Jump to content

Aversion Therapy at BYU


Recommended Posts

If the church is so against pornography why would BYU show it to the student that is gay? In the article below. Talk about hypocritical thinking. Apologize church! 

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story?id=13240700

"A mercury-filled tube was placed around the base of his penis to measure the level of stimulation he experienced when viewing nude images of men and women."

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

If the church is so against pornography why would BYU show it to the student that is gay? In the article below. Talk about hypocritical thinking. Apologize church! 

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story?id=13240700

"A mercury-filled tube was placed around the base of his penis to measure the level of stimulation he experienced when viewing nude images of men and women."

The church didn’t show it to anyone. 

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

why would BYU show it to the student that is gay?

Do you believe any nudity is porn or would there be some cases that might not qualify?  Since we can’t see the pictures, they may not have been porn technically, though the purpose was to arouse to at least some level or there would be no chance of finding differences, so maybe whether or not porn is irrelevant.

Quote

The materials used in the study consisted of nude pictures of men and women and pictures of clothed men and women taken from current fashion magazines. None of the pictures displayed or even implied sexual acts. 

Since the intent was to see if clothed pictures could be as useful, this might be similar to a study of marijuana and a drug that removed the high but duplicated other effects.  In order to determine if the drug was as effective, some patients would need to take marijuana.  Would you view such an experience as breaking the word of wisdom?  I can see both positions.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe any nudity is porn or would there be some cases that might not qualify?  Since we can’t see the pictures, they may not have been porn technically, though the purpose was to arouse to at least some level or there would be no chance of finding differences, so maybe whether or not porn is irrelevant.

Since the intent was to see if clothed pictures could be as useful, this might be similar to a study of marijuana and a drug that removed the high but duplicated other effects.  In order to determine if the drug was as effective, some patients would need to take marijuana.  Would you view such an experience as breaking the word of wisdom?  I can see both positions.

The problem I have is, that relationships are much more than sex. It sometimes feels the church is consumed by that word. I guess I'm not much of a sexual person, my poor husband. But yes, pictures are likely to do something, of both sexes. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, california boy said:

 

It is 2:14 in the morning.  I just can't sleep.  This whole thread has triggered the same hurt and anger that I feel towards the Church on how it treats the LGBT community.  What these men went through is horrific.  However, it is in the past.  It can not be undone.  What could be changed is an effort to help these men recover from what they experienced.  That should now be the focus on putting this event in the past.  Rather than read about a thread that tries to whitewash, justify and downplay what happened, I would rather read about how the Church has apologized and did everything they could to help these men get past what happened, that the Church paid for therapy and asked for forgiveness and did all it could to help heal the pain.   I would rather read about members on this thread being understanding and showing some empathy towards these men.  Is that really too much to ask for?

Instead, this is a thread trying to justify that behavior, trying to downplay what happened, even blaming these men for volunteering to participate in this program while ignoring the situations and guilt placed on them simply for being gay that drove them to submit to this torture.  The reason I responded to your post is because your own statements feels like you are trying to justify what happened.  Do you really think this is something you should be defending?  How do you think these gay men and all the others in the LGBT community feel when they read that an apostle just 5 months ago outright lie about what happened by claiming that it wasn't going on while he was president of BYU is what is wrong.  Because it is related.  It is an apostle still trying to pretend nothing bad actually happened while he was President of BYU.  

There is another thread going on about why people leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I don't think it is any secret that one one of the main issues for people leaving is how the Church treats the LGBT community.  Downplaying what happened at BYU and trying to defend and justify what happened doesn't affect just those of us who are LGBT, but is also the exact kind of things that reinforce the struggle that many have with the Church on this issue.  Those that defend and try to downplay this treatment are the very ones that are contributing to these feelings of anger and hurt.  If the Church as well as those that are trying to defend what happened really wants this incident to be in the past and move on, a simple apology and an effort to rectify and heal these men would go a heck of a lot further in that healing process.  

