How can you change sexual orientation or lose it?

[ivebeenshown]

Except this doesn’t explain why a person might be only attract to their same sex without ever engaging in sex.

It would explain **sexual **attraction to same-sex members. There is nothing wrong with being non-sexually attracted to members of the same sex. There is nothing wrong with one little boy following another little boy around and wanting to best friends. But the little boys should know that kissing and, as they get older, sexual intimacy is not a necessary or appropriate component of a same-sex relationship.

 

[Hadrianus]

This is exactly what I do not understand – acknowledging that we can be attracted to eating certain foods and CHANGE that attraction to healthier foods, but denying that we can change our sexual attraction. It makes no sense. Both eating and sexual intercourse invoke chemical reactions in the brain. There are triggers, reactions, etc. all of the classical psychological traits and connections. It’s no different than Pavlov’s dogs.

But of course, someone who renounces homosexual ways and grows as a person into a more healthy perspective on sexuality is often classified is ‘closeted’, or a ‘repressed bisexual’ by those who deny what we learn in the first semester of Basic Psychology.

Do you think that a man who is sexually attracted to women could willfully change that sexual attraction to one for men and suppress his heterosexual attractions? There are of course cases of male prostitution in which a heterosexual male will engage in homosexual acts for financial gain, and there are also the abnormal situations of prison life or certain boarding schools. But in these situations the heterosexual desires are not absent. The decisive factor of a homosexual orientation is the lack of an attraction to the opposite sex concomitant with the same sex attraction.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

Do you think that a man who is sexually attracted to women could willfully change that sexual attraction to one for men and suppress his heterosexual attractions? There are of course cases of male prostitution in which a heterosexual male will engage in homosexual acts for financial gain, and there are also the abnormal situations of prison life or certain boarding schools. But in these situations the heterosexual desires are not absent. The decisive factor of a homosexual orientation is the lack of an attraction to the opposite sex concomitant with the same sex attraction.

Do you think the ones that have come out of homosexuality to live happy heterosexual lives are lying? Do you think they were never gay? You should read some of their writings. You should attend an Exodus conference. You should talk to one.

Peace,
John

 

[ivebeenshown]

Do you think that a man who is sexually attracted to women could willfully change that sexual attraction to one for men and suppress his heterosexual attractions? There are of course cases of male prostitution in which a heterosexual male will engage in homosexual acts for financial gain, and there are also the abnormal situations of prison life or certain boarding schools. But in these situations the heterosexual desires are not absent. The decisive factor of a homosexual orientation is the lack of an attraction to the opposite sex concomitant with the same sex attraction.

I did for the longest time. Of course, that will typically lead people to brand me as a ‘bisexual who is repressing his permanent sexuality’ or ‘a closeted gay who feigns heterosexuality’.

I also bet there are several male prostitutes, prison inmates, and boarding school attendees that have left those experiences with a new/developing appetite for gay sex.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

This is exactly what I do not understand – acknowledging that we can be attracted to eating certain foods and CHANGE that attraction to healthier foods, but denying that we can change our sexual attraction. It makes no sense. Both eating and sexual intercourse invoke chemical reactions in the brain. There are triggers, reactions, etc. all of the classical psychological traits and connections. It’s no different than Pavlov’s dogs.

But of course, someone who renounces homosexual ways and grows as a person into a more healthy perspective on sexuality is often classified is ‘closeted’, or a ‘repressed bisexual’ by those who deny what we learn in the first semester of Basic Psychology.

I did for the longest time. Of course, that will typically lead people to brand me as a ‘bisexual who is repressing his permanent sexuality’ or ‘a closeted gay who feigns heterosexuality’.

I also bet there are several male prostitutes, prison inmates, and boarding school attendees that have left those experiences with a new/developing appetite for gay sex.

Thanks for your posts, which rebut the idea advanced by many here that homosexual orientation is unchangeable, that a true change to heterosexual orientation is not possible.

I have always thought it possible if not probable that an appetite for gay sex in a permissive or relatively free environment is a big factor that young heterosexuals get ‘converted’ to homosexuality or bisexuality. Experimenting and crossing that line used to be a big taboo as regarded by almost all. It then became exotic as trumpeted by the elite, especially in the arts circle, and now packaged as normal by strong gay advocates. In reality, preference for same sex partners can be conditioned, from an ordered to a disordered sexuality, not far from the operative philosophy of pederasts. It is insidious.
,

 

[Hadrianus]

I did for the longest time. Of course, that will typically lead people to brand me as a ‘bisexual who is repressing his permanent sexuality’ or ‘a closeted gay who feigns heterosexuality’.

I also bet there are several male prostitutes, prison inmates, and boarding school attendees that have left those experiences with a new/developing appetite for gay sex.

It seems reasonable to conclude that some people can develop bisexuality as a result of behavior. Some people also seem to have a bisexual, that is to say an unclear orientation.

