A good discussion has ensued under the Gay Story With an Ex-Gay Theme post. I want to continue that with my thoughts on the flexibility or fluidity of sexual orientation.
Kinsey may have put orientation on a single scale from gay to straight, but I’m more inclined to think there are at least two relevant scales. The second one is the fluidity/flexibility scale.
While we find it most fitting to describe our baseline as gay, straight, or in between, the tendency to flex and bend also has a baseline and may shift at times over the course of a lifetime. There are probably a sizable percentage with little or no flexibility, some with moderate flexibility or phases in which fluidity spikes for a while, and a few with a lot of it.
For myself, I’ve figured out that I’m much more geared toward emotionally and physically intimate companionship with another man than with a woman, but the flexibility factor is higher than a lot of gay men I’ve known. The relationship with my wife was very genuine for me — sexually and otherwise — and after coming out I had a bit of intimacy with women that helped me put things in perspective. I’m not averse to or reviled by being intimate with a woman, there’s just something more grounding and innate about an intimate connection with a guy.
So, it is most accurate, to me, describing myself as much more gay than bi. I recognize my capacity to respond at many levels to a woman, but that’s the flexibility factor, and I don’t experience any inner tension or a feeling of missing out on anything given that I’m probably not going to express such flexibility again before I die. That feels different from what I’ve heard some bisexual guys talk about.
It also seems to me that it’s more likely for folks to have periods of expanded flexibility or fluidity than to fundamentally change their baseline attractions on the gay-straight continuum. Flexibility of sexual expression can increase based on environmental, social, and cultural conditions — Afghani men who cannot afford a dowry, but the culture looks the other way when semi-closeted same-sex relationships develop, gay and lesbian folks growing up in conservative Christian environments who pursue hetero marriage, some prison relationships, etc. — and the ex-gay movement provides socio-cultural support which encourages predominantly same-sex-attracted folks to increase their flexibility, adopting the greatest possible flexed position (abstinence or hetero relationship) as a new personal norm.
For some the push into a position that at first feels like a difficult stretch eventually feels relatively normal and unstressed. For many others, that flexed position creates tension which feels liked a cocked bow-and-arrow — it requires a lot of energy, and it’s just not possible sustain that level of tension in a healthy way for a long period of time.
While there is stuff beyond every individual’s control which contributes to baseline attractions and orientation, it is clear to me that we choose how we will name it to others. It’s very similar to religious identity, in my book: Some of the key factors in determining religion (family background, the culture in which we grow up) are beyond our choice, and many folks feel constrained by absolute truths from making it a simple choice, but ultimately religious identity is a choice. And, it’s a key part of our personal expression, like speech, that is protected from public control and discrimination.
We don’t control the baseline attractions we were given, either, but we choose how to express ourselves in light of them and how to identify ourselves. It’s not the attractions that require protection from control and discrimination as much as the expression, and the primary justification used for discriminating (in marriage, for example) is that certain forms of religious expression (like conservative Christianity) merit greater consideration at the expense of religious and secular expression that is gay-affirming or neutral.
Because of that, I share Annika’s sense that it doesn’t matter whether ex-gays who identify as straight have actually changed their baseline attractions or have expanded their flexibility and grown to feel at home with the lives they’ve chosen. They have the same right to expression, freedom from interference and discrimination, to which every person is entitled. I do encourage them to be honest about the distinction between changing baseline attractions and learning to flex when prognosticating about what they think others should do with their lives. And, although many ex-gay leaders don’t, I see a sharp distinction between them choosing the mode of personal expression that fits them best and promoting that as the only moral option to justify discriminating against gays and lesbians.
I don’t know in my limited experience the vast majority of people do not change orientation. They might choose to be married despite the orientation. Marriage is more than about sex or attraction. They might find the odd other sex person attractive and pursue a relationship with them.
For instance, I identify as gay, but I do find the odd woman (maybe 1 out of 5000) slightly attractive. I just do not find the woman I find attractive anywhere near as attractive as the guys I find attractive. Not to mention I probably find 1 out of 10 guys attractive. If I ever did pursue a relationship with a woman I would be hounded by my attraction to guys.
I don’t see anyone suddenly both finding the other sex more attractive and the same sex less attractive at the same time. Heck even when psychology removed homosexuality they left weaker versions of homosexuality on the books. The newer psychological treatments sought to increase the person’s bisexuality. Which is quite a bit different from decreasing or getting rid of homosexuality.
I have heard of guys changing over time perhaps in the way that our other tastes may change over time, but that is very different from the sort of forced changed the ex-gays propose (i.e. Try harder).
Sexuality in women has always been a bit more fluid than it is in men. That suggests that the etiologies of sexuality in men and women have different factors, causes and expressions. It’s also possible that there are different origins for homosexuality between men, even when family and environment effects are counted for. The tough piece here is that we still don’t understand where sexual orientation is coded for in our genes and what effect environmental factors have on that coding -AND- what role culture plays on the expression of all of the previous. It’s a fascinating subject that we are only just now starting to tap.
The one thing that is clear though is that “changing” orientation — base, animal response — really doesn’t happen, despite what the Guys From NARTH (“GUNers” as I like to think of them) want us all to believe.
I am shocked! On this very blog you are admitting that sexual “orientation” is not fixed at birth, and further, it can actually be changed by social and environmental factors! Shocked I tell you!
What on earth will the folks at GLAAD etc have to say about this! This is utter heresy!
I appreciate your tackling this issue, but I don’t see the distinction between orientation and “fluidity” in the same light as you do. I think they are flip sides of the same coin.
As a true “Kinsey 6” (no sexual experience with women at all, no attractions to women at all), I highly doubt I would ever be able to be “fluid” with my sexuality. By my late stage in life (37), if I haven’t found a woman attractive, ever, I simply can’t see any possibility of having done so.
But I believe that is because my orientation is 100% homosexual. I don’t believe there are many people who are 100% homosexual, or 100% heterosexual, at least as far as physical ability to have sex with both genders is concerned. I do believe the ability to romantically love both genders is rare, but the ability to physically perform sexually is not.
We know from research (sorry, can’t find a cite), that desire, attraction, lust are all controlled by the autonomic nervous system, the same one that controls breathing and heartrate. Therefore, I have to believe that orientation (to whom we are attracted and can perform sexually), is fixed either at birth, but certainly by age 2 (when our infant brains stop their rapid development). I don’t believe, however, that the expression of that orientation is the same across time. People who are more or less “bisexual” may not be attracted to both genders the same amount all the time.
For instance we know men hit their sexual peak in their late teens/early twenties. Interestingly, that is also the time a lot of men who later come out as gay also get married – a time when their libidos are so strong that even a minimal attraction to women is powerful enough to let them be in a relationship. As libido decreases, these same men realize their attraction to other men is far stronger than their attraction to women and they tend to leave their marriages (or fall into a secret life of meeting men in parks, etc.).
You know, Marty – a lot of the reason that it’s hard for pro-gays or ex-ex-gays to explore these kinds of issues is fear of reactions like yours – a fear that if we look at sexuality in an honest way (which frankly, not many of the ex-gays are really doing), that all the anti-gay types will start running around gloating, taking everything out of context and saying – “see? they can change! Try harder!”
Which is not in any way what Bose was saying (but it seems as though you don’t read things posted here very carefully, so why am I surprised). sigh
I’d also encourage you to take a step back and read your response and compare it to the other responses here and on the other thread that were honest, searching, and well-thought out, while avoiding gloating, sarcasm and basic childishness.