I am so sorry but my experience tells me that faithful believing in everything members of the Church will never admit the incredible damage the Church has done and continues to do to each and every member of the LGTBQ+ community.  I have never met or heard the story of even one LGTBQ+ member or former member who has not been deeply troubled, experienced self loathing or felt less than.  Not one.  Some claim to have overcome those feelings but why did they have them in the first place.  No one including a general authority who personally visited my home has ever been able to explain why a loving Heavenly Father would put every single one of His LGTBQ+ children through such horror.  No one can provide me with even one witness from the LGTBQ+ community who was comfortable with who they were from their youth.  Felt like God loved and supported them with nothing more than the normal doubts their heterosexual cisgender fellow members experienced.  Felt like they had nothing to hide about themselves and could talk freely about their experience in life.  The biggest lie by the Church, its leaders and many faithful believing in everything members is that they love LGTBQ+ members and there is a place for them.  Love is not just words, it must include actions.  There is not one thing being done in the Church to lessen the pain in any significant way of LGTBQ+ members.  All the firesides and talks going on are just giving members the false belief that the Church really does care.  No eternal truth would ever cause the 100% damage that the Church's current teachings do to its LGTBQ+ members.   Some days I really have to question why I still have a testimony of the truth of the Gospel taught in the Church.  Why I still believe the Church has priesthood authority.  Fortunately I do not question my belief in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.  Evidence tells me that people who are very good in many ways can still cling to untruths and unrighteous judgments.  Institutions such as the Church are no different.  My counsel to each and every LGTBQ+ member, former member and families is follow the path that brings you true peace, growth, self worth, happiness and love.  Follow a path that brings you closer to God and not one that makes you feel like God must hate you.  I have been giving that counsel to literally thousands for 10 years now who have found the guidance from the Church to only bring pain and sorrow.  I have watched so many find peace while I have watched too many literally almost destroy their lives by trying to follow the Church's current guidance to LGTBQ+ members.

Edited by kimpearson
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

It is no secret that I think that there is such a thing as sex addiction, and that I have done recovery, so I have personally experienced the difference recovery makes, and in participating in recovery groups for many years, knowing a great many other addicts, I have seen the long term affects of both addiction and recovery in their lives and in the lives of their families I also served in the LDS ARP program for over 8 years, so I know what I am talking about.  Usually a quarter to a third of participants in SA meetings report same sex desires as their issue, many with extensive acting out.  I've known several who report that recovery saved not only their marriages, but their lives.  I don't see homosexuality as equivalent to sex addiction, but that a homosexual can be sex addicted, an that can have consequences for how they experience life.  Telling a sex addicted person "this is just the way you are" does not help their addiction.  Telling a person with same sex desires that it might help to read up on addiction to see whether that is an issue does not mean that they will or should self-diagnose themselves as addicted.  One of the things I got from reading Stephen Fales' "Confessions of a Mormon Boy" and Emily Pearson's Dancing with Crazy is that an addict who thinks "this is just the way I am" will have a lot of chaos in their life and that using second or third hand "BYU aversion therapy" horror stories as self-justification demonstrates not insight, but grievance as a typical tool for misdirection and self justification.  I have read dozens of books by the most informed researches on the topic.  One of the attitudes I had to unlearn in recovery was that "this is just the way I am."  I recall talking a friend out of attending recovery meetings on grounds that sex addiction cannot be real because whereas drug addiction involves putting foreign substances in the body, sexuality is natural.   So I found it profoundly enlightening to learn this about my own brain function:

 https://www.squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html 

It took a long time and patient effort to make amends for the effects of that conversation on my friend.  But I have managed.  And since I wrote that essay almost a decade ago, I saw the person who could not go a week without, did manage successful recovery.

There is a huge difference in the weight carried by a person who lives "one day at a time" who doesn't need to act out today, and a person who anguishes and ruminates over a "life void of" their most important desires.  To suppose that only homosexuals, as either single or in a heterosexual relationship can experience that void is absurd and to deny a common human experience. Just as free access to drugs or alchohol or a family's credit structure may not be the best thing for a drug addict, or an alcoholic, or a gambling addict, so unlimited acting out is not the solution for a sex addict. Nor does jail address the disease of addiction.  One of the things the science of addiction has demonstrated is that in addiction, a person's brain is tricked into treating the object of addiction as equivalent to survival, as their most important need.  One of the things recovery does is to undo that trick.  (See the DVD Pleasure Unwoven: The Science of Addiction).   Recovery addresses both the physiology of the brain through periods of celebacy and habits of thinking through things like step 4's "searching and fearless moral inventory."  What that careful 12 Step work does is make connections between actions and consequences, so that when a person encounters challenges to their sobriety, they do not just focus on "euphoric recall" and act regardless of risks and consequences, nor do they constantly invoke grievances for self-justification, but see past the temptations of a moment to the connections with life overall, and they can choose freely.  They don't excuse themselves as having been"triggered" but can choose to consciously address threats in a healthy way.  For recovery to work, and not be just desperate repression and denial, both the physiological and mental aspects need to be addressed, and then maintained.  The difference between Alma repenting and Laman and Lemuel's inconsistency and final rebellion is not the angel, but the life review.   Alma looks to his own sins, whereas Laman and Lemuel immediately and continually offer grievance and resentment. True recovery heals the mind and the spirit.  And then the burden and yoke is indeed light, and not a condemnation to an intolerable void.

