From Whence Cometh My Attractions?

[guerreiro9]

On another thread of this forum the following question was posed:

“Question: If you consider yourself to heterosexual, can you identify in your life when you choose live a heterosexual lifestyle over a homosexual lifestyle?”

Grammatical errors aside, over the years I have seen this same question (or a slight variation of it) posted on numerous internet forums. I have never responded directly to this question, but I have been thinking about my response for a number of years.

Perhaps I should be disqualified from answering this question because I do not consider myself to be a heterosexual, even though I am in a very loving and strong heterosexual marriage. I also do not consider myself to be a homosexual or any other “sexual” as these labels are commonly applied. In fact I do not believe these labels can be or should ever be applied to any human being. Our sexuality is much more complicated and nuanced than these simple labels allow for.

Before I begin explaining the choices and experiences in my life that have shaped my sexuality, I would like to begin with a simple thought experiment. Before you dismiss a thought experiment out of hand you should know that it is a very useful scientific technique which has led to many scientific discoveries including Einstein’s theory of special relativity.

Let us examine how humans develop their attractions by proposing a thought experiment about chocolate.

I will make a single assumption in this thought experiment:

1. You are not allergic to chocolate; this would greatly alter the thought experiment in a way that is not useful, because it would offer an immediate negative feedback.
   

Let us suppose that you have never been exposed to chocolate in any form. An acquaintance of yours offers you a piece of chocolate. In the instant you take your first bite of chocolate you have very little control over whether you find the chocolate appealing or not. Your experience is influenced by your culture, your feelings toward your acquaintance, the occasion on which the chocolate was given, your physical response to the chocolate, and many other influences.

Let us now suppose that you did not find the chocolate appealing. Does this mean that you will never find chocolate appealing? No, everyone can develop an appreciation for chocolate. Some will develop a strong affinity for chocolate, others will to a lesser extent, but all can learn to enjoy it. Perhaps the piece of chocolate given to you by your acquaintance was simply not a very good piece of chocolate, and you would find a different piece more enjoyable.

Let us suppose that on the initial encounter you did enjoy the chocolate. The natural response to this experience would be to seek out more chocolate with some seeking more vigorously than others. You may ask your acquaintance for more chocolate, or you may ask where to find more. You may try to share the chocolate with others, and will feel closer to them when they also enjoy it. You may begin to incorporate chocolate into your desserts, and make it a regular part of your life.

These responses all seem natural to me and I have experienced just this when I have been exposed to new foods that I enjoy.

Let us now suppose that after you have developed an affinity for chocolate and incorporated it into your life, a religion to which you belong or are seeking to belong incorporates a ban on chocolate into their theology. Leaving theology aside would you be able to replace your affinity for chocolate with feelings of distaste?

I contend that it would be nearly impossible if not completely impossible to feel distaste for chocolate if you have incorporated it into your life as described above.

Think about this for a minute for those of you who enjoy chocolate as I do, would it be possible for you to view chocolate (in general) as unappetizing? Unless you have substantially greater will power than I do I suspect that the honest answer is no.

Let me ask another question. For those of you who enjoy chocolate, could you completely abstain from eating chocolate for one reason or another?

This is an entirely different question, and my answer to this question is unequivocally yes. There are a number of reasons and circumstances under which I could completely abstain from chocolate. It would not be easy, and it would not greatly alter my appreciation for chocolate (at least initially), but I believe I could do it.

Returning to the thought experiment, let us suppose that the religion in question while banning chocolate encourages the use of vanilla. Given your previous affinity for chocolate would it be possible to grow to appreciate vanilla in a similar manner?

I believe the answer to this question is yes. Some will instantly take to vanilla, some will require more encouraging, but overtime all could learn to appreciate it and incorporate it into their lives. They will have to go through the same experiences with vanilla that they went through with chocolate in order to gain the same level of appreciation.

Will this replace the affinity for chocolate? No it will not, the desire to eat chocolate will still be there. For some they will find that they enjoy vanilla more than they did chocolate, for others they will always prefer chocolate, while simultaneously enjoying the vanilla they are experiencing.

A big obstacle in learning to enjoy vanilla would be a propensity to compare every vanilla dessert to one made of chocolate. This might lead to feelings of dissatisfaction with vanilla and with the religion for encouraging you to eat a substance that you may not enjoy as much as chocolate. The continued thoughts of chocolate would also make it much more difficult to continue to abstain from eating chocolate.

Let us now go back to the beginning and suppose that the issue with the religion banning chocolate had occurred just after you had taken your first bite of chocolate, or before you had ever been offered chocolate. Would it be as difficult for you to abstain from chocolate as it had been in the previous example?