If it were as easy to change completely from one orientation to the other as the ex-gays in power want us to think (and it’s not – and that’s not what Bose was saying – we’re not remotely supporting your cause like you somehow think we are), I think you might be the poster child for why I wouldn’t want to change to be someone like you, even if it were possible for me (and again, just so you won’t take this out of context, I know from many years of personal experience that it is not).
Thanks for your thoughts in response to Marty, Annika. You’re right — I said that I suspected the baseline attractions, i.e. the position on the gay-straight continuum, is beyond our control and seems to me unlikely to change.
CPT, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out there was generally less flexibility over time for folks who are firmly planted at a Kinsey 6 or zero. I just find the single-scale Kinsey approach really doesn’t describe me very well. I’m not trying to lay out scientific theory or evidence here, just speaking to what fits with my experience.
Marty: Just because attractions DO change, does not necessarily mean that orientations CAN or SHOULD be. There’s a world of difference between fluctuations in attraction and total reversal or eradication of a deep-seated orientation.
I came out about two years ago as a bisexual woman, and a year later as a plain ol’ lesbian. Before that, I honestly tried to stop being attracted to women and amp up my small, halfhearted attraction to men. It didn’t work.
And at the moment, I’m in a relationship with a guy. I don’t identify as bi; the word never felt comfortable to me. I was always far more attracted to women, physically, emotionally and, dare I say it, spiritually. This guy was a total surprise to me. I’m in the habit of correcting friends who jokingly comment on my “going straight.” Believe me, I’m just as attracted to women as I ever was.
At present, I pretty much sum myself up as “homoflexible.” Still homo, just… flexible.
Annika wrote:
“I’d also encourage you to take a step back and read your response and compare it to the other responses here and on the other thread that were honest, searching, and well-thought out, while avoiding gloating, sarcasm and basic childishness. ”
I admit, i was as suprised as anyone to find honest, searching, and well thought out consideration of this issue here. You and Trevise both come to mind in that regard.
As for gloating, sarcasm, and basic childishness, i must plead guilty, and beg the court’s pardon and humor.
I have to say, I’m impressed with Bose and Jody’s posts above – it really gives a lot more than I’ve ever seen being given on this site before, though I haven’t been checking in here for very long.
As I understand it, you basically say that:
– we don’t fully understand the effects of culture or environment on sexuality.
– there is a possibility of different origins for homosexuality between men.
That’s great stuff. I wouldn’t jump on that and say, “you need to try harder to change”, but I do think it puts a few holes in the oft-heard statement that people with same-sex attractions were “created that way”. Rather it suggests to me that our “orientations” are developed through many different processes – biological, environmental, social-psychological – and that probably no single one of these is alone responsible for any person’s developing attractions.
The thing I question, which seems to be a holy cow among some people, is this “innate orientation”. Jody calls it a “base, animal response”, suggesting that it’s origin is purely biological. I am yet to be convinced of this.
Couldn’t it be that this “core” orientation is itself the product of these various processes, and that it continues to develop based on on-going stimuli? Isn’t it also possible that, over a lifetime, but particularly during childhood and adolescence, the “base, animal response” is confused and intermingled with erotic responses, associations and fetishes which have developed along with emotional attractions, giving an illusion of an all-encompassing “orientation”? Going further, could it be argued that perhaps, for an adult, this “base, animal response”, is in fact an illusion in itself, having never really existed *to any great degree*, and most of what we call “orientation” is this constellation of emotional longings and erotic responses? Basically, I’m questioning the ongoing influence of this “innate orientation”.
I am convinced, however, that it is not something that can be easily changed on command (at least not be us).
Doubtful. There is some “hard wiring” at work here, something “immutable,” as evidenced by efforts at changing orientation being an utter and complete failure. The body of research into changing orientation continually returns to the same conclusion: that it can’t be spun a different way. Add into that attempts at reassigning gender at a young age — and with it, sexual orientation — also fail. Add into that the again consistent finding that early gender atypical behavior in boys (“sissy boys”) is a pretty strong predictor of homosexual orientation in adulthood. Add into that structural differences in the brain between heterosexuals and homosexuals — structural differences that also seen to hold up in animals who exhibit a similar range of behaviors — and you return to the fact that there is something immutably biological here.
But is that biology binary as our culture says it must be? No. Take hair color for example. Is there any one color of “blond”? No. There’s a range of it, a constellation of shades that we ascribe to blond. We think nothing of it when under certain conditions — say a summer of beach going — that value of “blondness” increases to one extreme and then in the winter it falls back to another. When people dye their hair, again, no big deal. And we allow people on the “darker” end of blond to be “brunet” or “dirty blond” or at the lighter end, to be “strawberry blond” but not “red.” It’s not a big deal because culturally hair color isn’t that big a deal. 1500 years ago an ideology didn’t take hold that made being blond an “evil” thing, deserving of scorn, ridicule, torture even death. It did though for being gay.
OK I’m going to go through the things you mentioned.
“Doubtful. There is some “hard wiring” at work here, something “immutable,” as evidenced by efforts at changing orientation being an utter and complete failure.”
I never actually claimed that my proposal would conclude that change was easy/likely (I actually stated the opposite at the end of my post). What I question is exactly what this “immutable” thing is, and whether it is “hard wiring” as you say. Our brains are continually being wired in new ways. It’s not surprising that it would be very difficult to unwire something that is many-layered and well-developed.
“Add into that attempts at reassigning gender at a young age — and with it, sexual orientation — also fail.”
But this says nothing of same-sex attractions. This is just dealing with gender, is it not?
“Add into that the again consistent finding that early gender atypical behavior in boys (“sissy boys”) is a pretty strong predictor of homosexual orientation in adulthood.”
That seems like a pretty reasonable prediction of most of the psychological theories. Gender-culture-nonconforming traits will more likely lead to conscious and subconscious rejection, and lack of gender affirmation from peers and elders, etc. Of course a boy who exhibits non-gender-culture-conforming behaviours will more likely experience this. How does this show that the boy is anything different other than having non-gender-culture-conforming traits? It may mean that the boy is naturally less “red-blooded” when it comes to the other sex, or perhaps a late bloomer. Such men exist all over the world, some identifying as “gay” and some as “straight”. All can possibly excel in less traditional male roles and occupations. The difference, according to a purely psychological theory (which I probably wouldn’t accept), would be that the “straight”-identifying man didn’t experience the same social-familial experiences because of his non-gender-culture-conforming traits.
“Add into that structural differences in the brain between heterosexuals and homosexuals — structural differences that also seen to hold up in animals who exhibit a similar range of behaviors”
I’m not sure what research points to “structural” differences, but I know that the brain does change over a lifetime due to experiences. The brain is not some static mechanical object. I’m guessing it could probably be shown that there is a link between certain occupations and certain brain “structures”.
“But is that biology binary as our culture says it must be? No.”
I totally agree with you here. I have a problem with the idea this is like some toggle switch. It certainly wouldn’t help my points above.
“1500 years ago an ideology didn’t take hold that made being blond an “evil” thing, deserving of scorn, ridicule, torture even death. It did though for being gay.”
Yes, this was an unfortunate ideology.
But this says nothing of same-sex attractions. This is just dealing with gender, is it not?
No not really. Take a look at the recent suicide of the young man whose genitalia was damaged in a botched circumcision. Penis was removed, child was raised female, with all the corresponding social cues and expectations, but the sexual orientation, his preference for females, didn’t alter with the new social cues and external sexual features. This factor is replicated time and again with other children in similar situations as well as those who were born with ambiguous genitalia. Something -deeper-, in the brain, encoded, didn’t alter and refused to do so no matter what social pressures were put to bear.
