Maidservant Posted July 21, 2018 Posted July 21, 2018 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: Really? Not trying to be confrontational, but where do you get this idea? Can you really trace the history back to slavery? Do you know what the dream of the carnal man is? It is to have sex with as many women as he can, without any obligation, especially without the obligation to support a woman who happens to get pregnant by him. Marriage puts the screws to that dream, and is potentially the savior of women, and of the human race itself. This is because it is darned difficult to successfully raise children without stable homes, especially back when we didn't have all these fine social institutions. Another thread, I suppose :). 1
USU78 Posted July 21, 2018 Posted July 21, 2018 13 hours ago, california boy said: As is always the case the objectivity of her data all depends on the questions that were asked. Have you ever had sex with someone of the opposite sex. Have you ever kissed someone of the opposite sex. Have you ever had a crush on someone of the opposite sex. Have you ever thought about having a romantic relationship with someone of the opposite sex. I could answer yes to every single one of those questions, yet I am in no way fluid in my sexual orientation. The conclusions she would draw about my sexuality would absolutely be completely inaccurate with my reality. My response to her study? WHO CARES what the study suggests or her conclusions are. It doesn't change my orientation one single bit any more than if a study came out that had data telling you that you should be more attracted to women and the happiest relationship you could have would be with a woman. Would that study somehow change your feelings towards men? Would it mean that all the sudden you should not have the right to marry who you want? Should you conform your life to this study, divorce your husband and marry a woman? Should you give up your civil rights because of that study? Just what do you think the impact on the LGBT community should be? Should they all the sudden believe it or they are just stupid because the "science" tells them something that they don't believe or experience? Can anyone honestly say that sexual orientation is just an idol choice a person makes when so many LGBT pay such a high price for their attractions? Is it just a matter of choice for the man thrown off the roof of a building for being gay? Or the regularly reported stabbings, muggings, shootings that happen simply because the person is gay? Do you think this study will make them reconsider being gay? Do you think those that survive these hate crimes decide it is just not worth it to choose to be gay and they should be more fluid in their sexual orientation? Does a Mormon decide to be celibate his whole life because he is just not willing to explore his fluid side of sexuality? Honestly, you could show me a stack load of studies that tell me I shouldn't be gay and if I wanted to bad enough I could be attracted to women. It wouldn't make one bit of difference. Besides the fact that I could probably show you a stack twice the size that says that sexual orientation is immutable. And even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, so what? Does anyone else get the right to tell someone how they should live their lives and who they should love? What exactly do you want to discuss? Bringing up these studies that are impossible to prove only stir up contention. If that is your purpose, then stand back and watch this thread over the next couple of weeks as straight Mormons tell gay men who they should be attracted to and what civil rights should be taken away from them. Who cares? You should, since you cannot possibly anticipate which behavior-based identity group might just come along whose civil rights trump your constitutional rights. That's pretty poignant sauce on that gander. 1
SteveO Posted July 21, 2018 Posted July 21, 2018 7 hours ago, BlueDreams said: Just finished listening to it as I cooked. It's very interesting, and does fit what I've seen in other research/therapeutic circles...as well as some cultural shifts in descriptions in sexuality (or growing trends to not label one's sexuality period). So I'm not 100% surprised. It ties in with changes in how people explore sexuality. For example, when questions of sexual attractions come up, I don't pull up a binary scale that focuses heavily on a broad consensus of sexual attraction. Instead I prefer using one that focuses on exploring different avenues or sexual attraction (erotic, social, romantic, and aesthetic). It gives greater freedom to not necessarily see their attractions as alligning with a specific camp, but just as is and that at times varying areas in it may change or be effected by our experiences or not change much at all. Best practices therapy is also focusing when helping a person in their explorations of themselves, to not negate equally important areas of their personhood that may have points of conflict with their sexual inclinations. In essence such research is a growing backbone to how to best meet the needs of this population. I think the basic argument is tied to the sense of medicalization (and historical pathologization) around sexuality. The labels and use around sexuality are difficult because at one point, to be gay was viewed as a psychological disorder. In layman use of the term SSA, the dialogue can still infer inherent struggles with or a problem. It can also be as a tool to force a comfort with hetero or hoophobic populations who may be uncomfortable acknowledging the importance of their sexuality in their life. At the same