The answer obviously is no. You would not have gone through the same level of experiences as previously described. You would not have made chocolate a part of your life. You would not have had experiences with others in which you shared chocolate with them and become closer to them because of such. You would be able to enjoy your vanilla without the dissatisfaction some may feel even if you were one of those who would have instantly loved chocolate.

I think the parallels I was trying to make between desserts and sexuality were pretty straight forward and obvious. Perhaps this has not been as valuable a thought exercise to you as it has been to me, but it has helped me put my thoughts and experiences in a better context.

I believe that our sexuality is affected by a number of internal as well as external influences, and is not something we are innately born with. The experiences that we have, and how we choose to respond to those experiences determine in a large part what we will be sexually attracted to. Some people will naturally respond more favorably to some attractions than others, but I do not believe they are “predestined” to have these attractions. They have to be exposed to these attractions, and have a favorable experience with them. In some way they have to incorporate these attractions into their lives if only through thought and desire. Once they have done this it will be very difficult to view these attractions unfavorably. They can develop other attractions, but it will not replace the previous ones. The same level of commitment must be expended on the new attraction in order to receive the same return as the old, and maybe more commitment if the new attraction is not as naturally appealing.

I believe all of us could develop sexual attractions for someone of the same or opposite sex based upon our experiences and how we choose to respond to them. Before you begin to protest let me share with you something I learned in a University course on Greek History which changed my thinking on the subject.

My background is in science and engineering, and I have spent nearly 12 years studying at Universities. As part of my general education I took a course in Greek History, which I found to be interesting and a nice break from my usual schedule.

As part of the course we studied the City-States of Sparta and Athens very extensively. I am sure you are somewhat familiar with these names, and the name Spartans in particular carries very strong connotations. The Spartans, whom many hold up as the epitome of heterosexual manliness, are believed by most scholars to have all engaged in homosexual activities. I remember the day very vividly when the professor stood in the front of the class and told all males in attendance that if they had been born in Sparta in ancient Greece they would have been homosexuals. This was something I had not considered, and I could only come up with three possible conclusions to explain this:

1. The historians, archaeologist, and anthropologist got this fact completely wrong. This is an idea I could support. Coming from a science and engineering background I find those three disciplines to be very speculative. If you choose to support this idea think about what that does to the claims that the Book of Mormon can be either supported or disproved through archaeology.
   
2. By some random quirk of nature all males born in Sparta during a certain period of time were born gay. I do not find this at all plausible.
   
3. lOur culture and our experiences in that culture strongly affect our sexuality. After thinking about this for a number of years and comparing my life experiences I believe this is the most logical conclusion.
   

An interesting side note about the Spartans is that they did not view homosexual relationships as being detrimental to heterosexual relationships. All the men were expected to eat both chocolate and vanilla cake as it were. I think the phenomenon we see in our culture where we prefer one sex or the other exclusively is entirely a self-imposed barrier. I also think the personality traits many ascribe to “homosexuals” are artifacts of our culture and have nothing to do with homosexual relationships in general.

Now, after that long winded explanation, back to the original question, when did I choose to engage in a heterosexual relationship rather than a homosexual one?

The answer is little choices throughout my life in response to experiences I passed through, and every day of my life since I have been married.

I do not believe I was born a “heterosexual”, but little by little I have come to enjoy heterosexual interactions building to the relationship I have now with my wife. I believe if things had been different in my life and if I had been exposed to different experiences I could have grown to enjoy homosexual relationships.

Things did not always come easily or naturally for me in heterosexual relationships. I remember when I was young being very scared to hold someone’s hand. I remember when I finally did it I didn’t really like the experience and remember thinking “Why did my friends pressure me into this?” I remember the first time someone kissed me and I was completely shocked. Notice I said someone kissed me, and not the other way around. I was 15 and at a party and a girl with whom I was acquainted kissed me out of the blue. In the words of Clark Griswold “If I woke up tomorrow with my head sewn to the carpet, I wouldn’t be more surprised than I am right now.” I previously had no interest in her, or in anyone for that matter, but again because of the influence of friends I chose to pursue a relationship with her. The relationship was still awkward and unnatural to me at times, but I had moved beyond being scared to hold hands.

As I continued on to High School, there was a group of guys who were considered very “cool” and popular. It was a group of guys I wanted to be around. I guess you could say I had a crush or a “man-crush” on them. I did what I could to become their friends and soon was a regular member of their group. It became apparent very quickly that their sexuality was different than what I was used to. At first it was very awkward for me, but I soon began to conform to them and I felt more comfortable. They did not engage in homosexual behaviors, but if they had I think there is a very good chance I would have as well. It would have been awkward at first, but I probably would have adapted to it just like some of the other behaviors of theirs I mimicked, including getting arrested once for a very stupid reason which I will not mention.