Take fruit flies as another example. An alteration to a single sequence of genes on male fruit flies alters their their sexual preference from females towards other males. It creates a consistent difference in their behavior, directly attributable to their chromosomes and not to a complex culture — they just don’t have it. It’s another piece of evidence indicating a biological underpinning for orientation.
Yes, brains are rewired and are altered by experience and the like, but the major differences found so far in structural anatomy in both human brains and those of other animals (sheep and bulls) who engage in same sex behaviors are remarkably similar. The changes aren’t well accounted for by experiential rewiring. It seems to be something that occured with its formation.
It’s not that something is so much toggled as it is “flavored,” like the way you can get a cake with a sharp, sharp chocolate taste and another with far less of one. As we Humans seek patterns in things, we group one array of “flavors” as “homosexual” and another array as “heterosexual.” It’s a nebulous gradient. Think fuzzy logic instead of a binary control.
Yes, this was an unfortunate ideology.
And it’s not done yet. I’m hoping that another 100 years and it’ll be a bad memory in the collective history of our species. Until then, it’s a slow struggle.
So what i’m hearing here is that while sexual orientation can and often does change over time, it cannot be “changed” by a person’s own accord. That is, it is something that cannot be controlled.
On one hand, there ARE success stories in the ex-gay movement, albeit less than some of us might hope. So the law — whatever it is — is not written in stone. Some can change on purpose, most dont/cant/wont for a variety of reasons we don’t understand.
On the other hand, can orientation be changed by other people, and other events outside one’s own accord? I believe the research showing a link between childhood sexual abuse and homosexual attraction has not been disproven, and i strongly suspect that many — if not most — of the boys molested in the catholic church will, in the end, be gay.
If all this is correct, then your sexuality might change by itself, or it could be changed by someone else, and you really have little control over it yourself, outside the (marginal?) successes of the evangelical ex-gay movement — as there is no other secular ex-gay movement that i’m aware of.
I think the key thing to remember here is that sexual orientation has NEVER been shown to change, even in the “ex-gay” movement. Even what we are discussing here does not mean that the basic underlying wiring of the brain can or does ever change. The people here who are reporting “fluidity” in their sexual attractions do not state that their attractions to either gender ever “go away,” but their intensity may differ through life. In the same way, when really pressed, there are few, if any, “ex-gays” who will state that they no longer have any same-sex attractions – they still “struggle” with it.
The best analogy, I believe, for sexuality is handed-ness. We categorize ourselves as either left-handed or right-handed, but few people don’t use their non-dominant hand (although I am convinced my mother’s left hand could have been cut off and she wouldn’t have noticed). You can force, for instance, a left-handed child to use their right hand to write (as Catholic schools did for decades) but they will still be naturally left-handed – throw a ball at them and they will catch leftie.
But all of us go through phases of using our left and right hands in different manners and for different things – in the absence of leftie scissors or water fountains, a leftie will use their right hands for these tasks. In the same way a rightie who has injured their right hand will find they can do far more with their left than they thought (personally, I swing both ways, I’m ambidextrous). None of that changes our basic handedness, however.
We all know of “situational” homosexuality – in prisons and such – where “straight” people are able to engage in pleasurable sexual interactions with other inmates (or coerced ones, but that is another topic), but they prefer, and will go back to, straight mates when they are released. Did they “change” sexual orientation? No. In the same vein, many gay people can have enjoyable sexual relations with opposite sex partners, but that does not mean they are not gay.
Relationships, which are at the core of what we are discussing, include far more than mere physical attraction or sexual activity. They are complex meldings of physical, romantic and emotional components that are unique for each couple. If we all recognize this, and stop automatically classifying homosexuality or homosexual acts as “evil,” “immoral,” or “disgusting,” we would probably discover a far more nuanced and complex human sexuality than we have ever imagined (however, I still find girls gross, sorry).
“(however, I still find girls gross, sorry).”
Ahhh, my hopes are dashed…. 🙂
Great posts, everyone….
So what i’m hearing here is that while sexual orientation can and often does change over time, it cannot be “changed” by a person’s own accord. That is, it is something that cannot be controlled.
What I’m saying is that sexual orientation probably is not as “binary” as we like to think, but is rather a range of feelings that clusters at one end or the other. In the same way that we have a hair color or a handedness, we have a biologically determined sexual orientation, either gay or straight mainly for the purposes of discussion.
On one hand, there ARE success stories in the ex-gay movement, albeit less than some of us might hope. So the law — whatever it is — is not written in stone. Some can change on purpose, most dont/cant/wont for a variety of reasons we don’t understand.
Again, no. There are anecdotal stories of people changing their orientations just like there are anecdotal stories of leprechauns giving folks pots of gold. To date, neither has been found to be true. There are some people — mainly at this point women and probably because the wiring of their sexuality is different than it is in men — who talk about different periods in their life when they were attracted to men and others when they were attracted to women. The attraction to both still exists, yet is perceived as being different due to different times. Yes, this is a change, but not in the “lightswitch” sense you are proposing. It’s probably more along the lines of “I ate bananas three times a day when I was younger but now if I go three weeks with out having one it’s perfectly okay by me.”
I believe the research showing a link between childhood sexual abuse and homosexual attraction has not been disproven, and i strongly suspect that many — if not most — of the boys molested in the catholic church will, in the end, be gay.
Then you would still be wrong. There’s no evidence as of today showing being molested as a child causes one’s sexual orientation to change. There’s ample evidence that being molested as a child fucks up — and that is a clinical term — future relationships, increases a risk of drug abuse and causes lasting depression. There’s also evidence that many children sexually molested recover pretty well and don’t show much in the way of lasting negative effects.
As I’ve read, most of the boys in the RCC were in their mid to late teens. Most of the victims were probably gay teens who either came under pressure of clerics acting inappropriately or were young people eagerly looking for their “first time” and later regretting it. None of them were “made gay” by what happened.
If all this is correct, then your sexuality might change by itself, or it could be changed by someone else, and you really have little control over it yourself, outside the (marginal?) successes of the evangelical ex-gay movement — as there is no other secular ex-gay movement that i’m aware of.
Again, it’s probably not sexuality that’s changing in as much as a person’s response to it, influenced by cultural, religious and stage of life factors, resulting in a subsequent re-evaluation of which of two categories they assign themselves to.
As far as the sectarian ex-gay movement goes, through fear of death and eternal damnation it does a fabulous job of changing how people self-identify. It does absolutely nothingat changing the feelings behind the orientation. It’s a dismal failure in that regard, causing little more than lasting emotional pain and trauma.
Marty
Abuse is a complex thing and it causes a lot of problems. People that have been abused tend to display much greater confusion over their orientation (i.,e. taking a lot longer to figure out are they gay/straight/bi than someone who has not been abused). They may act out heterosexually, homosexually or not have sex at all. Men who have been abused may have issues with their masculinity and may seek to prove it by having multiple female partners, or victimizing others or doing dangerous or violent activities. Some fear the abuse may cause them to be homosexual. A fear that often makes no sense because the person with the fear is usually strongly attracted to woman (something gays are not). Others become homophobic. Abuse seems to open up a whole ugly can of worms and I highly doubt that abuse can cause someone to be homosexual. Most studies show that gays are no more likely to have been abused than heterosexual. If abuse caused homosexuality then gays should have a higher rate of childhood abuse. However it doesn’t appear so.
jody,
Penis was removed, child was raised female, with all the corresponding social cues and expectations, but the sexual orientation, his preference for females, didn’t alter with the new social cues and external sexual features.
