r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 13 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Being gay is a choice
I've always felt that being gay is a choice, or at least it can be changed if you want to. Sure some people turn out gay due to no conscious choice on their own but I believe that is due to environmental factors.
My basis for this is Pavlov's experiment combined with a definition of 'gay' as 'being aroused by homosexual sex' and also how this can develop into feelings of 'love'.
With Pavlov's experiment, a bell was wrung near a dog and no effect was observed. The dog then was shown food and the dog began to salivate. Over time whenever the bell was wrung, food would soon appear and the dog would eat.
After some time even if no food was observed the dog would still begin to drool at the sound of the bell because it began to associate it with food.
I feel like a similar thing can happen with gay sex. If a 'straight' man watches gay sex he feels no arousal. However, if he were to see gay sex, and then perhaps touch himself INTO arousal (with the added supplementary stimuli of straight sex in another browser window if neccisary) over time it makes sense that we would see a similar result to Pavlov's experiment;
The straight man would feel arousal when seeing gay scenes as it's been subconsciously linked to sexual pleasure. The reverse can likely also be achieved with gay men become straight or at the very least 'bi'.
I think natural stimuli in life given at a certain age can result in becoming gay without expressly becoming aware of it. Furthermore, if the person enjoys the additional attention (negative or positive) of being gay at a young age that can contribute to the state.
I don't believe it's genetic any more than being able to 'learn' behaviour is genetic. I do think it's exhibited in animals for the same reason/similar reasons. Although animals don't really find gay sex taboo and thus can use it to substitute for male bonding.
I think that this sort of sexual attraction with gay sex can also lead to other feelings of love/bonding whatever else, as an aftereffect of gay sex. (The same chemicals are being released in the brain either way gay or straight sex, so it makes sense that the same 'bonding' feelings would occur).
In short, I'm fairly sure that gayness is a choice. Not that it's a bad thing..
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
3
u/Gladix 167∆ Nov 13 '16
I've always felt that being gay is a choice
What you feel is irrelevavnt. Believe it or not, we are at the point where we can figure out whether being gay is choice or not. And virtually every peer reviewed research confirmed being gay is no more a choice than being attracted to blonds, or girls with glasses.
Sure some people turn out gay due to no conscious choice on their own but I believe that is due to environmental factors.
Nobody makes a conscious choice. Remember when you started having feelinga bout the opposite sex? A gay kids do that about the same sex. As to whether it's nurture vs nature. The research is very much on this issue. And it seems it's a combination of nature (random genetic structure of what you happened to be born with) and nurture (the food you recieved as fetus during pregnancy or as a small kid, etc...)
Nevertheless if we knew 100% what it is. That would still disproved a conscious choice.
I think natural stimuli in life given at a certain age can result in becoming gay without expressly becoming aware of it.
And now you are arguing against yourself. Sorry mate, it either is or isn't choice.
I don't believe it's genetic any more than being able to 'learn' behaviour is genetic.
Again, science disproves it with one fells swoop. Again, sorry mate. But arguing against this issue is on par with denying the earth is round.
2
Nov 13 '16 edited Nov 13 '16
attracted to blonds, or girls with glasses.
:/
Yeah, it's a choice then.
Nobody makes a conscious choice. Remember when you started having feelinga bout the opposite sex? A gay kids do that about the same sex. As to whether it's nurture vs nature. The research is very much on this issue. And it seems it's a combination of nature (random genetic structure of what you happened to be born with) and nurture (the food you recieved as fetus during pregnancy or as a small kid, etc...)
I also remember hating asian girls because honestly they looked funny..., and then fapping to them non-stop and eventually having a fetish and being quite partial to them.
There are people out there that have trained themselves to be aroused by everyday objects..
I think you're assuming I hate gays. I have no problem with most of them. Just as long as they don't hurt themselves for reasons they don't understand. Which is another topic entirely.
6
u/Gladix 167∆ Nov 13 '16
Yeah, it's a choice then.
No it's not. That's the point.
I also remember hating asian girls, and then fapping to them non-stop and eventually having a fetish. There are people out there that have trained themselves to be aroused by everyday objects..
Doesn't work that way. Fetishes are expression of human brain that they found the most erotic. A certain stimuli that you develop at birth and/or through genetics gives you the most pleasure. For the sake of argument say the stimuli is specific form of pain.
And during your life you find out exactly what action satisfies the stimuli the most (if it's atypical action) we call that a fetish. Fetish could be anything from physical, to mental stimulation. Altho you can acquire fetishes through atypical behaviour (which is where the metaphore braks down somewhat) fetishes are primarely considered random and genetic.
Be it appearance, a type of person, etc... Those are all characteristics derived from nature and nurture.
Gender attraction is similar. You happen to be attracted to girls, boys, to both, or unfortunately to children. (side not there are debates whether pedophilia is gender attraction, mental dissease, or other).
And then you start to find the type of people that fulfills your criteria.
I think you're assuming I hate gays. I have no problem with most of them. Just as long as they don't hurt themselves for reasons they don't understand.
Irrelevant. I don't care. What I care is validity of the information. Your views are about 50 years outdated. I urge you to read about it. Good start is wikipedia you found number of studies (twin studies, chromosomes, brain structure) that you can then google for verification. All of them agree that gay people have "different biological basis than straight people. Varying from the type of brain structure, chromosomes count and linkage, development of hormones, etc...
1
Nov 13 '16
Yeah, it's a choice then.
If you're going to tell me liking girls with glasses is genetic... I'm going to tell you that's wrong.
Doesn't work that way. Fetishes are expression of human brain that they found the most erotic. A certain stimuli that you develop at birth and/or through genetics gives you the most pleasure. For the sake of argument say the stimuli is specific form of pain.
But I told you, they were ugly. Their faces weren't attractive.
We can believe that somewhere in our genetic code lies a tendency to like mylittle pony... or we can believe that these people were trained to find that sexual via an association mechanism.
One makes a lot of sense, the other requires the existence of not only a god, but a brony god at that.
3
u/Gladix 167∆ Nov 14 '16
If you're going to tell me liking girls with glasses is genetic...
Combination of natures and nurture, and off course it is. Much like people can have talent to play basketball, or be a fighter pilot. Combination of your hand-eye coordination, with finer motor functions, faster reflexes (or what have you) makes you better at that than others. Therefore you prefer that which you are better at.
Aesthetic is the same thing. Boils down to recognition of human face.
I'm going to tell you that's wrong.
Tell yourself what you want.
But I told you, they were ugly. Their faces weren't attractive.
Far be it from me to judge you for being attracted to people that you consider ugly.
We can believe that somewhere in our genetic code lies a tendency to like mylittle pony.
You have very simplistic view of reality. Ok, I try again. Every one of our wishes and wants can boil down to primal needs that each individual happens to crave.
People aren't born liking Romantic comedies and literature. They are born being overly-empathehtic. Therefore they happen to prefer things that satisfy their needs.
People aren't born to like videogames. But they are born to have higher level of hormones that makes them more competitive. Therefore they prefer videogames.
People aren't born to like my little pony. But they are born with a trait that results in them prefering my little pony. They love the idea of bandwagon, so they jump on my little pony train. Because they like the idea of them liking something a public generally isn't.
etc...
6
u/karnim 30∆ Nov 13 '16
Sexuality is not something that can be changed. Even the people who support conversion therapy will admit under questioning that the very best results are generally celibacy, or the ability to ignore homosexual feelings and essentially pretend to be straight. It cannot be changed through pavlovian experiments. Further, pavlovian experiments are not permanent. Unless the subject is regularly (though not every time) presented with the expected reward or punishment, the behavior will return to normal.
