Can a person change sexual orientation?

[OldAbramBrown]

... imposters and cheaters ...​

The entire scenario from beginning to end needs looking at on many levels.

Lack of teaching of supplication, by christian leaders from 1966 on (or 1946), got the world to this. (When I was 14 state teachers heavily implied we should "have sex" outside marriage.)

"Influencing" and intruding by sacred power seemed such handy substitutes.

Guilt tripping boys into gruesome "pathways" on the basis of private tastes is the identical mirror of moralistic "conversion therapy" (before they got bodily involved), i.e converting him into what he does not need to be "converted into".

I vividly remember the shame of not conforming to the "holy" stereotypes, e.g I was not about to "sweep a woman off her feet" (which didn't sound kind, in my opinion); then women got shamed into not frankly proposing to gentlemen a method to relating.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

The secular establishment has now said to us "we'll show you theocracy".

Is God letting it be demonstrated that there is no substitute for supplication - and never was, in 1946?

 

[ladodgers6]

The entire scenario from beginning to end needs looking at on many levels.

Lack of teaching of supplication, by christian leaders from 1966 on (or 1946), got the world to this. (When I was 14 state teachers heavily implied we should "have sex" outside marriage.)

"Influencing" and intruding by sacred power seemed such handy substitutes.

Guilt tripping boys into gruesome "pathways" on the basis of private tastes is the identical mirror of moralistic "conversion therapy" (before they got bodily involved), i.e converting him into what he does not need to be "converted into".

I vividly remember the shame of not conforming to the "holy" stereotypes, e.g I was not about to "sweep a woman off her feet" (which didn't sound kind, in my opinion); then women got shamed into not frankly proposing to gentlemen a method to relating.

They need to convince not only themselves but others who they think they are. A natural man or woman don't need convincing. This is a mental health issue, which shouldn't be encouraged with supporting their delusional realities. Then there's chemical castrating of children by hormone blockers. Which by the way is used to castrate Pedophiles in prisons.

I am also against abortion, killing is killing no matter how you slice it, pun intended. What are we doing here, people, I scream.

I have been called every name in the book for my voice in these political debates. I don't care because these lives are more important to me than name calling.​

 

[OldAbramBrown]

...

I am also against abortion, killing is killing no matter how you slice it, pun intended. What are we doing here, people, I scream.

...​

The way the free pass was given to the promoters of "free" sex or "having" sex (at whose expense, isn't mentioned) is as follows. This was promoted to my class aged 14 by a religion turned civics teacher, and his new trainees. He very soon after, left suddenly after carrying on with a boy.

Church leaders couldn't teach us to supplicate,, so they didn't teach us to supplicate for ourselves and our peers.

(It later emerged Savile had got close to a number of them.)

A moralistic materialistic, preachy, element of them at first felt it wasn't trendy to moralise. Their aim was to popularise religion.

Most of those switched tack in the 1980s dragging in gender theology which actually by caricaturing, discredits the truths you mention ladodgers6. They shamed us by implying that however "born again" we might think ourselves, we are irredeemably mired in salaciousness (which they were putting on us).

Now there is a split with increasing numbers going back to the previous more trendy sort of trendiness. Conveniently for all those factions, supplicating remains completely off the agenda.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Some of the current "influencing" by their pretend defenders insults people who have known injury and illnesses or were genuinely born a bit different. Tact doesn't turn them into political footballs.

Beware ploys to get christians to join public intrusion into children's and adults' private parts. Did Puritan colonists normalise that in some colonies? In England it was schools in 1969 (and not in the "sex lesson" which was fine but in civics) (I'm told an older class tore a strip off the teachers for intruding).

Orientations are not roles (except momentarily). If any christians wear a sociology hat they are wrong if they uphold the paradigm of Reich as an objective ideal.

In the 1980s religion shamed non "he men" that weren't out to get one over on women. Yet the better sort of classical pagans and agnostics showcased virtues especially intellectual ones and chastity in whatever walk you are, which is very different from what we are told.

In India boys wear decorative clothing so I suggest that is a business opportunity from the subcontinent. Whatever organisations are running schools should be less pig headed about uniforms.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

My mum and dad didn't have "roles", they just did what they had to. Younger people wore almost the same clothes (outside school) allowing only for fit. Other than lipstick and a subset who were into "powder" there was no makeup. It makes no sense to trick boys into high maintenance paths in an economic crash gratuitously. Poor teaching of reason and boundaries induced some who need not otherwise be involved to reflect insufficiently whether committing to an adolescence and adulthood of pain was "taste". Goodwill bystanders don't know who the authorities are, so such authorities get away more easily with posing as defenders in those cases where they aren't. They then paint the reasonable who are not all-or-nothing as unreasonable when all we wanted was to give the children generally more agency and more privacy. I now see idealistic teachers of the day wanted to usurp my body by stealth whereas I thought it was mine, not the moralisers', not the Dept. of Education's. It was religious leaders who withdrew non-shallow virtues and supplication from churches (in different localities this happened differently) ceasing to be salt. Agnostics used to love us because they sensed we were doing good when they thought we were supplicating. It's mean to insult agnostics.

 

[Elear]

According to a study at Stability and Change in Sexual Orientation Identity Over a 10-Year Period in Adulthood - Archives of Sexual Behavior that "examined reports of sexual orientation identity stability and change over a 10-year period":

"Somewhat more than 2% reported a different sexual orientation identity at Wave 2."
For women, "heterosexuality was the most stable identity" and "sexual orientation identity fluidity is a pattern that applies more to sexual minority women than heterosexual women."

This is another interesting article on the subject: https://mygenes.co.nz/mgmmdi_pdfs/Ch12_change-of-orientation.pdf. It cites many studies that I haven't read or verified but that sound trustworthy and reputable, but it seems to conclude that "homosexuality is much more fluid than heterosexuality", and it has several interesting graphs showing change over time from one orientation to another on and around page 197.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

It may even be the case that some people interpret the same feelings (that they themselves feel) under different headings.

One would only really notice the difference if one is making advances and of what nature.

Maybe in an ideal past golden age, individual acquaintances would have been light heartedly, informally and without moralising, coaching one in how to come across?

I fully respect that the recent changes in culture mean that some people have found these matters (as well as / instead of separate issues around the several layers of growing gender controversies) points of identity.

I don't think there is any need to suspect other people for whom this doesn't happen to be so.