Yeah, but my point was that this is a boy who grows up “straight”. For our purposes, it’s only a control case. We can’t show the same thing happening for a boy who we may believe was born “gay”, simply because that’s begging the question.
It creates a consistent difference in their behavior, directly attributable to their chromosomes and not to a complex culture — they just don’t have it.
I’m sorry, but I think this is very different. There are a huge number of reasons why an animal so completely different from us (a fruit fly) might engage in same-sex sexual behaviour. It may have to do with an instinct of dominance or many other impulses. It has very little, in my opinion, to do with the complex emotional and erotic attractions involved in human sexuality. Do you think we managed to pick just the right sequence of genes to swap a fly’s “sexual orientation”? Humans tampering with gene sequences in fruit flies is very different from the way our genes get selected via inheritance. I’m pretty sure the only animals for which we have full gene maps, with actual DETAILS, are asexual bacteria.
Yes, brains are rewired and are altered by experience and the like, but the major differences found so far in structural anatomy in both human brains and those of other animals (sheep and bulls) who engage in same sex behaviors are remarkably similar.
Man, I’ve never heard of this research! However, from what you’ve written, I still feel that it has less to do with the direction of attractions, and more to do with those non-gender-culture-conforming traits. I don’t see why rams or bulls may not have the same issues as boys growing up. Animals, particularly mammals, experience “social” life, though not in exactly the same way as humans. Domesticated ones, like sheep and bulls, are probably bad examples in any case, because their lifestyle is so warped and perverted from what we might call “natural”.
I will restate my enquiry. I am questioning the strength and ongoing power of some biologically-determined influence, which apprently makes some people go after the same sex. In particular, I am proposing here that this influence is, at best, quite weak, and that “orientation” develops, in humans, largely from psycho-social and emotional experiences. This means that the thing that drives us this way as adults, and that seems very difficult to change, is not in fact this original biological influence (even if it still has limited influence), but is rather the construct of erotic responses and emotional longings which have been built around it.
As far as the sectarian ex-gay movement goes, through fear of death and eternal damnation it does a fabulous job of changing how people self-identify.
I’ll always be amazed at how you guys can take that kind of impression away from ex-gay ministries. I must be looking through rose-coloured glasses, but I’ve never been threatened with death or eternal damnation. I know there is a church in the US that does that though.
cpt_doom,
The best analogy, I believe, for sexuality is handed-ness.
Rather a loaded and simplistic analogy, in my opinion, since it assumes the complete influence of biology on the “in-built” handedness.
Relationships, which are at the core of what we are discussing, include far more than mere physical attraction or sexual activity. They are complex meldings of physical, romantic and emotional components that are unique for each couple.
Amen to that.
If we all recognize this, and stop automatically classifying homosexuality or homosexual acts as “evil,” “immoral,” or “disgusting,” we would probably discover a far more nuanced and complex human sexuality than we have ever imagined.
I wouldn’t class homosexuality as any of those things. As for the acts, that would depend on your particular worldview and moral compass. That’s really the core of this issue. Leaving aside the irrational prejudice of some, the only reason people like me are interested in all this stuff is because I believe the acts are, generally, wrong. Otherwise I wouldn’t care whether it’s biological, social, or like choosing your favourite icecream. I would just do it.
(however, I still find girls gross, sorry)
That kinda reminds me of those macho guys who say such things about other guys. I’m sorry you feel that way. I don’t have much physical attraction for girls, but I’d hardly say they’re gross. I think there’s an incredible beauty about the female form, her manner, her movement, particularly the girls who don’t look like skinny supermodels.
From what I am reading in this thread (I applaud all who are participating in it for their intelligence and civility), is that we don’t really know. We can only speculate. Biology or Social Influence? We don’t know. Changeable or unchangeable? We don’t know. Are ex-gays for real? Or just in denial? We don’t know. Is change possible? Or is it just an illusion? We don’t know.
And I too, do not have any answers. Just questions. But I would like to thank all the participants for this thread. It is perhaps the best line of question and answer on the topic of reparitive therapy for homosexuals I have ever read.
Really cool thread! I love seeing such thoughtful posts. A few random responses to different people.
Attracted to 1 in 10 men? Wow! I’ve never been attracted to as many men as that in my life.
I tend to think of myself as more toward the fluid/bisexual part of the spectrum, and I’ve never really felt a single Kinsey scale rating described me. Partly because who I emotionally respond most to, who I’m most likely to have sexual dreams about, who most of my actual experience is with, don’t all work out to the same Kinsey number.
I like Jody’s analogy with handedness (and I’m toward the flexible part of the spectrum on that scale, too, but I suppose that is coincidence).
I’ve never seen any research showing that sexual abuse of boys by men leads to homosexuality, and I’d be really surprised to learn so, since lesbians are a heck of a lot more likely to have been sexually abused by men than by women (then again, heterosexual women are also more likely to have been sexually abused by men than by women).
However, from what you’ve written, I still feel that it has less to do with the direction of attractions, and more to do with those non-gender-culture-conforming traits.
I suppose it could be the case that non-gender-culture-conforming traits are partly biologically hardwired, but sexual attraction isn’t at all biologically hardwired; I’d be surprised, though, given that sexual attraction seems, for most people, to be more resistant to change than many gender role traits (I know more people who’ve adjusted their degree of masculinity/femininity over time than who’ve adjusted their attraction significantly over time).
I’ve gotta go away this weekend so won’t be in to check this. Thanks for this discussion guys, it’s been really good, as people have noted.
Lynn,
To your last comment, if we were to suppose that the attractions are already well-developed, it could be that the “masculinity/femininity” is adjustable in adulthood, but such changes in identity, etc. will no longer have as much constructive effect on the attractions.
Trevize, two comments:
1) On gender non-conformity – the biggest problem with this idea is that gay people are not uniformly gender non-conforming. There is a spectrum of masculine/feminine traits inherent in humanity, and that range is shown in both gay and straight people. Certainly MORE gay and lesbian people are gender non-conforming, but a theory of gender non-conformity cannot account for the existence of homosexuals in the human species, because there are plenty of homosexuals who were very gender conforming in their youths, but are just as gay as Carson on “Queer Eye” (Billy Bean and Esera Tuolo, the two retired pro athletes that recently came out, are good examples). In addition, societal reaction to gender non-conformity is not uniform, yet homosexuality appears to be a relatively stable percentage in all human societies.
2. As for environmental/social factors – these undoubtedly play a part in HOW a person reacts to their sexuality (a child born to parents who are accepting of homosexuality is far less likely to live a closeted life), but scientific research has not found any correlations between home environment, childhood experiences, or any other enviro-social factor with the existence homosexuality.
You mention that you didn’t agree with the handedness/sexuality analogy, and you accept handedness as biological. But handedness and sexuality share many characteristics. Both are classified as binomial, but have a lot of people in between, in both cases most people favor one end of the spectrum while relatively few are at the other hand, and they share inheritance patterns.
Identical twins are more likely to both be left-handed than are fraternal twins, who are more likely to both be left-handed than two non-twin siblings, who are both more likely to be left-handed than two randomly chosen members of the population at large. The exact same pattern exists for homosexuality, which is only one piece of evidence as to its biological origin (interestingly, gay people are 3X as likely to be lefties as are straight people).