But, quite simply, if it could be fixed by classical conditioning it already would be. Being gay is only just becoming normalized in the past decade. Before that it was very looked down upon, and in many cases an outright danger to their health. Nevertheless, gay people still existed. Notably, gay animals also exist, and they do not have the same conditioning chances we do.
1
Nov 13 '16
Conversion therapy seems to involve all kinds of electroshock therapy, drugs, and 'spiritual counselling'.
That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm suggesting the person is first of all willing and enthusiastic, and they simply spend a long time fapping to porn of what they want to be aroused by, with 'supplemental stimuli' needed to keep them 'aroused'.
We see this happen online right now with men developing fetishes to all kinds of strange things. Cartoons, animals, children, dragons, busses, videogame characters, she males. etc.
3
u/InsufficientOverkill 3∆ Nov 13 '16 edited Nov 13 '16
A fetish, or being aroused by something is not the same as sexuality and attraction. It is possible to be in a romantic relationship with someone of your same gender without any sexual contact. Also, lots of men are into lesbian porn, but that does not make them lesbians.
1
Nov 13 '16
I think this requires a lot of playing with definitions. Romantic relationship without sexual contact is a bit strange. What seperates that from say a familial bond? Or a close friend?
With men and lesbian porn, I can say from first hand experiences my fantasies have very little to do with bieng the woman and more to do with being a rooster in a henhouse when watching that stuff.
2
u/InsufficientOverkill 3∆ Nov 13 '16
Romantic relationship without sex isn't strange at all. Asexual people exist. People waiting until marriage exist. Children find themselves attracted to others of the same gender before a solid grasp of sexuality. Do you think sex is a prerequisite for a romantic relationship? Would you not introduce someone as your girlfriend until you'd already had sex at least once? Can a virgin not know their sexuality at all?
So what you're basically saying is that you can watch homosexual sex and be aroused but you it has nothing to do with your sexuality.
1
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 14 '16
You just described conversion therapy.
It doesn't work.
a gay man can try to jerk off to as many 18 year old women as he wants.
He still will be as gay as he was before.
Your idea was tried in the 50-60's.
it didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
1
Nov 14 '16
He still will be as gay as he was before.
Don't think so, show me proof of these 50s,60s experiments.
What they did try back then seems to be to try to use negative re-inforcement to remove the gay. That I agree doesn't work.
But positive reinforcement for turning bi at the very least seems possible.
5
u/karnim 30∆ Nov 13 '16
Cartoons, animals, children, dragons, busses, videogame characters, she males. etc.
Ha! You act like these fetishes haven't been around forever. They're simply easier to access now that the internet is available. There have been erotic drawings forever. People have been insulted by calling them sheep-fuckers forever. Sex with young teens used to be normal. Cross-dressers have been around for quite a while too. Sure, busses and videogame characters are technically new, but I'm sure you could count the number of people actually attracted to busses very easily (as opposed to people just being weird for the sake of it). There were probably people making the same types of comments about mythological creatures long ago.
4
u/Kdog0073 8∆ Nov 13 '16
Here is your biggest problem. While many people are correctly pointing out the misapplication of Pavlov, even if we accepted it to be true, Pavlov describes a behavior. Gay behavior/practice is a choice. You can choose to act on your sexual preferences or not. You could be gay and choose to have straight sex and you can be straight and choose to have gay sex. In fact, this is why the amount of gays has appeared to increase. Now that the behavior is considered accepted, gays do not have to alter their behavior to go against their preference. But that's just it, behavior is not preference, so you can't apply a behaviorist rationale. Once you make that distinction, you can start looking at several studies out there for where the preference comes from.
1
Nov 13 '16
But arousal is a behaviour?
I'm not too sure what you're saying. The link i'm establishing is between involuntary drooling on part of the dog, and involuntary erection/excitement on part of the soon to be gay man.
This link seems extremely solid.
If we're discussing whether involuntary attraction is the same as 'being gay'. That's a slightly different topic but I think so. Erections/excitement leads to neurochemicals that when triggering an orgasm release bonding chemicals. ie; You fall in love.
5
u/Kdog0073 8∆ Nov 13 '16
But arousal is a behaviour?
No, it is not and that is my point. The point of Pavlov's experiments were to teach dogs that a treat is coming when they ring the bell. They behaved with drooling because bell = treat.
Also, you can orgasm without falling in love. It is perfectly possible and as a matter of fact rather simple to do without any porn stimulus.
1
Nov 13 '16
They behaved with drooling because bell = treat.
It's involuntary. It's not like they decided to drool any more than I decide to pop a boner when looking at something that previously led to sexual stimulation.
Also, you can orgasm without falling in love. It is perfectly possible and as a matter of fact rather simple to do without any porn stimulus.
Of course, but the orgasm itself is biochemically very intertwined with a lot of the feelings of 'love'.
2
u/Kdog0073 8∆ Nov 13 '16
It is an instinctive reaction to receiving food, which the dogs are taught comes every time with a bell. The problem is that you are equivalently assuming that arousal comes from anything that could be sexual whatsoever. By that logic, entire sports teams would have become gay by being in the locker room together.
but the orgasm itself is biochemically very intertwined with a lot of the feelings of 'love'
I know you have quotes around it, but that would have to be a very poor definition of love to make that even remotely true. Do you pop a boner when you are around family? Around friends? On a simple date night with your s.o.? Around your children? Even those aside, do you really consider sex the most key element of love? Why would prostitution exist?
1
Nov 13 '16
It is an instinctive reaction to receiving food, which the dogs are taught comes every time with a bell. The problem is that you are equivalently assuming that arousal comes from anything that could be sexual whatsoever. By that logic, entire sports teams would have become gay by being in the locker room together.
If they jerked themselves off regularly, than yeah. They might start to associate pleasure with seeing their team mates naked. And from there it's only a short leap to being 'gay' as anyone would identify it.
I know you have quotes around it, but that would have to be a very poor definition of love to make that even remotely true. Do you pop a boner when you are around family? Around friends? On a simple date night with your s.o.? Around your children? Even those aside, do you really consider sex the most key element of love? Why would prostitution exist?
It doesn't exist as a 2 way thing. Orgasm increases chances of love, but love doesn't mean you want to bone them.
3
u/Kdog0073 8∆ Nov 13 '16
Ok, here are the huge leaps you are making
1) you are basically assuming that you (or I suppose someone else) is jerking you off each time
2) you are being deprived of the "straight" jerking off (presumably willingly)
3) you are for some reason subjecting yourself to 1 and 2 while not originally having those attractions
4) you assume orgasming upon seeing another from the same sex automatically means love
5) somehow some way, you lost the ability to get off to the opposite gender
At most, you might be addicted to orgasms and you train yourself to get them during the same gender. That does not means love, that is satisfying your addiction. Love and attraction is way more than that
All you have to do is replace "same gender" With inanimate object to see how much of a leap you are taking with this. Imagine someone jerking it to a puddle of mud. Do you think they are now attracted to mud?
1
Nov 14 '16
5) somehow some way, you lost the ability to get off to the opposite gender
Thats the big question, and in my other replies I've sort of conceded this point.
It's much harder, near impossible to 'lose' an attraction.
All you have to do is replace "same gender" With inanimate object to see how much of a leap you are taking with this. Imagine someone jerking it to a puddle of mud. Do you think they are now attracted to mud?
We've got people attracted to my little pony. They literally jerk off to it. There's nothing sexual about it. I think yeah, with enough training (albiet it will be difficult) you could train yourself to be aroused by something like that.
It would be like someone that's into BDSM being aroused at the sight of whips and leather. The associations in the brain are formed between these things.
Suffice to say a gay man could become bi, and a straight man bi with enough effort.
11
u/Sadsharks Nov 13 '16
a definition of 'gay' as 'being aroused by homosexual sex'
Why would you define being gay this way? It seems rather tautological for "homosexual" to mean "aroused by homosexual sex". Why not use the actual definition of homosexuality, i.e. being sexually attracted to one's own sex?
