it were down to conditioning, I would be as gay as they come. I am straight because that's how I was born, not for any other reason. I really think these studies are interesting, though. More from a "why is my hair brown and yours blonde" kind of angle, rather than a "how do we cure this icky disease" perspective that religious fundies take.

I know several gay men and women who were raised in VERY active LDS homes AND none of whom were molested. By his theory they should be straight, yet they turned out gay.

Stupid theory. I thought this way for a second too when I was LDS and grasping at straws to rationalize away people's gayness.

And many people who were molested as kids turned out straight and many kids who were never molested turned out gay.

I suggest that we ignore 'studies' and get on with living our own lives.

That's easy. The person who said that is conflating sexual preferences with sexual orientation. They are two very different things.

I use this funny example to make the point:

Sexual PREFERENCE is whether you like to use a feather or the whole chicken during sex. Are you a Top or a Bottom? THAT is a sexual preference.

Sexual ORIENTATION is about who you are attracted to, male, female, both, intersexed, trans, whathaveyou.

In fact, sexual molestation DOES change your sexual PREFERENCES. For example, when I was raped, I woke up to my abuser's penis in me. Consequently, for the rest of my life, I do not react well to being awakened out of a dead sleep for sex. I never remember this, but I've been told by several partners they tried to wake me for nookie, but I yelled at them or hit them. Many times, I've arisen to find my Beloved cowering on the couch and I have no memory of why that might be. Now, I advise all new lovers to never try that with me and HERE is WHY.

But being molested never once changed my orientation, which is straight.

Note, there is also a meme that says abusers abuse because they were abused. So following that logic, everyone who was abused will probably turn around and abuse others. That is patently not true, but we say that to make excuses for abusers.

Another note: sexual preference and sexual orientation are not to be confused with gender identity, which is a whole other kettle of fish and may or may not have anything to do with sex at all.