Posted on 02/22/2002 2:35:45 AM PST by kattracks
It’s been a while since undergrad psych, but here goes:
The short answer is that attraction infers a conditioned response and orientation infers an unconditioned response.
Basically this means that an orientation is something that’s hard wired (maybe – I’ll get to this) while an attraction is learned through experience. For example a dog smells food and salivates. That’s an unconditioned (or innate) response. The dog didn’t have to learn to salivate; he was born with that programmed response. Now, I ring a bell every time I feed the dog. What happens? The dog will begin to salivate when he hears the bell even if there’s no food. The dog’s behavior is a conditioned response because the dog has learned that the bell means food. If that dog could talk, he’d probably tell you he likes that bell. This is the famous Pavlov experiment that illustrates some of the basic tenant of behavioralism.
Now apply that to human sexuality. The unconditioned response is the physical changes that occur in a male in response to stimulus from the female. Male sees naked women and gets excited. But if the male learns to associate certain visual cues with the possibility of sex these visual cues can serve the same purpose as the bell in Pavlov’s experiment. Some of these cues are cultural (like long hair or fingernails) and some are personal. Your attraction to brown-eyed women is learned (although you probably don’t remember where or how), and is a conditioned response. Your attraction to women is innate, an unconditioned response.
But sexual attraction is more complex than most behavior. One reason for this is that sexual attraction doesn’t develop until the onset of puberty. Puberty occurs in most children sometime after ten years old. By this time the child has developed a wide array of learned responses. It has been theorized that these learned responses somehow incorporate themselves into a child’s developing sexuality. This sexuality starts fluid and coalesces into a hard-wired response to stimuli. Essentially, conditioned responses become unconditioned responses.
Sexuality might be like a sort of clay. It’s mixed in with all the conditioned responses a child develops through early experiences and then baked. Once the clay has hardened, it is impossible to change the conditioned responses - they become innate. Thus, your attraction to brown-eyed women may now (I assume you’ve hit puberty) be an innate response. Or, if it was learned after puberty, may be a conditioned response subject to change. Or, while developed before puberty you may have never incorporated your attraction for brown-eyed women into your sexuality and may still be a conditioned response subject to change. See how complex this is?
It is my opinion that homosexuality develops during pre-adolescence and become hard wired during puberty. Homosexual desire somehow becomes hard-wired and like any innate response, impossible to eliminate. Thus we can say that someone is “homosexually oriented”. I suppose that you could say someone whose attractions become incorporated into his or her sexuality is also oriented that way. So maybe you are oriented to brown eyed women. One possible test would be to measure your attraction to non-eyed women. If you are not attracted at all to blue eyed women it’s an orientation, and if you are somewhat, it’s a preference.
Anyway, that’s the difference between an orientation and a preference. The last three paragraphs are somewhat controversial but the first two are universally accepted by psychologists.
I can second that! One of my nephews was seduced into the lifestyle when he was in high school. He was in a terrible emotional state about his mother and her current boyfriend (my brother and his mom had divorced several years earlier). Then to compound matters, his grandmother (his mom's mom) gave him some tranquilizers to help him 'over the rough spots'. That started his downward spiral into homosexuality and alcoholism and contributed directly to his acquiring HIV, for which he is being treated. After his diagnosis, he left the lifestyle and returned home to live with his dad (his mom had died of a heart attack just before that). He's now clean and sober and seems to be in fairly good physical shape.
It is disgusting that public schools have become recruiting grounds for the homosexual activists. And even more disgusting is the fact that schools withheld info from the kids which could SAVE THEIR LIVES!
No one claimed to be sinless. We all sin. Most of a Christian's sins, however will not result in premature death and will not encourage those around them to continue in that sin. Also, the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin instantly so that we can repent of it and restore our relationship with God.
The SAD community however, refuses to admit their sin and continues to recruit new victims into their perversion.
SAD has been proven to be a self-destructive behavior which is contagious through molestation (which in some cases may be as small as exposure)
As a Christian I am commanded to warn others of the error of their ways and to attempt to bring them to Christ. If they won't do that, the least I can do is protect the innocent ones from being exposed to the SADs willful perversion.
The best way to help a tortured teen is to help him be cured of SAD (that is, find out why he is reaching to men instead of to women). What unfulfilled need is in his life. Has he been molested or does he have a poor relationship with his father? One good role model can overcome the deficiency and help this tortured teen grow into a healthy member of society instead of into a self-destructive pervert.
Remember, the devil did not make ten percent of our population left handed nor ten percent gay. It was our God in heaven who created man. Perhaps Gods image includes the capacity to love and tolerate.
God made man in His own image. God does not have SAD. (in fact God sees the practice of homosexual behavior as abomination, something so evil that those who participate in it should be killed instantly) Therefore God did not create anyone to be homosexual. Why would He create something He finds abhorrent?
(Also the real number is probably a whole lot closer to 2% than to 10% no matter what the SAD cheerleaders say.)
GSA(P)
If they are having relations with their wives then I'd say they have some physical attraction there. Kind of hard to get it ready for action with someone who repulses you.