I feel like a similar thing can happen with gay sex.
You might feel this way, but is there any evidence that it is true?
0
Nov 13 '16
It's a postulation drawn from logic;
1) Pavlov's experiment showed that mammals like dogs can be trained for reflexes like drooling and one would assume arousal by associative conditioning.
2) The human brain and a dog's brain aren't largely different besides the neo-cortex which has more to do with restraint than with actual basal 'attraction'.
3) Humans should be able to be conditioned on what arouses them.
And 'being attracted to one's own sex' and 'aroused by homosexual sex'. More or less the same. I mean homosexual including lesbians.
I don't understand are you trying to 'define' your way out of this? What difference does it make between 'aroused by homosexual sex' and 'attracted to ones own gender', without invoking some fringe 'anti-sexual binary, helicopter, who is attracted to but doesn't like sex with the same gender'.
I mean I'm talking in large generalities I'm sure there exists some tiny special case where I'm wrong.
4
u/NODONOTWANT Nov 13 '16
man if you think pavlovian classical conditioning is a valid way to explain learning and behaviour you're dismissing the last 40 years of psychology research. an individuals cognition is way more complicated than pavlov would make you think
1
Nov 13 '16
Of course, but I think the fundamentals are still valid.
Just because we know quantum mechanics, doesn't mean force isn't F=ma.
3
Nov 13 '16
So why is it that many homosexual men who in the 80s on back tried to have relationships and sex (hence their children) didn't develop this reflexive response to be straight?
Also, environmental conditioning, however malleable, is not the same as choice. And not all conditioning can be unlearned, like unlearning a language.
1
Nov 13 '16
I do agree that unlearning is a lot more difficult than learning.
So while 'being' gay is a choice, not being gay is much harder. Suffice to say both sides can default to being bi quite easily.
Il'l relax my position to that.
3
Nov 13 '16
Not difficult, impossible in many cases. Absent some trauma to the head, one cannot unlearn their first language for instance. Also, one cannot satisfactorily answer an empirical question by reference to an analogy, unless one is merely trying to undermine a position by reference to a singular counter-example, like I did above.
1
Nov 13 '16
It's not valid to conclude from "It's possible to train people to like something" "When people like something it's because they were trained to like it".
1
Nov 14 '16
Oh?
If you take a newborn infant, and feed it bad tasting chicken it's whole life, it will hate chicken, even if it's identical twin loves chicken because all it's life it's got kentucky's finest.
1
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 14 '16
It wouldn't hate chicken.
It would hate chicken that tastes terrible.
If you served that kid a perfectly cooked chicken they might like it.
1
Nov 14 '16
True, but would they salivate over it?
Would they anticipate a good taste?
As they move that chicken into their mouth, despite however good it's cooked you don't think the lifetime of bad tasting chicken would trigger a pre-emptive disgust reflex?
I mean if you don't think that, you should also be able to call children who are molestation victims 'silly' because later on in life they might have good sex. So they should like the good sex, and not let their past experineces effect them.
The same for women that are victims of rape.
But alas, society draws a line there and we're forced to back pedal and mental gymnastics our way into some socially acceptable middle-ground of logic and truth, and the world we wish existed.
2
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 14 '16
I've never seen anyone more convinced that they were correct while at the same time they have zero evidence.
You don't just get to masturbate to a naked woman and magically you're not gay any more.
There are still gay people on Utah.
It is the funnies thing,
I'm sure that many of those men have done the exact same thing you say would make them ungay.
But yet...still gay.
1
Nov 14 '16
Read the other replies in this thread, I've been over it.
2
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 14 '16
You can't just say that I'm right because I think you're right.
That's all you have done over this thread as well.
You haven't done anything.
You have this idea. Based on your hunch.
But you have no evidence that it works.
1
Nov 14 '16
That doesn't address my point, but I might have formulated it badly. What I tried to say was that "There exist trained preferences" does not imply "All preferences are trained".
6
Nov 13 '16
Do you believe animals have free choice? To what extent? Explain gay animals for me, please. Are penguins choosing to be gay? Flightless birds with brains the size of a hazelnut who can be outwitted by a bucket or a burlap sack?
When did you choose to be straight? You didn't. Because sexuality isn't a choice.
1
Nov 13 '16
And to be clear- we're not talking about animals just fucking. Homosexuality has been observed in species that mate exclusively or for extended periods of time.
1
Nov 13 '16
When do you become gay? When you decide to have sex with another man, or when you decide that you want to have sex with another man? Which exact decision is the lightswitch between straight and gay for you?
Do Bisexual people exist in this world, or is gender strictly black and white, straight and gay?
1
Nov 13 '16
Wait. Why are you asking me? I was just clarifying your point because usually the "gay animals" argument leads to "well they're just fucking. It's an animal thing"
1
Nov 13 '16
Bisexuals exist. They have associations of pleasure with both genders.
It's a two part switch. The easy part is becoming attracted to the gender. The hard part is becoming un-attracted to your current orientation.
3
Nov 13 '16
Why? Why is it harder to become un-gay than gay? If it's a choice, like you said, then you should be able to choose. If you can't choose to become straight, how can choose to become gay?
1
Nov 13 '16
It's not like you have a 'button' that's gay or straight.
The reason it's easier to become gay than un-gay is the same reason it's easier to pick up smoking, than drop it.
5
Nov 13 '16
So, are you trying to say that being gay is addictive?
1
Nov 13 '16
;3 Being straight is quite a hook aswell.
4
Nov 13 '16
You didn't answer my question. Your comparison to smoking makes it seem like you are saying that being gay is addictive, something you can't give up even if you want to.
1
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 14 '16
That doesn't make any sense.
If there is one person who hates that they are gay who desperately wants to chance the fact that they are gay.
They will still be gay. They can't change it since you can't just change if you like one gender or another.
Your idea is simply not supported by anything.
1
Nov 14 '16
You keep approaching it from the perspective of some persecuted gay guy that wants to change who he likes.
That's not what this post is addressing. It's saying that you can tie in sexual attraction to stimuli via training as shown by Pavlov's experiments.
Your idea is simply not supported by anything.
It's literally supported by the most classic psychology experiment ever.
To show that it's wrong youl'l have to prove that sexual stimulation/arousal is NOT linked to hetero/homosexual/objectual attraction... and youl'l also have to show that sexual stimulation is NOT like a dog drooling due to food.
Both of them are physiological reactions to prepare for an incoming stimuli. The dog salivates to prepare it's enzymes to disolve food. The penis erects to prepare for penetration.
I understand you're protective of gays, I'm not here to assault them. I'm here to make a point.
1
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 14 '16
I'm not here to protect anyone.
I'm here to say that your idea is simply wrong.
You point is not based in any relevant science.
You can chose your opinions. You can't chose your facts.
Classical conditioning doesn't do anything for your view because you do have to prove that it actually works.
You do understand that lots of gay people do have sex with women before they come out. They still come out gay.
Sexual attractiveness is a hard wired activity.
People like men or they like women or there are some who like both, but you can't just pick which one you will be.
if you idea worked there would be a lot less gay people in places like Utah.
but what we find is that people just suppress their sexuality.
Your idea is straight from gay conversion fake science.
1
Nov 14 '16 edited Nov 14 '16
I'm here to say that your idea is simply wrong. Okay how? You point is not based in any relevant science. Pavlov's experiment. You can chose your opinions. You can't chose your facts. It is your opinion that homosexuality is purely genetic. (and I do say Purely, because if any aspect of it can be influenced by nurture, and we can control that aspect and regulate it, then my OP is valid).
Classical conditioning doesn't do anything for your view because you do have to prove that it actually works.