I would never suggest that in every case someone who has engaged in homosexual behavior cannot make the transition to heterosexuality. But the fact remains that those with a deeply rooted homosexual orientation probably cannot change it. And, as this is a Catholic site, I will point out once again, that the Church neither says they can nor must.

To raise unrealistic goals for people who cannot reach them is cruel and wrong, no matter how well intentioned. There is nothing wrong with the straightforward Catholic teaching of chastity. Why Catholics refuse to accept this obvious point is something I do not understand.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

1. Affirmative
2. That doesn’t make homosexuality a mental disorder
3. Plato isn’t a very trustworthy source for the historic Socrates, Xenophon is a far more trustworthy source as he’s basically a historian and isn’t worshiping Socrates. My feet are firmly grounded.

1. The affirmation of that is wrong.
2. I did not say that homesexuality is amental disorder. My theory is tht it is not genetic it is a mistake on education of the baby and child.
3. That is a dubious sentence. History did not come into Xanophon looking for Aristotle. Weel, new theories that lead us … nowhere. Bu this does not matter. How come in this thread you are talking about Xenophon ? Way out of the center of the discussion no ?

 

[chrysostim83]

This is exactly what I do not understand – acknowledging that we can be attracted to eating certain foods and CHANGE that attraction to healthier foods, but denying that we can change our sexual attraction. It makes no sense. Both eating and sexual intercourse invoke chemical reactions in the brain. There are triggers, reactions, etc. all of the classical psychological traits and connections. It’s no different than Pavlov’s dogs.

On the other hand, given this Pavlovian or behaviorist account of sexual attraction, I wonder how you explain the underwhelming success of aversion therapies for changing sexual orientation. If it’s really as simple as training a dog to expect food when it hears a bell, then why wasn’t the cure for homosexuality discovered in the 60’s?

 

[michelleds]

To raise unrealistic goals for people who cannot reach them is cruel and wrong, no matter how well intentioned. There is nothing wrong with the straightforward Catholic teaching of chastity. Why Catholics refuse to accept this obvious point is something I do not understand.

you are correct that there is nothing wrong with straightforward Catholic teaching of chastity, Catholic teaching on homosexuality, etc. There is also nothing wrong with personal testimony. People testify about overcoming drug addiction, lives of crime, sex addiction, etc. See John Pridmore, for example, gangland-to-promised-land.blogspot.com/

So why can’t those who have overcome SSA or SS activities give their testimony?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

1. The affirmation of that is wrong.
2. I did not say that homosexuality is a mental disorder. My theory is that it is not genetic it is a mistake on education of the baby and child.
3. That is a dubious sentence. History did not come into Xenophon looking for Aristotle. Well, new theories that lead us … nowhere. But this does not matter. How come in this thread you are talking about Xenophon ? Way out of the center of the discussion no ?

1. Why? Woman was made explicitly for man while man was originally made for God, of course this only deals with the flesh as spiritually they do not need the other sex as they both need God.
2. I didn’t say it was genetic. I must admit that I find the concept that if Daddy doesn’t teach Jimmy that his penis is for inserting into a female’s vagina that he might think it is for inserting it into a man’s anus (and only a man’s anus) or perhaps even a power outlet somewhat amusing.
3. It’s somewhat obscure history and I thought you might have gotten it, forget I said anything.

 

[ivebeenshown]

It seems reasonable to conclude that some people can develop bisexuality as a result of behavior. Some people also seem to have a bisexual, that is to say an unclear orientation.

I would never suggest that in every case someone who has engaged in homosexual behavior cannot make the transition to heterosexuality. But the fact remains that those with a deeply rooted homosexual orientation probably cannot change it. And, as this is a Catholic site, I will point out once again, that the Church neither says they can nor must.

Colossians 3
5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence…

I agree with what you have pointed out, but I would also say that the Church’s prescribed path (chastity) has wonderful effects on such concupiscence. The best way to get over an affection for drugs is to not use them.

To raise unrealistic goals for people who cannot reach them is cruel and wrong, no matter how well intentioned. There is nothing wrong with the straightforward Catholic teaching of chastity. Why Catholics refuse to accept this obvious point is something I do not understand.

It’s not any more unrealistic for someone to quit crack cocaine than it is for someone to develop a chaste disposition, IMO. I do praise the Catholic teaching of chastity, however, I also feel that chastity is more than just refraining from sex, it’s about learning to NOT lust after the flesh.

 

[ivebeenshown]

On the other hand, given this Pavlovian or behaviorist account of sexual attraction, I wonder how you explain the underwhelming success of aversion therapies for changing sexual orientation. If it’s really as simple as training a dog to expect food when it hears a bell, then why wasn’t the cure for homosexuality discovered in the 60’s?

