California governor OKs ban on gay conversion therapy, calling it 'quackery'

[fix]

Seeker,

Define and delineate entire medical community.

Those that agree with him.

 

[fix]

You realize this is a circular argument. Professionals are discredited for disagreeing with the predominant opinion. Therefore there opinion is irrelevant because they are discredited. This is precisely why an argument from “the whole scientific community” is a false authority.

Of course the AMA and the APA provide valuable evidence of the nature of homosexuality, but it is far from proof. Anyone who has lived very long is well aware of how many times both the medical and the psychiatric community has flip-flopped on health issues. The issue of homosexualit is political. The evidence is inconclusive. Therefore, it is a totally reasonable position to be skeptical of what the current thought is on the subject.

Finally, the AMA and the APA do not represent the whole medical community in there opinions. The represent only the prevailing opinion, as in the majority or plurality.

Well said. The problem with using the word science is that for too many that conjures up a type of infallibility. Rational thinking goes out the window because an authority figure with greater knowledge sets down the law. Even if such a law says to commit an evil action.

 

[fix]

My dear brother I would love to just agree and be done with it, that is Fact.

The AMA is not the plurality. It in fact is a minority. The AMA speaks only for the AMA. Fact.

The APA speaks for the APA and represents opinions of the APA and as I pointed out was not the pluarlity.

Fact.

As is often said the AMA represents the average physician the way a General represents a Private. They have an agenda that may include science but also may include plenty of politics co-mingled with some type of science.

 

[bri89]

There is no such thing as being born ‘gay.’ Nor is there any such thing as being “born” homosexual. First of all, “gay” is a lifestyle designation that encompasses (according to that population itself) more than homosexual activity. Second, homosexual attraction is by definition, according to those who have actually studied human development and don’t rely on popular culture to dictate that to them, an evolved preference in the individual, post-birth. Our sexuality, whatever that ends up as, is neither predetermined nor congenital. Sexuality involves response, first of all. That is one of the central features of sexuality: attraction PLUS response, plus affirmation, plus comfort, and more, in a dynamic. Sexuality settles in the individual after a period of time, and “feeling different” does not count as “sexuality.” Lots of people “feel different,” and for lots of different reasons. “Feeling different” is not a marker for sexuality, in itself, despite that being a favorite “argument” by the homosexual lobby.

And note that the eventual “settled” sexuality is not necessarily a healthy choice, depending on the circumstances. For example, females who are incest victims, especially of their own fathers, often develop a hyper-sexuality in adolescence or later, as a pathological internalization of their previous experience and their “world.” They were indeed “affirmed” by their father, comforted by their father, and their fathers were attracted to them, and they (as a result of manipulation) responded. Just because the elements of their “settled” (early) sexuality were there does not mean that the roots of that sexuality were in the least bit healthy. They were compensations, reactions, and pathological.

It’s not just what you are attracted to, but why you are attracted. Attraction in itself is not necessarily a neutral, and certainly is it is not necessarily a good. If I’'m attracted to something evil, harmful, pathological, addicting, or enmeshing, and then indulge that attraction, I am the opposite of liberated: I am chained to that attraction. The fact that I am not conscious of “choosing” that attraction does not mean that the attraction is, in itself, in the category of Good. That is the fallacy from the secular gay lobby that too many fail to address. (That attraction = goodness, or at least no harm)

