It's difficult for me to find the proper words to describe some of the scenarios I outlined. If I say "unbalanced" people take that to mean that gays and bis must have unhealty or somehow unbalanced lives. Not what I mean. I mean more in terms of brain chemistry or hormone balance and all those types of things.
Meaning, the unbalanced nature of the same, is what might cause a person to either be attracted only to the same sex, or maybe both sexes.
And I must reiterate, I don't think that, were there to be some study that indicates hormone A and chemical imbalance B is the culprit, that we should push the remedy / cure / therapy onto ANYone. As I said, it should be up to the individual.
If a person wishes they were not attracted to the same sex or both sexes, and there was some sort of practical, self-administered treatment for it, WHY NOT allow them to pursue that and have the lifestyle they wish they did? If you're happy as a clam that you're sleeping with the same sex, no big deal. You don't need any treatment, have a nice day.
IOW, my goal here isn't to change an entire group of people. Merely to find the root scientific causes of why they are as they are, and perhaps provide some type of mild treatment for those who actually want it. Maybe it will end up being teenagers who are just starting to explore their sexuality and actually prefer the notion of a heterosexual experience. Maybe it's someone who is married to the opposite sex and has urges they find difficult to control around the same sex, and want them gone so they can enjoy a normal marriage, etc.
I don't see what the big deal is. No "bone-headed" reactions here.
I suppose if you want a drug that can work the other way and make your hetero desires bi-desires, than have at it. All's fair in love and war.
It's difficult for me to find the proper words to describe some of the scenarios I outlined. If I say "unbalanced" people take that to mean that gays and bis must have unhealty or somehow unbalanced lives. Not what I mean. I mean more in terms of brain chemistry or hormone balance and all those types of things.
I did not read you this way. I am basically challenging your idea of imbalance *something* being related to bi/homosexuality.
What is bad about talking about imbalances here?
The deeper problem is, that you construct something like a "natural" thing to do in bed and a "unnatural" (or normal and abnormal). This is an idea that was immensely popular in sexuology back in the 1880-1950. Freud is one of the most vocal figures as is Krafft-Ebing. They found a lot of aberrations from the natural thing and devised theories where those aberrations originated.
To name a few:
- childhood trauma
- learned unnatural sexual behavior
- defects in neuronal wiring
- brain chemistry
- genetic defects
To cut a long story short, each of those theories has been tested (for each exist several meters of printed paper) but *none* has been proven right. Of course, this is no proof that it will remain so for the future, but science *has* looked into it and found no conclusive, tested, hard evidence (a lot of evidence has cropped up and later proven wrong).
So, there is a bit of a problem, since sexuologist had been very reluctant to accept one further theory:
It might be helpful to stop focusing on one normal behavior and several un-normal, but a lot could be explained if you see it as different tastes.
Today in the western world, no one in their right mind would describe a white guy who likes to have sex with black women as abnormal (well, at least over here in old Europe). Or a guy who (like me) prefers small tits. When it comes to widely accepted differences, they are described as tastes and noone asks for reasons.
Of course, social attitude was not always that liberal. Here in Germany, wanting to **** with blacks was a bad idea some 60 years back, in South Africa is was a bad idea as recent as 20 years back. There were even scientific publications on possible reasons for inter-racial attraction which of course could not be verified.
So, my point is: the breadth of the individuals sexual response spectrum may be inborn, but the definition of normal and abnormal, of natural and unnatural is socially constructed and has changed massively over time.
I'll second that. The only time my wife gets upset with my ogling is when I don't point them out to her.
Frankly, I think *anyone* that is engaging in self-destructive behaviour by not being true to their biological drives is 'abnormal' and would benefit from help.
This means biologically heterosexuals that feel pressured to be homosexual.
This means biologically homosexuals that feel pressured to be heterosexual.
Or bisexuals that are told they're undecided, and have to choose one camp or the other.
But, if you're being true to your inner drives... that's normal, healthy and just the differing ways in which we're all wired. Viva la difference. No single way is 'right' for all biological entities of the human species, but each entity has an internal setup that differs in some way from the others. Once you figure that out, and have the strength to pursue it in a non-destructive way regardless of what society or others may say, then you're 'doing it right'.
