Sure. And sometimes not. And some people have this happen more or less than others. Every so often I try an olive and think to myself "nope. Still awful."

What has you convinced that your appetites are innate? The evidence we have seems to suggest there's not a gene or combination of genes that approaches anything perfectly predictive of sexual appetites.

Do we need a gene to explain everything? Can they even, when we're just talking about something like preferences, which are inherently subjective?

But you're right, you could wake up any morning liking men I suppose. Or a particular man maybe. Of course, I'm willing to accept your assertion that that's unlikely since you know you better than I do.

You're making an assertion and I'm just asking why you think what you think? So far you're just scoffing at the idea that there's a plausible explanation that's not, you're born that way.

I genuinely don't know. That's why I brought up the food thing. Who knows why anyone likes what they like there either. Not knowing a specific cause doesn't change the fact that people tend to know what they like and how long they've liked it. Straight people too.

Beer Baron said:

---

Huh? I'm positive there were tons of people who very much knew what they liked and how they'd prefer to live, but they could also look around with their eyes and see where that would get them. This is the kind of thing that seems so basic I can't believe I'm having to explain it.

---

I'm not sure why you felt the need to explain that. I never denied that.

Then I genuinely have no idea what you were saying.

I must have been unclear. I'm sorry. I'll try again.

I understood you to claim that sexual orientation is fixed and innate, and further that there has been a roughly consistent portion of the human population that is not heterosexual for a good long time, such that the increase in people who claim to be not heterosexual isn't really an increase in people who are not heterosexual, but only an increase in the number of people who admit that they are not heterosexual.

It seems to me that this means the millions of people in the past who didn't admit that they were not heterosexual were either not honest with themselves about their nature, or not honest with others. It seems implausible to me to suppose that there have been millions and millions of people through history who were either too dense or too cowardly to admit their true nature. I think it far more likely to suppose that sexual orientation is, to a meaningful degree, causally impacted by social norms.

"Whatever turns a person's head is pretty fixed and innate."

You genuinely don't know why you're confident in this assertion.

Bob Lee said:

---

"Whatever turns a person's head is pretty fixed and innate."

You genuinely don't know why you're confident in this assertion.

---

I know my experience. Other people, gay and straight, tend to describe pretty similar ones. Are you saying you could maybe one day see a man that makes you question your preferences? Or do you just like whatever you like? Can you explain why you like women or a particular kind of women?

Beer Baron said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

"Whatever turns a person's head is pretty fixed and innate."

You genuinely don't know why you're confident in this assertion.

---

I know my experience. Other people, gay and straight, tend to describe pretty similar ones. Are you saying you could maybe one day see a man that makes you question your preferences? Or do you just like whatever you like? Can you explain why you like women or a particular kind of women?

---

There are people have done that. Who were attracted to men and now are married with children. I do think you can acquire an appetite for things through certain habits and behavior. I think some people graduate to more and more debased pornography and their sexual appetites change that way. Or young impressionable people are desensitized through their friend groups and are more susceptible to that.

I'm married with 6 kids. That's not something I worry about personally, no. But I try to stay vigilant and avoid near occasions of sin because there's no shortage of unhealthy behavior I'm susceptible to.

My counter would be that those men are probably still attracted to men. Changing behavior is one thing, but I don't think you change the attraction. I can't prove that and I don't know how you actually could in any kind of ethical scientific way. In the food analogy, they're ordering the salad at the chicken fried steak place, which is their decision to make. I don't think they just stopped finding the steak appealing.

Beer Baron said:

---

No, you were saying exactly what I thought you were. And I'm saying yes, most of them hid their preferences because they had to. I don't think that's cowardly, it's just smart self preservation. People still do it now depending on where they live, their family situation, community, etc.

Again, each of those people who comes out today and gets counted as one of your "new" gay or bi people were just uncounted gay and bi people before they told others.

---

Well, then you weren't very nice to me. Because nothing I said entails that people couldn't "look around with their eyes and see where that would get them." But to maintain that millions and million of people in every generation since for hundreds of years have know full well that they weren't heterosexual, but never uttered a peep - not in a diary, or on a deathbed, or to the most trusted friend, strikes me as entirely untenable. Again, I think it's far, far, far more like that social norms meaningfully impact sexual orientation.

Even in societies were many homosexual practices were entirely accepted (like "thigh sex" in ancient Greece), there is incredibly little evidence that hardly anyone understood themselves as "not heterosexual." They wouldn't even have understood the category. Why would all of these millions of ancients Greeks needed to have hidden their "true selves?"