This is a very good post, but many people who believe ssa is sinful fail to demonstrate why the attraction plus response is necessarily damaging and destructive to the individual and to the larger society. If two same sex people are in a monogamous committed loving relationship how is that morally equivalent to a hyper-sexual promiscuous girl who was abused by her father early in life? I think there are assumptions by Christians that this attraction is necessarily the result of some kind of trauma, and if this was always the case, then Christians would be right in believing that it is destructive. This is sometimes true, but for many people it is brought about organically and in the most wholesome of circumstances. The strongest and fairest argument against same sex relations would have to be made in it’s most optimal context, that is a longterm loving relationship where the addictive harmful elements are absent.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is a very good post, but many people who believe ssa is sinful fail to demonstrate why the attraction plus response is necessarily damaging and destructive to the individual and to the larger society. If two same sex people are in a monogamous committed loving relationship how is that morally equivalent to a hyper-sexual promiscuous girl who was abused by her father early in life? I think there are assumptions by Christians that this attraction is necessarily the result of some kind of trauma, and if this was always the case, then Christians would be right in believing that it is destructive. This is sometimes true, but for many people it is brought about organically and in the most wholesome of circumstances. The strongest and fairest argument against same sex relations would have to be made in it’s most optimal context, that is a longterm loving relationship where the addictive harmful elements are absent.

Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful response. Note, however, , that I never said that all homosexual attraction is rooted in trauma. The concept I was elaborating on was the fact that attraction (to anything, any behavior) is complex: it is at the least not necessarily neutral, and sometimes – regardless of the subject, the object, and the circumstances – is harmful, bad, “evil.”

The Talking Points of the Gay Lobby are that:

(1) Sexual attraction is predetermined.
(2) Sexual attraction is never “chosen.” (The understanding of choice as a human response is something CopticChristian has elaborated on, on several threads.)
(3) Attraction in itself is a neutral stimulus.
(4) Anything involving “love” (loosely defined) is good.
(5) “Commitment” is always good, in the context of relationships.
(6) “Monogamy” lifts any relationship into the category of Good.

My point, in the example I provided, is that all of these premises are false, and few of them are ever addressed directly in either the secular or religious arguments against same-sex behavior as a lifestyle or a “legalized” model.

Acting on attraction is often evil, unhealthy, or unwise, if the attractiveness of the object is unsuitable, enmeshing, harmful, a compensation, a substitute for a healthy need, etc.

Neither commitment nor monogamy transforms any unhealthy relationship into a healthy one. If a woman is having sex exclusively with an unmarried jerk, her and his commitment to each other is pathological, not “good.” Ditto for the fact that they are “monogamous.”

“Love” has many definitions and understandings, many of those suspect, many of them including unhealthy relationships, addictive relationships, co-dependent relationships, manipulative relationships, abusive relationships, immature relationships, etc.

 

[Slavonic]

There is no such thing as being born ‘gay.’ Nor is there any such thing as being “born” homosexual. First of all, “gay” is a lifestyle designation that encompasses (according to that population itself) more than homosexual activity.

Is there such thing as being born “straight”?

 

[Seeker1961]

Is there such thing as being born “straight”?

I’ve always assumed that there is, since I have yet to meet a straight person who can describe to me exactly how and when they chose to be attracted to the opposite sex. If you didn’t choose who you are attracted to, I would assume it is inborn.

I know what my experience was, and I have no need to try and prove anything to anyone. As someone once said to me, people will believe what they want anyway, why get carpel tunnel trying to change minds that are already firmly entrenched?

I was mildly interested in the reason it was so life and death for people, but it’s really their question to answer for themselves and it’s none of my business.

 

[CopticChristian]

Is there such thing as being born “straight”?

Slavonic,

Isn’t this begging the question concluding that one assumes that one is born gay?

To answer this question is an affirmative that being born gay is a fact and it is not. Are you expecting someone to answer this?

 

[CopticChristian]

As is often said the AMA represents the average physician the way a General represents a Private. They have an agenda that may include science but also may include plenty of politics co-mingled with some type of science.

Fix,

I love you my brother. It is not General/Private. You need to go to a medical meeting sometime where all these egomaniacs are presenting their ideas and talking. It is like going to a Rock Concert with celebrities.

Consider this…

aamc.org/download/47352/data/specialtydata.pdf

There are apparently 765,688 Physicians in the USA according to data…

The total number of Psychiatrists in the USA is…39,371 20% of all physician…

Recall from my posting…

#176
I’m a very severe critic of what AMA has
done. And it’s worth noting that AMA membership has dropped
from some 90 percent of doctors when I started out a half-century ago,
and now about a third of America’s doctors do belong.