If it is true, as has been hypothosized, that the gene(s) controlling homosexuality are activated in utero by varying levels of certain hormones, than the existence of both bisexuality and fluidity of sexuality are readily understandable (we know other genes must be triggered in utero – thalidomide, for example, interfered with the trigger for arm and leg development). There would be a level of hormone that triggers a completely homosexual person, while a lower level may only partially trigger the gay gene(s). Those people who experienced lower levels of hormone (but who still have the gay gene(s)) may be totally bisexual or may be predominantly gay or straight, but able to respond to those of either gender under the right conditions (e.g., a gay man may respond to a female who has a very “masculine” pheremone type). Just a thought.
I don’t thinkt that sexual orientation is fluid — I think it’s an illusion. I think what’s true is that there are A LOT of folks who are neither perfect (50/50) bisexuals, nor perfect heteros or homos (100%). I think a lot of heteros & homos have 90-10, 80-20, etc. orientations. That means they are fully attracted to one gender, but have a diminished attraction to another. But you can’t build life-long relations with people who you have a diminished attraction to. The full attraction must be there.
But this explains why SOME heteros & homos have NO ability to even bring themselves to have sex with the other gender. But some can get it up and manage to function sexually and even enjoy the experience, but still realize, that *something isn’t right.*
Hetero men do it in Navy Boats, all boys schools, Prisons, or just while experimenting with their “buddies,” often during their teenage years (I know a lot of gay guys who first started homosexual acts as young teen with other young teens who turned out perfectly heterosexual).
A lot of homos go thru “hetero dating” periods before they have come out, trying to function that way. Some actually get married. And I believe that many ex-gays who actually do get married have this orientation. You have to wonder, why some ex-gays can actually get married and bear children. But others, like Michael Johnston, Bob Davies can’t, they have to do their best w/ (attempted) celibacy.
Marty
Had some time to think of a response as to why there is not a secular ex-gay movement. There had always been a question as to wither homosexuality was a disorder (like chronic depression or dwarfism) or a variation of humanity (like being a little down today or being shorter than average). It is important to note that variation does not equal disorder. Most people vary from the statistical norms in several things. It is only when the variation in and of it self causes problems then it is listed as a disorder. Homosexuality in and of it self doesn’t seem to fit that definition. It is sort of like eating pork. In and of itself not going to kill you, but there are religions that think it is wrong and there are cultures that forbid it. However wanting to eat a bacon sandwich is not a disorder.
Freud and a minority of psychologists didn’t think homosexuality was an illness since it didn’t seem to fit the illness model but it was listed as one anyway. Starting in the 1950ies more and more research seemed to show that homosexuality didn’t quite fit the illness model and looked more and more like a variation of being human. Add to this the fact that mainstream psychology never found a way to change orientation. They tried castration, drug therapy, hormone therapy, aversion therapy, lobotomies, psychoanalysis, tedium therapy, electric shock treatments and none of it worked. In the same time period they had made major advances against lots of other things that were considered mental illnesses (i.e. the first psychiatric drugs, cat scans, ect.) but homosexuality didn’t budge. They tried everything both ethical and unethical but it just didn’t work.
Mainstream psychology was stuck with something that a. didn’t look like an illness and b. couldn’t do a thing about. For that reason they delisted homosexuality in the 1970ies and for that reason there is no secular ex-gay movement. If you go to a mainstream psychologist and ask them to treat homosexuality you are asking for them to treat something that isn’t an illness and something they don’t have a clue on how to change if they wanted to. It would be like going to a doctor to treat baldness 20 years ago.
As for the religious one most of the theories from Exodus and Narth are based on theories on sexuality from the psychoanalysts (i.e. lack of connection to the same sex parent or the exotic becoming erotic). The real problem with the psychoanalysts was the fact that they are more philosophers than scientist. They tended to make theories based on talking to patients and reflextion. They rarely did surveys, experiments, or crunched numbers and as such their theories are best taken with a salt mine. Don’t get me wrong those theories can be an interesting insight to human nature, but their practicality is near zero. Over time their theories on a lot of things including sexuality didn’t hold up well once people began crunching numbers and doing experiments. Little wonder they have such low success rates and little wonder they can do a lot of damage. Imagine how fruitless/expensive fixing a machine is when you don’t know the cause much less a human mind.
CPT_Doom,
On gender non-conformity – the biggest problem with this idea is that gay people are not uniformly gender non-conforming. There is a spectrum of masculine/feminine traits inherent in humanity, and that range is shown in both gay and straight people. Certainly MORE gay and lesbian people are gender non-conforming, but a theory of gender non-conformity cannot account for the existence of homosexuals in the human species, because there are plenty of homosexuals who were very gender conforming in their youths
Yeah, I don’t think psychological things really work from only one issue. It’s possible that the gender non-conforming thing may be a contributing reason for some (even most), but not for others. It may also depend on the partial involvement of some biological thing. We also need to remember that someone who is more gender-conforming as an adult (like say the athletes you mention) may not have felt that way as a child. Other influences might include the issue of abuse (it must not be ignored), which often has little to do with gender non-conformity.
In addition, societal reaction to gender non-conformity is not uniform, yet homosexuality appears to be a relatively stable percentage in all human societies.
I wouldn’t jump too quickly to the conclusion that reactions are all that different between societies. Certainly there are different superficial fashions in what is “masculine” or “feminine”, but we’re talking about almost sub-conscious rejection at a young age. I think the differences between families and friends would be far greater than the differences between societies.
(interestingly, gay people are 3X as likely to be lefties as are straight people)
I’ve heard of a meta-analysis which reported that men with same-sex attractions were one third more likely to be left-handed, and women with same-sex attractions were almost twice as likely to be left-handed.
In any case, since left-handedness is rare, it remains that the overwhelming majority of people with same-sex attractions are not left-handed, and the overwhelming majority of left-handed people do not experience predominantly same-sex attractions.
Left-handedness has been associated with a number of rather negative things (shorter life span among them), some directly biological, and some related to lifestyle.
Identical twins are more likely to [have same-sex attractions] than are fraternal twins, who are more likely to both [have same-sex attractions] than two non-twin siblings, who are both more likely to [have same-sex attractions] than two randomly chosen members of the population at large.
This is indeed very interesting. It shows us that we must rule out genetic inheritance as the only influence for homosexuality. It becomes an indirect influence at most. If we are to conclude that there is no psychological/social influence, we must rely competely on the theories about hormones in the womb “making up the difference”.
If we are not going to jump to that conclusion, we can also see that the family can only be indirectly influential, at most, since identical twins really have the same upbringing.
However, I’ve heard that there was a study where the two identical twins, one with same-sex attractions, one without, perceived their early family environment very differently.
An aside:
Many thanks to all for the thoughtful discussion thus far.
It has cheered me up to see people engaging differing insights about fluidity with due diligence and respect.
One can hope that folks like Ben at Scattered Words overcome their tendency to oversimplify and mischaracterize any discussion that acknowledges the complexity of sexual variance or the difficulty of change.
This is a moderately interesting thread, but there is a lot of mis-information here, that, if I had a lot of time, I would correct.
One might seriously wonder, though, about this trevize’s obvious heterosexualist bent.
Some good discussion here; thanks.
Trevise noted:
In any case, since left-handedness is rare
As a lefty myself, I’ve read that left handedness runs at between 9% and 14% in most communities, so perhaps a little more than just rare.
It has some interesting parallels in that the causes of left-handedness are thought to include both a genetic influence, and the influence of raised hormone levels in the womb.