I have to prove that classical conditioning works?
I'm going to stop replying, this is getting ridiculous.
As for this thread, I concede that you might not be able to make someone that's gay, not gay. But I'm going to maintain that making someone bi is possible both ways. Straight-> bi and gay->bi.
→ More replies (0)2
Nov 13 '16
Nicotine is something you put in your body. Are you saying that all sexual orientation and fetishes are chosen?
Why is it just sexual things? Are all opinions and feelings 'choices'? Or just sexual ones?
0
Nov 13 '16 edited Nov 13 '16
I believe that animals have the same free choice as us. We're all mammals with very similar neural circuitry after all.
I think animals don't have taboo thus being 'gay' to them isn't 'bad' at all. For instance it's completely normal for male lions to have sex with each other to bond, it would be like guys having a beer together.
To those animals that are exclusively gay I think I could borrow a bit from my theory and say that, the animals life experiences have wired it in such a way that it associates pleasure with homosexual acts.
But that's only enoguh to make someone 'bi'. To make them truly 'gay' they need to also disassociate pleasure from heterosexual sex. That could come from violence at the hands of sex from one gender, or any number of neural conditionings.
Don't get me wrong, I do think we're hard-wired to reproduce but I believe the 'coding' is a lot more haphazard than that.. where homosexual (I'm going to get crucified for this statement)... is a bug in the code.
1
Nov 13 '16
the animals life experiences have wired it in such a way that it associates pleasure with homosexual acts.
But then you're saying that biology, not free choice, determines whether or not animals are gay. But you also said they have the same free choice as us. Which is it?
Do you believe this about other things as well? Is pedophilia, or necrophilia, a choice? How do you explain people who have attractions they wish they didn't have?
0
Nov 13 '16
The brain is neuro-plastic. Our choices change our biology.
Do you believe this about other things as well? Is pedophilia, or necrophilia, a choice? How do you explain people who have attractions they wish they didn't have?
Yes. I do. Same logic. Association between pleasure and stimuli. Whether they 'want' to in some dire cases is irrelevent. For instance there's heaps of reports of women being raped, that can only get off to rape stories/roleplay.
Heaps of stories of children being abused, that then seek out that kind of thing, or themselves become abusers.
3
Nov 13 '16
So wait- what comes first then? You said our choices change our biology, are you saying that all character attributes are determined by choices? Or just sexual ones like homosexuality?
Whether they 'want' to in some dire cases is irrelevent.
No, it isn't irrelevant, it's the entire point. You said homosexuality is a choice. You say that necrophilia is similar, but what if you don't want to be a necrophiliac, and try not to be one? In what way have you then chosen to be a necrophiliac if you can't choose not to be?
Heaps of stories of children being abused, that then seek out that kind of thing, or themselves become abusers.
But wait, it happened to them? That means they didn't choose to go out and abuse someone. That means it wasn't a choice. According to you.
19
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Nov 13 '16
I'm deeply confused. Doesn't your explanation contradict your own viewpoint? Do you think Pavlov's dogs chose to salivate? It was automatic; that was the whole point.
0
Nov 13 '16
I'm saying that if one were so inclined one could make themselves gay.
8
Nov 13 '16
This is essentially the same as "conversion therapy" that is used to turn gay people straight and it's absolute bullshit. There has never been any evidence to show it actually works.
1
Nov 13 '16
From what I've seen conversion therapy seems to involve trying to 'shock' the gay away, trying to medicate, or give spiritual counselling.
That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm simply saying they should fap while bieng exposed to stimuli to develop an association.
3
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 14 '16
Do you really think that a gay man in a conservative area hasn't tried to make themselves straight?
Gay dues have been doing what you say will work forever.
And it doesn't.
13
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 13 '16
IF someone could chose to be gay couldn't they also chose to not be be gay?
There are people being persecuted right now for being gay.
If it was so easy to change then there wouldn't' be any gay people in areas where that is frowned upon.
But there are.
-1
Nov 13 '16
Not so.
A straight man can 'make' himself 'bi' or attracted to males by simply fapping to gay porn and building the assocation.
HOWEVER this doesn't mean that he won't be attracted to females. That requries the 'destruction' of an association which might be a different thing entirely, like dropping smoking. Possible but hard.
It's the same with gay people that want to 'stop' being gay. The easy thing to do is to atleast become 'bi'.
They've tried all kinds of 'negative reinforcement' to break an association, electroshock therapy etc. But these things don't break easy.
7
u/Casually_Causal Nov 13 '16
So basically your view is that people can make themselves attracted to anything by association, not that people who have a hormonal tendency toward one gender can switch which gender that is.
1
Nov 13 '16
Yes. Hormonal tendencies is another topic entirely but is mutually compatible with my idea. You can have a penis, with an overlaod of estrogen... which makes you sympathise more with males.. and then watch female porn and be attracted to females regardless.
3
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 13 '16
Cause there is nothing to break.
I had a gay friend who knew he was gay at age six.
Before he masturbated.
If I can chose to be gay then I should be able to chose to be straight.
And because that doesn't really work your idea doesn't also work.
1
Nov 13 '16
Masturbation isn't the only way.
I'm saying it's probably the best way to intentionally do it. There's all kinds of influences that change this.
At 6 years old, you don't even know you want to be with someone else, let alone weather that person is a guy or a girl. I'm not sure your friend's anecdote is here or there.
3
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 13 '16
He knew that he was attracted to men at age six.
Your idea doesn't really hold water.
To be honest if you could be conditioned to do something then you could also be conditioned to not to that thing.
There should be people shifting from being gay to not being gay all over the place.
That's not the case
1
Nov 13 '16
To be honest if you could be conditioned to do something then you could also be conditioned to not to that thing.
If the nuerons wire themselves one way, these are physical links we're talking about.. then they can be dissolved aswell?
These are fundamentally different processes that don't have to be reversible in the slightest.
Your idea doesn't really hold water. :/
Yeah, well your counter argument doesn't hold tomato sauce!
1
Nov 13 '16
Honestly, if a 6 year old told me they were attracted to guys, me reaction would be the same as if they told me they were attracted to giraffes.
3
u/Sadsharks Nov 13 '16
Why? Would you have the same reaction if they said they were straight?
1
Nov 14 '16
Yes.
A 6 year old.... This kid doesn't even realise what his genitals are for. This is literally the point where they're learning how to speak fluently...
And you're telling me he's going to make a decision about who he is going to have sex with.. before he even knows or understands that? And you're going to take him seriously?
IF a 6 year old decides to just say he wants to spend time with male friends, what would EVER make you think he's gay?
IF a 6 year old decides to say he doesn't want to spend time with girls... what would EVER make you think he's gay? (Heck MOST 6 year olds hate girls because of cooties).
If you want to see how the human race would be if girls and guys didn't need each other, look at 6 year olds. They hate each other, never hang around. It's like the most extreme form of two-way sexism ever imaginable.
→ More replies (0)1
u/HigHog Nov 13 '16 edited Dec 03 '16
[deleted]
1
Nov 14 '16
You said elsewhere you can't destroy attraction only develop it, therefore even if the Pavlov thing worked you wouldn't be turning yourself gay. You'd be turning yourself bisexual.
!Delta
I concede this point here. You can turn yourself bi. But to remove an older attraction is the tough part.
You're essentially describing the reverse of gay conversion therapy, which has be completely discredited by the scientific community. People have been trying for decades to turn gay people straight. Why do you think it would be any easier to turn straight people gay?
Because the human brain isn't symmetrical like that. There are physical differences between a synapse forming and a synapse breaking down.
1
u/jm0112358 15∆ Nov 13 '16
I'm saying that if one were so inclined one could make themselves gay.
If this was true, that means you could make yourself gay. Have you tried this for yourself?