1/3 of the physicians belong to the AMA. They speak only for the AMA and its members and dictate nothing to the remaining 2/3.

Recall this posting…

#213
Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members voted in the election. The results were as follows,

Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905

Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555

Number of members that “Abstained”: 367

Number of “No” votes -votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810

Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854

I read this as 17,905 Psychiatrists belong to the APA and there are in the USA 39,371 Psychiatrists. Only 2% of the Psychiatrists belong to the APA. 3810 of the APA member voted no. These guys that voted no did not just put their tail between their legs and concede, yes master, we will do as you say. All these guys are Generals. They have their own opinions, thier own minds and independent thinking. They did not just go away…

Homosexuals interact with Internists, OB-Gyn, Urologists, Surgeons and many other specialties…that outnumber the Psychiatrists…These are physicians that could but do not interact with the AMA for the most part and they too have opinions and they don’t necessarily agree with the AMA or the APA. These are also a bunch of Generals.

For every Physician that belongs to a Society that disagrees, there are those that don’t belong to the Society that disagree and each of these Generals has his or her own opinion and thoughts on the matter. They are not obligated, under any control, required to accept what the APA or the AMA says.

So what you have here is a bunch of guys like Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Keith Richards, Chuck Berry playing Johnnny B. Good and just because Chuck Berry wrote and performed it first they are under no obligation to play it his way.

Each of these societies is filled with a bunch of egomaniacs, some reasonable people, some moderate, some liberal, some conservative and no one tells anyone what to accept and believe. For your entertainment view the following…

youtube.com/watch?v=ClgtoM2RwQY

 

[Slavonic]

Slavonic,

Isn’t this begging the question concluding that one assumes that one is born gay?

To answer this question is an affirmative that being born gay is a fact and it is not. Are you expecting someone to answer this?

Asking a question is not the fallacy of begging the question. I just thought it would be worthwhile to consider the other major sexual orientation in the discussion. Seeker did answer and gave a nice response.

 

[CopticChristian]

Asking a question is not the fallacy of begging the question. I just thought it would be worthwhile to consider the other major sexual orientation in the discussion. Seeker did answer and gave a nice response.

Slavonic,

The answer is we are born and sexual orientation is not fixed at birth. It is multifactorial. Go back and read post 203 and 204. Here is some of it.

(1) From Dr. Dean Hamer, the “gay gene” researcher, and himself a gay man:

“Genes are hardware…the data of life’s experiences are processed through the sexual software into the circuits of identity. I suspect the sexual software is a mixture of both genes and environment, in much the same way the software of a computer is a mixture of what’s installed at the factory and what’s added by the user.”
–P. Copeland and D. Hamer (1994) The Science of Desire. New York: Simon and Schuster.

(2) From psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.:

“Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is…neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences…postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.”
–J. Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

(3) When “gay gene” researcher Dr. Dean Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he replied:

“Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to p(name removed by moderator)oint the genetic factors…not negate the psychosocial factors.”
–“New Evidence of a ‘Gay Gene’,” by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, vol. 146, Issue 20, p. 95.

I appreciate that you liked the nice response of Seeker. I admire Seeker and Dakota. I am sorry you don’t like my responses. I believe it does a diservice to the homosexual to offer a question as this or that and a question that begs the question.

 

[Kevin_B]

I find it very funny that you vehemently argue against the credibility of the APA, but yet your view of the causes of homosexuality (a combination of genetics and social influences) is exactly the same as theirs.
The APA states the following:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

I also find it funny that you honestly do not understand that the statement “The APA has little credibility” and even the statement “The APA has plenty of credibility” are both opinions, not fact. There is no way to scientifically determine credibility.

However, on that note I find it extremely hard to believe how many tens of thousands of psychologists continue to be members of an organization which has as little credibility as you claim it has. I find it much easier to believe that a small minority of people think the APA has little credibility, mainly people who disagree with their positions.