Where are you getting that no one said anything ever? Some did, that's how the rest of society had a concept of what gay people were in the first place so they could create all the rules for how to treat them badly. But is it really so hard to see why most people would decide living openly wasn't worth it? This is such a weird argument.

And I'll just give you a gold star for being much more knowledgeable about gay sex in antiquity than I am. I'm not sure what you want me to say about that. There are lots of examples of men doing things together in male-only settings. I'm generally the one arguing that doesn't make them gay necessarily and am met with condescension around here, but maybe we're actually kind of in agreement? Anyway, have a good one. The hubs and I are off to bed.

Beer Baron said:

---

Your first point is conflating two things. Whether something is "good" or "bad" is a separate argument that we weren't having. In the argument we were having, Choosing to eat a salad doesn't change one's preference for chicken fried steak any more than marrying a woman keeps a gay guy from noticing a shirtless guy jogging by.

---

I didn't mean to conflate the two. Merely pointing out the ramifications of that analogy. More of a brainstorming type pushback on equating the two "preferences" than trying to actually hold you to whether or not sexual preferences are "good" or "bad"

Quote:

---

Your second point also brings in stuff we weren't arguing. We weren't talking about whether discrimination against something is ok or not. We were talking about whether preferences are innate or not. I prefer blue to red, steal to chicken, unsweet coffee, and lots of other random things. And sometimes I vary off those preferences and other times I never do. Who knows why, but it doesn't make any of them any more chargeable.

---

To the bolded, I would agree if the catalyst for the change in the way we view LGBT issues wasn't founded upon "born this way". Whether or not these attractions are innate and unchangeable was the turning point for the change in policy and public attitude. Has the attitude towards how we treat those struggling with addiction, eating disorders, depression, etc not generated from a deeper understating of why people struggle? I know there is danger in equating these issues, and I mean no offense. I'm just trying to demonstrate that certain struggles garner more support and understanding when the public realizes there is little to no "choice" in the matter, which is a good thing. At the same time, there is less support for people to continue their issue when there is evidence there is potential to change. This is also a good thing. Finding that balance is important.

Understanding "why" we feel what we feel is one of the greatest gifts humans have over all other species. I don't think we should devalue it

Quote:

---

I didn't mean to conflate the two. Merely pointing out the ramifications of that analogy. More of a brainstorming type pushback on equating the two "preferences" than trying to actually hold you to whether or not sexual preferences are "good" or "bad"

---

No analogy is perfect, but in both cases we're just talking about why individuals subjectively prefer one thing and not another thing. For most things we don't really even think about why we have the preferences we do, we just accept that they "are."

Quote:

---

To the bolded, I would agree if the catalyst for the change in the way we view LGBT issues wasn't founded upon "born this way". Whether or not these attractions are innate and unchangeable was the turning point for the change in policy and public attitude. Has the attitude towards how we treat those struggling with addiction, eating disorders, depression, etc not generated from a deeper understating of why people struggle? I know there is danger in equating these issues, and I mean no offense. I'm just trying to demonstrate that certain struggles garner more support and understanding when the public realizes there is little to no "choice" in the matter, which is a good thing. At the same time, there is less support for people to continue their issue when there is evidence there is potential to change. This is also a good thing. Finding that balance is important.

Understanding "why" we feel what we feel is one of the greatest gifts humans have over all other species. I don't think we should devalue it

---

I don't disagree with the bolded part. I think it would be fascinating if we figured out why some people are gay, some aren't others are mostly one or the other but fine with making exceptions for certain people/situations. There are examples of identical twins where one is straight and one is gay. I'd love to know what's going on there because it's really interesting how that happens! Whatever it is, I don't think it's as simple as "gene X" or "everyone who isn't straight was molested as a child" as others have said here.

I also think "born this way" means more than just one's genes. To me it means that regardless of why it's in there, it's in there (maybe due to a combination of factors) and it isn't readily changeable, but that's a mouthful and a terrible soundbite. And unlike with my food analogy, you rarely ever hear people (gay or straight) say "I suddenly realized I was attracted to this type of person after I tried it." Most people knew early on what got their attention even if they knew they were in an environment where it was considered "bad" by those around them.

Beer Baron said:

---

Quote:

---

I didn't mean to conflate the two. Merely pointing out the ramifications of that analogy. More of a brainstorming type pushback on equating the two "preferences" than trying to actually hold you to whether or not sexual preferences are "good" or "bad"

---

No analogy is perfect, but in both cases we're just talking about why individuals subjectively prefer one thing and not another thing. For most things we don't really even think about why we have the preferences we do, we just accept that they "are."