Recovered addicts learn that sex is optional.  That not only are periods of celibacy necessary and helpful in healing from addiction, but that if life, married or not, happens to involve long periods of celibacy for any number of reasons, whether due to solitude or partner's health issues, (I know what I am talking about here), or just not getting exactly what you want when you want it, that does not mean their life is pointless and empty and not fully human.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

And of course it’s important to keep in mind that one’s religion might be the cause of the problem and that leaving the toxic dogma behind might be advantageous. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2020/02/religious-moral-porn-addiction

Link to comment
On 3/17/2022 at 1:33 PM, bluebell said:

I don't know if it would pass muster or not.  And I've liked many different points of view on this thread.  The rest of your accusations are baseless enough that I don't feel the need to address them.

I am sorry that you are hurting.

My accusation was that there appears to be a disconnect between your scholastic expectations for the FAIR article vs. the Wikipedia article, both of which are volunteer based.

I took issue with the fact that you dedicated less space to critically appraise the lack of peer-review and scholarly consultation, compared to how you’ve approached victim accounts which undermine the article.

My words like yours were also hedged in ‘may’ and ‘might’. 

~

I acknowledge that the ‘like’ comment is by itself insufficient. Words. Space. What we’re willing to overlook vs. take issue with.

These are choices that matter.

Edited by Canadiandude
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, pogi said:

.  They don't have the freedom of choosing celibacy or marriage without the consequence of sin in either choice

Could you explain this further please. I am not seeing how anyone (of any sexual identification) who chooses celibacy has the consequence of sin.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And of course it’s important to keep in mind that one’s religion might be the cause of the problem and that leaving the toxic dogma behind might be advantageous. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2020/02/religious-moral-porn-addiction

With all due respect, that article basically boils down to: moral aversion to porn increases the likelihood that one feels out of control when they use it. Therefore the cure is to...stop thinking that porn is bad?

"Porn is bad" is the "toxic dogma" here? 

Never mind that your study's own authors don't suggest abandoning moral beliefs is the appropriate solution. 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

With all due respect, that article basically boils down to: moral aversion to porn increases the likelihood that one feels out of control when they use it. Therefore the cure is to...stop thinking that porn is bad?

"Porn is bad" is the "toxic dogma" here? 

Never mind that your study's own authors don't suggest abandoning moral beliefs is the appropriate solution. 

If the only problem porn gives you is a dissonance with your religious beliefs then yes. If it’s use is negatively impacting your life in other ways then by all means seek help. But I related here in regards to homosexual orientation. If the only thing driving someone to experience “addiction” with their orientation is dogma handed down without question from Old Testament times, then yes that should definitely be examined. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Could you explain this further please. I am not seeing how anyone (of any sexual identification) who chooses celibacy has the consequence of sin.

"They don't have the freedom of choosing celibacy or marriage without the consequence of sin in either choice"

I can see that could have been worded better.

What I mean by that is that the choice of going into the clergy (celibacy), or not, is free of sin whichever way they choose.  For homosexuals, they don't have the same luxury and choice. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If the only problem porn gives you is a dissonance with your religious beliefs then yes.

Nah. This implicitly assumes that the goods of religious belief are 0 and therefore problems automatically imply abandonment. That may be the case for some, but not all.

Link to comment
On 3/17/2022 at 8:48 AM, rodheadlee said:

Does it work for smokers?