time, those who see the labels gay, bi, or lesbian as not just a sexual, but a cultural/political identity of sorts, may also not be comfortable with these labels as their life experience doesn't fit it. As a therapist for largely mormon populations I definitely care. It doesn't change your sexual orientation one bit. The research she highlights also doesn't negate that there are those (particularly men) that are definitely not sexually fluid. But the numbers indicate that those who often feel the heavier brunt of emotional disturbances, hate crimes, and discrimination aren't those who are exclusively gay or lesbian but the larger population of people who may be better described as bi or sexually fluid. IF our goal as community (LGBT, Mormon, or otherwise) is to help people live safe and secure and thriving lives, then it is important to not have blindspots. On an LGBT rights side, by focusing on a message of fate made me this way and my expression in sexuality is fairly determined, it can inadvertently leave a huge gaping hole in argumentation for relatively new rights in a court that's looking to veer conservative in the near future. That could be a serious problem. I don't think that it's the only argument out there, and that their is a way to still have said rights while acknowledging that the the community my by more lgB than LGb. But if those aren't utilized, it could erode not just an argument for marriage but other rights, such as equal housing clauses. On a mormon stance, I think it's very important as well. In no way do I want this research to lead to absolutist choice arguments as well. (The principle of agency will never be the same to me as absolute choice of circumstance...that's certifiably false to me). But LGBT populations are different with other minority groups in the sense that their community is made by identity not inherited by family ties. Many people who may not label themselves as LGB or find that label secondary to their religious identity are effected by this.....and that choice of identity (not orientation or propensity for fluidity) needs to be apart of how we think and interact with those in our community with our spiritual beliefs around marriage and relationships. I find some positivist avenues that are easily within the doctrinal constrains of mormonism, that would still move us to a more inclusive and safer environment for what may often be a very hidden minority...especially if they do not fully ascribe to an LG identity. There could be a greater acceptance that these feeling or desires do not make you weird or a pariah. There are likely many straight-ID people who to some extent have empathy. It can open "straight" people to be more open that their sexuality hasn't been all that straight forward in the past or present, even if their current circumstance suggests otherwise. It could lead to changes about how we teach about building the church and kingdom of God. With less of a focus on just those who enter a sealing marriage, but those who also build in equally important and needed ways. To focus less on striving for a specific status or goal, but a deep relationship with God and serving in your community through the experiences that one has. And that all could be added to as opposed to replace with the greater acknowledgment that for some, just as there are straight people with no to little orientation outside the opposite sex, there are plenty who cannot and will not be happy in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. That we shouldn't and can't force someone's sexuality to fit our expectations and that we should still show love and care to those who's ultimate decisions may take them outside of regular church experiences. The problem I see with both communities is that the identity of sexual orientation and religious identity is still very separated and judged from both sides in different ways. And I think that comes from trying to find an ultimate truth and static perspective on both the gospel and one's sexuality. It leads to those who are in the gray to feel out of sorts and alienated in black and white dichotomies. There is also research (not yet published or through the pipeline) that I heard of recently that is focusing on several relational choices lived by people (married to opposite sex, celebate, single with no set part...but not celebate, married to same sex) by those who experience SSA in some way and are happy/satisfied with their expressions. It will focus on what patterns do they have that could be better guideposts for those who are wanting to make such a decision (for each category) or what may not work in said situations as well. I hope by moving away from a black/white - fate/will -right/wrong narrative, we can focus on what's more important to me: how we can best support and love those around us, even if we disagree? How can we disagree more amiably and without the collateral of human life? You're right though CA, this place has a tendency to have these conversations to degrade and fall into camps. I don't tend to talk about this here because in the end it feels counterproductive and a match for who's really really right in the end while throwing out words and phrases that are microagressive if not blatantly homophobic or discriminatory. But who knows, maybe for a minute there could be some nuance and acknowledgement of diversity in experience and results. I'm ever the optimist With luv, BD With luv, BD I don't know how much you want or can divulge, but what counsel would you offer a client who was a member of the church, identified as gay, and wanted to reconcile the two, but was having an awful time with it?