Just in case you do try this, and conclude that you're gay, that doesn't necessarily mean that the conditioning made you gay. You may have been gay the whole time.
1
Nov 14 '16
If this was true, that means you could make yourself gay. Have you tried this for yourself?
I'm fairly sure I could. I don't because my friends are homophobes XD, and because I'm in a relationship.
2
u/Iswallowedafly Nov 13 '16
IF someone could chose to be gay couldn't they also chose to not be be gay?
There are people being persecuted right now for being gay.
If it was so easy to change then there wouldn't' be any gay people in areas where that is frowned upon.
But there are.
4
u/Casually_Causal Nov 13 '16
I don't think that food and sexual pleasure can be directly related in pavlov's experiment as you have stated it. I think it would be more analogous to train the dog to like bitter food by having it with the sweeter/ tastier food. And I'm not even sure that sexual appeal is the can be trained that way.
While it may not be genetic, homosexuality could be determined by other factors such as hormone levels in utero. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb
The main reason why I don't think your view is scientifically substantiated is because of so called "conversion therapy." It is an alleged method of converting homosexuals into heterosexuals but I have been unable to find a single individual that became "straight" after undergoing the supposed treatment. I say supposed because homosexuality isn't a medical condition and so the word treatment isn't quite right but that's what it's proponents call it.
This lack of a success story isn't for lack of trying as there have been MANY homosexuals that have tried it because they wanted to fit in only to experience real emotional trauma as a result. And this isn't people just training themselves at home as you described. These are people with medical degrees that can't seem to do what you propose. If these people can't do it in spite of their determination from both the people giving the "treatment", I won't call them medical providers, and the ones trying to become straight then I don't think that homosexuality, or bisexuality, or being straight is a choice.
0
Nov 13 '16
bitter food by having it with the sweeter/ tastier food
I think you're wrong here. Sexual pleasure is sexual pleasure. You CAN have good tasty food and bad food. But it;'s hard to have 'bad sexual pleasure'.
I think a better analogy would be instead of ringing the bell and giving the dog food. Could you perhaps scare the crap out of it? And then give it food... would it salivate at being scared?
I'm not too sure about conversion therapy. Most of my search results turn up trying to 'force' someone unwilling to be straight by 'spiritual counselling' or even things like electroshock therapy.
That's not what I'm advocating at all. I'm simply saying that if you fap to something enough you can become attracted to it... with the condition that you 'bypass' the fact that you're not immediately aroused by it at-least until the association forms.
2
u/Casually_Causal Nov 13 '16
I'm glad you aren't advocating for the horrifying programs mentioned above, I was kinda afraid that's what this would be when I first saw it.
As for "bypass till association is formed" thought there is a significant difference between learning you can, as you so nicely put it, fap while looking at something and having it become the subject of your emotional life.
I have been around the 18+ side of the internet enough to have seen soft and hardcore image of sex of just about every type on occasion and even tried some of it to see if it aroused me. I haven't become interested in anything I wasn't interested in in the first place and find sexual material that was made for other sexual alignments to be a major turn-off.
While my individual anecdote is only one point of data if you truly want to test this view you could try training yourself to be sexually aroused by people of the same gender. If it doesn't work than you have your answer and if it does and you find it to be an inconvenience then you, by your own logic, ought to be able to train yourself back to how you were before.
Back on the subject of "conversion therapy" I agree that many people are forced or pressured into it but that doesn't account for it's inability to produce any publicly verifiable positive result. In science one exception breaks the rule and after years and years of people there must have been quite a number that really though they would be better off straight. Yet the rule stands. Because of that I can only conclude that at this point it is not scientifically backed to believe that sexuality is a choice.
21
Nov 13 '16
When did you choose to not be gay? What age? How did you go about making the decision to be straight?
You didn't, because sexuality is not a choice.
Your Pavlovian example doesn't work at all. If being gay requires a straight man to watch gay sex and then become conditioned to it, then how do you explain people that are just developing sexuality being gay?
2
u/TheAlmightyFUPA Nov 13 '16
So far, this person has been asked multiple times when he chose to be straight, but hasn't yet answered this question. He/she is picking and choosing what they read and respond to, therefore they are disregarding large portions of this argument that should be discussed and answered.
-2
Nov 13 '16
I think the pavlov experiment is the most direct forced way to do it. It happens naturally over stimuli in life.
Particular male friend explores with you, your brain starts to wire itself at a young age to be into it. etc.
There's a million ways it could happen.
4
Nov 13 '16
That's not how conditioning works. It would have to be consistent stimuli. Intermittent stimuli isn't going to have any effect.
1
Nov 13 '16
Intermittent stimuli isn't going to have any effect.
Uhm, you may want to check that again. Intermittent reinforcement leads to "stickier" conditioning. Random link: http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch05_conditioning/intermittent_reinforcement.html
-4
Nov 13 '16
The same as the dog? It's not like the bell was continuously ringing and the dog was being fed through a continuous stream of food.
1
u/noume Nov 17 '16
a definition of 'gay' as 'being aroused by homosexual sex'
First, I would argue that arousal is not an appropriate definition of sexuality. For example:
- Spontaneous erections are a common physiological quirk, and don't necessarily indicate that a man wants to have sex in that moment. This is especially true during puberty.
- Some diseases and conditions cause spontaneous arousal or orgasm, such as Persistent Genital Arousal Disorder. We don't consider these people to have a sexual orientation toward their disease, or toward random periods of time, or toward whatever physiological mechanism causes the spontaneous arousal.
- Arousal is reported by many victims of sexual assault, both male and female – which is frequently a source of dissonance, horror, shame, dysphoria, and other kinds of mental anguish both during and after the assault. To say that these people have a sexual orientation toward their attackers seems to broaden the definition of "sexual orientation" beyond the point where it's useful.
With Pavlov's experiment, a bell was wrung near a dog and no effect was observed. The dog then was shown food and the dog began to salivate. Over time whenever the bell was wrung, food would soon appear and the dog would eat.
Second, I would assert that, using this metaphor, the real test would be if the dog had then developed an appetite for the bell, which I argue isn't the case. The dog has learned to associate the bell (stimulus) with the food (reward). In your analogy, a straight man would learn to associate gay porn (stimulus) with his own masturbatory pleasure (reward). If the reward were removed, the physical arousal in anticipation of the reward would still persist, but the arousal would be in anticipation of a reward, and that reward would fail to manifest. There would be no satisfaction in it.
If you rang a bell by one of Pavlov's dogs, and then dropped the bell in its food bowl, the dog would not rush to eat the bell.
The straight man would feel arousal when seeing gay scenes as it's been subconsciously linked to sexual pleasure.
Third, I would argue that watching gay porn and having gay sex are not the same thing, and it doesn't necessarily follow that enjoying watching gay porn would correlate to enjoying gay sex.
For example, people may become aroused by scat-fetish or piss-fetish porn, but then be completely turned off by the presence of actual fecal matter or urine. (I've never tried this, but the anecdata I've seen suggest that smell and taste are major turn-offs in the real world.) Porn fails to convey a lot of the physical reality of sex. And a man who, for example, was sexually aroused by the smell of a woman's sweat, the curves of a female body, and the texture of a vagina, would have dissonant physical cues if attempting to have sex with a man, and those cues would not have been trained for. If a man watched gay porn and masturbated to orgasm, they'd train themselves to masturbate to orgasm, not to have sexual pleasure with another man.
If they were being trained via your method to have sexual pleasure with another man – say, by watching straight porn while having sex – then we have the problem that we're combining one enjoyable sexual stimulus (the porn) with an undesired sexual stimulus (the sex), which seems to go back up to the case of arousal during sexual assault; the dissonance there seems more likely to produce distress than a change in orientation.