These ex-SADs are obviously living happy fulfilling lives. Why do you insist on trying to hold them in the SAD lifestyle when they've found a way out.
Are you afraid that if they can get out and lead good lives then you will be expected to also?
Reparative therapy doesn’t work. The technique doesn’t create a heterosexual attraction. It seems only effective in creating psychological eunuchs. The need to force others to destroy their sexuality to be acceptable strikes me as amazingly selfish on your part. I feel sad for those who take your advice.
Seems to work pretty good for the people we just discussed. If they are having fulfilling sex with their wives (and in your own description of it they are) then they seem to be happy and cured. How? by reparative therapy. Seems that, according to your description of their lives, reparative therapy works well.
Sexual orientation, as a function of sexual attraction objectively exists. If it didn’t there wouldn’t be any heterosexuals either. Even your friends at NARTH concur. People make choices to follow or resist their sex drives.
The question is, why are they 'oriented in this abnormal way'. Studies have shown that it is (in at least some cases) the result of mental trauma (molestation, abuse or a poor relationship with their father). So SAD can be compared to psychological scar tissue. Which thankfully can be healed by excising the scar tissue through reparative therapy. SAD is curable
Demanding others, or even worse, forcing others to abandon their sexuality to please you is both selfish and cruel.
Healing the sick is neither selfish nor cruel.
Co-opting psychology to advance a political or social agenda is deceptive and unethical. Even your terminology (SAD) is insulting to the ones you claim to wish to help.
For the vast majority of human history SAD was acknowledged to be a mental disease. It was only when the SADs co-opted the American Psychiatric Association (I think I have the right org here) that it was removed from disease/disorder status for political reasons. If that wasn't deceptive and unethical then why is it deceptive and unethical now to use the same methods to eliminate the politics and restore the disease as a listed treatable illness?
Personally I feel people shouldn’t destroy their lives so that selfish bigots can maintain power, dominance, and control.
Of course if these people are living fulfilled lives (as your description of them indicates and their own testimony supports) then have they destroyed their lives or only destroyed your excuses?
If you want to commit perversion, then commit perversion. Just don't come crying to us and trying to justify your actions by saying that that's just the way you are naturally. You can choose to be healed, you just don't want to be yet. We know that you behave as you choose to behave (as we all do). No non-beneficial behavior (and SAD behavior is non-beneficial) is worthy of any special protection. Don't bother asking for any. Just keep your perversion out of normal society's sight and we'll all get along better. (Of course if you should choose to molest one of our sons, don't complain if we hunt you down and execute you like the animal you behaved like (and hetersexual child molesters should be executed also)).
God Save America (Please)
I disagree. Ex-gays almost universally report no increase in heterosexual desire. Read the NARTH testimonials. That in and of itself is clear evidence that reparative therapy doesn’t work.
Kind of hard to get it ready for action with someone who repulses you.
Non attraction doesn’t equal repulsion. Normal heterosexuals are capable of homosexual sex. This doesn’t make them homosexual. The term I’ve seen here that best expresses, to me, an ex-gays relationship to his wife would be “mutual masturbation”.
These ex-SADs are obviously living happy fulfilling lives. Why do you insist on trying to hold them in the SAD lifestyle when they've found a way out.
I do not object to their decision. If they are happier without their sexuality, then it’s a good trade off. Only they can determine if they are leading a “fulfilled life”. I do object to the demand that all homosexuals follow suit. I also object to the unsubstantiated claims by some that reparative therapy magically transforms homosexual into heterosexual desire.
Are you afraid that if they can get out and lead good lives then you will be expected to also?
Who’s definition of a “good life”? Yours? Part of the beauty of our system is right to determine for oneself what constitutes a “good” life. People’s lifestyle decisions are not subject to yours or anyone else’s expectations.
Seems that, according to your description of their lives, reparative therapy works well.
I’ve limited myself to using the NARTH terminology. If you like, you can hop over to one of the ex-ex-gay sites and read for your self the testimonials of former ex-gays.
Studies have shown that it is (in at least some cases) the result of mental trauma (molestation, abuse or a poor relationship with their father). So SAD can be compared to psychological scar tissue. Which thankfully can be healed by excising the scar tissue through reparative therapy. SAD is curable.
No one knows what causes homosexuality. Personally, I believe that you’re on the right path. However, it is my opinion that reparative therapy is insufficient. It doesn’t create a functioning heterosexual. My opinion is that reparative therapy is a sincere but misguided effort to apply the tenants of a belief system to modern medicine. The results have been less than successful.
Healing the sick is neither selfish nor cruel.
But using the needy to advance a political agenda is selfish and cruel. Effectively you are saying that since we have a magic cure for homosexuality, gay people have no excuse to engage in homosexual behavior. Therefore, it’s all right to have laws prohibiting such behaviors. But you don’t have a magic cure, and even if you did, that wouldn’t give you the right to dictate how others lead their lives.
For the vast majority of human history SAD was acknowledged to be a mental disease.
That’s not true. For most of human history homosexuals were considered moral deviants and were persecuted or executed by various civil powers. Only recently has homosexuality been acknowledged as a condition.