I served a mission for the Church in Brazil (hence the Portuguese screen name) and that had some interesting affects on my sexuality. I became even more awkward and scared of girls. Upon returning home, the awkwardness did not immediately vanish, but once again through encouragement from friends and family I went on a few dates. They did not go so well, so I decided to put off dating for a while and focus on my studies.

After a while I think my family got worried and eventually I was setup on a blind date by my cousin. I canceled the date once, before finally agreeing to go through with it. That has been the best decision of my life as I met the kindest, smartest, most beautiful women in existence on that blind date, and later somehow persuaded her to become my wife.

Things always went more smoothly with my wife than they had with other women, yet I still had to grow more comfortable with intimacy little by little. In a very real sense my sexuality was still in the same state it had been in while I was in High School, after awaking from a two year slumber. Some of the immature thoughts and desires I had caused some early growing pains in our marriage, but over the years slowly but surely my wife and have grown to have a very healthy heterosexual relationship. It was not one decision, but lots of little decisions over the course of my life.

I recently read the 2012 FAIR Conference presentation by Joshua Johanson in which the following quote is found:

“I was never attracted to girls, until Alyssa came into my life. I met her at a dance and we hit it off immediately. The more time I spent with her, the more we fell in love. Then, I started wanting to kiss her, like a lot. I wanted to do more. I had never had those feelings for a woman before, and she remains the only woman to whom I am sexually attracted. We got married in the Oakland temple and have enjoyed an incredibly happy and sexually fulfilling relationship ever since.”

What struck me about this quote was not how odd it was that a person with same-sex attractions would be saying this, but how normal it was that a man would be describing his road to a heterosexual relationship in these terms. We all have to go through this at some point on our road to a heterosexual relationship. Joshua just never went through it until after he had developed previous attractions for men.

At least for me, being in a heterosexual relationship did not come naturally, it came slowly and awkwardly, line upon line precept upon precept…..

[DavidB]

I think that experience of joshua is much different than yours. Joshuas experience supports the notion that attraction is not so much about choice but is something that just happens. Your experience seems more about conscious deliberate choice and as you state you could have gone either way with your sexuality.

Your experience seems more about the mechanics of a relationship and Joshua's is about spark that started the mechanics rolling.

Neither yours, mine, or Joshuas experience is the rule or exception.

Edited August 26, 2012 by DavidB

[bluebell]

Spartans were homosexual because that is what was required of them if they wanted to be accepted into the community.

They entered the military around the age of 8 and the older boys were expected (required if they wanted to be considered 'manly') to rape the younger ones (the young boys, for their part, were expected to do everything in their power to resist-as being able to keep themselves from getting raped showed their toughness).

This rite of passage was expected to develop into a consenual relationship between a youth and an older man where the older man had an almost big brother relationship with the youth, but which also included sex.

If their society had gone the other way and had required hetrosexuality and shunned homosexuality, there would have been practically no incidents of homosexuality within the elite.

I don't think this would mean that there would have been no men born with homosexual tendencies in Spartan, but that, because of the nature of spartan society, few young men would have existed who were capable of fighting the requirements of the society at such a young age. Reputation and honor were the only things that mattered in Sparta, so anything that got in the way of that would have been shunned without even being considered as a valid option.

For that reason, i don't know that Sparta is a good example to use when talking about nature vs. nurture. Their culture was too structured to allow 'nature' to have any influence.

Athens would seem to be a better example, since the men there were free to choose homosexual relationships or leave them with no societal repercussions (for the most part).

Edited August 26, 2012 by bluebell

[Hamba Tuhan]

I also do not consider myself to be a homosexual or any other “sexual” as these labels are commonly applied. In fact I do not believe these labels can be or should ever be applied to any human being. Our sexuality is much more complicated and nuanced than these simple labels allow for.

The entire notion of fixed 'sexual identity' is culturally bound and, even in the West, a relatively recent construct. I worked in a city at one point where transvestite male prostitutes were extremely common. Being non-Christian, a few of my non-married colleagues openly utilised the services of these prostitutes. These men weren't 'gay' in any way, and in fact all planned to marry and raise families. I asked one of them about it one afternoon, and he said, 'Sex is sex. It doesn't feel any less nice just because the other person is a man'. To further illustrate his point, he asked me to imagine having a pleasurable encounter with a female prostitute and then waking up the next morning only to discover that it was actually a man. 'How logically could the prostitute's gender', he asked, 'alter the physical pleasure already experienced earlier?' Then he said, 'Your problem is that you're not thinking with your body. Your body doesn't care'.

I remember the day very vividly when the professor stood in the front of the class and told all males in attendance that if they had been born in Sparta in ancient Greece they would have been homosexuals.