Calm Posted July 21, 2018 Author Posted July 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Maidservant said: Another thread, I suppose :). Thank you.
Calm Posted July 21, 2018 Author Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, SteveO said: I don't know how much you want or can divulge, but what counsel would you offer a client who was a member of the church, identified as gay, and wanted to reconcile the two, but was having an awful time with it? That is too vague imo. One needs to know an individual's paradigms and possibilities why they aren't reconciling first before one can make suggestions to change. BTW, FairMormon conference will have a presentation that might be useful for you. Edited July 21, 2018 by Calm 2
Tacenda Posted July 21, 2018 Posted July 21, 2018 3 hours ago, Calm said: Tac, for me it is not about liking or disliking the label, but the boxes those labels put us into and the potential for harm when the box doesn't fit or people realize the box is just a social construct that can easily be changed ( I am talking about changing labels, not behaviours the labels are attached to, which may be difficult or impossible to change). I am currently leaning towards preferring an emphasis on sexual expression rather than orientation (always prefer measures of behaviour over internal states). A close analogy imo would be language, whether one uses English, Spanish, etc and all variations of bilingualism. One can look at "native language" which would be the one that we naturally think in and have no recollection of how we learned it or at least for most any choice not to use it to either think or interact with others. People should have the right, for example, imo to speak the language they are most comfortable with. I am not sure of what all the laws apply to accessibility to language, but I do know there have been a few similar controversies and it has been politicize in several countries I am aware of (I had someone from Quebec refuse to speak to me in English until he found out I was from the States and so never should have learned basic French in school, understandable because of the long history that French was suppressed in Canada, but still problematic imo). The argument that if you move to a country, you should learn the language, for example, ignores how that may be impossible for some people...like me, I might be able to learn to read (recognize how others are using it), but hearing it, no way. And speaking as in communicating my own ideas...stock phrases. What little language fluidity I had in high school and college was long gone by the time I hit French in Canada and Russian in Moscow. Expecting older immigrants to suddenly be fluent or even barring people from a country because they can't speak the official language is just wrong, imo....and most people would recognize that as nonsense I hope. Totally agree, I fear for people that live in the US and speak another language, people can be crazy sometimes if you don't speak English, and they forget we do live in a melting pot.
Calm Posted July 21, 2018 Author Posted July 21, 2018 Quote I could answer yes to every single one of those questions, yet I am in no way fluid in my sexual orientation. The conclusions she would draw about my sexuality would absolutely be completely inaccurate with myreality. I think there may be some misunderstanding here as she measures fluidity not be just asking if such has ever happened above with one questionnaire for one set of people, but asks about in the last year as well as analyzed questions that were asked over time from massive studies. She was looking at patterns of sexual behaviour, not snapshots, of groups and the results did not exclude sny range of behaviour as nonexistent, including those with immutable attraction and behaviour, so while it may help inform, it certainly doesn't lock any individual into a definite pattern. What she showed was the majority were more fluid than expected, not that every last individual is fluid. 1
california boy Posted July 21, 2018 Posted July 21, 2018 5 hours ago, Calm said: I think there may be some misunderstanding here as she measures fluidity not be just asking if such has ever happened above with one questionnaire for one set of people, but asks about in the last year as well as analyzed questions that were asked over time from massive studies. She was looking at patterns of sexual behaviour, not snapshots, of groups and the results did not exclude sny range of behaviour as nonexistent, including those with immutable attraction and behaviour, so while it may help inform, it certainly doesn't lock any individual into a definite pattern. What she showed was the majority were more fluid than expected, not that every last individual is fluid. We don't really know what all her criteria is for the conclusions she drew. We do know that she is saying that some people are immutable in their orientation, She is only saying that based on the types of questions she asked, she believes that sexuality is more fluid than she previously thought. We don't even know what she means by fluidity. Is it a one time experience. Could it be a long term commitment? Are people just more open to experimentation than previously thought? Until you know all the questions, the criteria and the way the person is interpreting the question that is taking the survey, I don't believe you can support OR refute her conclusions. Has this study even been peer reviewed? Until more is known about the actual study, is all that can be conclusively said at this point is that it is an interesting talk with some interesting ideas. She draws the conclusion that because sex is more fluid than she perviously thought based on the questions she asked, that it could affect future legal rulings. BUT, since she clearly states that there is a percentage with immutable sexual orientations, I am not sure that is even a valid statement to make. Perhaps that is why the Supreme Court did not seem all that interested in her studies in the cases that have come before them so far.
