h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>



az

Maybe you guys should calm down a bit and read the article without your anti-Christian bias. Or at least skip the rather inflammatory first nine paragraphs and read the bit about the study into such therapies.

The suggestion that people who have received this therapy no longer indulge in homosexual fantasies -- and indeed, are now involved in a loving heretosexual relationship -- is an interesting one. This would seem to me that some people can be 'cured' of homosexuality.

As to whether it can be regarded as an illness or not, that depends.. If homosexual thoughts and desires are very unwelcome to the person experiencing them, then surely that can be regarded as a mental illness of sorts -- that is a characteristic of their mind that they would want changing. On the other hand, someone who is quite content with their homosexuality would not consider it an illness at all.

milch,

Okay, what would be your opinion as to why a healthy sexual being, either homosexual or otherwise, would start doubting their sexuality to the extent of feeling they had to change it?

In an attempt to remove all biases - can you see a heterosexual thinking that their sexual preference is somehow so wrong that they would go to such lenghts to change it without any external pressure?

Our sexual expression comes from within us. It is a natural part of who we are. I think it is only when it is met with a negative response that we begin to doubt it. But perhaps you think otherwise.

az

>>Okay, what would be your opinion as to why a healthy sexual being, either homosexual or otherwise, would start doubting their sexuality to the extent of feeling they had to change it?<<

What does healthy mean in this context?

I can safely say I've never met anyone who wants to be cured.


I've met several heterosexual people who wish they weren't however!

'healthy sexual being'

a person who enjoys sex and, um, is healthy enough to do it.

az

Thanks, azahar!

In that case it's easy to answer your question: a healthy sexual being, either homosexual or otherwise, might start doubting their sexuality to the extent of feeling they had to change it if it was illegal, socially unacceptable, or they considered it immoral.

And why would they consider it immoral or socially unacceptable?


az

I don't know, you'd have to ask them.

Well, it's not your usual question, is it? Though I cannot see any reason for someone thinking their natural sexual inclination is somehow wrong unless they are told it is. Can you?

az

Hi azahar,

I don't have a comprehensive answer to your first question. It depends on the person as to why they would want to change this aspect of themselves.

But regarding your example of the heterosexual, I don't think that you can disregard external influences like that without changing the entire nature of the discussion. That's like asking what someone's sexual desires would be like if they were locked in a box from birth and completely starved of human contact.

I think that sexual expression does not just come from within. To give a likely counterexample, any fetish involving unnatural objects is something that must have come from an external influence.

<>

Fetishes are not strictly sexual and this is not what we are debating.

az

Hmm, natural would seem to be a supposition rather than a statement of fact. Would you consider a predilection for children or animals natural and do you think such a person would be incapable of concluding their sexual inclination was wrong unless told so?

Why are they not 'strictly sexual'?

Anyway that wasn't my main point.

Hmmm, Mycroft. It seems you are more interested in trying to trip me up than you are in the topic. I don't like this game, to be honest. You have done this with me on many threads now. Please stop trying to make yourself look clever by attempting to make me appear stupid.

I think people who are told that being homosexual is somehow wrong and bad and that they must change goes against basic human rights.

Why not argue with Noggin? He posted something quite intelligent and challenging that everyone has ignored.

az

Because, milch, lots of fetishes have nothing to do with sex. And it was you who brought it up. If it wasn't your main point then . . .?


az

The implication was that they are sexual fetishes

<... and read the bit about the study into such therapies. The suggestion that people who have received this therapy no longer indulge in homosexual fantasies- and indeed, are now involved in a loving heterosexual relationship - is an interesting one.>

But as far as I know, and the article tends to confirm this, studies into such therapies reveal a very low (though nonzero) "success" rate. It took a long time to find the successes, and a number of these seem subsequently to have "fallen off the wagon". As to whether they still indulge in homosexual fantasies how would you know? And bear in mind that these are people strongly motivated to be socially accepted by their homophobic peers and therefore having good reasons not to give honest answers.

Socially unacceptable and immoral are socially produced categories and imply social pressures of one sort or another. This is not necessarily, or even usually, negative; there are plenty of positive reinforcements for being good and being accepted, and that is a natural part of being a social animal as humans are. The question is, how are issues to be resolved, both practically and ideologically, when conflict arises between one part of our nature (in this case certain forms of sexual preference) and our social nature?

Noggin

azahar, neither making myself look clever nor you look stupid are priorities for me. I'm simply interested in knowing whether you literally mean what you say. If you do, you can say so, and if you don't, you can say that too. This isn't a televised parliamentary debate where you're never allowed to change your mind or clarify your views, is it?