Quote:

---

To the bolded, I would agree if the catalyst for the change in the way we view LGBT issues wasn't founded upon "born this way". Whether or not these attractions are innate and unchangeable was the turning point for the change in policy and public attitude. Has the attitude towards how we treat those struggling with addiction, eating disorders, depression, etc not generated from a deeper understating of why people struggle? I know there is danger in equating these issues, and I mean no offense. I'm just trying to demonstrate that certain struggles garner more support and understanding when the public realizes there is little to no "choice" in the matter, which is a good thing. At the same time, there is less support for people to continue their issue when there is evidence there is potential to change. This is also a good thing. Finding that balance is important.

Understanding "why" we feel what we feel is one of the greatest gifts humans have over all other species. I don't think we should devalue it

---

I don't disagree with the bolded part. I think it would be fascinating if we figured out why some people are gay, some aren't others are mostly one or the other but fine with making exceptions for certain people/situations. There are examples of identical twins where one is straight and one is gay. I'd love to know what's going on there because it's really interesting how that happens! Whatever it is, I don't think it's as simple as "gene X" or "everyone who isn't straight was molested as a child" as others have said here.

I also think "born this way" means more than just one's genes. To me it means that regardless of why it's in there, it's in there (maybe due to a combination of factors) and it isn't readily changeable, but that's a mouthful and a terrible soundbite. And unlike with my food analogy, you rarely ever hear people (gay or straight) say "I suddenly realized I was attracted to this type of person after I tried it." Most people knew early on what got their attention even if they knew they were in an environment where it was considered "bad" by those around them.

---

The bolded is what reintegrative therapy is trying to help people unlock. It's only for people who are dealing with unwanted same sex attraction, not something that can be forced on anyone. It's interesting how there are patterns in early childhood that each of these men experienced that, when dealt with, help those feelings of attraction radically diminish or even disappear with time.

To me it's important to frame the conversation accurately, which you acknowledge is a terrible soundbite. I get we as humans like to simplify things, but in this particular issue I think it's unhelpful in the long run. I appreciate your insights on it.

Quote:

---

help those feelings of attraction radically diminish or even disappear with time.

---

We'll have to agree to disagree on this part. In my opinion, they're just figuring out how to live a straight life despite the feelings of attraction. If that's what they want to do as grown adults, so be it. I'm not going to stop them. I'd still be very curious to see their browsing history though.

Beer Baron said:

---

Quote:

---

help those feelings of attraction radically diminish or even disappear with time.

---

We'll have to agree to disagree on this part. In my opinion, they're just figuring out how to live a straight life despite the feelings of attraction. If that's what they want to do as grown adults, so be it. I'm not going to stop them. I'd still be very curious to see their browsing history though.

---

That's just the point though. They are feelings. Like feelings of porn addiction. Or feelings of anxiety. Or feelings of anger. It's a process for those feelings to go away, but they can go away or be diminished with time. No matter how hard I try, I can't deny my eye color is what it is, or my height or any other innate feature encoded in my DNA. But my feelings can change.

Like you said, agree to disagree. I appreciate the cordial back and forth.

Beer Baron said:

---

Quote:

---

That's just the point though. They are feelings. Like feelings of porn addiction. Or feelings of anxiety. Or feelings of anger. It's a process for those feelings to go away, but they can go away or be diminished with time. No matter how hard I try, I can't deny my eye color is what it is, or my height or any other innate feature encoded in my DNA. But my feelings can change.

---

Straight folks love saying this but they always balk at the idea that with enough work and practice they could make their feelings of attraction go away and move over into gay world.

---

At least for me if I could be convinced that it weren't a moral evil at the very least, but really that my sexual appetites were disordered it would be something I would consider and I think in the same way it's possible to stop self abuse via masturbation or something, it would be possible to change my habits and attitudes. Like with that, it would be difficult at first and less difficult over time until it doesn't sound appealing anymore. Especially if your life is better for it. I totally disagree that you can't develop an aversion to something like gay sex even if it's something you used to derive pleasure from but the first step is that you have to recognize that it's not good for you. Before then I agree it's not possible.

On the other hand, if you asked me if I can imagine a scenario wherein I was raised a certain way, hopelessly addicted to drugs and porn, maybe raped as a boy, and I allowed myself to despair. If I were a completely different kind of person who behaved differently and believed different things, of course then I can also imagine some disordered attractions as a result of those things including even SSA. I have no problem at all allowing for the possibility that I'm capable of that.