For one, dogs are more simple-minded than humans. Also, it is easier to make habits than to break them. Furthermore, that few are able to overcome their struggle does not mean it is an impossibility. Thankfully, God has shown his Son and his Church, my mother. I now have the best mother and father I could ever ask for, and they are giving me everything I need to achieve purity in all regards, however long it may take.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

1. Why? Woman was made explicitly for man while man was originally made for God, of course this only deals with the flesh as spiritually they do not need the other sex as they both need God.
2. I didn’t say it was genetic. I must admit that I find the concept that if Daddy doesn’t teach Jimmy that his penis is for insert not done toing into a female’s vagina that he might think it is for inserting it into a man’s anus (and only a man’s anus) or perhaps even a power outlet somewhat amusing.
3. It’s somewhat obscure history and I thought you might have gotten it, forget I said anything.

1. Big confusion in your head. Man’s ans woman’s body were made to each other. And both bodies were made to God.Man’s and Woman’s spirit were made to each other: sex in men is not only bodily but spiritual. And Both Spirits to God.
2. The education of the male child is not done the way you said (you may laugh at your conception till you fall to the ground for it is just goring and disgusting, specially for someone who knows Plato). Now I tell you: you need to study Freud, Jung, Adler, Fromm, Piaget and Kholberg and many more for you seem to be in th step zero. To think fot the sexual education of the child as to teach hem (nd her? for the lesbian? what should we teach?) where a man inserts the penis is just unheard of !!! I think you stuck in Xanephon …

 

[Hadrianus]

Colossians 3
5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence…

I agree with what you have pointed out, but I would also say that the Church’s prescribed path (chastity) has wonderful effects on such concupiscence. The best way to get over an affection for drugs is to not use them.

It’s not any more unrealistic for someone to quit crack cocaine than it is for someone to develop a chaste disposition, IMO. I do praise the Catholic teaching of chastity, however, I also feel that chastity is more than just refraining from sex, it’s about learning to NOT lust after the flesh.

I agree completely. A chaste disposition is essential to chastity. A mere refraining from sex acts is not in itself chastity.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

1. Big confusion in your head. Man’s ans woman’s body were made to each other. And both bodies were made to God.Man’s and Woman’s spirit were made to each other: sex in men is not only bodily but spiritual. And Both Spirits to God.
2. The education of the male child is not done the way you said (you may laugh at your conception till you fall to the ground for it is just goring and disgusting, specially for someone who knows Plato). Now I tell you: you need to study Freud, Jung, Adler, Fromm, Piaget and Kholberg and many more for you seem to be in th step zero. To think fot the sexual education of the child as to teach hem (nd her? for the lesbian? what should we teach?) where a man inserts the penis is just unheard of !!! I think you stuck in Xanephon …

1. The spirit? Please elaborate.
2. Freud? Why would I want to read crackpot not even soft science drivel on sexuality by a cocaine addict who wanted to shag his mother? No one takes him seriously anymore except NARTH and “conservative” Catholics apparently (people realized he was a crackpot decades ago). For that last part I could’t understand through the typos. Children don’t need to be taught what sex to be attracted to, masculine brains* are attracted to female pheremones and feminine brains are attracted to male hormones

*unless it’s hypermasculine in which case it curiously appears to be attracted to female hormones

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

1. The spirit? Please elaborate.
2. Freud? Why would I want to read crackpot not even soft science drivel on sexuality by a cocaine addict who wanted to shag his mother? No one takes him seriously anymore except NARTH and “conservative” Catholics apparently (people realized he was a crackpot decades ago). For that last part I could’t understand through the typos. Children don’t need to be taught what sex to be attracted to, masculine brains* are attracted to female pheremones and feminine brains are attracted to male hormones

*unless it’s hypermasculine in which case it curiously appears to be attracted to female hormones

1. The Spirit. It is You. Unless you are only animal !!
2. You tend to see one tree and forget the forest. You stuck on the mother of Freud and you cannot come out of it. Like Xenophon. You atttact the man but forget the theory. It is like judging Obama by his manners in th bathroom. Crazy !!! Freud, no one pays any attention to him? And it is I that am ignorant ! You forgot Carl Yung! Do you care about his sexual habits and pay no attention to hteory? What about Kholberg? You jump into a small detail, like children, and about the whole picture there is a deafening silence. So, “Children don’t need to be taught what sex to be attracted to” !!! It is just pheromones, like pigs and dogs. So, we are not human !!! That is why you asked what the Spirit is !!! Sorry, that goes against all the experiments even with animals in psychology labs. I won’t need to elaborate for you said that I needed study science and theology, so, maybe my data is wrong. But I studied that in College many years ago !!! Science about the subject should be much more advanced !!! But I must not forget that sexual education you mentioned is to teach about introducing “penis”… If that is so, I have absolutely no comment…

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

In the continuing argument over whether or not homosexual relationships are ordered or disordered, I would like to suggest that we do the following:

• Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there exists a relationship between two people.
• Let’s further assume that the relationship of these two people is characterized by a chaste romantic love.
• Let’s assume that more than one mutual friend of the two in this couple notices that each member of the couple is changing slightly: that they are each growing in virtue in different but noticeable ways, and in such a way that it is clear that the change is on account of the nature of the relationship–that the (romantic) love each person has for the other is making them into better people.