You don't have to go all the way back to ancient Greece. It's only been about one generation since conversion to Christianity altered the widespread practice in Melanesia where all boys in certain societies were socialised to have dominant homosexual identities. Had I been born into one of those societies, I would have been taught that sexual behaviour with other men was normal and desirable, and that teaching would have been supported by religion, ritual, and the reality of adult/child sexual relationships.

I did what I could to become their friends and soon was a regular member of their group. It became apparent very quickly that their sexuality was different than what I was used to. At first it was very awkward for me, but I soon began to conform to them and I felt more comfortable. They did not engage in homosexual behaviors, but if they had I think there is a very good chance I would have as well.

This describes precisely the experience of a man I interviewed for baptism on my mission. He told us that he'd felt socially awkward his entire life. Then at uni he met a group of cool guys who took him in and gave him a sense of belonging. Over time, they revealed that they were all 'gay' and explained to him that his awkwardness in general and his comfort level with them was because he was gay too. It made sense to him, he said, and so he adopted the identity, 'came out', and engaged in homosexual behaviour for a number of years. Much later, some missionaries gave him a copy of the Book of Mormon. It was whilst reading it, he said, that he saw what had happened.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[guerreiro9]

Neither yours, mine, or Joshuas experience is the rule or exception.

Yes, as I stated this is why I dislike the "sexual" labels as they are commonly applied. They are meaningless in my opinion. Our sexuality is much more complicated than that, and is a wide continuous spectrum, that does not contain discrete fixed states.

I do not doubt that Joshua's experience (or anyone else's) was very different from my own. What struck me was the way in which he described his developing attraction for his wife, in that it was very similar to the way in which I would describe my own experience. Although we are all different, there does seem to be some common experiences we all pass through in developing our heterosexual or homosexual relationships, which in many cases involves some initial awkwardness.

[guerreiro9]

For that reason, i don't know that Sparta is a good example to use when talking about nature vs. nurture. Their culture was too structured to allow 'nature' to have any influence.

Athens would seem to be a better example, since the men there were free to choose homosexual relationships or leave them with no societal repercussions (for the most part).

Sparta is indeed an extreme example, which is why it was so striking to me when I was introduced to it. Before I took this course I had never considered that a society's sexual norms could be so different from what we generally see in western civilizations. For as much as I complained about having to fulfill certain general education requirements, this course definitely had the desired effect of broadening me as a person.

[guerreiro9]

'Your problem is that you're not thinking with your body. Your body doesn't care'.

Something I believe personally as a member of the Church is that one of our responsibilities in mortality is to learn how to get our physical bodies to respond to certain types of physical intimacy. Our body on its own "doesn't care" and will respond to any physical intimacy we allow it to be involved in. For some people this will be extremely easy, for others it will be more difficult, and for others still it will never occur in this life. I do not believe that this "learning" will immediately end upon entering the next life, but that we will have to continue on where we left off, with perhaps more favorable environmental conditions.

Feel free to disagree, it is something I believe personally, but I wouldn't be surprised if I am wrong.

[CV75]

Something I believe personally as a member of the Church is that one of our responsibilities in mortality is to learn how to get our physical bodies to respond to certain types of physical intimacy.

What guidance has the Lord offered in this regard, other than the law of chastity?

[DavidB]

Yes, as I stated this is why I dislike the "sexual" labels as they are commonly applied. They are meaningless in my opinion. Our sexuality is much more complicated than that, and is a wide continuous spectrum, that does not contain discrete fixed states.

I do not doubt that Joshua's experience (or anyone else's) was very different from my own. What struck me was the way in which he described his developing attraction for his wife, in that it was very similar to the way in which I would describe my own experience. Although we are all different, there does seem to be some common experiences we all pass through in developing our heterosexual or homosexual relationships, which in many cases involves some initial awkwardness.

I think you are addressing too many issues at once.

Joshua states "I was never attracted to girls, until Alyssa..." this indicates that suddenly something inside him, without his effort just clicked and he was attracted to a female without any effort of his own.

You seemingly indicate a similar situation with meeting your wife. However, you also speak of awkwardness. The awkwardness isn't about whether ones sexual desire is a choice or not.

It would appear that neither you or Joshua made the "choice" to be attracted to the female you each married, rather, you both were attracted to the females you married - a sort of "love at first sight" type thing.

The question posed in the other thread, quoted here, was about whether attractions are a choice. I would say, by an large, attraction is not a choice; acting of those attractions is by and large a choice - a choice for which an accountable person is accountable for making.

[wenglund]

The question posed in the other thread, quoted here, was about whether attractions are a choice. I would say, by an large, attraction is not a choice; acting of those attractions is by and large a choice - a choice for which an accountable person is accountable for making.