Again, I disagree with a lot of that but genuinely admire the consistency. Generally the discussion around here is that change is possible, but only in one direction and only for "those people."

One thing I do ask in the interest of our civil back and forth, is to allow yourself to acknowledge that many, many gay people people, myself included, never dealt with abuse, drugs, or addiction of any kind and actually had wonderful childhoods and still turned out gay.

Beer Baron said:

---

Again, I disagree with a lot of that but genuinely admire the consistency. Generally the discussion around here is that change is possible, but only in one direction and only for "those people."

One thing I do ask in the interest of our civil back and forth, is to allow yourself to acknowledge that many, many gay people people, myself included, never dealt with abuse, drugs, or addiction of any kind and actually had wonderful childhoods and still turned out gay.

---

Yes that's fair and I thought about saying something along those lines. That is not a caricature of a gay guy in my mind like these are the things that must have happened to all the gays or something. I don't mean it that way at all.

Appreciate that. Definite breath of fresh air around here.

Beer Baron said:

---

Quote:

---

That's just the point though. They are feelings. Like feelings of porn addiction. Or feelings of anxiety. Or feelings of anger. It's a process for those feelings to go away, but they can go away or be diminished with time. No matter how hard I try, I can't deny my eye color is what it is, or my height or any other innate feature encoded in my DNA. But my feelings can change.

---

Straight folks love saying this but they always balk at the idea that with enough work and practice they could make their feelings of attraction go away and move over into gay world.

---

But just about every human being that hasn't given up on life fights against a myriad of different feelings every day. Laziness. Lust (regardless of which way). Anger. Despair. You name it. It's clear that we can have our feelings change over time based on how we deal with/treat them. It's only in the world of sexuality where we're supposed to assume we can't do that.

As Bob Lee said, if there was some different world where being gay was the "right" thing to do, I don't see why hetero-attracted people couldn't or wouldn't work towards that theoretical goal.

Again, I disagree with your premise but applaud you being consistent and saying that with enough diligence, counseling, and the ole' college try, you too could become gay if you wanted.

Beer Baron said:

---

Again, I disagree with your premise but applaud you being consistent and saying that with enough diligence, counseling, and the ole' college try, you too could become gay if you wanted.

---

As the old joke amongst us straights goes: living with a dude is 1000X easier than living with a wife. Being gay does have it's positives

How can what sex a person is attracted to be fixed if what sex they are isn't?

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

How can what sex a person is attracted to be fixed if what sex they are isn't?

---

I can't tell if you're a homophobe or a transphobe, but I'm sure it's one or the other.

Quote:

---

2. I would agree that whether or not food preferences are gene dependent doesn't matter that much, but the LGBT argument was fairly unsuccessful until the "born this way" argument came on the scene. It's much worse to discriminate against something the person has no control over (like skin color) than it is to discriminate against an action someone engages in (which we all do to some degree).

---

Very true. Back in the 1990's, gay activists still talked about "the right to privacy" and "getting government out of the bedroom". That line of argument won them Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, but it didn't apply to marriage because that's an inherently public thing.

That's when the rhetoric shifted to "born this way" and treating homosexuality as a race-like attribute being "discriminated" against.

As a flaming heterosexual I have zero idea how this works. But I do not think LGBT folks are hell bound. And what better place for anyone than to be in a loving church?

fat girlfriend said:

---

Beer Baron said:

---

No, you were saying exactly what I thought you were. And I'm saying yes, most of them hid their preferences because they had to. I don't think that's cowardly, it's just smart self preservation. People still do it now depending on where they live, their family situation, community, etc.

Again, each of those people who comes out today and gets counted as one of your "new" gay or bi people were just uncounted gay and bi people before they told others.

---

Well, then you weren't very nice to me. Because nothing I said entails that people couldn't "look around with their eyes and see where that would get them." But to maintain that millions and million of people in every generation since for hundreds of years have know full well that they weren't heterosexual, but never uttered a peep - not in a diary, or on a deathbed, or to the most trusted friend, strikes me as entirely untenable. Again, I think it's far, far, far more like that social norms meaningfully impact sexual orientation.

Even in societies were many homosexual practices were entirely accepted (like "thigh sex" in ancient Greece), there is incredibly little evidence that hardly anyone understood themselves as "not heterosexual." They wouldn't even have understood the category. Why would all of these millions of ancients Greeks needed to have hidden their "true selves?"

---

Perhaps more important than history courses in modern school curricula is a course on how and by whom history is recorded and written.