Probably not. This article is over 20 years, so may be out of date though. 
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045729/

Though this guy claims there is 50% success rate after a year off treatment.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known

One of the major problems with aversion therapy imo is that humans are intelligent enough that they are too aware of the differences in the situation where painful or otherwise negative stimuli is applied and the consequences of behaviours outside of the treatment.  One method of aversion therapy with smoking is to have clients rapid smoke.  But even if the clients get sick when they do that, they know if they take it slower, then they get the positive feelings without the nausea.   
 

I had food poisoning once with chicken pot pie and I have never like it since, but I didn’t like it much before that.  Vomiting up chicken pot pie all night was enough to turn a slight positive bias into a strong negative bias.  I had much worse food poisoning due to eating a rare steak at a restaurant for my wedding anniversary, I think I ate another medium rare steak in less than a month…though not from that restaurant.  I have way too strong of a positive bias towards steak to let one night of agony change my mind. Humans are capable of weighing potential costs benefits rather than going by simple ‘programming’.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 3/18/2022 at 4:51 AM, california boy said:

[1]So the electrical shocks these gay men received are similar to novelty/prank shocks?  Really?  Nothing to see here?  Just a little fun in the back rooms at BYU.

 

[2]Let's give President Oaks the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know that electroshock therapy wasn't happening during his administration.   But pretending that he is still not aware when there has been so much press and controversy about what happened is EXTREMELY hard to believe. I mean no one EVER asked President Oaks if he knew what was going on?  Is he that out of touch with what is happening around him?  When you consider how much President Oaks has talked about gay issues over the years it makes it even more difficult to believe he has never heard about this happing during his time as president of BYU?  And it is not purported, it is a FACT.  You can watch his answer yourself with your very eyes.  I absolutely hate when members are so in denial of what the Church does when those denials are not defendable.  

1.  Scientifically?  No, certainly not.  Because the BYU aversion therapy (at least, the McBride study) was objectively weaker than a shock pen.  And indeed, electroshock therapy is still used in a variety of therapeutic contexts—a friend of mine had TENS therapy for foot pain a while back; that apparently typically ranges from 10-50 milliamps whereas again, McBride maxed out at 4.5 milliamps.

If it worked for behavioral issues, and getting buzzed by a shock pen a couple dozen times over the course of an hour once a week could suppress my most problematic inclinations—I’d be sorely tempted to undergo such a procedure.  I think a lot of folks would.  Because self-discipline is hard.  Behavioral change is hard.  I’d love for there to be a shortcut.  But, if seems, there isn’t one.

The sticking point, obviously, is whether or not one believes that the desire for gay sex is a “problematic inclination”.  That’s a fair discussion to have; but it’s not helpful when we try to justify our positions by pretending that the physical pain involved was particularly excessive or when we unquestioningly repeat (as you did) titillating-but-scientifically-impossible tales of electrotherapy participants suffering electrical burns.

Look, I realize it makes us feel righteously angry to imagine our LGBTQ friends with their genitalia wired up to car batteries being controlled by sinisterly-grinning “doctors”, like a bad Vietnam War movie, complete with flashing arcs and shrieks and uncontrollable convulsions and the sound of sizzling skin (perhaps with a six-fingered record-keeper in the background, shouting “Not to fifty!).  But it seems like that just isn’t what was happening here.  Not in the McBride study, anyways.

2.  It’s possible President Oaks never heard about it, sure.  I have been assured by a number of careful thinkers that the LDS leadership live in an impermeable bubble; knowing only what they are told by their sycophants, never venturing beyond their cloister reference material of official Church sources, and never troubling themselves to do any direct investigation or research of their own.

Then again, it’s also possible he heard about it at some point and then forgot.  The human mind is an interesting thing—I once taught Gospel Doctrine for a year and then, when a friend mentioned my having taught the D&C in Gospel Doctrine, I spent several days insisting that no, I’d taught the Old Testament that year, not D&C. I only realized I was misremembering when I looked into some of my old lesson plans and realized that my friend had been right—it was D&C that I’d taught.  I was in my late thirties when that happened.  President Oaks is 89, has been out of the BYU job for nearly 45 years, and is briefed daily and speaks weekly about an enormous variety of topics.  As humans we tend to remember what we think is extraordinarily significant, what elicits strong emotions in ourselves, or what otherwise occupies a disproportional amount of our time and energy.  And quite frankly:  while I realize that some of President Oaks’s comments have led LGBTQ folks to think about him quite a lot, there just isn’t much reason why he should spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about them.  That, of course, may be its own source of rage for LGBTQ folks; but it doesn’t make President Oaks into a liar.