Calm Posted July 22, 2018 Author Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) Her CV stops at 2012 (probably because she got full professorship and stop bothering about it (I have noticed that happen before), but up till then she has a lot of recognition and contributes to sections on sexual fluidity for a number of handbooks, so she appears pretty mainstream and respected to me. https://psych.utah.edu/_documents/people/diamond/diamond-lisa-cv.pdf For example, she is one of the editors in chief for the APA Handbook on sexuality: http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4311512.aspx Edited July 22, 2018 by Calm 1
Calm Posted July 22, 2018 Author Posted July 22, 2018 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2016.1139665 Quote We review scientific research and legal authorities to argue that the immutability of sexual orientation should no longer be invoked as a foundation for the rights of individuals with same-sex attractions and relationships (i.e., sexual minorities). On the basis of scientific research as well as U.S. legal rulings regarding lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) rights, we make three claims: First, arguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unscientific, given what we now know from longitudinal, population-based studies of naturally occurring changes in the same-sex attractions of some individuals over time. Second, arguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unnecessary, in light of U.S. legal decisions in which courts have used grounds other than immutability to protect the rights of sexual minorities. Third, arguments about the immutability of sexual orientation are unjust, because they imply that same-sex attractions are inferior to other-sex attractions, and because they privilege sexual minorities who experience their sexuality as fixed over those who experience their sexuality as fluid. We conclude that the legal rights of individuals with same-sex attractions and relationships should not be framed as if they depend on a certain pattern of scientific findings regarding sexual orientation 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 22, 2018 Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) The idea that sexual fluidity is more common than previously believed — wasn’t that one of the points in that study published a couple of years ago out of Johns Hopkins University, the one that was so loudly condemned, including by some on this board? http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68150-recent-study-on-gender-and-sexuality/ Edited July 22, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
california boy Posted July 22, 2018 Posted July 22, 2018 5 hours ago, Calm said: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2016.1139665 Are you not going to acknowledge that she did say that sexual orientation appears to be immutable among some heterosexuals and homosexuals? If that is the case, then how can anyone possibly state legally that sexual orientation is fluid. Certainly you can say it is fluid in some cases. Or that it is more fluid that previously believed. But it seems that is about all you can say. And since she doesn't define what her definition of what fluid even means, how can one even judge her findings and what she actually means? That is all I am saying.