Trevizes,
Actually there are lots of biological things that are not 100%. For instance height is probably about 90% encoded by genes. Nutrition makes up 10% and height is pretty non-adjustable once set. Type I diabetes interesting only shows a 35% connection in identical twins and you would be hard pressed to find a psychological theory as to why they both don’t get the same condition 100% of the time. The gene associated with schizophrenia increases the likelihood of the disease by 60% not 100%. From the twins study it appears that genetics seems to play a pretty large role. The study showed that the odds for both twins being gay was 52% for identical twins but the rate was only 11% for adoptive siblings. We can assume the adoptive ones were raised in a similar environment and we can assume that the adoptive ones might have been more likely to have “issues” than the biological ones. So it appears whatever social influence must be pretty darned small.
Trevizes said:
“This is indeed very interesting. It shows us that we must rule out genetic inheritance as the only influence for homosexuality. It becomes an indirect influence at most. If we are to conclude that there is no psychological/social influence, we must rely competely on the theories about hormones in the womb “making up the difference”.”
Actually there is a heck of a lot of evidence of the power hormones in the womb. You can permanently alter the sexual behavior of mammals by controlling the sex hormones present in the womb. (i.e. create lesbian owes or gay rats). A large dose of testosterone promotes masculine behavior in female offspring and lack of testosterone like hormones produces female behavior in male offspring. Once born the animals display behaviors such as females mounting other females or males that show less interest in females and allow themselves to be mounted by other males much more often than the control group. So basically you can increase the odds of creating a “gay” animal in the lab by playing with hormone balance in the womb.
To follow up on two items:
1) Genetic basis for homosexuality – as Jason noted, genes are not the only biological basis for the characteristics we see in humanity – hormones play a very important role in activating genes at the right time, in the right way.
For instance, men are far more likely to be bald because testosterone “turns on” the baldness gene, and ramps up its power. Even women who have two genes for baldness will not go as bald, or go as quickly, as a man with one gene.
The pattern I described in twins and siblings actually points to a relatively strong genetic influence – one stronger than left-handedness actually – it points to a gene that is activated about 2/3 of the time. When identical twins don’t share sexuality, it does not mean they don’t share a gene or genes for homosexuality – it may be that one twin got a lower level of hormone than the other (there is some preliminary research that points to the placenta as the main driver here – when twins share a placenta they share traits like handedness and sexuality – when they have separate placentas, they may have the same characteristics or different ones).
The “hormones turn it on” theory can also lend itself to an explanation of the fluidity we are discussing. Those individuals who were exposed to a lot of the required hormones may have gay gene(s) that are very “turned on” (all puns unintentional), while there are others whose lower level of hormone may have activated the gene(s) a lot less.
And please remember, identical twins can be born with their organs completely opposite (so-called “mirror twins”), so clearly even genetically identical people can have very different outcomes.
2) Secular Ex-gay movement:
One of the things I find so damning to the “ex-gay” movement is the complete lack of “ex-gay” people who were “treated” during the 40s, 50s and 60s for their homosexuality. During this time, many people voluntarily underwent treatment, and many were forced into it by family members or because in some places you could be involuntarily committed to a mental institution for being gay.
“Treatment” might mean talking therapy, electric shock, hormone treatments or chemical aversion therapy – and researchers reported results from 5 – 30% (and sometimes higher) “improvement” or “change” in their patients. Such results, of course, are in question when patients in the research were being treated involuntarily and may have claimed change only to end their commitment. In any case, there were supposedly “success” cases.
Yet every single “ex-gay” who is visible or working in the field now is part of this religious-based movement. There are no former patients from this earlier era speaking out in favor of “treating” homosexuality. Certainly they cannot all be dead, some would only be in their 50s or 60s today, and they can’t all be embarassed about their treatment. The very lack of these people I believe is one of the strongest facts to cast doubt on the whole phenomenon of “conversion.”
I started to think about responding to this, but then I was reminded of Virginia Postrel’s article from a few years ago “The Claims of Nature: The “can gays change” debate is dodging the main issues” https://reason.com/9810/ed.vp.shtml The issues raised has no relevance whatsoever to the issue of equal rights for gay people.
OK so you guys do seem to believe that hormones “make up the difference”. That’s fine, but I’d like to make a comment on James here:
We can assume the adoptive ones were raised in a similar environment and we can assume that the adoptive ones might have been more likely to have “issues” than the biological ones. So it appears whatever social influence must be pretty darned small.
I feel that there are FAR too many assumptions in this argument for it to be acceptable.
The kind of “issues” that adoptive kids might have are of little consequence to me here.
Let me suggest an example: Say a child was born with a tendency towards “over-sensitivity” – reacting more strongly than the norm to emotional events in his/her life, from an early age. Such a tendency may be genetically derived, and we might expect it to be more common in identical twins. However this trait may also cause a child to respond to the same family situation, and other life events, in a very different way from a child without this trait. Now let’s say twin boys are born, and both have this trait. However, one was exposed to some hormonal effect which reduced brain “masculinisation”, resulting in slightly less “masculine” drives. Is it possible that the combination of these two things results in a child who is not only hyper-sensitive to his social world, but also experiences less “powerful” physical attraction towards the other sex? Isn’t it possible that this child, under certain social/familial conditions and events, might end up with a dominant attraction to men, not determined solely by biology, but by a combination?
Raj,
One might seriously wonder, though, about this trevize’s obvious heterosexualist bent.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean, Raj. I assume, in this context, that heterosexualism is the underlying assumption that other-sex attractions are “normal”, and same-sex attractions are not. What do we mean by normal? Biologically/genetically? In terms of what is accepted by the majority culture of the time and place? In terms of some nebulous personal standard of human health and wellbeing? According to an objective claim of moral standard based on a claimed objective source?
If you’re interested, I have almost exclusively same-sex attractions when it comes to the purely physical drive (ie. what turns me on). I guess this probably has some effect on my interest in this topic.
What you say is true. This thread doesn’t have much to do with equal rights for gay people, but then, it never claimed to.
re: Virginia Postrel’s article:
This debate is not about a few people who believe God wants them to make certain sacrifices to conform to his will. It is about whether the choices of that minority should become the norm, enforced not just through religious persuasion (which works only on people who accept its premises) but through coercion.
I believe I fall into that category of the few people, and I’m quite well aware that I’m not the norm, nor do I feel inclined to enforce my view on anyone. In any case, “religious persuasion” is hardly enforcing, unless it is being done in a way that takes advantage of emotional vulnerability.
“To be able to live one’s life loving and being loved by some other person is not something that is a disease,” said Sullivan on Nightline.
Not something I ever claimed. In the case of a same-sex sexual partner, the best I could claim is that it is a moral error, certainly not a disease. I’m sorry some people feel they can’t be “loved”, and are not able to “love” unless they’re in a sexual relationship, but I think I understand how they can feel that way.
“It is the essence of what it is to be human, and that’s what we’re asking, the tolerance to be human and to be allowed to live our lives in peace.”
Well I’m glad this guy can share his opinion on what the “essence of being human” is! I live my life loving (or trying to love) and being loved by many people, and I agree that is a big part of being human.
That humane, pluralist argument, not invocations of biological determinism, is what a confused public needs to hear.
Again, I’m glad Postrel can tell us what a confused public needs to hear! As she points out, theories of the biological determinism of same-sex attractions are, as most science is, blind to morality, whether that morality is pluralist or not.
Her approval of consequential morality and what constitutes a “humane” message is obviously open to debate and scrutiny. I believe it has some merits though.
raj: The issues raised has no relevance whatsoever to the issue of equal rights for gay people.
If sexual orientation changes, and can be changed, then this has EVERYTHING to do with the issue of “equal rights”, imo.
The whole idea that “gays are not allowed to marry” is premised on the assumption that gays cannot, will not, and will never be able to conform to the opposite sex requirement that has been at the very heart of marriage for, say, 5000 years or so.
