Have you seen what churches call "conversion therapy" most of the time?
They just put a bunch of obviously gay people in the congregation together for a weekend every month. Sometime they have plays and musicals.
Guess why this doesn't fucking work.
Honestly, seeing gay conversion therapy convinced me that some portion of it has to be genetic, because there's no more obvious of a conclusion that you can draw from a bunch of obviously gay men writing musicals about how they're not gay.
Similar tactics seem like they’d work in reverse. Find a gay person, forcibly isolate them from the gay community both online and in real life, provide them friendship and make them feel good and welcomed, only let them be around straight people, force them to disassociate with their gay friends, and gradually expose them to the sexual content about the opposite sex and make sure they are aroused when watching it.
That is... not what I thought conversion therapy would be. It also raises a whole ton of ethical questions about training/detraining people's sexuality like lab rats...
It also raises a whole ton of ethical questions about training/detraining people's sexuality like lab rats...
They're already doing it to today's youth generation by bombarding them with overt homosexuality across every media sphere and institution. They're already doing it to heterosexuals, but I haven't seen one Liberal, Democrat, or Progressive rebuff their conversion therapy via inculcation as "unethical".
The difference between the two is that heterosexuality is normal, homosexuality is aberrant. Converting people from the aberrant back into normalcy is fine; doing the reverse only leads to what we're seeing unfold right now with society collapsing in on itself.
Similar tactics seem like they’d work in reverse. Find a gay person, forcibly isolate them from the gay community both online and in real life, provide them friendship and make them feel good and welcomed, only let them be around straight people, force them to disassociate with their gay friends, and gradually expose them to the sexual content about the opposite sex and make sure they are aroused when watching it. The last step is how fetishes are created: people jerk off to ever weirder porn and associate the content they are watching with being aroused, causing them to become aroused whenever they see the content (essentially Pavlov’s dog for sex).
I don't really believe that because of the inverse of Sparta.
Basically Sparta was aggressively Gay. Genuinely so gay it seemed to endanger it's population, made it's women absolutely infamous, heterosexual sex still existed.
The dominant culture in Sparta was explicitly pedatrist. All Spartan boys grew up in that environment. Although homosexuality was effectively a cultural imperative, and it caused significant consequences for Sparta itself, heterosexuality never fully ceased. We can assume heterosexuality is a biological imperative through genetics. No amount of acculturation could change that in Sparta, and they are one of the most extreme possible examples. They still had kids, they still fucked women, they raped women, heterosexuality can't be taught out.
Similarly, there are gay men you genuinely can't and won't convert. This is because they are genuinely gay. We do find homosexuality in nonhuman populations, but it is very rare.
All you're really doing is saying you can groom someone into behaving as a homosexual or heterosexual. And I agree, for some segment of the population you can. However, for other portions, you will not. These portions who can't be groomed either way are the ones that are genuinely heterosexual or homosexual.
Since stuff like Scientology exists and works, where normal people are convinced of increasingly crazy things
That is a very different concept. You're talking about rationalization. Yeah you can rationalize anything to anyone. But that doesn't necessarily alter biological imperatives.
This is actually the point of my comparison. You can't groom and indoctrinate genuinely gay men into being straight, because they genuinely aren't straight, in the same way you can't do the opposite. Even if you groom and indoctrinate someone into consciously repeating your mantras & narratives about how they are definitely not straight, and you condition them to be disgusted by the female form, they will still have unconscious proclivities towards the feminine form or femininity because heterosexual regardless of your conditioning. Instead, you will get them creating pathologies and co-dependencies to resolve the internal cognitive dissonance of a conscious mind telling them to be repulsed by women, and an unconscious desire for them.
We know for a fact that the reverse is true. People are not absolutely malliable.
Your only real success stories from conversion, are going to come from bisexuals who won't mind.
Far more likely that the number of genuine gays and straights declare that they are straight after 30 years is probably under half.
