I recently watched a debate where the Christian was saying some men will actively seek out learning how to be gay. Is this really the case? Is it possible to learn to be gay?
I know I'm late to this conversation, but just want to add my perspective. I struggled until the 45th year of my life with strong feelings of attraction to men which were in conflict with an inherited belief that being sexually intimate with a man was an "abomination" before God. Ironically, it was a Christian psychologist who first explained to me that human sexuality is a continuum, with most people falling somewhere between the opposite poles of pure heterosexuality and pure homosexuality. I now tell people that I'm 2/3 gay and 1/3 straight, which makes me twice as attracted to men as I am to women, which feels about right. And pursuing sexual intimacy with a man rather than a woman feels right too, and I don't believe this is a choice. It is simply a fact.
Who in their right mind would make a choice like that?
No and why would anyone want to? However it is possible for gays to try to act hetero to fit in with family or religious values. It doesn't make them hetero, they are still gay. I think a lot of religious people are so adamantly opposed to LGBTIQ because they are closet homosexuals clinging to the belief that they can go against their own nature and be "normal". Why would any straight person take a vow of celibacy? That's ridiculous. It isn't a coincidence that priests sometimes sexually abuse children, most often boys...
I think it's possible to come out later in life after accepting your sexual fluidity. I believe this particular statement is something that religious fanatics use to push their own agenda.
No. I think a person is born with a particular sexual orientation and their place on the "Kinsey Scale" is fixed for life. I do think that different aspects of their sexual orientation may be expressed at different times of their lives, which may appear to change their orientations but I dont' define sexual orientation by current sexual behavior alone.
I think sexual orientation is best defined by those for whom you are capable of developing those feelings which refer to as "falling in love" for, rather than just those you are having sex with.
Most homosexuals have had sex with persons of the opposite sex and most heterosexuals have had at lest one same sex encounter. Most of this occurs from puberty yp through the early 30's, when hormones and sex drives are at their highest. your body will react physiologically exactly the same if oral sex performed by a man, a woman or Rover (although the dog will not have the same cognitive ability to get it just right or adapt technique to best please, it would still feel good). The point being that sometimes the need for just "getting off" by the most readily available means will outweigh a person's normal orientation. Convenience of someone to get off with is actually a pretty large determinining factor than most people think.
Thus, my definitions are centered around the gender a person falls in love with, rather than the gender one has sex with most often.
So, simply put, if a person only falls in love with persons of the opposite sex, they are "straight", if they only fall in love with persons fo the same sex, then they are "gay", and if they are capable of falling in love with either gender then they are "bi-sexual".
Now, getting to the question asked... "
Can a person train themselves to be gay?" Not really. people do not really choose who they fall in love with. I do think a person can train themselves to have sex with a gender that would not be normal for their orientation. Gays used to get married and hide thier orientation for many years when beign gay was less acceptable, and so it would be possible for a heterosexual to acclimatize themselves to having sex with someone of their own gender. It happens in prisons all around the world.
However, I do not think the orientation changes just because of a person's current sex partner(s). The person is still only capable of developing those feelings we refer to as "falling in love" with persons who fit their orientation.
Being gay is not a choice, the same as being heterosexual is not a choice you are born with your sexuality.The only choice you have is to suppress your desires and choose not to practice a gay lifestyle or to follow your sexual tendencies .This also goes for people who think being in prison can make a person choose to be homosexual . lack of sexual activity does not make a person change their sexual proclivity . These people were always homosexual.
You took my comment , now I have nothing to say .LoL
I have a gay son. He knew when he was very young although he didn't come out until high school. It's not a "choice" or learned. It's just who they are like having brown eyes.
First of all, it’s not a “choice,” but a discovery. Hell, most of the people around me knew I was gay before even I knew I was gay. If you talk to just about any gay or lesbian person born before this new century, they’ll tell you they did everything they could think of to change. I personally spent over fifteen years in various forms of Reparative Therapy, which basically messed me up for life. I know a lot of men and women who dated, and even married thinking that would change things.
My favorite analogy about “choice,” is the computer, which works on two basic principles: hardware and software. The hardware is the computer itself. The hard drive, the box, the processor, the chip, the wiring. On a computer, those things technically cannot be changed without going into the box itself and even then it can be a challenge.
The software on the other hand is what runs the computer: the operating system, a word processor, graphics programs, apps. All these things help the computer do its work, and they can be added or removed as the user feels the need.
So in real life, we have height, eye color, hair color, genetic makeup, and gender. Our hard drive.
