Women - Not Men - Chose to be Gay?

[trunks2k]

But my point is if our sexual orientation is determined by our brains, they why do lesbians seem partly aroused by men, or straight women aroused by other women?

I'd argue it's because sexuality is more than just what visuals arouses you. Granted, it's a good indicator, but it's not the end all and be all of sexuality. There's just other emotional components to it.

I look at it as a square-rectangle thing (all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares). All lesbians are aroused by visuals of naked women, but not all women who are aroused by visuals of naked women are lesbians.

 

[Maren]

if homosexuality is not totally determined by our brains (whatever that is supposed to mean) then that would mean that we ARE able to to choose our orientation. Since homosexuality is not genetically "determined" (in the sense that there is no such thing as a "gay gene") then homosexuals do in fact choose their orientation, though their reasons for doing so may be and is a whole complex set of reasons which may include some biological issues alongside of environmental factors. As Romans 1 indicates, this is the case.

Actually, we don't know if homosexuality is genetic or not -- we don't have solid proof either way. There is some research that indicates that it is genetic, just not based off a single genetic marker; one ongoing research project currently indicates that sexuality and gender behavior (how masculine or feminine a person acts) may be controlled by 50 or more genetic markers. And given the range we see in people when it comes to sexual orientation and gender expression, it being controlled by multiple genetic markers makes a lot of sense.

And this is beyond the research that indicates that (regardless of genetics) sexual orientation may be influenced/caused by hormonal influences while the child is in the womb.

Last, realize there are other things that we believe have a genetic basis, such as depression and alcoholism, yet (at least last I heard) we have not found the genes that determine if a person will have these diseases. Merely because the genetic links have not yet been found does not mean they do not exist.

In the end, whatever their reasons are for doing so, none of those reasons justify the behavior as morally neutral or morally approvable. In other words, homosexuality is sin, and practicing homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God per 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV) 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Homosexuality is no "worse" than any other sin, but, it is no better either. Its on the same ground as the other sins listed, so this is not about bashing homosexuals, its simply about being honest about what the Scripture states concerning those who persist in unrepentant sins.

In any case, studies have also shown that homosexual men can be conditioned to not be aroused by images of men. All they have to have is a strong desire to change their behavior/orientation, be willing to do whatever it takes to stop engaging in homosexual activities, and they can change. Regardless, just because a man is aroused by images of other men, this does not in and of itself indicate anything about the morality of the arousal. As someone well said, I suppose a person can be aroused by the picture of a dog, and no doubt pedophiles are aroused by the pictures of children, but in either case, their arousal itself is no indicator of the moral nature of that arousal. All it indicates is the depth of mankind's depravity, which is total. (that one was for you polycarp )


blessings,
ken

As for reparative/ex-gay therapy, there is no real evidence that it works. While in another post you claim that there is some proof of it working over 30-years ago, what you fail to mention (and possibly don't realize) is that most of those "studies" were based on men who were imprisoned or forced into counseling after being arrested or convicted for gay activity and had to "successfully" complete the counseling to get out of prison or end the court ordered therapy -- they were not honest changes but the person lied so they could get out of therapy/prison.

It is also worth noting that one of the primary types of therapy used more than 30 years ago -- aversion therapy -- is no longer used because it is not effective with homosexuality. Not even the ex-gay groups claim that aversion therapy is useful/successful, yet that was the cause of the "success rates" of over 30 years ago.

In the 30 years NARTH has existed (which claims to be a scientific organization devoted to promoting ex-gay groups), it is telling that they have never created any scientific studies showing the effectiveness of ex-gay therapy. In fact, the author of a study NARTH has heavily used on their website to claim ex-gay therapy works, Dr. Robert Spitzer, concluded that ex-gay therapy would be successful in "a small minority -- perhaps 3%" of homosexuals. In fact, there is little real evidence that ex-gay therapy is effective.

 

[Beanieboy]

Long story short:

• Straight men are aroused by images of women. No suprises there.
• Gay men are aroused by images of men. Again, no surprises there.
• Lesbians are aroused by images of both men AND women.
• Straight women are also aroused by images of both men AND women.

What do you think of this research? I'd like to hear from a few gay users too, religious or not. However I should also mention that they also studied post-op male-to-female transsexuals (which I think screws up the research a little).


P.S. I remember hearing this - as a joke - in an episode of Family Guy:

Female Character: "You're chosing not to be a lesbian?"
Meg: "I thought being gay wasn't a choice?"
Female Character: "For men it's not."

I want to see other peer studies about this, and hear it from women themselves.

I don't think that women "choose" to be lesbian or straight if they are aroused by both men and women. They are bisexual. They can certainly choose to date only men or only women, but that doesn't make them straight, or lesbian. That makes them bisexual still.

In my personal experience, there are a lot of "I kissed a girl and I liked it" girls who may have found that kissing a girl, or even being intimate with a girl was nice, but had very strong emotional relationships with men. Women are given that freedom to move back and forth at will.

