Can sexuality be influenced?

Originally posted by Robtard
IMO, homosexuality is more akin to a mental abnormality (I don't mean that in a negative way), it's something a person is born with in varying degrees and outside sources can likely influence it one way or another, though to limited lengths.

You could probably condition a homosexual male child to pursue women, but you won't be able to condition out that he still finds other boys/men sexually attractive. That's there for life and his erection will 'scientifically' prove it.

Though the way you said it sounds a little cold and rude, I do agree.

Think about the men and women who divorce their significant others and start dating someone of their own sex.

Originally posted by Utsukushii
Though the way you said it sounds a little cold and rude, I do agree.

Think about the men and women who divorce their significant others and start dating someone of their own sex.

Abnormal as in "not the norm/standard"; not "you're a sinner and will burn in hell, you disgusting shit-loving f@ggot!" Nothing wrong with not being standard.

I did think about them; it's making be hot and bothered now. See what you did.

I think it depends on the general attitude of the family that's raising.

If you're in a conservative family, you're going to be more private about your sexuality, probably believe in an abstinence-till marriage lifestyle. And then when puberty hits, these kids are going to be a lot more confused when they start "feeling things" that gets even more confusing. Also, being taught abstinence-only may be detrimental, because they probably won't invest in condoms, and girls will feel like they can't talk to their parents about sex or protection, like the Pill. They're probably more apt to get pregnant or get a sexually transmitted illness.

And when people grow up homosexual in this situation - they can be told to repress it, and they may succeed because they grew up believing that it was evil.

On the other hand, famlies more free sexuality, the kind people that believe that you should be in touch with your sexuality, whatever that may mean, these kids are probably going to be well adjusted and, probably less chance of getting pregnant or having unprotected sex because the knowledge that they grew up with sticks with them, and they feel comfortable talking about sexuality with their parents.

I actually grew up in a bit more liberal degree of the first family version, the first time I saw graphic sex was in a BBC mystery film. and I had a realllly uncomfortable conversation with my mom about what I had seen. And then she laughed nervously and said "...and this is why we don't watch these kind of movies." But that was the most educational snippet of information I ever got, and everything began making sense in sex ed.

So I've educated myself and no longer am so "fenced in." Luckily, when I moved away from my parents sI became the second type of person.

can you influence if a person is attracted to one sex or the other: no

can you influence how much guilt and shame a person feels because of their natural inclinations: yes

Originally posted by siriuswriter
I think it depends on the general attitude of the family that's raising.

If you're in a conservative family, you're going to be more private about your sexuality, probably believe in an abstinence-till marriage lifestyle. And then when puberty hits, these kids are going to be a lot more confused when they start "feeling things" that gets even more confusing. Also, being taught abstinence-only may be detrimental, because they probably won't invest in condoms, and girls will feel like they can't talk to their parents about sex or protection, like the Pill. They're probably more apt to get pregnant or get a sexually transmitted illness.

And when people grow up homosexual in this situation - they can be told to repress it, and they may succeed because they grew up believing that it was evil.

On the other hand, famlies more free sexuality, the kind people that believe that you should be in touch with your sexuality, whatever that may mean, these kids are probably going to be well adjusted and, probably less chance of getting pregnant or having unprotected sex because the knowledge that they grew up with sticks with them, and they feel comfortable talking about sexuality with their parents.

I actually grew up in a bit more liberal degree of the first family version, the first time I saw graphic sex was in a BBC mystery film. and I had a realllly uncomfortable conversation with my mom about what I had seen. And then she laughed nervously and said "...and this is why we don't watch these kind of movies." But that was the most educational snippet of information I ever got, and everything began making sense in sex ed.

So I've educated myself and no longer am so "fenced in." Luckily, when I moved away from my parents sI became the second type of person.

True, I grew up with very open parents. And I am very comfortable, not pregnant, and happy.

But their parents were both conserative. And they ended up having a baby when my mom was 16 (ie me).

I'm not sure if we could ever really know.

It seems pretty clear that you cannot "cure" an adult of their sexuality but shaping sexuality from birth has never been looked at scientifically. I mean it's immoral for starters but we also don't know the sexuality of each child to begin with.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not sure if we could ever really know.

It seems pretty clear that you cannot "cure" an adult of their sexuality but shaping sexuality from birth has never been looked at scientifically. I mean it's immoral for starters but we also don't know the sexuality of each child to begin with.

it has never been tried experimentally, sure, but even the threat of death and extreme social stigma against homosexuality, engrained in culture and which would be apparent from an early age, doesn't shape people to not be homosexual.

someone like ted haggard is a great case study in something like this, in that, any way that his cognition could be shaped, it is anti-gay, yet the biological nature of his sexual desire is still unchanged.

I suppose this isn't explicit proof against the idea that there might be some way to influence it, but it certainly speaks volumes to how biologically based it must be

I believe, homosexuals, submissives and sissies etc may have had important roles in primitive forfathers lives. As perhaps teachers to Alpha offspring, obediant workers and maybe even glory holes to a tribes Alpha Male and as protectors to the Alpha female.

Originally posted by inimalist
can you influence if a person is attracted to one sex or the other: no

can you influence how much guilt and shame a person feels because of their natural inclinations: yes

I haven't seen convincing evidence to indicate that sexual orientation is genetic. Nor is it a conscious choice. My personal theory follows the works of Gagnon and Simon, sociologists who argued that people are born in a state of polymorphous perversity -- sexually nascent, as it were. Through the socialization process and interactions with others, people pick up on sexual cues and are socialized into being one or the other.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
I believe, homosexuals, submissives and sissies etc may have had important roles in primitive forfathers lives. As perhaps teachers to Alpha offspring, obediant workers and maybe even glory holes to a tribes Alpha Male and as protectors to the Alpha female.