Given that we know that we can tell a tree by its fruit, would it be reasonable of us to assume that the relationship so described should be destroyed if we discover that it is a homosexual relationship? If it is clear that the relationship in which our couple is participating is conducive to real human flourishing (that is, growth in virtue) in a way that is often quite unique to couples in romantic love, does it constitute virtue in us to desire or maintain that the catalyst of virtue in our hypothetical couple (their relationship) be dissolved?

The question shouldn’t so much be, “can sexual orientation be changed or lost?” The question should be, “can one live out one’s sexual orientation virtuously and increase in virtue thereby?” If it can be demonstrated that, in every circumstance, living out one’s sexual orientation actually always leads to corruption, acquisitive desire/a decrease in self-giving, a decrease in human virtue, a loss of faith, hope and love, and the effacing of the good, the true and the beautiful in a human soul, then we may reasonably conclude that such an orientation is in itself, at best, disordered and a trial to whomever must suffer with it.

But if such a demonstration cannot be made conclusively, then we cannot come to such a conclusion. And being unable to come to such a conclusion, the question of change becomes moot or unimportant. The question then becomes, “what ways of living out our sexual orientation contribute best to human flourishing, and not only our own flourishing, but that of those around us?” Whether or not an orientation is changeable says more about the mutability of sexual desire than it does about whether or not living out a given sexual orientation can lead to human flourishing. And that’s the real issue here.

(Moreover, the evidence for consistently overwhelming numbers of people who have permanently changed their sexual orientation is non-existent. Has there been change? Purportedly in some, and I have no desire to doubt that those who say they’ve changed have. But is the change overwhelming, permanent, and consistently produced over a large population? No. What does that mean? It means, given the evidence, that living out one’s sexual orientation virtuously and in a way that is conducive to virtue is a real possibility, and that learning to so live is more productive and more valuable than believing something that is capable of real virtue is only capable of disorder.)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

• Let’s further assume that the relationship of these two people is characterized by a **chaste **romantic love.

Greetings, Mark, haven’t seen you around in awhile. I wanted to make sure that the above condition of your hypothetical couple wasn’t lost in the shuffle, so to speak.

so that we’re all certain of our terms, please define your use of the word “chaste” in the above sentence.

thanks!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Greetings, Mark, haven’t seen you around in awhile. I wanted to make sure that the above condition of your hypothetical couple wasn’t lost in the shuffle, so to speak.

so that we’re all certain of our terms, please define your use of the word “chaste” in the above sentence.

thanks!

Hi Michelle! I took a bit of a hiatus for a while, so wasn’t checking the forums as often–life was a bit too hectic!

Re: the word chaste, I’ll attempt an explanation shortly, but my use of it was more to evoke a quality of a romantic relationship–a quality which, say, the relationship of two catholic people who are clearly attracted to each other, are dating, in love, but are not sexually consummating their relationship might be said to have. I would, without hesitation, call such a relationship chaste.

I am using chaste here to refer to chastity in continence, such as two dating or engaged people are required to keep and observe. Chaste in my hypothetical couple also refers to the other-oriented nature of their specifically romantic love–passionately desiring each other, they refuse to appropriate each other to themselves, desiring instead to give themselves to each other however they can, seeking to bestow on each other and share with each other whatever Goods they are capable of sharing and bestowing. Again, all while remaining sexually continent.

I hope this helps fill in the picture!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

Grace & Peace!

Hi Michelle! I took a bit of a hiatus for a while, so wasn’t checking the forums as often–life was a bit too hectic!

Re: the word chaste, I’ll attempt an explanation shortly, but my use of it was more to evoke a quality of a romantic relationship–a quality which, say, the relationship of two catholic people who are clearly attracted to each other, are dating, in love, but are not sexually consummating their relationship might be said to have. I would, without hesitation, call such a relationship chaste.

I am using chaste here to refer to chastity in continence, such as two dating or engaged people are required to keep and observe. Chaste in my hypothetical couple also refers to the other-oriented nature of their specifically romantic love–passionately desiring each other, they refuse to appropriate each other to themselves, desiring instead to give themselves to each other however they can, seeking to bestow on each other and share with each other whatever Goods they are capable of sharing and bestowing. Again, all while remaining sexually continent.

I hope this helps fill in the picture!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Are you describing what I’ve seen termed a “covenantal friendship”?