For software we have beliefs, which change from day to day. We can change where we live, what clothes we wear, friends… In other words, our religious beliefs are software, our sexuality is hardware.
I see a sexuality as a line. On the far left, “gay.” On the far right, “straight.” In the center, “Bi.” Most people are on one side or the other, but not necessarily all the way on one side or the other, but maybe not so far away from the center that they’re curious about what happens on the other side of the line. That curiosity may not actually change their sexual “location,” but that they were close enough so as to be able to try another location. I personally am so gay I can’t even think straight.
When I have this discussion, I will often ask the person debating this with me, “Be gay. Just for a week. Be gay.” The very look on their face says exactly what I already knew… they can’t.
Hell no. I didn't learn to be a lesbian. I knew it, felt it, cries about it and almost killed myself because of it. I did marry my male best friend. So I tried to learn to be straight because of my Christian family. That marriage did not last long.
Wow! I tried to learn to be republican for my Christian family, lol, it didn't work. Can't force yourself to be something you just are not. Are you with a woman now or single? Did you and him remain friends?
Yes I have a wife of six years now. Friends?? Um, We talk here and there.
Nope. I tried to make sure I was straight for almost 20 years. The story is a long and convoluted one. But as a Christian I knew my attraction to both women and men was “bad.” After realizing I was a non-believer, I also realized my attraction was just part of who I am. I appreciate beauty and intellect, no matter the packaging.
IDK, the human mind is pretty powerful, but I think it would be hard to even do something that worked as teaching yourself to be gay. Maybe bi would be easier (you'd only have to change your attraction to one stimulus, not to all stimuli). More importantly, I don't think anyone would choose to become gay. It's an interesting concept though, so I'm going to try typing until something makes a little sense. Maybe if you started by just learning to appreciate the attractiveness of certain members of your sex to the opposite sex (basically thinking or saying any compliment you could give a fellow guy that could be followed with "No homo" except saying or even thinking that phrase would likely be counterproductive). Once that's a habit, learn the habit of imagining hot guys in sexy positions with girls. Ideally focus less (think less specifically) on the imagined girl than the real guy. If you did that, you might condition the sight of a hot guy to trigger feelings of arousal. Then maybe try imagining yourself in that position with him (or with him in the girl's position with you in his), focusing on/repetitively thinking about how sexy it is. At that point you could maybe test your enjoyment of gay porn (and arousal while watching). If it is high, the only way I could think of to really prove your success would be to go to a gay bar, try to find someone attractive, and do your best to get him to sleep with you. If you enjoy it, the experiment has successfully proven the alternative hypothesis, but if you find yourself incapable of any one step, then you have insufficient evidence to discard the null hypothesis (NH=can't learn homosexuality). Becoming asexual (or at least removing your attraction to women) could likely be achieved through the reverse of this, associating ugliness, awkwardness, discomfort, and/or fear with otherwise attractive women. Discomfort/fear could be achieved by thinking about lawsuits like the recent news and the idea that a woman who regrets having sex with someone could potentially call it rape. Fear could also come from the fact that when you undress, you're vulnerable, and women often have long hair in which they could hide weapons (and tbh a lot of women-well, people in general honestly, but that's irrelevant to this topic-are fucking crazy in ways that don't necessarily show in more casual relationships). Awkwardness might be achievable through treating them purely as friends (which then could make it awkward to consider a more physically intimate relationship). Alternatively, perhaps build on the discomfort of age differences-most young people don't like to imagine old people fucking, and obviously most people revile pedophilia (and rightly so). Ugliness would basically involve thinking in the "makeup=deception" way of those who post "Take her swimming on the first date!" and similar things, since even the most attractive of women usually use at least some makeup. The real test of this would be going to a strip club or something and thinking about how the women are performers who might not even enjoy what they're doing without thinking of them as attractive or sexual.
Damn. That's deep. Got me thinking deep. Good response.