But forget the APA. Is there ONE mainstream scientific organization which believes conversion therapy is possible and beneficial? Hint: neither NARTH nor JONAH are mainstream, both are extremely fringe organizations. I just find it hard to believe that conversion therapy is so “obvious” even though it has yet to be recommended by even one scientific organization.

I also would like to hear your response to the person who mentioned children who are forced into conversion therapy. How can this be prevented?

From your constant ignoring the topic, I assume you will not apologize for trying to deceive others by passing your opinions off as the teachings of the church, so I will dip the topic.

 

[CopticChristian]

I find it very funny that you vehemently argue against the credibility of the APA, but yet your view of the causes of homosexuality (a combination of genetics and social influences) is exactly the same as theirs.
The APA states the following:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

I also find it funny that you honestly do not understand that the statement “The APA has little credibility” and even the statement “The APA has plenty of credibility” are both opinions, not fact. There is no way to scientifically determine credibility.

However, on that note I find it extremely hard to believe how many tens of thousands of psychologists continue to be members of an organization which has as little credibility as you claim it has. I find it much easier to believe that a small minority of people think the APA has little credibility, mainly people who disagree with their positions.

But forget the APA. Is there ONE **mainstream **scientific organization which believes conversion therapy is possible and beneficial? Hint: neither NARTH nor JONAH are mainstream, both are extremely fringe organizations. I just find it hard to believe that conversion therapy is so “obvious” even though it has yet to be recommended by even one scientific organization.

I also would like to hear your response to the person who mentioned children who are forced into conversion therapy. How can this be prevented?

From your constant ignoring the topic, I assume you will not apologize for trying to deceive others by passing your opinions off as the teachings of the church, so I will dip the topic.

Kevin,

Are you referring to

The American Psychiatric Association APA?
or
The American Psychological Association APA?

Mainstream?

I do not think that you understand the field of science and medicine.

Was Isaac Newton mainstream?

Was Gregor Mendel mainstream?

Was Pasteur Mainstream?

I worked with a guy in San Francicso who did the first monkey/toe to thumb transfer. Never been done. He then did it in humans. No one ever did it. He was not mainstream.

I did the first toe to thumb transfer at the Naval Hospital San Diego, no one had ever done one there or in San Diego. Was I mainstream? Never been done. Now every one does it.

Most of what we know today started as not in the mainstream and people like you, Ringil and others that have little understanding of science want to stagnate science, learning, progress by calling it fringe? Get a life, please.

Have you read any of the books authored by Nicolosi? Have you any knowledge of what reparative therapy is? I plan to read all the books and view their online course.

I have no idea where you get the idea that I believe any one should be forced into anything. Informed consent by an adult and for children by parents is common. What are you talking about?

What is it you keep referring to as to the teachings of the Church. The Church has no teaching on banning conversion therapy as the Church says it has no idea as to the cause…

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures.** Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. **

My thoughts are perfectly consistent with the Church. No one knows. NARTH exists to research Homosexuality…

National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals

Someone needs to continue to explore what the Church says remains unexplained. You, Ringil, Bradski and the LGBT want discussion to roar to a screeching halt. Suppose through research it is discovered that there is a neurological pattern discovered, that is chemically active and a drug that is discovered that changes the chemistry and pattern of transmission and for those that see themselves as gay…can take this pill if they want to and poof…gone…no more same sex attraction…would you deny humanity this possibility…?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Is there such thing as being born “straight”?

Actually, no. Perhaps you did not understand my post. Again, psychological theory of human development views sexuality as fluid in its early stages, despite the strong likelihood of most people finding a comfort level in heterosexuality, predominantly.

 

[epan]

Kevin,

Are you referring to

The American Psychiatric Association APA?
or
The American Psychological Association APA?

Mainstream?

I do not think that you understand the field of science and medicine.

Was Isaac Newton mainstream?

Was Gregor Mendel mainstream?

Was Pasteur Mainstream?