If a woman sings, "I kissed a girl and I liked it," the guys think, "cool", because they still see her as heterosexual and freaky, and start thinking about themselves having sex with 2 women. They may also think of it as one of those things women do. Ever watch women pose for pictures? They put their cheeks together, hug each other, etc.

But men? If Justin Timberlake sang, "I kissed a dude and I like it," everyone would say he was gay. If he said that he was bi, people would accuse him of being gay and not being able to deal with it. If he told his girlfriend that he would like to experiment with a guy, or invite a guy into their bedroom, she is thinking, "oh, no, you are gay." Ever watch guys interact socially? I read about a phenomenon that straight men do when they go see a movie. They have a "gay" seat, an empty seat between two male straight friends, where they put their coats, etc., but it is so that no one even suspects that they are on a date. Men are afraid to get too close to each other, and interact with each other in a rough way, to keep screaming to the world, "I'm not gay!!"

I know many lesbians, a few bi men and women, and lots of gay men, as well as, straight men and straight women.

I wouldn't put the attractions of the straight women for women and the lesbian women's attractions to women in the same category at all. In fact, because heterosexual men are constantly trying prove to everyone that they aren't gay, or have scenes where a guy realizes that the girl he kissed and liked was actually a girl, and overreacts, vomitting, etc, I'm guessing that the spectrum of straight men who are a little or occassionally attracted to men is actually as much as the ratio of straight women for the same sex. They are just not allowed to ever voice it or be branded gay, not allowed to voice it or be threatened with violence, not allowed to voice it or be brought under intense suspicion.

 

[levi501]

lol... it's more culturally acceptible for women to experiment.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

It's been a while since I posted on this thread - and what a contrast in the replies:

This is simplistic male stereotyping that we somehow have no control over our desires at the sight of a pretty woman. I've met many that I'd have nothing to do with.

And all the stuff about gay-conversion does not work. Sure, you can tell gay people what to do, and with enough guilt and pressure, people will do anything, but that doesn't change who they are.

I think there is a compromise between these two conflicting opinions: human sexuality is a spectrum (source - New Scientist).

We currently have a relatively black and white view on orientation, we are either gay or we are straight. Bisexuality is not mentioned that often in such debates. I would say most of us are predominantly heterosexual, some are gay with heterosexual tendancies, and a few are 'exclusively' straight or gay.

It's easier to see how somebody whose homosexual tendancies are not particularly could be 'converted'. If a single gene was responsible for homosexuality this spectrum would probably not exist.

Just a few more things to say:

"...prove that change is possible..."

Tell that to the gay teens who commit suicide.

Paedophiles have committed suicide because they were ashamed of their sexuality too.
I also agree with the users who say that lesbianism is more socially acceptable than male homosexuality, whatever the reason may be.

 

[Nooj]

Paedophiles have committed suicide because they were ashamed of their sexuality too.

And?

 

[keith99]

I want to see other peer studies about this, and hear it from women themselves.

I don't think that women "choose" to be lesbian or straight if they are aroused by both men and women. They are bisexual. They can certainly choose to date only men or only women, but that doesn't make them straight, or lesbian. That makes them bisexual still.
...

First thing I though when I saw the OP was I did no ttrust a study that forced everyone into the groups gay and straight.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Paedophiles have committed suicide because they were ashamed of their sexuality too.

And?

The idea was that if homosexuality was a 'choice' or curable, why would they put themselves through so much grief and hardship? Arguably the same goes for paedophiles.

First thing I though when I saw the OP was I did no ttrust a study that forced everyone into the groups gay and straight.

Well how else could they study the differences between gay and straight people?

 

[BeachedEinstein]

Well, I don't know of any pedophiles who of that persuasion when they were teenagers.

 

[Nooj]

The idea was that if homosexuality was a 'choice' or curable, why would they put themselves through so much grief and hardship? Arguably the same goes for paedophiles.

Yeah, I understand what you mean...I just don't understand why you said it. Does it matter that pedophiles may have no choice in who they are sexually attracted to?

 

[Mling]

The idea was that if homosexuality was a 'choice' or curable, why would they put themselves through so much grief and hardship? Arguably the same goes for paedophiles.

You're right there--it does. So what? The same also goes for people with harmless fetishes in very sexually conservative families. And kids with unidentified learning disabilities in hyper-academic pressure-filled families. Cold blooded murderers, as well as people who want to get ahead honestly in families that value crime.

It would go for straight people, too, if heterosexuality was condemned.

If internal drive and learned values conflict with each other, the person is going to feel depressed, anxious and often suicidal. It doesn't really matter which is right. For the purposes of that conversation, anyway.

Well how else could they study the differences between gay and straight people?

well....that's the problem. People *don't* naturally fit into those two categories, so any study that starts from that premise is going to be flawed. It would be like trying to study the differences between white people and black people. I'm clearly white. My friend's father is clearly black....but he married a white woman, so what's my friend?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Yeah, I understand what you mean...I just don't understand why you said it. Does it matter that pedophiles may have no choice in who they are sexually attracted to?