If we want to talk about liars, I would suggest that the good Mr. Harryman, whose accusation of electrical burns you uncritically repeated in this thread, may be a better candidate for the epithet.

Edited by mgy401
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

a friend of mine had TENS therapy for foot pain a while back; that apparently typically ranges from 10-50 milliamps whereas again, McBride maxed out at 4.5 milliamps.

I think the important aspect is being able to adjust the strength of the pulse for personal preference. I believe they were able to do so in the study as well as the next important aspect, which was choose for themselves where to place the electrodes.
 

I use TENS a lot on my back. What level is actually pleasurable there (because it is working sore muscles I can’t reach) will be quite painful in other areas, such as the neck where it has to be low and used for a very short time.  I also vary in sensitivity depending on the day, though that is usually just at the outset. After a few minutes, I tend to crank it up or lower it to my usual setting or just off it. My husband also uses it and depending on placement uses a stronger or weaker pulse. The way the pulse is applied makes a huge difference as well. A slow build can be set at much higher than a quick, full strength ‘shot’, so to speak.  A short, quick shock is actually more painful to me than a longer one as pain turns to relief the longer the pulse lasts. 
 

All that to say the pain level experience, assuming TENS is similar enough, would be highly subjective and therefore I am not sure what value there is in talking about actual strength, except to determine if it could actually burn or otherwise have permanent damage.  And the memory of pain is just not the physical reaction (in fact some scientists believe we don’t remember the actual pain), but mental and emotional (as in pain stimuli activate areas in the brain dealing with emotion and cognition as well as sensation)…so really subjective when we are talking about memories of pain. 
 

Also even though the level was personally chosen, I can imagine an overly conscientious person choosing a more painful stimulus level thinking it would be more helpful.  It is unfortunate we don’t have video so we could see any physical reaction, such as grimacing to get a better estimate of the level of pain. 
 

I need to reread the dissertation to refresh my memory on how much detail McBride shared of the process and what oversight he had of the subjects’ choices…as in did he just rely on them saying they could handle it or did he tell any to lower the setting because the visible reaction was too strong.  It would also be helpful to have the ratings of the pain level given at the time.  My guess is if the overall experience was negative, the estimation of the level of pain they actually experienced might be higher in their memory (a very understandable reaction and why it is important in studies to get immediate reactions).

I have never tried the tens on my arm. I may experiment with that to see how much more sensitive I am to that than my back.  Maybe will try it on my feet as well, though I have no clue where to place the electrodes and will have to look that up. I get nasty foot pain at times due to a too long second toe or possibly radiated pain from legs and back and it would be nice to have another treatment besides just waiting for it to pass or stuffing pills in my mouth (I don’t actually do the latter, just wish I could do it at times), so thanks for mentioning that. 
 

Side note:  apparently men become more sensitive to pain over time while women become less…I should be careful to avoid extrapolating my own experiences with pain too much in this case. 
 

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/men-and-women-experience-pain-differently-heres-why-that-matters#Perceptions-of-pain

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

1.  Scientifically?  No, certainly not.  Because the BYU aversion therapy (at least, the McBride study) was objectively weaker than a shock pen.  And indeed, electroshock therapy is still used in a variety of therapeutic contexts—a friend of mine had TENS therapy for foot pain a while back; that apparently typically ranges from 10-50 milliamps whereas again, McBride maxed out at 4.5 milliamps.

If it worked for behavioral issues, and getting buzzed by a shock pen a couple dozen times over the course of an hour once a week could suppress my most problematic inclinations—I’d be sorely tempted to undergo such a procedure.  I think a lot of folks would.  Because self-discipline is hard.  Behavioral change is hard.  I’d love for there to be a shortcut.  But, if seems, there isn’t one.

As someone who enjoys electrical shocks this therapy would probably turn me gay. So why is the Lord’s University running this kind of barbaric straight conversion therapy?

Assuming I am straight…….what if I am not? What happens if you are bisexual? Does that make you asexual. And if you are asexual is it random what you become? What about pansexuals? At least we don’t have to worry about demisexuals. Does anyone still believe that is actually a thing?