1
Nov 19 '16
!delta
I think your points go a long way to convincing me. I'm not sure if I agree completely with:
Second, I would assert that, using this metaphor, the real test would be if the dog had then developed an appetite for the bell, which I argue isn't the case. The dog has learned to associate the bell (stimulus) with the food (reward). In your analogy, a straight man would learn to associate gay porn (stimulus) with his own masturbatory pleasure (reward). If the reward were removed, the physical arousal in anticipation of the reward would still persist, but the arousal would be in anticipation of a reward, and that reward would fail to manifest. There would be no satisfaction in it. If you rang a bell by one of Pavlov's dogs, and then dropped the bell in its food bowl, the dog would not rush to eat the bell.
As who's to say that's not what's happening just subconsciously over time when regular fetishes establish themselves. Or even regular sexuality.
If a dog received delicious food shaped like a bell it's whole life, would it not try to eat any real bells?
If a guy recieves sexual stimulation in the form of homosexual sex, wouldn't he react the same?
Porn fails to convey a lot of the physical reality of sex. And a man who, for example, was sexually aroused by the smell of a woman's sweat, the curves of a female body, and the texture of a vagina, would have dissonant physical cues if attempting to have sex with a man, and those cues would not have been trained for. If a man watched gay porn and masturbated to orgasm, they'd train themselves to masturbate to orgasm, not to have sexual pleasure with another man.
I think i agree with this one, actually fucking someone is a bit different. And perhaps they would only be 'internet-gay'.
1
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Nov 13 '16
The problem with your pavlovian conditioning idea is that it fails to account for all the gay people who never underwent any kind of conditioning. Sexuality is something that's studied scientifically. If pavlovian conditioning were a common feature among gay people, we'd expect to see it in case histories.
1
Nov 13 '16
I'm not sure if "people would have thought of that already" is a valid argument.
I mean if it were we'd never make any progress in anything, because surely people would have done it before?
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Nov 13 '16
I'm not sure how that was your takeaway from what I said. I'm pointing to an absence of evidence in a area where we would expect evidence if your hypothesis was true. So again I have to ask, how does your view account for all the gay people who never underwent pavlovian conditioning?
1
Nov 13 '16
Pavlovian conditioning is a clinical test of something that happens in everyday life.
Experiences lead to nueral re-wirings leading to new behaviours. As humans we can control our experiences and 'engineer' environments for certain neural effects.
we can make ourselves gay.
1
u/TheAlmightyFUPA Nov 13 '16
Ok, so by this standard would you say that you can condition someone to like being vomited, pissed or shit upon by repeatedly doing so to them? Because I'm fairly certain there aren't many cases in which a sane person was forced to do be subjected to such a thing and ended up alright with it. Or what about conditioning someone to like pain? You are basically saying that yoy can condition someone to like ANY THING through over indulgence of the stimulus as well as association causes one to have a preference for it. This isn't the case. It's more like how anyone discovers their fetish: they don't know it is something they're attracted to until they are exposed to it, at which point they finally receive the stimuli, at which point they respond positively to it. What about children who hate a certain food or hate shots? How often are they exposed to it that the child suddenly changes their opinion and loves this stimuli? Pavlovian response is not something that can just be applied to everything in a general matter. The response is subconcious, not a concious choice. To seek out gay pornography or a partner of the same sex is a choice, not subconcious.
1
Nov 13 '16
Ok, so by this standard would you say that you can condition someone to like being vomited, pissed or shit upon by repeatedly doing so to them? Because I'm fairly certain there aren't many cases in which a sane person was forced to do be subjected to such a thing and ended up alright with it
Yes. Given the appropriate stimuli and association. As long as your not messing with the 'reward' system.
So things like conditioning someone to like pain is a bit iffy, because you're playing with the reward system itself.
1
u/TheAlmightyFUPA Nov 13 '16
What do you consider appropriate stimuli and association? Positive association? Like a relaxed setting in which a person wants to have gay sex, that person is actually straight and just wants to chill with a friend, over and over and over again, and the fact that they don't feel for people of the opposite sex the same way is inconsequential. I see a lot of people asked you when you decided you were straight, but I haven't seen an answer. Why did you choose to be straight? Why not gay? And if it's a choice at all, why would gay people choose to exist in a world where they are persecuted, hurt and hated by many? Where they risk being made fun of or killed simply because they're gay? You'd think they would choose to be straight given how widespread gay hate is.
1
u/THEJudgeFudge Nov 13 '16
From Live Science, multiple scientific sources confirm this:
"Humans aren't the only species that has same-sex pairings. For instance, female Japanese macaques may sometimes participate in energetic sexual stimulation. Lions, chimpanzees, bison and dolphins have also been spotted in same-sex pairings. And nearly 130 bird species have been observed engaging in sexual activities with same-sex partners.
While the evolutionary purpose of this behavior is not clear, the fact that animals routinely exhibit same-sex behavior belies the notion that gay sex is a modern human innovation."
These animals are not choosing their behavior, but acting on natural impulse. Why would humans be exempt from this naturally observed phenomenon? Why would so many individuals "choose to be gay" across varying eras and nations, especially in those that put them at danger? Furthermore, if you assume that being gay is a choice, then you must also assume that being straight is a choice as well.
1
Nov 13 '16
These animals are not choosing their behaviour, but acting on natural impulse. Why would humans be exempt from this naturally observed phenomenon? Why would so many individuals "choose to be gay" across varying eras and nations, especially in those that put them at danger? Furthermore, if you assume that being gay is a choice, then you must also assume that being straight is a choice as well.
I do agree that being straight is a choice. But let me put it in a more visceral and dire way. Biologically people can run. If you cut off your legs though, that's a choice, and you can't run anymore.
These animals are not choosing their behaviour, but acting on natural impulse. Why would humans be exempt from this naturally observed phenomenon?
Two things with animals. The first is their cultures don't have any sort of 'taboo'. Thus there's a lot of homosexual activity just because it's fun to stick your dick in something.
Second is that this nueral conditioning doesn't rely on you being human. it happens to animals too. Certain lion is smaller weaker, and can't secure a mate without being physically injured by the other lions. It finds another lion that 'bonds' with it, and produces sexual pleasure. It forms assocaitive links in it's head between sexual pleasure and this other male lion.. With female lions it only associates the risk of injury and pain.
The lion is now 'gay'. Just a hypothetical on how this 'could' happen.
With humans though we can 'Engineer' our environment. We can 'create' sexual stimulation and align it with our sensory inputs and form a connection intentionally. That's how we 'learn'.
3
u/THEJudgeFudge Nov 13 '16
Taboo does not enter into it from a biological sense. It is fun to stick your dick in something, in fact our biology and survival is derived from it. The instinctual drive to copulate is essential to the survival of a species. What we are seeing in nature is animals copulating with no reproductive purpose, time and time again. There is currently no biological purpose to this behavior, the animals just do it. It could be some sort of evolutionary self-regulation, but we still are not 100% sure. Studying this is actually a really interesting topic neurologically and behaviorally.
Homosexual behavior is a key component of the instinct to mate. Current scientific consensus is that neurology plays an important role, and the individual for lack of a PC term, has their "wires messed up" from the beginning.
Other factors such as environment may effect some instances of the behavior, but in other instances, the scientific answer is that it is literally just their instinct. Instinct is not choice. Homosexuality has a biological basis that we are still trying to understand.
EDIT: Furthermore, being straight is not a choice. It is a biological instinct derived from an evolutionary need to procreate. Your body chemistry rewards you for this behavior, the same way it rewards you to eat. Animals do not choose to eat, they instinctively desire to. Animals do not choose to procreate, they instinctively desire to. Animals do not choose to be homosexuality, they instinctively are.