Would you agree the attractions may be malleable (in terms of strength as well as character), and thus is to some extent a function of choice?

Would you also agree that a person can develop competing attractions (chocolate and vanilla), and that deciding between the competing attractions can be a function of choice?

And, if so, do you agree that such choices over time can have an impact on the competing attractions (in terms of strength and character)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 26, 2012 by wenglund

[yootaw]

Thank you for sharing your perspective. Your post was well written, and well reasoned. I appreciate being able to see this issue from your point of view.

[guerreiro9]

I think you are addressing too many issues at once.

Joshua states "I was never attracted to girls, until Alyssa..." this indicates that suddenly something inside him, without his effort just clicked and he was attracted to a female without any effort of his own.

You seemingly indicate a similar situation with meeting your wife. However, you also speak of awkwardness. The awkwardness isn't about whether ones sexual desire is a choice or not.

It would appear that neither you or Joshua made the "choice" to be attracted to the female you each married, rather, you both were attracted to the females you married - a sort of "love at first sight" type thing.

The question posed in the other thread, quoted here, was about whether attractions are a choice. I would say, by an large, attraction is not a choice; acting of those attractions is by and large a choice - a choice for which an accountable person is accountable for making.

I agree that I am addressing many issues, it was late, my wife was out of town, and I rambled on for far longer than I should have. I am surprised anyone managed to read the entire post at all, and I appreciate your comments.

I did not mean to imply that the relationship with my wife happened instantly without any effort on my own part, I had to struggle through each phase until I became comfortable with it. Slowly, but steadily our physical intimacy grew along with our relationship until it reached a point where I could no longer imagine living without her.

At that time in my life I felt very little attraction toward females. I remember a conversation I had with my mother, where she asked me why I had not been dating like my friends. The conversation turned to one on physical intimacy (always interesting with a parent) and I basically stated that I had no desire to have physical intimacy with a female. I just didn't care, I was very busy with my studies, I had had some bad experiences on dates, and I was naturally a little shy anyway. I remember looking at my friends during this time and thinking "Why am I so different, why do I not want the physical intimacy that they cannot seem to live without". As sometimes happens with males of this age they seemed to be chasing after everything that moved and would regale us all with tales of their conquests. I remember thinking not "I wish I could do that", but "how could they do that?"

As I began to date my wife my feelings toward physical intimacy with her began to change. I did not instantly think upon meeting her "boy I'd like to get her into bed!" At first it was "she is nice looking, and kind, and easy to talk to, I would like to spend more time with her." Then it progressed to "perhaps holding her hand might be nice" and so on and so on. Each individual step required building upon the one before, and if my wife had attempted to skip a step that I was not ready for I may have never called her again.

Interestingly enough my wife did not realize what I was going through at the time, but simply thought me a gentleman. One of the things that attracted her to me was that I did not push her physically, but seemed to genuinely want to create a relationship, something other men had not. What she didn't realize at the time was that I needed that relationship and comfort level before the physical intimacy felt attractive to me.

What I tried to illustrate with the "chocolate thought experiment", but may have failed to convey (I claim to be a man of science, and not of prose) is that I believe that our attractions change over time in response to our experiences, choices, and our innate nature.

In the instant we are presented with stimuli can we choose how we respond physically to those stimuli? No, I do not believe we can. At that instant in time our physical response is governed by the sum total of who we are in that instant. We can however make choices in response to those stimuli, that change who we are as a person.

Like taking your first bite of chocolate, your cannot choose in that instant how your body physically responds to that substance. But upon taking your second bite, you are no longer the same person you were before, you have experienced chocolate before, and there's no telling how your body will respond now.......

Edited August 27, 2012 by guerreiro9

[mfbukowski]

On another thread of this forum the following question was posed:

“Question: If you consider yourself to heterosexual, can you identify in your life when you choose live a heterosexual lifestyle over a homosexual lifestyle?”

Grammatical errors aside, over the years I have seen this same question (or a slight variation of it) posted on numerous internet forums. I have never responded directly to this question, but I have been thinking about my response for a number of years.

Perhaps I should be disqualified from answering this question because I do not consider myself to be a heterosexual, even though I am in a very loving and strong heterosexual marriage. I also do not consider myself to be a homosexual or any other “sexual” as these labels are commonly applied. In fact I do not believe these labels can be or should ever be applied to any human being. Our sexuality is much more complicated and nuanced than these simple labels allow for.

Before I begin explaining the choices and experiences in my life that have shaped my sexuality, I would like to begin with a simple thought experiment. Before you dismiss a thought experiment out of hand you should know that it is a very useful scientific technique which has led to many scientific discoveries including Einstein’s theory of special relativity.

Let us examine how humans develop their attractions by proposing a thought experiment about chocolate.