Calm Posted July 22, 2018 Author Posted July 22, 2018 25 minutes ago, california boy said: Are you not going to acknowledge that she did say that sexual orientation appears to be immutable among some heterosexuals and homosexuals? Apparently you are not reading my posts that closely: ”She was looking at patterns of sexual behaviour, not snapshots, of groups and the results did not exclude sny range of behaviour as nonexistent, including those with immutable attraction and behaviour, “ 1
Calm Posted July 22, 2018 Author Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) Quote If that is the case, then how can anyone possibly state legally that sexual orientation is fluid. Certainly you can say it is fluid in some cases. Or that it is more fluid that previously believed. But it seems that is about all you can say. The legal problem imo is if you establish law based on immutability and it doesn’t apply to any but a small percentage of those with same sex attraction (less than 2% of men iirc, can’t remember the one for women), then the majority of those with same sex attraction will be left unprotected. The 2002 studyshe cites only 5% of same sex attracted women as exclusive, so if immutability is required to qualify for any legal rights or protection, that leaves 95% without legal safeguard, with men it is 21% exclusive, so 79% at risk if laws are written in terms of immutability, if social conversation only addresses the need of the supposed moral group that is actually the least populous. Better law founded on something besides Immutability and lack of diversity needs to be established. Also needed are better politics that drop “born that way” as a general approach so that those with more fluid expressions are also still protected from discrimination, hate crime, get appropriate health care. She also defines sexual fluidity starting at about 4:35. She then stated what she is reexamining in her research to see if assumptions and previous conclusions are accurate about 8:50 and identifies the Three Pillars of Sexual Fluidity. So I am not sure why you are saying she doesn’t define it. Edited July 22, 2018 by Calm 2
california boy Posted July 22, 2018 Posted July 22, 2018 28 minutes ago, Calm said: Apparently you are not reading my posts that closely: ”She was looking at patterns of sexual behaviour, not snapshots, of groups and the results did not exclude sny range of behaviour as nonexistent, including those with immutable attraction and behaviour, “ Apparently you are not reading. my posts. We have no idea what questions were asked to determine those patterns of sexual behavior. And you are also not reading the part where I am agreeing that she is acknowledging immutable attraction and behavior. What I am asking is given that opinion, why is that still not a defensible legal argument in deciding these cases?
california boy Posted July 22, 2018 Posted July 22, 2018 The implications of her study is that most of the members on this board are fluid in their sexual identity. It certainly gives me a different perspective of who some of the prominent members of this board that are constantly fighting against the rights of those who fluidly identify as gay. Maybe we should do a poll on this site and ask the question, "Are you fluid in your sexual orientation?" Do you think we would get the same results as her study?
Calm Posted July 22, 2018 Author Posted July 22, 2018 10 minutes ago, california boy said: Apparently you are not reading. my posts. We have no idea what questions were asked to determine those patterns of sexual behavior. And you are also not reading the part where I am agreeing that she is acknowledging immutable attraction and behavior. What I am asking is given that opinion, why is that still not a defensible legal argument in deciding these cases? Because it leaves out the vast majority of same sex attracted people or do you believe that civil rights and such should only be applied to the cases of exclusive attractions?
Calm Posted July 22, 2018 Author Posted July 22, 2018 14 minutes ago, california boy said: The implications of her study is that most of the members on this board are fluid in their sexual identity. Not really....She did not deal with exclusive heterosexual which was 93% for men and 86% for women in the 2002 study in her description of the massive tests as she found them “boring”. Iirc in her own research that compare opposite to same sex attracted, there was some fluidity but it was as still a minority for only OS men. 1
Calm Posted July 22, 2018 Author Posted July 22, 2018 Perhaps it would be helpful to show what concerns and limits she placed on the use of her research (and at this point I see no reason to disagree with her): I have never suggested fluidity is equivalent to choice in my comments, btw. Perhaps there is some confusion there because others have. 2
Calm Posted July 22, 2018 Author Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, california boy said: Apparently you are not reading. my posts. We have no idea what questions were asked to determine those patterns of sexual behavior. And you are also not reading the part where I am agreeing that she is acknowledging immutable attraction and behavior. What I am asking is given that opinion, why is that still not a defensible legal argument in deciding these cases? She gives several examples of the types of questions she asks, which are label free and behaviour and attraction based. I am looking for the corresponding study that will hopefully have a fuller listing of questions, but am trying to adjust my bedtime so that will have to continue tomorrow. BTW, this is what you asked me when I stated you were not reading my posts closely...it was not about what she said, but what I had said. California boy: Quote Are you not going to acknowledge that she did say that sexual orientation appears to be immutable among some heterosexuals and homosexuals? Since I had already pointed out that she included a category of immutable, asking me this would seem to indicate you missed me saying it. It was not bout her saying it or you saying she said it. Edited July 22, 2018 by Calm 1
california boy Posted July 22, 2018 Posted July 22, 2018 10 minutes ago, Calm said: Because it leaves out the vast majority of same sex attracted people or do you believe that civil rights and such should only be applied to the cases of exclusive attractions? I believe the Supreme Court was affirming that every American has constitutional rights guaranteed them. How they identify sexually is irrelevant. Why would it matter at all? The ruling on marriage did not apply strictly to those who have immutable attraction to the same sex. It basically said that every person has a right to marry who they want unless there is compelling evidence that would prevent such marriages. There was not enough compelling evidence offered including this study evidently, to deny that constitutional right.