It was only when the SADs co-opted the American Psychiatric Association (I think I have the right org here) that it was removed from disease/disorder status for political reasons.
It was mostly the work of Evelyn Hooker and other psychologists that convinced the APA to remove homosexuality from the list. Members were convinced through peer-reviewed research, not politics. You can read the research yourself if you like.
If that wasn't deceptive and unethical then why is it deceptive and unethical now to use the same methods to eliminate the politics and restore the disease as a listed treatable illness?
I’m not going to say that politics doesn’t influence the decisions of scientific organizations. I do believe that most scientists (and that’s what psychologists are) remain objective and I believe theirs was an objective decision.
Of course if these people are living fulfilled lives (as your description of them indicates and their own testimony supports) then have they destroyed their lives or only destroyed your excuses?
They (and you) have failed to make a convincing case.
If you want to commit perversion, then commit perversion. Just don't come crying to us and trying to justify your actions by saying that that's just the way you are naturally.
No one needs your permission. You have no authority in this matter.
You can choose to be healed, you just don't want to be yet.
You don’t offer healing, only slavery. If some accept the offer of bondage, that’s their business. I feel sad for those who debase themselves so you can maintain your illusions.
We know that you behave as you choose to behave (as we all do). No non-beneficial behavior (and SAD behavior is non-beneficial) is worthy of any special protection. Don't bother asking for any. Just keep your perversion out of normal society's sight and we'll all get along better..
And who gets to define beneficial? You again? Once again you haven’t the authority, or the power. All people like you have managed to do is cause a great deal of pain to a great many people – all because of selfishness. What a horrible legacy for a group that claims to want to help.
Let me address just one point though.
A beneficial union is one that is good for society. Children are the future of any society; no children, no society. Only a traditional marriage of one man married to one women has been shown to be the best environment for producing healthy happy children. No SAD 'marriage' has even the potential to produce children. Therefore these SAD unions deserve no special recognition.
Of course you will return and say "what about normal couples that can't have children?", so I'll answer that here too.
The inability to produce children is normally only known after the marriage. Therefore we have to recognize any marriage with the potential to produce offspring. Once again no SAD union can produice offspring.
May God bless you and open your eyes to see.
God Save America (Please)
As usual you substitute personal desire for truth.
A beneficial union is one that is good for society.
And who gets to decide which unions are beneficial? You again? If promoting gay unions reduces the number of homosexuals involved in hedonistic and dangerous lifestyles I’m all for them. The whole point of having society is to increase the happiness of it’s members. A society that denies people the ability to peruse happiness sows the seeds of its downfall. That’s why coercing homosexuals through fraud or force is a bad idea, which was in fact, my original point on this thread.
Children are the future of any society; no children, no society.
At least 90% of people are happily heterosexual. Society isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. In my opinion, increasing the aggregate satisfaction of the population is worth a small reduction in birth rate. It’s not like we are an agrarian monarchy where the population is expected to provide soldiers for the King’s army.
Therefore these SAD unions deserve no special recognition.
That’s your opinion. I disagree, but that is a topic for another thread.
May God bless you and open your eyes to see.
Thanks. But remember this: we may not agree, but we do have to live in the same nation. Isn’t reasonable compromise preferable to throwing away everything our ancestors built?
Do you believe that promoting homosexual unions will actually reduce the number of homosexuals involved in hedonistic and dangerous lifestyles? They choose to live that way. Seems to me that those involved in such lifestyles will continue to do so regardless. And those who do should not be granted the right to adopt children.
Choice 4 Truth (http://www.choice4truth.com/)
They have two sections - one for parents and one for students/teens. Here's the link for student section:
http://www.choice4truth.com/index-teens.html
There is some really good material under the "Take the Student Pledge" section that kids can use to respond with when they are faced with queer propaganda.
Truthatschool.org (http://www.truthatschool.org/)
This site also has sections for parents and students, but is primarily a web site for students (with lots of good information).
I believe that to effectively fight the homosexual activists in the schools, we need to involve students who will take a stand against them. In order to refute the claims of the homosexual activists, these students will need information and we need to make sure they have it. Please pass this information on.
No. They trade their perverted sexual desires for normal, healthy ones. It ain't easy, in fact I think it's harder for a homosexual to adopt healthy sexual desires than it is for a perverted heterosexual. (unless the heterosexual was into some really weird stuff).
Homosexuals (teenagers included)engage in destructive behavior not because people don't affirm their sexual desires but because they know that those desires are perverted and that's a frightening realization. If homosexuals and liberals really cared about teenagers struggling with homosexual thoughts they would encourage them to hold off labeling themselves a homosexual. Studies, cunducted by homosexual activists, show that the older someone is before they take on that label the better able they are to deal with the ramafications. Makes perfect sense but what do homosexual activists do? Just the opposite. They want to label kids in elementary school. I have seen homosexual curricula, pushed by groups like PFLAG, that suggest that elementary teachers be on the look out for children who they think might be homosexual so they can get the "direction" they need.
Yes....and it appears that some people are sexually attracted to children, others to dogs, others to horses. And the point is? You don't need a "reliable, consistant test" to find out what perverted sexual behavior is. A brain will do. At least in most cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.