DiscussMormonism.com

Dr. Shades,

Before I try to explain what I mean by saying that born-gay theory looks sexist to me, and allied with racism, I want to try to give you some more context. I’ve never thought of same-sex attractions as some kind of personality or character defect, but gay identity ideology, and identity ideologies in general, look harmful to me in some of the same ways that religious ideologies can be harmful.

My views about gays and homosexuality might look self-contradictory to some people. I don’t see the healthfulness of sexual attractions, or the morality of sexual intimacy, as having anything to do with anyone’s sex type or gender. At the same time, I’m practicing and promoting a way of life which, in my current understanding, excludes some kinds of same-sex relationships or interactions. It isn’t clear to me what, precisely, is prohibited. In my current understanding it might be physical union between men, and/or substituting a same-sex marriage in the place of the kind of marriage that is promoted by God. Apart from than that, I don’t see any strict prohibition against same-sex sexual intimacy.

I think it’s wrong to stigmatize same-sex attractions, or to try to erase them. I want people to learn to value those attractions.

I don’t know what to think about the possibility of a person learning to be sexually aroused by a woman, or learning to be sexually aroused by a man, if it has never happened before. A few years ago, at the age of 65 or more, when I opened myself up to being sexually aroused looking at a man, it was easy for me, but maybe I’m a special case. I remember feeling sexually aroused by a tree once. For all I know, the possibilities for most people might be very slim, but I’m not sure anyone would deny that it does happen sometimes. I would be very suspicious of any claims of being able to make it happen. The best way I’ve heard of to help it happen is with cognitive behavior therapy, but even with that, the success rate might be very low. I don’t think anyone should pin any hopes on that, for anything they want to do.

Maybe anyone who thinks they would like to be able to feel sexually aroused by a woman, or by a man, could just try opening themselves up to it, and if it doesn’t happen within a few days, or at most a few months, proceed as if it never will. Another idea would be to see a couples counselor who would be willing and able to treat it not as a homosexuality issue, but whatever way they treat impaired desire or arousal in couples.

I don’t agree with drawing lines around the possibilities for a man who is attracted to men but not to women, or a woman who is attracted to women but not to men. More specifically, I disagree with saying that it’s always wrong for anyone with those experiences to marry a person of the opposite sex, and/or to abstain from same/sex sexual intimacy. I think everyone needs to know about all the grief, failure, and tragedy that almost invariably follows from those experiments, but I disagree with saying that it’s always wrong.

I’d like to see any questions or comments you might have about all that, before I try to explain the sexism, and alliance with racism, that I see in the theory that some people are born with an irremediable incapacity for a healthy sexual relationship with any woman, or an an irremediable incapacity for a healthy sexual relationship with any man.

Is there a Center for Irremediable Relationship Incapacity Studies (CIRIS) where I can learn more?

jimhabegger wrote:I remember feeling sexually aroused by a tree once.

As long as those feelings take root, there are many branches of possibilities.

So...the Kinsey Scale?

honorentheos wrote:So...the Kinsey Scale?

If you mean, am I thinking of the Kinsey Scale, no. That has never been part of my thinking. It might have a beneficial influence, in moving people away from orientation and identity ideology, but I'm not even sure of that.

In my view, the lines that people draw between same-sex feelings and impulses, and opposite-sex feelings and impulses, are fictitious, useless for beneficial purposes, and used for harmful ones, just as much as the lines they draw between races. I don't think anyone is born with an irremediable incapacity to ever have those feelings for any man, or to ever have those feelings for any woman, and many people do have those feelings for men and women. Especially I think that most women, even if they wouldn't admit it in public, are sometimes sexually aroused by some of the same images of women that arouse men. If any woman here thinks I'm wrong about that, please speak up. I think that a lot of men who are repulsed by the idea of same-sex intimacy, have had the same feelings for men sometimes, that gay men think of as romantic feelings, or being in love. Those feelings and impulses come in all degrees and combinations, sometimes confined to one side or another of the lines that people draw between sexes, sometimes not. That's my view of the diversity of sexual and romantic feelings and impulses. I've never found any use for trying to reduce all that to a linear scale.

(edited to correct a typo)

jimhabegger wrote:

honorentheos wrote:So...the Kinsey Scale?

If you mean, am I thinking of the Kinsey Scale, no. That has never been part of my thinking. It might have a beneficial influence, in moving people away from orientation and identity ideology, but I'm not even sure of that.

In my view, the lines that people draw between same-sex feelings and impulses, and opposite-sex feelings and impulses, are fictitious, useless for beneficial purposes, and used for harmful ones, just as much as the lines they draw between races. I don't think anyone is born with an irremediable incapacity to ever have those feelings for any man, or to ever have those feelings for any woman, and many people do have those feelings for men and women. Especially I think that most women, even if they wouldn't admit it in public, are sometimes sexually aroused by some of the same images of women that arouse men. If any woman here thinks I'm wrong about that, please speak up. I think that a lot of men who are repulsed by the idea of same-sex intimacy, have had the same feelings for men sometimes, that gay men think of as romantic feelings, or being in love. Those feelings and impulses come in all degrees and combinations, sometimes confined to one side or another of the lines that people draw between sexes, sometimes not. That's my view of the diversity of sexual and romantic feelings and impulses. I've never found any use for trying to reduce all that to a linear scale.

(edited to correct a typo)

Still sounds like the idea behind the Kinsey Scale to me. The idea being that sexual attraction isn't binary but more of a spectrum on which a person possibly slides at different times but with some hard stops for some people in some places.

Honorentheos, what you’re saying might be true. I’ve never looked into it far enough to agree or disagree. It just never interested me, and still doesn’t, to try fit the variations in people’s romantic and sexual interests and capacities onto a linear scale. That doesn’t make any more sense to me than trying to do that with our artistic and occupational interests and capacities, or any others.

(edited to add the following)
Imagine doing a survey of the kinds of music people like, and the instruments they play, and then trying to fit all that information onto a linear scale. That’s what the Kinsey scale looks like to me.
(end edit)

One objection I see to the Kinsey scale is that it stlll perpetuates a view of same-sex attractions and opposite-sex attractions as polar opposites

Jim:

Words are tools. Words assist us to understand each other's thoughts.

"Heterosexual" is a tool to help us understand what the speaker means when he or she is referring to someone who simply isn't attracted to members of the same sex, no matter how open he or she is to the idea. Likewise, "Homosexual" is a tool to help us understand what the speaker means when he or she is referring to someone who simply isn't attracted to members of the opposite sex, no matter how open he or she is to the idea.

Would you strike those words from our vocabularies? If so, with what words would you replace them? If nothing, then what should a speaker say when he or she wishes to draw hearers' attention to one group but not the other?

Dr. Shades wrote:Would you strike those words from our vocabularies?

No. Are you asking that because you haven’t seen me using those words, myself? It’s true that I avoid using them myself, but no, I don’t object to people using them, when and where they actually do facilitate communication.