Ah, sometimes I do wish I had been born back in simpler times.

Originally posted by RagingBoner
I haven't seen convincing evidence to indicate that sexual orientation is genetic. Nor is it a conscious choice. My personal theory follows the works of Gagnon and Simon, sociologists who argued that people are born in a state of polymorphous perversity -- sexually nascent, as it were. Through the socialization process and interactions with others, people pick up on sexual cues and are socialized into being one or the other.

"One or the other", well that's retarded.

What about people who are bisexual, pansexual or any of the other something-sexuals that fall somewhere between Homosexual and Heterosexual, yet aren't either?

Originally posted by Robtard
"One or the other", well that's retarded.

Easy, killer. Definitely a poor choice of words, replace "one or the other" with "sexual, one way or another."

Originally posted by RagingBoner
Easy, killer. Definitely a poor choice of words, replace "one or the other" with "sexual, one way or another."

Well, that's better. I was about to lose it.

But I still disagree on the whole. Doubt people are born with a sexual-neutrality and I doubt sexual attraction can be dictated solely from social interaction, though it's likely is a factor.

EG, If you were to raise a male child in a group of homosexual men, where the child grew up only knowing that sex = man-love, I still think if the child was born heterosexual, he'd find women sexually attractive if given the opportunity, even if he'd spent the last 20 years of his late teens/adult life balls deep in man-love. Granted, he may still want to be with men, but the attraction towards women would likely be there.

Originally posted by Robtard
Abnormal as in "not the norm/standard"; not "you're a sinner and will burn in hell, you disgusting shit-loving f@ggot!" Nothing wrong with not being standard.

I did think about them; it's making be hot and bothered now. See what you did.

Heteronormative stances assume that heterosexuality is 'normal' seem to naturally perceive sexual diversity as being deviant from the norm and ab-normal.

Which is obviously discriminatory, though never really consciously. Western society assumes heteronormative stances in pretty much their every facet, but it all comes across like assuming that it's 'ab-normal' to be left handed, when it's completely normal that in any set of what, 10 people, you'll have somebody that's left handed.

I mean, living in Canada, you would never refer to somebody that's non-white as being of an 'abnormal ethnicity' right? Just a minority. There's nothing inherently abnormal about being say, asian, any more so than there is about sexual diversity in any form.

Originally posted by Robtard
EG, If you were to raise a male child in a group of homosexual men, where the child grew up only knowing that sex = man-love, I still think if the child was born heterosexual, he'd find women sexually attractive if given the opportunity, even if he'd spent the last 20 years of his late teens/adult life balls deep in man-love. Granted, he may still want to be with men, but the attraction towards women would likely be there.

Further, the fact that he'd have been with men sexually while possessing an ulterior attraction to women wouldn't make him bisexual or pansexual or whatever. I mean, he could be those things or anything else, it would simply come down to what he identified as, not the actions he'd taken, including sleeping with dudes.

So no, I guess I don't think that sexuality is really influenced by how a child's raised. Probably mentally makes them more or less accepting of whatever sexuality they do end up identifying with, but certainly doesn't change their identification.

Originally posted by RagingBoner
I haven't seen convincing evidence to indicate that sexual orientation is genetic. Nor is it a conscious choice. My personal theory follows the works of Gagnon and Simon, sociologists who argued that people are born in a state of polymorphous perversity -- sexually nascent, as it were. Through the socialization process and interactions with others, people pick up on sexual cues and are socialized into being one or the other.

Where is the convincing evidence that Gagnon and Simon are accurate?

Originally posted by Robtard
IMO, homosexuality is more akin to a mental abnormality (I don't mean that in a negative way), it's something a person is born with in varying degrees and outside sources can likely influence it one way or another, though to limited lengths.

You could probably condition a homosexual male child to pursue women, but you won't be able to condition out that he still finds other boys/men sexually attractive. That's there for life and his erection will 'scientifically' prove it.

Originally posted by Existere
I know this isn't the thread topic, so I'm not seeking to stir a big discussion here, but in regards to this tangent:

Heteronormative stances assume that heterosexuality is 'normal' seem to naturally perceive sexual diversity as being deviant from the norm and ab-normal.

Which is obviously discriminatory, though never really consciously. Western society assumes heteronormative stances in pretty much their every facet, but it all comes across like assuming that it's 'ab-normal' to be left handed, when it's completely normal that in any set of what, 10 people, you'll have somebody that's left handed.

I mean, living in Canada, you would never refer to somebody that's non-white as being of an 'abnormal ethnicity' right? Just a minority. There's nothing inherently abnormal about being say, asian, any more so than there is about sexual diversity in any form.

Lol, easy, fella, easy.

Sexual attraction to the opposite sex would be the "norm", otherwise, we'd have died out as a species. Just accept it; it doesn't mean being homo, bi or anything in between is a negative.

Your two examples of left hand and Canadians is irrelevant to sexuality and do not follow.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, that's better. I was about to lose it.

But I still disagree on the whole. Doubt people are born with a sexual-neutrality and I doubt sexual attraction can be dictated solely from social interaction, though it's likely is a factor.

EG, If you were to raise a male child in a group of homosexual men, where the child grew up only knowing that sex = man-love, I still think if the child was born heterosexual, he'd find women sexually attractive if given the opportunity, even if he'd spent the last 20 years of his late teens/adult life balls deep in man-love. Granted, he may still want to be with men, but the attraction towards women would likely be there.

I'd say it's a little more complex than that. Even if a child is reared in a homosexual home, there's no guarantee that he or she will be gay. Socialization can't be fully or explicitly taught; it's a phenomenon based on countless interactions and experiences. The variables are probably infinite.