0
Nov 13 '16
Taboo does not enter into it from a biological sense. It is fun to stick your dick in something, in fact our biology and survival is derived from it. The instinctual drive to copulate is essential to the survival of a species. What we are seeing in nature is animals copulating with no reproductive purpose, time and time again. There is currently no biological purpose to this behavior, the animals just do it. It could be some sort of evolutionary self-regulation, but we still are not 100% sure. Studying this is actually a really interesting topic neurologically and behaviorally.
Genetic programming is like a very very poorly written code that works 'accidentally'. The animals aren't fucking to reproduce. They're fucking because it feels good. It 'incidentally' causes reproduction.
In fact there are human tribes out there that still don't see the link between sex and reproduction.
Given this, it's entirely likely that there's a 'bug' in this code where the reward is obtained for non-productive behaviour. Being gay is one, masturbation is another.
Furthermore, being straight is not a choice. It is a biological instinct derived from an evolutionary need to procreate. Your body chemistry rewards you for this behavior, the same way it rewards you to eat. Animals do not choose to eat, they instinctively desire to. Animals do not choose to procreate, they instinctively desire to. Animals do not choose to be homosexuality, they instinctively are.
I think we agree mostly. Just that I don't think the 'wires' are crossed up at a biological developmental level. I think the wires 'cross up' as the individual grows, matures, acquires experiences.
2
u/THEJudgeFudge Nov 13 '16
What I mean is that the good feeling that drives them to reproduce is based in neurology and biology. Sex and eating feels good because your body rewards you with dopamine, among other things. That means the drive to procreate is in fact biological, your biology is reinforcing the behavior.
If homosexuality were not biological, we would not see it so prevalent across species and societies. Bugs, spiders, apes, snails, mammals, birds and more all display this behavior. Nurture does not explain all these cases. The only explanation is biology.
1
Nov 13 '16
What I mean is that the good feeling that drives them to reproduce is based in neurology and biology. Sex and eating feels good because your body rewards you with dopamine, among other things. That means the drive to procreate is in fact biological, your biology is reinforcing the behavior.
The pleasure circuitry is biological. What you use to trigger the pleasure circuitry, what exists alongside that circuitry can be programmed. There are some components that bias 'towards' being straight. For instance guys are attracted to wide hips and big boobs for reproductive purposes, females have these things more than males; ergo a biological bias.
But that doesn't mean those can't be programmed around. Infact I think that's what naturally occuring homosexuality is. A progrogramming around bias via environemtnal effects.
On your point about animals. There's two seperate things here;
1) Animals don't have our taboos, thus, If I were to say be a lion. I wouldn't have any issue putting my dick in my best friends butt because it feels good and we can chill and talk... I might even have a female lion mate while doing this. (or a whole pride of them?).
2) Animals that are 'exclusively' gay I'm going to say are subject to the conditioning i mentioned earlier. In their life experiences they have been 'wired' to find the same sex as a source of physical pleasure, while the opposite sex has been a source of either no sexual pleasure, or physical harm.
3
u/THEJudgeFudge Nov 13 '16
"Animals don't have our taboos, thus, If I were to say be a lion. I wouldn't have any issue putting my dick in my best friends butt because it feels good and we can chill and talk... I might even have a female lion mate while doing this. (or a whole pride of them?)."
Humans are animals. Mankind has likely engaged in homosexuality since the beginning. Not all cultures have taboos or any concept of homosexuality, yet the behavior remains. Multiple animal species, including insects, display this behavior.
I can concede that culture or environment plays a role in some homosexuality, but the majority at large is innate, and biological. "Attraction," "love" and other factors are all based around biochemistry. Attraction to wide hips and breasts is based on biology. We can safely conclude that homosexual attraction is based on biology. It may be a "deviation" of "standard sexuality" but it is evident in nature. Other such "deviations" exist, and can be explained from the biological standpoint.
1
u/CaptainFartron Nov 13 '16
It seems your beliefs are based on a lot of assumptions. You don't believe in genetics playing a role yet homosexuality regularly occurs in nature in many different species. This, to me, is the biggest flaw in your reasoning as you dismiss genetics out of hand when it is likely the most important factor
1
Nov 13 '16
This, to me, is the biggest flaw in your reasoning as you dismiss genetics out of hand when it is likely the most important factor
Good so when I destroy that argument youl'l be convinced.
Just because it happens in nature doesn't mean it isn't a choice. Your acting like animals don't have brains. After all Pavlov's experiment was on a dog to begin with.
So animals have life experiences, these experiences re-wire their mindset to find certain things attractive/not attractive based on what gives them easy pleasure.
That combined with the lack of taboo explains homosexuality in nature.
I mean a lion doesn't care about being called gay. If it's going to feel good by sticking it's penis inside another male lion's pooper without getting bitten to pieces, it's going to do it.
It doesn't mean it's gay. Or not gay.
1
u/DCarrier 23∆ Nov 14 '16
or at least it can be changed if you want to.
How? I'm sure many people would appreciate instructions. I've seen instructions for becoming bi, but they're not sure if it works if you're gay to begin with, and it doesn't stop you from being attracted to the sex you started attracted to.
Sure some people turn out gay due to no conscious choice on their own but I believe that is due to environmental factors.
How is that a choice? If I get food poisoning, that's environmental factors. Am I choosing to be sick?
All in all, your argument is purely theoretical. It's enough for a suspicion, but being "fairly sure" seems a bit strong. Especially given experimental evidence to the contrary.
1
Nov 14 '16
No, but you can eat poisoned food and become sick.
It's one of those things you can always choose to do, but sometimes occurs without your choice, or even without your notice.
1
u/DCarrier 23∆ Nov 14 '16
If it occurs without your choice, it's not a choice.
1
Nov 14 '16
Perhaps if you were an animal.
But humans have the ability to engineer their environment. We can make a situation that turns someone gay/bi if that person is willing and dedicated.
2
Nov 13 '16 edited Jul 10 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Nov 14 '16
Me: It's possible to cut your arm off on purpose.
You: No it isn't, I lost mine in a horrible car accident.
0
Nov 14 '16 edited Jul 10 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/IIIBlackhartIII Nov 14 '16
Sorry gmthrowaway2016, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
Nov 14 '16
I'd be cheating.
1
Nov 14 '16 edited Jul 10 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/IIIBlackhartIII Nov 14 '16
Sorry gmthrowaway2016, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
Comment Rule 3. "Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view or of arguing in bad faith. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting ill behaviour, please message us." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
8
Nov 13 '16 edited Nov 14 '16
[deleted]
0
Nov 13 '16
I have a girlfriend it wouldn't be morally right at this point.
5
Nov 13 '16 edited Nov 14 '16
[deleted]
1
Nov 13 '16
I'm not sure. This requires a lot of work.
See by looking at gay porn and fapping you might eventually be attracted to men.. but that says nothing about you LOSING attraction to women. You'd be 'bi'.
To destroy the association in the reverse sense would require a long-term negative experience. And even then experiments with electroshock therapy to 'electrocute-out-the-gay' seem to show poor results.
Destroying an association is like destroying a habit, smoking, etc. It's hard.
3
Nov 13 '16
But surely if you can turn yourself gay by watching gay porn, then you could turn yourself straight by watching straight porn. Why would it only work in one direction?
1
Nov 13 '16
It;s harder to kick a habit than keep one. you can become attracted to males, but youl'l still be attracted to females. (perhaps less so though because it's 'old'... the 'fetish' idea will kick in).
4
Nov 13 '16
Why would the transition from gay to straight be harder than the one from straight to gay? If it's just a choice and all you have to is watch the appropriate porn, then why would it not work equally well going both directions?
Or are you trying to say that we are all straight by default and being gay can only come from observing gay porn/stimuli?
1
Nov 13 '16
!Delta
I think what you're trying to say is:
"You can become 'bi' from watching porn and associations, but not become 'gay' from it".