I worked with a guy in San Francicso who did the first monkey/toe to thumb transfer. Never been done. He then did it in humans. No one ever did it. He was not mainstream.

I did the first toe to thumb transfer at the Naval Hospital San Diego, no one had ever done one there or in San Diego. Was I mainstream? Never been done. Now every one does it.

Most of what we know today started as not in the mainstream and people like you, Ringil and others that have little understanding of science want to stagnate science, learning, progress by calling it fringe? Get a life, please.

Have you read any of the books authored by Nicolosi? Have you any knowledge of what reparative therapy is? I plan to read all the books and view their online course.

I have no idea where you get the idea that I believe any one should be forced into anything. Informed consent by an adult and for children by parents is common. What are you talking about?

What is it you keep referring to as to the teachings of the Church. The Church has no teaching on banning conversion therapy as the Church says it has no idea as to the cause…

My thoughts are perfectly consistent with the Church. No one knows. NARTH exists to research Homosexuality…

National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals

Someone needs to continue to explore what the Church says remains unexplained. You, Ringil, Bradski and the LGBT want discussion to roar to a screeching halt. Suppose through research it is discovered that there is a neurological pattern discovered, that is chemically active and a drug that is discovered that changes the chemistry and pattern of transmission and for those that see themselves as gay…can take this pill if they want to and poof…gone…no more same sex attraction…would you deny humanity this possibility…?

Are you saying that “reparative therapy” is an effective treatment modality, or that is should be continued as research tool?

I think that what both APA’s have opined, is that it is not an effective treatment method. But even beyond that, I think that both have said that it may be damaging, and therefore should not be attempted.

Personally, I think it is a matter of informed consent. The patient should be informed of both sides of the argument, and allowed to make a decision. In the case of mentally impaired (as to decision making), or children, where informed consent is not possible, then the treatment should not be used. I don’t see it as a parents’ right to subject a child to treatment which is so strongly disavowed by both of the relevant professional organizations.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’ve always assumed that there is, since I have yet to meet a straight person who can describe to me exactly how and when they chose to be attracted to the opposite sex. If you didn’t choose who you are attracted to, I would assume it is inborn.

You assume incorrectly. It has nothing to do with either homosexuals or heterosexuals describing

exactly how and when they chose to be attracted to the opposite sex.

because the process is far too interwoven with our unconscious. Sexuality is complex, not “a moment in time.”

 

[fix]

Fix,

I love you my brother. It is not General/Private. You need to go to a medical meeting sometime where all these egomaniacs are presenting their ideas and talking. It is like going to a Rock Concert with celebrities.

Consider this…

aamc.org/download/47352/data/specialtydata.pdf

There are apparently 765,688 Physicians in the USA according to data…

The total number of Psychiatrists in the USA is…39,371 20% of all physician…

Recall from my posting…

1/3 of the physicians belong to the AMA. They speak only for the AMA and its members and dictate nothing to the remaining 2/3.

Recall this posting…

I read this as 17,905 Psychiatrists belong to the APA and there are in the USA 39,371 Psychiatrists. Only 2% of the Psychiatrists belong to the APA. 3810 of the APA member voted no. These guys that voted no did not just put their tail between their legs and concede, yes master, we will do as you say. All these guys are Generals. They have their own opinions, thier own minds and independent thinking. They did not just go away…

Homosexuals interact with Internists, OB-Gyn, Urologists, Surgeons and many other specialties…that outnumber the Psychiatrists…These are physicians that could but do not interact with the AMA for the most part and they too have opinions and they don’t necessarily agree with the AMA or the APA. These are also a bunch of Generals.

For every Physician that belongs to a Society that disagrees, there are those that don’t belong to the Society that disagree and each of these Generals has his or her own opinion and thoughts on the matter. They are not obligated, under any control, required to accept what the APA or the AMA says.

So what you have here is a bunch of guys like Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Keith Richards, Chuck Berry playing Johnnny B. Good and just because Chuck Berry wrote and performed it first they are under no obligation to play it his way.

