Threading the needle on LGBT issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter jtavington
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, I am a science guy.

Scientists try to respect carefully done experimental work from outside of his/her own field, where there is carefully laid out hypotheses, built from other well done work, where there is an effortful approach to measurement, good selection of experimental designs, thoughtful analyses…and REPLICATION.

Skinner and his followers should be commended and their work should not be forgotten simply because their findings don’t support the political agenda de jour.

There is no doubt that human “attractions” are many and until experimentally proven otherwise scientists and intelligent laypersons are being reasonable to assume that these various forms of human attraction share the same operative principles. I think the development and shift and fine tuning of porn habits are further evidence that SEXUAL attractions follow the reinforcing principles proposed and developed by Skinner and follow-on students.
 
Last edited:
Yes dude, I know the scientific method.

But you have been ignoring many various facets of psychology and you’re only focusing on behaviorism/conditioning. Not just here but in a lot of threads.

Skinner has done incredible work but using his research to apply it to almost everything whilst avoiding other research on the said topic?

Idk it comes across as weird since you claim to be a practicing psychologist. I understand behaviorism was popular in the past but now most people in the field go beyond that because we are learning a lot of things about behavior beyond conditioning.

It’s also kind of weird that you are delving into OP’s sexuality a little too much. You don’t really need to know about her attractions or anything beyond the fact that she is attracted to both sexes and is trying to be chaste about it.

And also, I can’t help but feel like I cannot have a proper discussion with you because I think you were the one who rejected the definition of the word ‘sensitive’ a while back because you think that the liberals hijacked the meaning or something like that. I’m pretty sure it was you. If not, I apologize. If I am sounding a little rude, that’s probably why (in other words, it just seems like we’ll get nowhere)
 
A principle of science is parsimony.

One should resist introducing “any more theory than the data demands”.

Behavioralism/principles haven’t been found to NOT explain any aspect of human sexual behavior yet.

What’s going on is this: the political forces see where a comprehensive theoretical study of human sexuality would lead to: We aren’t born that way, but we are shaped - often by voluntary nursing, by things such as masturbation - into our current attractions.

That’s not a good answer for the agenda types.

So they’ve simply let the whole field of behaviorialism dry up.
 
Last edited:
No, I am not delving into anything. Nice try. She offered an assertion. It’s entirely appropriate to ask a couple of clarifying questions.

I am really not responding to you above in this thread…so I don’t really need to hear why you find it difficult to discuss things with me.
 
Nice try, but that response is one of those handy copy/paste things in your ready file, as food for the internet ego. Maybe instead for a change take on a point intellectually rather than pasting Ad Hom. In the end, you’re giving what you can give.
 
Last edited:
You do seem to generate these types of responses. Whatever you do, don’t ask yourself why that might be. Just keep assuming it’s because no one can play on your intellectual level.
 
This isn’t a new one either. I know they’re easy to paste, but discourse requires more of us. Think interior growth.
 
Last edited:
Or telling a person with clinical depression to will to be happy or to just snap out of it and the failure to do so is a moral defect on the part of the one suffering.

Can’t think of anything more ignorant and heartless.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
Anyone who has had sex or let their imagination have sex with both sexes. This obviously includes masturbation; so those who lust in their hearts have already sinned as Jesus taught us.

Anyone who has nursed these thoughts along.
Click to expand...
Anyone who has encouraged such thoughts is lacking in the virtue of chastity to some degree.

But experiencing attraction – and even openly acknowledging it – is not a failing in chastity. Does a person who talks about how much they like Snickers bars commit the sin of gluttony by telling someone about their desire to pig out on them? Of course not.

You might say, “Talking about it makes it worse.” But that is an empirical claim that in many cases is simply false. For me, talking about my attraction to men with my wife has made is far easier to be holy. Chastity does not look the same in every person. It is a goal, not a method.

As for “bisexuality”, your definition of it is not consistent with my own definition of it, and it is not worthwhile to quibble about the meaning of terms.
 
Your point pretends that attractions are fixed, given to us.

They aren’t.

They develop, strengthen, diminish, shift, depending on the reinforcers we receive from any action, even in our imagination.

Attractions aren’t fixed. They can be shaped to be quite strong, compulsive, consuming and injurious.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
Your point pretends that attractions are fixed, given to us.

They aren’t.

They develop, strengthen, diminish, shift, depending on the reinforcers we receive from any action, even in our imagination.

Attractions aren’t fixed.
Click to expand...
I don’t entirely disagree with you. But my point did not assume that I disagreed with you. Indeed, I specifically implied that talking about the attractions could diminish their power. Have you ever even thought about that possibility?
 
Last edited:
I am saying that talking about my own attractions with people has diminished their power in my life.
 
Exactly, they can, they can also increase depending on what else is going on in a person.

Sexual attractions are particuarly reinforcing given the potential pleasure involved. And our imagination (a faculty of the intellect) can be particularly co-opted in sexual matters, draining a person of concentration at work, in normal conversation, and in their leisure, or while they should be sleeping.

Imaginations like all faculties need to trained to serve the good, serving their conscience, serving God.
 
Edward_H said:
Exactly, they can, they can also increase depending on what else is going on in a person.
Click to expand...
Agree.

So if you think that TALKING about one’s own unnatural attractions could be helpful, do you also think that calling oneself “gay” or “bisexual” could be helpful? If not, why not? Why would those words always encourage unchastity?
 
No, I don’t think playing games of sexual identity are ever profitable.

Baptized people are children of God. That’s the only “identity” we should reflect on and rejoice in.

We aren’t our sex; we are our soul.

Frankly in the last 5 years with all the proliferation of genders and tendencies and so called attractions, the world hasn’t experienced any peace at all, but only more confusion and strife in huge amounts. No calming. That’s the devil’s work, and his delight.

Whole categories of discussion groups, interest groups, political lobbyists, study groups, movie genres, you name have come into existence INSTITUTIONALIZING around sexuality, some forms of sexuality are downright perverse. NAMBL etc.

There is nothing positive coming out of this at all. The suicide rate of these people continue to be off the charts.

the only winnners are the daft psychological counselors and the greedy pharmas.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
No, I don’t think playing games of sexual identity are ever profitable.
Click to expand...
I’m assuming you’re being scientific about this? If so, can you give me some evidence that your view is correct?

Or else you could just say, “If people call themselves gay, then NAMBLA”, but if you say that, I really don’t think we’ll make a lot of ground, scientifically.

(Parenthetically, a Christian who is bisexual would have the sexual identity of “male” or “female.”. “Bisexual” indicates one small aspect of a person, and nothing central).
 
What I mean is this whole tendency toward using an ever expanding set of sexual identity labels…with all the attendant gamesmanship with “new pronouns” (and now the demands to use the correct ones) isn’t a good, isn’t profiting us at all.

It’s the devil’s work. A new tower of babble, turning our endless redefinition of our sexuality into the new idol.
 
Edward_H said:
What I mean is this whole tendency toward using an ever expanding set of sexual identity labels…with all the attendant gamesmanship with “new pronouns” (and now the demands to use the correct ones) isn’t a good, isn’t profiting us at all.

It’s the devil’s work. A new tower of babble, turning our endless redefinition of our sexuality into the new idol.
Click to expand...
I agree. But I don’t think that means that all terms in the LGBTQ+ soup need to be discarded, in every circumstance. Some of them can be helpful for a variety of situations. If a person finds them helpful as adjectives to use in some situations, then good for them. But the criterion is this: does it help you grow in chastity, or not? If not, ditch the adjective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top