I will make a single assumption in this thought experiment:

1. You are not allergic to chocolate; this would greatly alter the thought experiment in a way that is not useful, because it would offer an immediate negative feedback.
   

Let us suppose that you have never been exposed to chocolate in any form. An acquaintance of yours offers you a piece of chocolate. In the instant you take your first bite of chocolate you have very little control over whether you find the chocolate appealing or not. Your experience is influenced by your culture, your feelings toward your acquaintance, the occasion on which the chocolate was given, your physical response to the chocolate, and many other influences.

Let us now suppose that you did not find the chocolate appealing. Does this mean that you will never find chocolate appealing? No, everyone can develop an appreciation for chocolate. Some will develop a strong affinity for chocolate, others will to a lesser extent, but all can learn to enjoy it. Perhaps the piece of chocolate given to you by your acquaintance was simply not a very good piece of chocolate, and you would find a different piece more enjoyable.

Let us suppose that on the initial encounter you did enjoy the chocolate. The natural response to this experience would be to seek out more chocolate with some seeking more vigorously than others. You may ask your acquaintance for more chocolate, or you may ask where to find more. You may try to share the chocolate with others, and will feel closer to them when they also enjoy it. You may begin to incorporate chocolate into your desserts, and make it a regular part of your life.

These responses all seem natural to me and I have experienced just this when I have been exposed to new foods that I enjoy.

Let us now suppose that after you have developed an affinity for chocolate and incorporated it into your life, a religion to which you belong or are seeking to belong incorporates a ban on chocolate into their theology. Leaving theology aside would you be able to replace your affinity for chocolate with feelings of distaste?

I contend that it would be nearly impossible if not completely impossible to feel distaste for chocolate if you have incorporated it into your life as described above.

Think about this for a minute for those of you who enjoy chocolate as I do, would it be possible for you to view chocolate (in general) as unappetizing? Unless you have substantially greater will power than I do I suspect that the honest answer is no.

Let me ask another question. For those of you who enjoy chocolate, could you completely abstain from eating chocolate for one reason or another?

This is an entirely different question, and my answer to this question is unequivocally yes. There are a number of reasons and circumstances under which I could completely abstain from chocolate. It would not be easy, and it would not greatly alter my appreciation for chocolate (at least initially), but I believe I could do it.

Returning to the thought experiment, let us suppose that the religion in question while banning chocolate encourages the use of vanilla. Given your previous affinity for chocolate would it be possible to grow to appreciate vanilla in a similar manner?

I believe the answer to this question is yes. Some will instantly take to vanilla, some will require more encouraging, but overtime all could learn to appreciate it and incorporate it into their lives. They will have to go through the same experiences with vanilla that they went through with chocolate in order to gain the same level of appreciation.

Will this replace the affinity for chocolate? No it will not, the desire to eat chocolate will still be there. For some they will find that they enjoy vanilla more than they did chocolate, for others they will always prefer chocolate, while simultaneously enjoying the vanilla they are experiencing.

A big obstacle in learning to enjoy vanilla would be a propensity to compare every vanilla dessert to one made of chocolate. This might lead to feelings of dissatisfaction with vanilla and with the religion for encouraging you to eat a substance that you may not enjoy as much as chocolate. The continued thoughts of chocolate would also make it much more difficult to continue to abstain from eating chocolate.

Let us now go back to the beginning and suppose that the issue with the religion banning chocolate had occurred just after you had taken your first bite of chocolate, or before you had ever been offered chocolate. Would it be as difficult for you to abstain from chocolate as it had been in the previous example?

The answer obviously is no. You would not have gone through the same level of experiences as previously described. You would not have made chocolate a part of your life. You would not have had experiences with others in which you shared chocolate with them and become closer to them because of such. You would be able to enjoy your vanilla without the dissatisfaction some may feel even if you were one of those who would have instantly loved chocolate.

I think the parallels I was trying to make between desserts and sexuality were pretty straight forward and obvious. Perhaps this has not been as valuable a thought exercise to you as it has been to me, but it has helped me put my thoughts and experiences in a better context.

I believe that our sexuality is affected by a number of internal as well as external influences, and is not something we are innately born with. The experiences that we have, and how we choose to respond to those experiences determine in a large part what we will be sexually attracted to. Some people will naturally respond more favorably to some attractions than others, but I do not believe they are “predestined” to have these attractions. They have to be exposed to these attractions, and have a favorable experience with them. In some way they have to incorporate these attractions into their lives if only through thought and desire. Once they have done this it will be very difficult to view these attractions unfavorably. They can develop other attractions, but it will not replace the previous ones. The same level of commitment must be expended on the new attraction in order to receive the same return as the old, and maybe more commitment if the new attraction is not as naturally appealing.