I'm open to the idea that the number of declared gays followed the same trend as the number of declared non-hetro teens; that it's totally a fad... But that would still mean that conversion therapy works. Something that works 90% of the time (when done pavlov style), is still more effective than something not done at all.
But that would still mean that conversion therapy works.
I don't think so. You're talking about basically grooming people into sexualities that aren't their own, which is going to make them develop pathologies, and then calling it 'working'.
Have you seen what churches call "conversion therapy" most of the time?
They just put a bunch of obviously gay people in the congregation together for a weekend every month. Sometime they have plays and musicals.
Guess why this doesn't fucking work.
Honestly, seeing gay conversion therapy convinced me that some portion of it has to be genetic, because there's no more obvious of a conclusion that you can draw from a bunch of obviously gay men writing musicals about how they're not gay.
That is... not what I thought conversion therapy would be. It also raises a whole ton of ethical questions about training/detraining people's sexuality like lab rats...
They're already doing it to today's youth generation by bombarding them with overt homosexuality across every media sphere and institution. They're already doing it to heterosexuals, but I haven't seen one Liberal, Democrat, or Progressive rebuff their conversion therapy via inculcation as "unethical".
The difference between the two is that heterosexuality is normal, homosexuality is aberrant. Converting people from the aberrant back into normalcy is fine; doing the reverse only leads to what we're seeing unfold right now with society collapsing in on itself.
I don't really believe that because of the inverse of Sparta.
Basically Sparta was aggressively Gay. Genuinely so gay it seemed to endanger it's population, made it's women absolutely infamous, heterosexual sex still existed.
The dominant culture in Sparta was explicitly pedatrist. All Spartan boys grew up in that environment. Although homosexuality was effectively a cultural imperative, and it caused significant consequences for Sparta itself, heterosexuality never fully ceased. We can assume heterosexuality is a biological imperative through genetics. No amount of acculturation could change that in Sparta, and they are one of the most extreme possible examples. They still had kids, they still fucked women, they raped women, heterosexuality can't be taught out.
Similarly, there are gay men you genuinely can't and won't convert. This is because they are genuinely gay. We do find homosexuality in nonhuman populations, but it is very rare.
All you're really doing is saying you can groom someone into behaving as a homosexual or heterosexual. And I agree, for some segment of the population you can. However, for other portions, you will not. These portions who can't be groomed either way are the ones that are genuinely heterosexual or homosexual.
That is a very different concept. You're talking about rationalization. Yeah you can rationalize anything to anyone. But that doesn't necessarily alter biological imperatives.
This is actually the point of my comparison. You can't groom and indoctrinate genuinely gay men into being straight, because they genuinely aren't straight, in the same way you can't do the opposite. Even if you groom and indoctrinate someone into consciously repeating your mantras & narratives about how they are definitely not straight, and you condition them to be disgusted by the female form, they will still have unconscious proclivities towards the feminine form or femininity because heterosexual regardless of your conditioning. Instead, you will get them creating pathologies and co-dependencies to resolve the internal cognitive dissonance of a conscious mind telling them to be repulsed by women, and an unconscious desire for them.
We know for a fact that the reverse is true. People are not absolutely malliable.
Your only real success stories from conversion, are going to come from bisexuals who won't mind.
Yup.
84% of bisexuals end up in heterosexual relationships: https://archive.is/yfCCF
Interestingly enough Pew had the original report removed and wiped clean from the Wayback Machine.
There is not a chance that information is correct. Literally, not a chance.
Far more likely that the number of genuine gays and straights declare that they are straight after 30 years is probably under half.
Then show me your evidence.
I'm open to the idea that the number of declared gays followed the same trend as the number of declared non-hetro teens; that it's totally a fad... But that would still mean that conversion therapy works. Something that works 90% of the time (when done pavlov style), is still more effective than something not done at all.
I don't think so. You're talking about basically grooming people into sexualities that aren't their own, which is going to make them develop pathologies, and then calling it 'working'.