KFlU79RhekgY7Lna6-EXpQ%252Frobert-rosenb

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As someone who enjoys electrical shocks this therapy would probably turn me gay. So why is the Lord’s University running this kind of barbaric straight conversion therapy?

Assuming I am straight…….what if I am not? What happens if you are bisexual? Does that make you asexual. And if you are asexual is it random what you become? What about pansexuals? At least we don’t have to worry about demisexuals. Does anyone still believe that is actually a thing?

KFlU79RhekgY7Lna6-EXpQ%252Frobert-rosenb

Fortunately (or unfortunately) for you, we have forty years of Science!™ telling us that neither individual choice nor external stimuli have any effect on sexual preference. Once a cisgender, always a cisgender.  Sorry, bud . . . You were just born that way.

Edited by mgy401
Link to comment

They did it again, or word on the street, parents of LGBTQ and alleys, not BYU students. I guess one guy came up and had a talk with them. But no citations were given. They say it lasted about 40 minutes, this is word of mouth.

No photo description available.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

Fortunately (or unfortunately) for you, we have forty years of Science!™ telling us that neither individual choice nor external stimuli have any effect on sexual preference. Once a cisgender, always a cisgender.  Sorry, bud . . . You were just born that way.

I don’t believe that. While we have forty years of science saying that it has coexisted with the whole sexual fluidity thing. The “it is not a choice” point is valid in many cases and honestly I tentatively go with it being an epigenetic expression. Basically it develops due to choices and experiences, a lot of it not done consciously. Basically genes are turned on and off. So it is not a choice but there are dice involved. If it were purely a matter of genetics identical twins would have the same sexuality. It happens and way too often to just be mutant genes. For most practical purposes your sexuality is likely given to you by your experiences. There may be choice but the child wouldn’t recognize the choice on (in gospel terms) be accountable for those choices. In some cases it can be changed later to some degree but this is limited.

It is not a matter of willpower. It is not controllable. There may be a way at some point to alter these medically. This will be a great help to those who suffer from obsessive sexual desires that are inherently immoral to act upon such as pedophilia, necrophilia, and the like. Sadly if it were developed tomorrow it would probably be forced on people. It is not clear if this would even change anything. Probably depends on age. Memory and habit may maintain sexual desires even if the original impulse is gone. The person may not change at all if it were reset. Who knows what such a reset would do anyways. Would it be puberty all over again?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t believe that. While we have forty years of science saying that it has coexisted with the whole sexual fluidity thing.

Indeed, the party line is that being gay isn't a choice unless it is.

 

On a slightly different note, I wondered what the evolutionary advantage of being gay is. Why didn't natural selection simply depopulate the genes that don't lead to continuance of the species? One theory, that needs some further study, is that gay people who don't act on that attraction, have more opposite-sex partners. Perhaps because they are never satisfied and so keep looking.

"We then showed that the aggregate genetic effects associated with ever having had a same sex partner were also associated — among people who had never had a same-sex partner — with having had more opposite-sex partners."

https://scitechdaily.com/darwinian-paradox-how-has-homosexuality-persisted-during-evolution/
 

 

PS: A general reminder (ie not being addressed to The Nehor), McBride did not believe his treatments would change orientation nor was he trying to.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Would it be puberty all over again?

Please, no. May the emerald throne of Heaven forbid.

5 hours ago, Nofear said:

 

On a slightly different note, I wondered what the evolutionary advantage of being gay is. Why didn't natural selection simply depopulate the genes that don't lead to continuance of the species? One theory, that needs some further study, is that gay people who don't act on that attraction, have more opposite-sex partners. Perhaps because they are never satisfied and so keep looking.

"We then showed that the aggregate genetic effects associated with ever having had a same sex partner were also associated — among people who had never had a same-sex partner — with having had more opposite-sex partners."

That's possible. I also recall hearing somewhere that children benefit and survive better with additional adults in their lives than simply their parents. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. In a society with a strong marriage incentive the benefit would not attain, but in a hunter-gatherer society where marriage could be seen as more optional than same-sex-attracted people would have more resources and time to give to their nieces, nephews, the group's children, etc. 

I hesitate to use the word "gay" in this situation because the concept of "gay" - contrary to same-sex attraction - really is temporally and historically bounded and I hesitate to speak of it as a universal. Rarely do I agree with Foucault, but there it is. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...