I believe all of us could develop sexual attractions for someone of the same or opposite sex based upon our experiences and how we choose to respond to them. Before you begin to protest let me share with you something I learned in a University course on Greek History which changed my thinking on the subject.

My background is in science and engineering, and I have spent nearly 12 years studying at Universities. As part of my general education I took a course in Greek History, which I found to be interesting and a nice break from my usual schedule.

As part of the course we studied the City-States of Sparta and Athens very extensively. I am sure you are somewhat familiar with these names, and the name Spartans in particular carries very strong connotations. The Spartans, whom many hold up as the epitome of heterosexual manliness, are believed by most scholars to have all engaged in homosexual activities. I remember the day very vividly when the professor stood in the front of the class and told all males in attendance that if they had been born in Sparta in ancient Greece they would have been homosexuals. This was something I had not considered, and I could only come up with three possible conclusions to explain this:

1. The historians, archaeologist, and anthropologist got this fact completely wrong. This is an idea I could support. Coming from a science and engineering background I find those three disciplines to be very speculative. If you choose to support this idea think about what that does to the claims that the Book of Mormon can be either supported or disproved through archaeology.
   
2. By some random quirk of nature all males born in Sparta during a certain period of time were born gay. I do not find this at all plausible.
   
3. lOur culture and our experiences in that culture strongly affect our sexuality. After thinking about this for a number of years and comparing my life experiences I believe this is the most logical conclusion.
   

An interesting side note about the Spartans is that they did not view homosexual relationships as being detrimental to heterosexual relationships. All the men were expected to eat both chocolate and vanilla cake as it were. I think the phenomenon we see in our culture where we prefer one sex or the other exclusively is entirely a self-imposed barrier. I also think the personality traits many ascribe to “homosexuals” are artifacts of our culture and have nothing to do with homosexual relationships in general.

Now, after that long winded explanation, back to the original question, when did I choose to engage in a heterosexual relationship rather than a homosexual one?

The answer is little choices throughout my life in response to experiences I passed through, and every day of my life since I have been married.

I do not believe I was born a “heterosexual”, but little by little I have come to enjoy heterosexual interactions building to the relationship I have now with my wife. I believe if things had been different in my life and if I had been exposed to different experiences I could have grown to enjoy homosexual relationships.

Things did not always come easily or naturally for me in heterosexual relationships. I remember when I was young being very scared to hold someone’s hand. I remember when I finally did it I didn’t really like the experience and remember thinking “Why did my friends pressure me into this?” I remember the first time someone kissed me and I was completely shocked. Notice I said someone kissed me, and not the other way around. I was 15 and at a party and a girl with whom I was acquainted kissed me out of the blue. In the words of Clark Griswold “If I woke up tomorrow with my head sewn to the carpet, I wouldn’t be more surprised than I am right now.” I previously had no interest in her, or in anyone for that matter, but again because of the influence of friends I chose to pursue a relationship with her. The relationship was still awkward and unnatural to me at times, but I had moved beyond being scared to hold hands.

As I continued on to High School, there was a group of guys who were considered very “cool” and popular. It was a group of guys I wanted to be around. I guess you could say I had a crush or a “man-crush” on them. I did what I could to become their friends and soon was a regular member of their group. It became apparent very quickly that their sexuality was different than what I was used to. At first it was very awkward for me, but I soon began to conform to them and I felt more comfortable. They did not engage in homosexual behaviors, but if they had I think there is a very good chance I would have as well. It would have been awkward at first, but I probably would have adapted to it just like some of the other behaviors of theirs I mimicked, including getting arrested once for a very stupid reason which I will not mention.

I served a mission for the Church in Brazil (hence the Portuguese screen name) and that had some interesting affects on my sexuality. I became even more awkward and scared of girls. Upon returning home, the awkwardness did not immediately vanish, but once again through encouragement from friends and family I went on a few dates. They did not go so well, so I decided to put off dating for a while and focus on my studies.

After a while I think my family got worried and eventually I was setup on a blind date by my cousin. I canceled the date once, before finally agreeing to go through with it. That has been the best decision of my life as I met the kindest, smartest, most beautiful women in existence on that blind date, and later somehow persuaded her to become my wife.

Things always went more smoothly with my wife than they had with other women, yet I still had to grow more comfortable with intimacy little by little. In a very real sense my sexuality was still in the same state it had been in while I was in High School, after awaking from a two year slumber. Some of the immature thoughts and desires I had caused some early growing pains in our marriage, but over the years slowly but surely my wife and have grown to have a very healthy heterosexual relationship. It was not one decision, but lots of little decisions over the course of my life.