@VirginCotton I have a degree in psychology. As important as biology is, when it comes to behavior it's kind of like trying to understand the entire world based on soil alone. That said, there is somewhat of a biological understanding of how behavior works: we know how individual neurons work pretty well, and we understand how they influence each other. To get to the point, we know that neuronal networks change in response to stimuli (which is basically how memory works). In other words, gene expression can be modulated by exposure to stimuli. There is a particular gene (I forget its name) that increases your chances of developing depression in adulthood. However, the difference it makes depends on how many severe negative events you experience in childhood, e.g. death of a sibling, divorce of parents, or abuse of any kind. Those who have this gene but also have relatively innocent, carefree childhoods have no higher chance of becoming depressed in adulthood than those who don't carry the gene. Now consider a category of genes that we seem to understand far fewer of (mainly because it's difficult to study them): genes that are used in the daily functioning of a cell. For instance, we know that ribosomes are composed of proteins and RNA. Proteins and RNA are products of DNA, as I'm sure you know. However, have you ever seen a study where someone even mentioned a specific gene that coded for ribosomes? I certainly haven't, nor can I find one (though I no longer have access to the archives I could search while at university). Similarly, there are likely genes that code for brain development that everyone has, but we have not pinpointed any such gene that determines sexuality. My opinion is that it is likely less a matter of a variation in a specific gene that determines sexuality than it is a matter of the hormones present in the womb. I believe I've seen a study referenced wherein some non-human mammal's sexuality could be controlled by introducing hormones in early childhood or during pregnancy (my first guess is mice, but my recollection is quite vague). Hormone levels can vary widely depending on diet, stress, exercise, etc. and therefore I propose that environment has a significant effect on sexuality. In fact, I have just remembered another study in which they found that men whose mothers had carried male babies to term before them had a striking increase in the incidence of homosexuality; I forget the exact number, but it was something like double the chance of homosexuality for each older brother. Granted, as infrequently as homosexuality occurs, even a doubled or quadrupled chance is still less likely than heterosexuality. However, this study led someone to suggest that a likely mechanism through which this effect would occur is that the mother's immune system reacts to testosterone in a similar manner to an allergen or pathogen (adding a whole new meaning to "toxic masculinity" if you'll pardon the attempt at humor), and the more exposures the immune system has to such a stimulus, the more strongly it fights it. In this way, the placenta could allow a fetal male's testosterone to be systematically destroyed by a mother's leukocytes, thus encouraging development of heterosexuality.
@Jnutter819 dammit, you know I meant discouraging in the last sentence, right? Is there an edit button that I missed?
@VirginCotton Not really interested in that topic at the moment. I've seen enough evidence of evolution to be convinced of it in general, but see no relevance to the original post here. Obviously you can make your own post about evolution (the button's right at the top of the screen) if you want to discuss that. If you post a link here I might even participate, but I've been busy lately, so maybe not.
@VirginCotton Have you forgotten sickle-cell disease? How about mules? Sickle cell disease results when a person has two copies of a gene which, when only one is present, is no major hindrance and provides protection against malaria. In this way, a gene that is productive enough to be naturally selected can also result in a near-impossibility for an individual to survive beyond breeding age. Similarly, mules are infertile, but continue to be made since antiquity by breeding horses with donkeys. Mules are still present in the world, which really determines whether something is extinct. That said, I still doubt that genes cause homosexuality, but that still does not make it a learned behavior, any more than having your frontal lobes blown out by a railroad spike turns aggression and compulsive gambling into "learned behaviors" just because genes didn't cause it. Or had you also forgotten Phineas Gage? Similarly, hormonal abnormalities in the uterus could result in abnormal development of the part of the brain responsible for sexual attraction. Your lack of knowledge on this topic makes me skeptical of your claim of having studied psychology seriously.
@VirginCotton Ad hominem to avoid actually engaging any of my points? Your ideological position must be as weak as those who say all atheists are fools if you have to resort to that.
I think we all have a wider range of sexual attraction which is restrained or develped through socialization . Personally I don't know why we get so hung up on sexual preference what happens between other people is of little interest to me... just get on with it.
No. It is possible to be bisexual and choose homosexuality but even that is done for a reason. In my case I don’t get along with women very well beyond looks. I get along with men much better but admit I haven’t had a long running relationship with one.
Gonna go with no. People can pretend but not actually change sexual orientation. Look at all the alleged heterosexual leaders exposed in gay sex scandals. Some men practice being straight for years with their wives. Didn't change their natural orientation. The same would apply in the converse.
Ha! Can you teach yourself to be straight? Many have tried, I don’t think any have really succeeded. Some maybe on a temporary basis. It’s kinda like asking “When did you decide to be straight?”
The Christians maybe confused by bisexuality or the fact that some gay people were forced to fake being straight. Married with kids to hide the fact they were gay, then they’d look for gay sex on the down low. Keep in mind it is only recently that it almost safe to be out as gay.
I don't think so. I've seen too many studies where they found gay people to be "wired" different from straight people.
I'm a firm believer that 87%of lifestyles' are choices but being gay isn't one of them.
87%? That's precise. How did you get that number?