Each of these societies is filled with a bunch of egomaniacs, some reasonable people, some moderate, some liberal, some conservative and no one tells anyone what to accept and believe. For your entertainment view the following…

youtube.com/watch?v=ClgtoM2RwQY

I am not disagreeing with you. I only point out that the Generals call the shots. Not all follow.
Just see how people are chosen to get to any “elected” position. It is a club.

 

[severus68]

There is no such thing as being born ‘gay.’ Nor is there any such thing as being “born” homosexual. First of all, “gay” is a lifestyle designation that encompasses (according to that population itself) more than homosexual activity. Second, homosexual attraction is by definition, according to those who have actually studied human development and don’t rely on popular culture to dictate that to them, an evolved preference in the individual, post-birth. Our sexuality, whatever that ends up as, is neither predetermined nor congenital. Sexuality involves response, first of all. That is one of the central features of sexuality: attraction PLUS response, plus affirmation, plus comfort, and more, in a dynamic. Sexuality settles in the individual after a period of time, and “feeling different” does not count as “sexuality.” Lots of people “feel different,” and for lots of different reasons. “Feeling different” is not a marker for sexuality, in itself, despite that being a favorite “argument” by the homosexual lobby.

And note that the eventual “settled” sexuality is not necessarily a healthy choice, depending on the circumstances. For example, females who are incest victims, especially of their own fathers, often develop a hyper-sexuality in adolescence or later, as a pathological internalization of their previous experience and their “world.” They were indeed “affirmed” by their father, comforted by their father, and their fathers were attracted to them, and they (as a result of manipulation) responded. Just because the elements of their “settled” (early) sexuality were there does not mean that the roots of that sexuality were in the least bit healthy. They were compensations, reactions, and pathological.

It’s not just what you are attracted to, but why you are attracted. Attraction in itself is not necessarily a neutral, and certainly is it is not necessarily a good. If I’'m attracted to something evil, harmful, pathological, addicting, or enmeshing, and then indulge that attraction, I am the opposite of liberated: I am chained to that attraction. The fact that I am not conscious of “choosing” that attraction does not mean that the attraction is, in itself, in the category of Good. That is the fallacy from the secular gay lobby that too many fail to address. (That attraction = goodness, or at least no harm)

Many of your subsequent points/reasoning makes sense but I would have to disagree with your premise that no one is born gay/homosexual. The Church itself does not say that.

 

[CopticChristian]

Are you saying that “reparative therapy” is an effective treatment modality, or that is should be continued as research tool?

I think that what both APA’s have opined, is that it is not an effective treatment method. But even beyond that, I think that both have said that it may be damaging, and therefore should not be attempted.

Personally, I think it is a matter of informed consent. The patient should be informed of both sides of the argument, and allowed to make a decision. In the case of mentally impaired (as to decision making), or children, where informed consent is not possible, then the treatment should not be used. I don’t see it as a parents’ right to subject a child to treatment which is so strongly disavowed by both of the relevant professional organizations.

Epan,

How did you come to decide that reparative therapy is not effective? Is it based on reading the information, studying what it is, and coming to your own conclusion or by taking what some organization says?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Many of your subsequent points/reasoning makes sense but I would have to disagree with your premise that no one is born gay/homosexual. The Church itself does not say that.

The Church acknowledges that she is not in the field of medical science (genetics) or the field of the science & study of behavior (psychology). Her focus, her field, her expertise, is theology and spirituality.

My post didn’t say anything about what the Church states about “being born gay,” but what the understanding of the development of sexuality is, in the human person, by clinicians whose expertise is precisely that.

Again, as has been pointed out so many times, on this and many other threads, and in the medical literature: No evidence has been found for a single “gay gene.” None. And that makes perfect sense, given the complexity, not singularity, of sexuality, and the fact that sexuality does not proceed in a vacuum for any person, given that it is partly predicated upon interaction with others.

Sexuality is not instinct.