Well yes. One of the reasons being gay was accepted was that they supposedly had no choice in the matter. According to that logic, paedophilia should also be acceptable.

People *don't* naturally fit into those two categories, so any study that starts from that premise is going to be flawed. It would be like trying to study the differences between white people and black people. I'm clearly white. My friend's father is clearly black....but he married a white woman, so what's my friend?

Most people fall into a spectrum but that shouldn't mean we can't compare differences. Mixed race people exist, does that mean there is no difference between black / white / asian people? Most people are of average stature, but does that mean there is no point in studying dwarves and giants?

 

[Nooj]

Well yes. One of the reasons being gay was accepted was that they supposedly had no choice in the matter. According to that logic, paedophilia should also be acceptable.

Muhammad bloody Prophet...

Pedophilia has victims, whereas homosexual sex is between two persons over the age of consent. That's why one is criminalised, the other isn't.

Intrinsic sexual attraction has only become such a big topic because some people argue that homosexuality is a choice and can be reversed (in fact, that it should be reversed). That's got people in a tizzy saying that it can't be done.

 

[Mling]

Well yes. One of the reasons being gay was accepted was that they supposedly had no choice in the matter. According to that logic, paedophilia should also be acceptable.

Legally, pedophilia is acceptable. Child molestation is not. Socially...I sort of agree with you. I wish people would chill out a little about pedophilia, just enough so that people who know they are pedophiles, and want to make sure that they never hurt any kids, can get help without fear of being stoned to death.

[quote
Most people fall into a spectrum but that shouldn't mean we can't compare differences. Mixed race people exist, does that mean there is no difference between black / white / asian people? Most people are of average stature, but does that mean there is no point in studying dwarves and giants?[/quote]


Well, you're right that it wasn't an *absolutely perfect* comparison. Sexuality is more fluid, and has a broader gray area than race, much of the time.

At least, if you ignore Hispanic people who are not obviously white or black, and are not generally considered a part of either group.

The thing is that the vast majority of people have *some* attraction to both sexes. Gay people generally recognize that more than straight people do. So, studying the "differences" between gay people and straight people is a lot like studying the differences between people who like Elvis and people who like the Beatles. There are more similarities than differences, and a lot of overlap between the two.

That said, studying how sexuality develops is perfectly reasonable. And since, if this is the study I'm thinking of, part of the point of the study was to compare people's desires to how they identify. Maybe it was done in a reasonable way. Could be... Though, in that case, I'd think a better way to do it would be to ask an open-ended "Describe your sexual orientation," rather than a "Gay/Straight/Bi" question.


As for the OP, which I haven't really addressed, studies like this show that women are more easily physically aroused by people of both genders. Or, from the other angle, that men are more confined to the specific gender that they prefer.

Physical arousal =/= sexual orientation.

Physical arousal in response to erotic imagery *definitely* =/= sexual orientation.

For example, personally, I'm gay, but I prefer male/female erotica much of the time. Why? Because what I like in erotica is *not* primarily the image. What I like is seeing the dynamic between the people--the emotional/psychological interplay.

Most female/female erotica of the subtype that I enjoy is *extremely* inappropriate contenty. All about obviously acting a certain way with almost no real chemistry between the models.

A lot of male/female is the same, but there is also a lot that is playful, fun and teasy without the overdone "acting." *That* is what I like. I like it whether it's in male/male, male/female or female/female combinations, though I prefer for there to be at least one woman involved.

I suspect that many women are the same. At least in that there's an emotional and psychological component to erotica that is more important than the gender combination.

My straight sister has a picture on her wall of two women, in bed, partially clothed and kissing. Why? Because, as she puts it, it's good photography and good modeling. You can *believe* that the people are in love, and there is passion behind it. That they're both women is incidental, where she's concerned. Just like the men in my erotica are incidental. What matters is the chemistry.

 

[jcook922]

The title was mainly to grab your attention.
I have found some rather interesting research on arousal between the sexes:
Study Suggests Difference Between Female And Male Sexuality




Long story short:

• Straight men are aroused by images of women. No suprises there.
• Gay men are aroused by images of men. Again, no surprises there.
• Lesbians are aroused by images of both men AND women.
• Straight women are also aroused by images of both men AND women.

What do you think of this research? I'd like to hear from a few gay users too, religious or not. However I should also mention that they also studied post-op male-to-female transsexuals (which I think screws up the research a little).


P.S. I remember hearing this - as a joke - in an episode of Family Guy:

Female Character: "You're chosing not to be a lesbian?"
Meg: "I thought being gay wasn't a choice?"
Female Character: "For men it's not."

We always joke at work that every woman has a lesbian deep inside her somewhere. I think on some level all women are capable of it, most men are utterly repelled to the point of disgust if they aren't gay, and bicurious seems pretty rare.