california boy Posted July 22, 2018 Posted July 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, Calm said: Not really....She did not deal with exclusive heterosexual which was 93% for men and 86% for women in the 2002 study in her description of the massive tests as she found them “boring”. Iirc in her own research that compare opposite to same sex attracted, there was some fluidity but it was as still a minority for only OS men. Maybe you watched a different video than me. She included those that identify as heterosexual in just about every graph showing that group was just as fluid in their sexuality.
Calm Posted July 22, 2018 Author Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, california boy said: I believe the Supreme Court was affirming that every American has constitutional rights guaranteed them. How they identify sexually is irrelevant. Why would it matter at all? The ruling on marriage did not apply strictly to those who have immutable attraction to the same sex. It basically said that every person has a right to marry who they want unless there is compelling evidence that would prevent such marriages. There was not enough compelling evidence offered including this study evidently, to deny that constitutional right. There are other laws that deal with discrimination besides the Federal same sex marriage ruling and other countries besides the US. Edited July 22, 2018 by Calm 1
Calm Posted July 22, 2018 Author Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, california boy said: Maybe you watched a different video than me. She included those that identify as heterosexual in just about every graph showing that group was just as fluid in their sexuality. The first half is an analysis of previous large scale and longitudinal studies. She does not report the only opposite sex on those, that is where she pulls population numbers from. Her study isn't as large which starts about halfway through, so I trust the other numbers more for speaking in terms of global population. I am 20 minutes past my deadline....tomorrow. one more...see graph at 24 minutes for men...heterosexual men consistent with their label are a large majority. at 28 mins, 50% OSA labeled women reported SSA the previous year, 25% OSA men reported SSA "most members of the board" is an overstatement, but imo, it is imo an overstatement because of our cultural influences and not because of how we were constructed at the moment of our birth. Edited July 22, 2018 by Calm 1
california boy Posted July 22, 2018 Posted July 22, 2018 Perhaps I am making a bigger issue with the problems I see in her presentation than is warranted. Like I said at the beginning, I really don't care what conclusions she feels her study indicates. It doesn't really apply to me. I am absolutely clear that my sexual orientation is not fluid. How others feel about their sexual orientation, I will leave to them. Yes she does give a few examples of her questions. If she is basing her entire conclusions on those few questions she presented, then fine. I personally don't think you can determine someone's sexual fluidity based on those few questions. But I guess I have different criteria on what constitutes sexual orientation. While I find parts of her study interesting, I think she is making some big leaps in her conclusions that she has drawn. Particularly her legal opinion of immutable orientation being something that should not be relied upon when legal issues come up. If she expects me to agree that sexual exploration is more rampant than some believe, then I would think she has made a good case for that, though, actually I am not that surprised. I have known straight guys that have participated in homosexual activities. Does that make them sexually fluid? Or does that just make them someone who is willing to experiment? Certainly when I talk to them, they identify as being totally straight. They certainly have no romantic attraction to men. I am guessing the same scenario works with gay men and women as well. And of course, bisexuality is also a possibility. with some part of the population. Thanks for expressing your point of view. It is always interesting to me to hear from you.
Recommended Posts