Because if orientation can and does change, then no one is being left out, and gay people are perfectly equal and capable of marrying into an OS relationship as anyone else. Whether or not they “want to” is not a matter of civil-rights.
Only if we accept the party-line that you cannot, will not, and would never be anything other than homosexual do we even approach the idea of “injustice” and “unequal protection”. Immutability seems to be at the very core of the agenda.
I, for one, am not satisfied that the research has proven that case, and as this thread clearly shows, neither has it proven much to anyone else.
It seems foolhardy to redefine marriage and family in the face of such (a lack of) clear evidence.
Marty, why do you think homosexuality must be either 100% immutable or 100% changeable? You look at someone who’s changed and seem to see proof that anyone could. This doesn’t jive with all the testimony out there from people who spent many years in therapy, prayer, and celibacy without any change. If there’s one thing we can feel secure in, it’s that there’s no simple answer to this; nothing has worked for everyone. So whatever policy we come up with has to account both for people who can change if they put in the time/money/effort, and for people who can’t.
Exactly Marty.
There shouldn’t be any rights for Christians either – after all they can just become Buddhists – or another religious flavour.
Marty,
There is one number that is missing from all the research on “changing” sexual orientation, and that is 100%. Even those in the 50s and 60s who insisted they could “cure” gays were only touting “success rates” of 10, or 15, or maybe 30%.
What that means is there will always be gays whose sexual orientation is 100% gay and who cannot function with the opposite sex at all. I am one of those types of gay people. Many other gays may be able to function in a heterosexual manner, but they will never have the emotional, romantic and psychological attachment to their partner that a good relationship needs.
The question of gay civil rights is very much still with us – there are and always will be gay people. That is not just the opinion of the people on this board (or even some of the people), it is also the scientific opinion of the AMA, the APA, etc.
Matt, I know how hard it is to quit smoking/drinking, so you’ll forgive me if i don’t take your word for it when you say that you just can’t. Nobody here is claiming that change is easy… just possible.
Trevise, when given psychological tests homosexuals and heterosexuals tend to score about the same. Which suggests similar psychological make-ups. My own experience of people seems that heterosexuals are just as likely to be “emotional/sensitive” as homosexuals. Also, how do you define sensitive? I mean no two people will react or feel the same about every event. Take a horror movie for instance, some people scream at a horror movie, others laugh at the bad acting, and still others are grossed out at the scene. What is a legitimate response?
Or take morning. Some people will feel more angry others more sad and there maybe additional emotions like worry, loneliness, abandonment, guilt throw in the mix. How angry/sad/lonely/worried are you supposed to feel? What is too emotional? People have all sorts of temperaments and pet peeves. What is a “normal” temperament? I think there are healthy ways to handle emotions and there are unhealthy ways to handle emotions but the level of emotion is a different matter. According to your theory gay men are just heterosexuals with low female attractions driven into the arms of men by life events. The trouble is if life events where a factor then you should see some patterns. (I.e. Gay people having more tragic childhoods or having had similar backgrounds).
Also, what of bisexuals? My own experience of bisexuals is that they have plenty of attraction to both genders where as I have lots to just one. You can certainty see social factors having effects on things alcoholism and depression and there are genes that predispose people to both. You don’t see any links between any sort of social event and homosexuality. If there is a social factor it is likely to be very small and possibly uncontrollable (such as stress and schizophrenia.. i.e. the impossibility of living a stress free life). Would it even be possible to prevent the life events that you suspect cause homosexuality and at what cost? Would you even be able to undo the effects of the event? Humans don’t exactly come with a delete or undo option like word processing programs. Unfortunately life is like a rose. Beautiful yet thorny.
Marty, if you want to get an idea about how changeable orientation is look to experience. How many heterosexuals give up heterosexuality and turn to homosexuality? Not many. In the few cases where people leave left for someone of the same gender, the person usually was attracted to the same sex before they had heterosexual relations. How often do you find a guy cute? How often do you want to hold hands with or be held by a guy? My guess not often or not at all. Those thoughts never crossed your mind, but I will bet you didn’t have to think about your attraction to women.
When was the last time you saw a guy and your heart skipped a beat? When was the last time you found a sexy guy down right distracting? I will bet you have done all of the above for women. However I have never had that experience with a woman. If sexuality is changeable there should be a way to un-hetero you. Can you think of anything that could de-hetero you? Can you think of anything you could do to reduce your attraction to women?
How would you feel and what would you do if you were told having sex with a woman was immoral but having relationships with your own sex was acceptable? Would you or could you abstain from women? Would you even want to? Would you have enough attraction to make a relationship with a guy go? That is the whole issue surrounding homosexuality and sexual orientation. My own view is that I hope for the day when sexual orientation is more like hair color and a lot less politicized. I don’t care when people change their hair color because they don’t care much for it or they want to try a new look. I do care when people change their hair color/style due to prejudice (i.e. dying your hair because you are afraid you might loose your job if your look too old or what happened in my community in the not too distant past straightening out your hair, using your light color and pointy nose so that you can pass as “white”).
Jason,
Would it even be possible to prevent the life events that you suspect cause homosexuality and at what cost?
Good question! My answer would be – unlikely. So, in terms of the child, whether it’s mostly biological or mostly social, it is still out of his/her personal control at the time.
As for undoing it, it may be possible to work through emotional issues, but this is unlikely to have an immediate affect on physical attractions, since they have already been set in place. (You may take that as an answer for why people who say they’ve changed still have erotic attractions and fantasies about the same sex.)
CPT_doom,
Many other gays may be able to function in a heterosexual manner, but they will never have the emotional, romantic and psychological attachment to their partner that a good relationship needs.
I would question this. It seems rather a rash statement. (You also use the noun form “gays” which I find offensive.)
You propose that a long-term relationship needs a certain level of physical ‘turn-on’ attraction, or it will not be a “good relationship”. You also seem to be assuming that “gay” men are more emotionally and psychologically, not just physically, attracted to other men. I didn’t think that view was shared by some other posters here. (Incidentally, I think it has a lot of value, but I’m the one who likes to link the emotional/psychological and the physiological responses).
From what I’ve seen, lasting relationships require a great deal more love (that’s the kind that will do the dishes and get up at 2am to rock the baby) than they do romantic moments or physical attractions. Your partner, whether male or female, is one day going to be complaining about retirement costs and then lost dentures rather than being interested in candlelit dinners or climbing into the sack for some “romance”.
What will be needed then is just familiar affection and faithfulness, which is possible between any two people, I believe. Here’s a poem by Robert Burns that I love:
“John Anderson, my jo John, (jo=darling)
When we were first acquent (acquent=acquainted)
Your locks were like the raven,
Your bonnie brow was brent; (brent=smooth)
But now your brow is beld, John, (beld=bald)
Your locks are like the snow;
But blessings on your frosty pow, (pow=crown of head)
John Anderson my jo
John Anderson, my jo John,
We clamb the hill thegither, (thegither=together)
And mony a canty day, John,
We’ve had wi’ ane anither:
Now we maun totter down, John, (we must go on down)
But hand in hand we’ll go,
And sleep thegither at the foot,
John Anderson my jo.”
Trevise
You know the most effective forms of psychological treatments do not involve getting down to the root of a problem. Take depression. There could be a hundred reasons why a person is depressed but the most effective form of treatment involve drugs and cognitive therapy. Cognitive therapy doesn’t seek to find the root cause of the depression as much as to change the thought patterns and behaviors of the depressed person (i.e. things are not as bad as you think they are.). Also lack of something does not mean the opposite is true. A person maybe no longer depressed but it doesn’t mean they are happy. They are simply no longer depressed. A person may have reduced same sex feelings at the moment perhaps due to the normal ebe and flow of libido but it doesn’t mean that other sex feelings have increased.