Comments
Meaning, the unbalanced nature of the same, is what might cause a person to either be attracted only to the same sex, or maybe both sexes.
And I must reiterate, I don't think that, were there to be some study that indicates hormone A and chemical imbalance B is the culprit, that we should push the remedy / cure / therapy onto ANYone. As I said, it should be up to the individual.
If a person wishes they were not attracted to the same sex or both sexes, and there was some sort of practical, self-administered treatment for it, WHY NOT allow them to pursue that and have the lifestyle they wish they did? If you're happy as a clam that you're sleeping with the same sex, no big deal. You don't need any treatment, have a nice day.
IOW, my goal here isn't to change an entire group of people. Merely to find the root scientific causes of why they are as they are, and perhaps provide some type of mild treatment for those who actually want it. Maybe it will end up being teenagers who are just starting to explore their sexuality and actually prefer the notion of a heterosexual experience. Maybe it's someone who is married to the opposite sex and has urges they find difficult to control around the same sex, and want them gone so they can enjoy a normal marriage, etc.
I don't see what the big deal is. No "bone-headed" reactions here.
I suppose if you want a drug that can work the other way and make your hetero desires bi-desires, than have at it. All's fair in love and war.
Originally posted by Moogs
It's difficult for me to find the proper words to describe some of the scenarios I outlined. If I say "unbalanced" people take that to mean that gays and bis must have unhealty or somehow unbalanced lives. Not what I mean. I mean more in terms of brain chemistry or hormone balance and all those types of things.
I did not read you this way. I am basically challenging your idea of imbalance *something* being related to bi/homosexuality.
What is bad about talking about imbalances here?
The deeper problem is, that you construct something like a "natural" thing to do in bed and a "unnatural" (or normal and abnormal). This is an idea that was immensely popular in sexuology back in the 1880-1950. Freud is one of the most vocal figures as is Krafft-Ebing. They found a lot of aberrations from the natural thing and devised theories where those aberrations originated.
To name a few:
- childhood trauma
- learned unnatural sexual behavior
- defects in neuronal wiring
- brain chemistry
- genetic defects
To cut a long story short, each of those theories has been tested (for each exist several meters of printed paper) but *none* has been proven right. Of course, this is no proof that it will remain so for the future, but science *has* looked into it and found no conclusive, tested, hard evidence (a lot of evidence has cropped up and later proven wrong).
So, there is a bit of a problem, since sexuologist had been very reluctant to accept one further theory:
It might be helpful to stop focusing on one normal behavior and several un-normal, but a lot could be explained if you see it as different tastes.
Today in the western world, no one in their right mind would describe a white guy who likes to have sex with black women as abnormal (well, at least over here in old Europe). Or a guy who (like me) prefers small tits. When it comes to widely accepted differences, they are described as tastes and noone asks for reasons.
Of course, social attitude was not always that liberal. Here in Germany, wanting to **** with blacks was a bad idea some 60 years back, in South Africa is was a bad idea as recent as 20 years back. There were even scientific publications on possible reasons for inter-racial attraction which of course could not be verified.
So, my point is: the breadth of the individuals sexual response spectrum may be inborn, but the definition of normal and abnormal, of natural and unnatural is socially constructed and has changed massively over time.
Frankly, I think *anyone* that is engaging in self-destructive behaviour by not being true to their biological drives is 'abnormal' and would benefit from help.
This means biologically heterosexuals that feel pressured to be homosexual.
This means biologically homosexuals that feel pressured to be heterosexual.
Or bisexuals that are told they're undecided, and have to choose one camp or the other.
But, if you're being true to your inner drives... that's normal, healthy and just the differing ways in which we're all wired. Viva la difference. No single way is 'right' for all biological entities of the human species, but each entity has an internal setup that differs in some way from the others. Once you figure that out, and have the strength to pursue it in a non-destructive way regardless of what society or others may say, then you're 'doing it right'.