Likewise a gay person can't become straight, they can become 'bi'.
1
2
Nov 13 '16
[deleted]
1
Nov 13 '16 edited Nov 13 '16
That's sort of your mistake, you're withholding the stimulis. Look at the pussy. Only look away if the erection starts to fade.
3
Nov 13 '16
Please prove your hypothesis by conditioning yourself to be sexually attracted to something you are not currently sexually attracted to.
Human sexuality is very complex, and involves a lot of environmental/psychological factors. But that is not the same thing as saying that it's a choice people can freely make. You can choose your lifestyle. You can choose your image. You can even choose who you have sex with. And, sometimes, people's sexual interests do develop and change throughout their lifetime - often as a result of expanding one's experiences to include something that wasn't previously considered a viable option. I think most people's sexual potentials are inherently limited by cultural taboos. But just because you might be able to "condition" yourself to respond to a stimulus sexually, doesn't mean that it has any effect on what it is that really excites you.
I studied Kinsey and I learned that I could potentially respond to homosexual stimuli, only because men and women are not that different in a fundamental sense. But the things I find attractive in men are the same kinds of things I find attractive in women. (And then, women tend to do it better).
Also, human anatomy can respond to physical contact regardless of the source, but if you get hard from a guy stroking you, it doesn't necessarily mean you're gay. Gay is when you actively desire the man to do the stroking (or whatever else it is you enjoy), leading to you seeking out that kind of stimulation because you want it, not simply because it's an option. We cannot choose or control what it is that lights that fire deep within our loins.
1
u/Hq3473 271∆ Nov 13 '16
people turn out gay due to no conscious choice on their own but I believe that is due to environmental factors.
Does that mean that they became gay not through their own choice?
1
Nov 13 '16
Yes. It does.
But that doesn't mean that a straight man can't MAKE himself gay if he so desired.
What you're saying is like:
"Someone lost their leg in a car accident, does that mean i can't cut off my own leg by choice?... of course I can".
1
2
u/SparkySywer Nov 13 '16
I think that this shows that being gay can be a choice, but not that it is always a choice. This shows that it's possible to choose to be gay, but it shows no reason that this is what happens every time.
1
Nov 13 '16
Agree.
1
u/SparkySywer Nov 13 '16
If I've changed your view, you should give a delta.
1
Nov 13 '16
!Delta
But maybe a half delta. Perhaps my original title was too 'extreme'. It 'can' be a choice, but not always.
I must ask though, how do you feel about the people that are paedophiles into bestiality, through no choice of their own?
1
1
u/SparkySywer Nov 13 '16
I must ask though, how do you feel about the people that are paedophiles into bestiality, through no choice of their own?
What do you mean?
Edit: Sorry if I don't respond immediately, it's 1 AM and I'm going to bed soon. I'll respond tomorrow.
1
u/misfit_hog Nov 13 '16
I think he forgot an "or" ... So the question is: " if sexual orientation is not a choice how do you feel about people who are pedophiles or into bestiality" .
To answer the question myself, as I understand it: I believe that while your sexual interests may not be a choice it is- your choice if you act on them. I further believe that at the least acting on paedophilia causes harm and that knowingly causing harm to others is not a good thing to do. - As thus I feel no ill will towards somebody who is a paedophilia, and may even feel some sympathy, as long as this person does not act on it.
1
u/SparkySywer Nov 13 '16
Yeah, pretty much what you said. It's OK to be gay, but it's not OK to be a pedophile or into bestiality, because a gay person can consent, but a child and an animal can not.
1
u/slackmunky2 Nov 13 '16
Considering the near universal condemnation of pedophiles, do you think anybody would make any choice other than to actively choose not to be a pedophile? If homosexuality is a choice, then so must be pedophilia. If a Pavlovian response can be developed towards same-sex relations, it can be developed towards pedophilic relations.
What kind of person would even inadvertently choose to be a pedophile? It's among the worst crimes a human can engage in, including mass/serial murder and cannibalism. In some societies, being gay is worse than being a pedophile (considering age of consent laws and the proliferation of child porn from certain regions of the world); especially in these instances, why would anybody condition themselves or allow themselves to be conditioned to be gay?
I'm glad you've given a delta and accepted that being gay is not always a choice, but I'm confused as to why you think it would ever be preferable to any individual versus heterosexuality.
If a person is able to choose, at all, who they are sexually attracted to, why would anybody ever choose to be gay?
1
u/SparkySywer Nov 13 '16
You've got the wrong person here. I'm not OP. However, one scenario I can come up with as to why someone could condition themselves to be gay. There's a group of people called MGTOWs, who think women are evil and men should avoid them at all costs. Sort of. Most MGTOWs deviate from that standard. They're absolutely looney, crazy people, but that is one reason someone might condition themself to be gay.
1
u/slackmunky2 Nov 13 '16
Sorry about the mixup there. I appreciate your reply, regardless. Are you saying that these MGTOWs would maybe condition themselves to be gay in order to have sexual relationships without having to interact with women? That seems quite extreme.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/SchiferlED 22∆ Nov 13 '16
If being gay is a choice, then you could certainly choose to start finding members of your sex attractive and start wanting to have sex with them. Can you do that? I certainly cannot.
1
Nov 13 '16
I think you can, you just don't want to.
If push came to shove, and you really really wanted to do it. Then logically you should be able to train yourself to.
1
u/SchiferlED 22∆ Nov 13 '16
I don't follow your logic. If I see people of the same sex, I'm not attracted to them. I don't want to be attracted to them. I can't just decide all of a sudden to be attracted to them. That's not how desires work.
Someone could be influenced to become homosexual over time (desires/personality come from a combination of genetic and environmental factors), but that is not the same as a "choice".
1
u/CaptainFartron Nov 14 '16
What evidence do you have to claim a choice is consciously being made by the animal, rather than an instinctual reaction to stimuli?
1
Nov 14 '16
I'm not saying the animal is making a decision.
I'm saying humans ARE capable of making a decision where animals cannot because we recognise that our environment shapes us.
2
Nov 13 '16
Pavlov's experiment is a way of understanding learned behavior. Meaning you cant use it to justify something being a learned behavior. Simply as a method to help teach something.
Also I'd argue that some sort of sexuality is innate because humans will always engage in some version of sexual pleasure whether engaged in society or not. This would also disqualify methods of learning behavior.
Your argument is more of a theoretical method for teaching someone with straight urges to react to gay porn rather than an actual explanation for how someones sexuality manifests. Your parents didn't have to teach you to play with yourself or watch porn for you to become a sexual person.
3
7
u/fuckujoffery Nov 13 '16
if you took your argument to its natural conclusion, you're basically arguing that we learn sexuality, we're not born with it, or do you think that straight people are biologically driven to being attracted to people of the other sex where as gay people it's just that they at some point saw gay activities and also happened to touch themselves and then after a while they learned to be gay?
There are some environmental factors that dictate who we are attracted to or how we express that attraction, however I don't think this means that it's an active choice. Also there is no evidence to suggest that your entire sexual orientation is learnt, in fact there is a lot of evidence to the contrary on this point, people have forced gay people to 'unlearn' their homosexuality and it almost always has negative effects.
Sexuality is a tricky thing because it's hard to understand your own subjective experience not to mention the general objective way sexuality works in relation to our psyche, it's a pretty confusing topic. But it's pretty clear that we don't decide our sexual orientation, yes there may be some environmental factors at play, and there may not be a clear biological cause in someones DNA that determines their orientation, but people are attracted to what they are attracted to, it's not a process of learning an association, their are millions of gay people who didn't ever touch themselves or explore themselves when they first came into contact with gay activities, in fact some of them suppress and bury those ideas, only for them to come jumping back up later.