I recently read the 2012 FAIR Conference presentation by Joshua Johanson in which the following quote is found:

“I was never attracted to girls, until Alyssa came into my life. I met her at a dance and we hit it off immediately. The more time I spent with her, the more we fell in love. Then, I started wanting to kiss her, like a lot. I wanted to do more. I had never had those feelings for a woman before, and she remains the only woman to whom I am sexually attracted. We got married in the Oakland temple and have enjoyed an incredibly happy and sexually fulfilling relationship ever since.”

What struck me about this quote was not how odd it was that a person with same-sex attractions would be saying this, but how normal it was that a man would be describing his road to a heterosexual relationship in these terms. We all have to go through this at some point on our road to a heterosexual relationship. Joshua just never went through it until after he had developed previous attractions for men.

At least for me, being in a heterosexual relationship did not come naturally, it came slowly and awkwardly, line upon line precept upon precept…..

A brave and well-written post and I think I pretty much agree with you.

As one who has become pretty much a vegetarian (not quite fully converted yet but working on it) I can tell you that you end up liking what you always eat. I thought it would never be possible for me to find a juicy cheeseburger disgusting- but indeed it has happened!

It was quite popular in the '60's to believe that pretty much everyone was bi-sexual and could "go either way", but I think that view has now changed due to political correctness more than anything. All you have to do is listen to some music of the era to verify that.

In fact, all that was part and parcel of the early "women's movement"- that men and women were not only equal, but that there were no differences between the sexes, and in the spirit of "peace and love" just about anything could and did happen.

It's totally ironic, I think that it is now politically correct to believe that all that is bunk and that sexual preferences are inborn. It is the total opposite of the original view, and ultimately a denial of agency. And yes I do mean agency as a synonym for "choice".

Oh well- I guess that is the cost of "progress" in correctness- the loss of choice in every aspect of life.

[mfbukowski]

In the instant we are presented with a stimuli can we choose how we respond physically to that stimuli? No, I do not believe we can. At that instant in time our physical response is governed by the sum total of who we are in that instant. We can however make choices in response to that stimuli, that change who we are as a person.

I find it useful to make a distinction between how we "react" to a situation and how we "respond". To me, a reaction is an uncontrolled instant reaction to some stimuli. A guy cuts you off on the highway, you yell or give him a "salute". Someone insults you and you respond in kind.

This is the natural man.

But as we grow, we learn to be less reactive and instead to respond in a Christ-like manner where the natural man recedes, hopefully, and a new nature of our choice is created. It is the essence of what is called self-determination: we choose what determines our choices and we stick to those decisions. When we are baptized, we give up the beer and the coffee because we have determined for ourselves that we want to do that, no matter how much our bodies crave it, especially at first.

This is the essence of repentance and keeping the commandments, and so, slowly we leave the natural man behind and move along the path to becoming Christlike.

But if we deny from the beginning that choice has anything to do with this- we deny our responsibility for our own body's reactions to stimuli, and I think that is essentially contradictory to the gospel.

The reason we fast is not to make us thin and give money to the poor- it is to give the spirit control over the body- or in other words, to choose what we want to become and take responsibility for our choices instead of being blown around like a leaf in a hurricane.

We are here to be agents and to act, and not be acted upon by any stimulus which crosses our path.

Anyway that's what I think.

Edited August 27, 2012 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

My only objection to the OP is that I find the general categorizations of sexuality to be useful to the study and progress of human nature even given the malleability of human sexuality and the blurring of lines, though I don't view the nature/nurture debate to be all that helpful. To me, these general categorizations actually make discussion of human sexuality somewhat feasible. They also make it possible for us to compare and contrast and determine what may be best, not only from a religious perspective, but from a secular (evolutionary/best practices) perspective as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[guerreiro9]

My only objection to the OP is that I find the general categorizations of sexuality to be useful to the study and progress of human nature

I do not object to the labels from a clinical sense, and agree that they could be useful in reducing a complicated sample space to a manageable subset. I do object to how they are commonly applied, and the stereotypes which they same to portray. I think one of the things that is happening is people are adjusting their sexuality to conform to the pre-defined labels. So the labels rather than being used as an objective means to study a phenomenon, are in some senses the catalyst for the phenomenon itself. It is impossible to measure a phenomenon without affecting that phenomenon, but when your measuring technique begins to become a dominate stimulus ........ well you may need to rethink your test setup.

Edited August 27, 2012 by guerreiro9

[Hamba Tuhan]

I think one of the things that is happening is people are adjusting their sexuality to conform to the pre-defined labels. So the labels rather than being used as an objective means to study a phenomenon, are in some senses the catalyst for the phenomenon itself.

I have absolutely watched this happen outside the West as a consequence of Hollywood's aggressive exportation of certain reified labels/types.

[Chaos]

No sex threads please.