You are correct it takes a lot more than the romantic kind of love to make a stable long term relationship but lets not divorce romance form a relationship. Most people expect monogamy in marriage not celibacy. Gay men generally do not find woman attractive. This lack of attraction can range from disinterest in the wife to impotence. I once read a book of stories from women who were unknowingly married to gay husbands. Time and time again the woman complained about the almost total lack of sex in the relationship and not just sex, but the total lack of things like kissing, hugging and caressing. The marriages lacked intimacy. The wives felt something was wrong with them because their husband did not have any interest in them what so ever. Their husbands complianed about them wanting sex too much or being emotionally needy. The wives didn’t know what was wrong with the relationship but they usually sensed something was very wrong with the relationship.
The women felt like more like an ornament on the coffee table than a wife. The men often did make great fathers but they totally ignored the wife. These were husbands far more interested in attending the kid’s soccer game or work than in spending the evening with their wives. I can see why from personal experience. I liked to hold hands and cuddle with my then girl friend but I didn’t want to. I did it because I was supposed to. I did it because I thought she liked it not because I wanted to. I enjoyed the experience but really never felt an urge to hold hands or cuddle with her. I didn’t look forward to it. It was more along time lines of “she likes it therefore I do it” than “Get over here honey”. Big difference.
Jason, please don’t stereotype me as a common homophobe. One need not be gay to admit that, of the two, Brad Pitt is FAR more attractive than Jennifer Anniston. That’s just an honest appreciation of beauty that has nothing to do with who one would rather sleep with…
trevise wrote:
“You also use the noun form “gays” which I find offensive.”
Huh? Why?
-Sharon B
Marty, as keen as you are on the difference between behavior and desire, it makes no sense that you just compared orientation to smoking and drinking.
Jason, is Marty attracted to women and not men? Or is this your assumption?
Cognitive therapy does try to consider the root cause of a problem, as in “Why do you tend to think this way? Where did this pattern originate?” But I don’t think successful therapies have to identify some actual root cause; otherwise dynamic therapy would discover the same cause as feminist or cognitive therapy. Rather, they find something compatible with that approach to therapy — i.e. something they can work with — that makes sense to the client. And quite possibly it did contribute to the problem, but not necessarily.
Trevize, I agree that the physiological affects the emotional. I tend to think that the familiar affection and faithfulness can develop more easily in a relationship with someone you’re enamored with than with someone you’re not, and that physical attraction is a big part of that. This is especially important in a society where breakups and second relationships are so common. A relationship can’t afford to be badly sabotaged when someone can just opt out of it.
Society can create such strict rules about relationships that options are reduced, and people are forced to live with marriages lacking attraction, respect, physical safety, etc. Or forced to be single if they’re widowed, or if they’re past a certain age, or if they’re not virgins, etc. Nothing new about that. But I don’t think it’s at all consistent with where America is today. I find it hypocritical for heterosexual America to welcome very lax rules for themselves, but get all bent out of shape when it comes to gays.
What’s important is not whether we *can* change our identities and attractions, but whether we feel that we *may*.
SharonB,
I feel the word, in its noun form, is too much like a label. I don’t apply the word to myself, even in its adjective form, because it has connotations beyond merely attractions to the same sex. The most accurate descriptor for me is in the form of possession or experience. I have same-sex attractions, or I experience same-sex attractions.
Jason,
The stories you talked about are interesting, but I think these relationships have a more major problem – deception. For whatever reason, the husbands didn’t tell their wives about their feelings, despite the fact that the wives were clearly attributing the wrong things to themselves. If we were to talk about “love languages”, I think a woman who prefers to receive love in the language of the physical (kissing, caressing), is probably unsuited to a man like that.
I agree though that to totally ignore the wife is wrong, and I don’t think these men were doing the right thing there. I’ve read that it may be a characteristic of many men with same-sex attractions to have issues of fear/trust with women, so that may have something to do with their words that she was too emotionally needy.
To me, this is an issue of what the relationship is based on. The way I see it, romance and physical intimacy are a minor part of the deal. The major part is mutual encouragement and support – so it’s like a team, whose members already know that they are lovely and worthy. If someone is so needy that they don’t feel loved at all unless they have a husband/wife to show it to them, then I think that’s actually an issue for them.
Matt,
A relationship can’t afford to be badly sabotaged when someone can just opt out of it.
Yeah, but what would cause someone to do that? Surely not something as frivolous as “she’s not providing me with sex”, or “he’s not as physically intimate as I’d like him to be”? Doesn’t that seem like a strange thing to break up a relationship for, unless those things were your priorities when you began the relationship?
This sounds cynical, but I think we have more break-ups now because a lot of people are more demanding, have higher expectations, and will settle for less and less in the areas of “what I want”. A lot of this comes from the pressure of a worldview that says, “you live once, so make sure you don’t miss out on everything you could have”.
I find it hypocritical for heterosexual America to welcome very lax rules for themselves, but get all bent out of shape when it comes to gays.
Couldn’t agree more.
Javelle, civil rights are not based on your *feelings*
Actually Marty, they are.
Any religion is accorded civil rights protections and religion is both changable and unprovable.
That is a perfect example of civil rights based on *feelings*.
You don’t have to be a Christian.
Actually scott, religion is a civil right ONLY because it was written into the First Amendment. I agree, it is an exception — but a literal one.
Well since we have freedom of (and from) religion in this country, then I guess any DOMA is unconstitutional when churches who don’t discriminate against gay couples cannot legally marry them.
To trevise: Yeah, but what would cause someone to do that? Surely not something as frivolous as “she’s not providing me with sex”, or “he’s not as physically intimate as I’d like him to be”? Doesn’t that seem like a strange thing to break up a relationship for, unless those things were your priorities when you began the relationship?
Well, I’d hope that I wouldn’t break up a marriage over something like that, but, honestly, sex seems to be a priority for a lot of people, one of people’s favorite “love languages,” to use your phrase, so, though I wouldn’t go to the extreme of “everyone ought to try each other out sexually before marriage to be sure they suit each other,” I might have hesitated to marry Joel if I’d had a strong reason to suspect, in advance, that I couldn’t satisfy him at all in that department.
I think that some gay man/straight woman marriages, as you say, fail for lack of honesty in the beginning. Others (Bishop Gene Robinson’s marriage comes to mind) seem to fail despite honesty, because the couple were over-optimistic about how much change they could expect.
Or in my gay woman/het man marriage: It is horrible; we are both miserable ALL of the time. Certainly we care for each other, but I can’t give him what he needs (physically or spiritually) and he certainly can’t give me what I need. We are friends, period, and we agonize constantly, knowing that our situation is the result of a terrible mistake and wilting under our belief that divorce — not homosexuality — is sin. Spousal Unit said to me a while back that I ought to be married to a woman. I replied, “You’re right.”
It is hell living less than half of a life.
Damn the immoral laws. I simply don’t understand those who insist the rest of us be punished because of their religious beliefs. Frankly, I don’t want to — I can only pray for them. And I pray that God will release me from this horrifying existence.
Trevize, I agree with most of what you said. Wanted to clarify: I think maybe the sexual attraction promotes the emotional bonding early on. And if this happens right, the relationship can survive threats later on. I don’t think that it condemns a relationship to being stable only so long as the sex is good.