PhilFarber wrote:

I have also heard similar statements about gay lifestyle and upon inquiry it turned out that the issue was more one of social pressure to conform and be accepted, rather than sexual preference. I can certainly understand how someone can become tired of prejudice, exclusion, and so on, tho I've known very few people who became tired of sex, whatever their orientation. Perhaps Sven will return to clarify for us.

Yes, I can certainly understand people becoming tired of being treated badly. Those things should belong to the bad old days, but are sadly still evident. And if someone thought there was something wrong or unnatural about their sexual orientation they might well adopt the sort of language Sven used.

FYI-
the prejudice is definitely a factor for me wanting to change
also-
most gay men do not want a relationship
it seems like there is no love in it when I have sex with another male
i feel like i am attracted to men sexually and women emotionally
i cannot connect emotionally with a man
i desire non sexual male friendships
i feel used after i have sexual relations with a man
my religion does not fit in with my behavior
i desire children and a wife


there you have it.
SO is it possible to change?

Sven, just one more piece of information, please... How old are you?

28 on the 21st

I think you are just learning something that everyone, of every sexual orientation learns eventually - and often around your age. That sex and "lifestyle" as expected by the people around you is usually a crock of shit. Society often encourages all kinds of behaviors that do not fit well with our individual and essential selves. At some point, most of us (hopefully) learn to reject cheap sex and start to redefine what we want in a relationship. Believe me, hetero men and women go through the same thing.

While I do think you could change yourself, I also think that would be drastic and might have more unpleasant consequences than your present situation. My advice, which might not be what you want to hear right now, is simply to relax and spend your time exploring your self, rather than looking for satisfaction from other people. Learn who you are now - because from what you've said here, you haven't yet defined yourself outside the context of your "lifestyle." You can be yourself, without being defined either by your peers or your religion. When you meet someone, male or female, who you like, then befriend them and let things take their natural course, enjoy them for what they are and if there's a spark, let it build. Loving relationships take time and even if you changed your orientation, there's still no guarantee that you'd magically fall in love with a woman and get married. Some women can be just as shallow as some men.

In short, I think you are on the right track in rejecting emotionless relationships... and just need a little patience to find others who think the same you do. They are out there.

Allow me to complicate matters further - I have been in a very happy and loving relationship with my boyfriend for more than ten years.

None of my 'straight' friends my age (your age) have ever stuck with a girl for that long.

So if your belief is that only heterosexual relationships work out, remember that it's only a belief - a construct in your mind - and outside your mind in the real world there are lots and lots of counter-examples.

There is no 'gay lifestyle'. Different people do different things, just like some Indian women have traditional arranged marriages and others are party girls. What you see depends on where you look. You don't have to fit in with an image that someone created to sell you more expensive brands of vodka. Decide who you want to be first, and then surround yourself with the people and things that will make that real.

PhilFarber wrote:

Concerning sexual orientation - I would consider that a very deep form of neurological patterning.

1. as I understand it, "gay" stands for "good as you" - as in "I'm homosexual and I'm as 'good' as any heterosexual."

Personally I think this is a loser's/victim's attitude. It has the same usefulness, in my opinion, as Derek Jardine's (sp?) claim that all men are homosexual, but most of them don't dare to admit it, even to themselves.

2. Acoording to the guy who was primarily responsible for getting homosexuality taken out of the American diagnostic manual claims that there are very few people who are genuinely exclusively homosexual (male or female) in their behaviour. According to him (and his research) there is a sliding scale on which there are a relatively small number of people exhibiting purely homosexual behaviour, then a slowly rising number of people who practice both homosexual AND heterosexual behaviour in varying ratios, and then a very large number of people exhibiting exclusively heterosexual behaviour.

Not really surprising since homosexual behaviour on its own obviously excludes procreation, which according to evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins is all we are here for.

If these figures don't match what you've previously thought was the case, at least two factors may be involved:

(a) It seems that people who opt for homosexuality tend to cluster together. So one major survey in the UK found that in certain urban areas, London, Birmingham, etc., the ratio of people practicing homosexual patterns made up approximately 1 in 12 of the population. Apart from those specific areas the ratio could be as low as 1 in 76. So depending on where someone lives they could get a pretty heavily skewed idea of what the overall situation is.

(b) Most surveys prior to the 1990s have drawn their distinctions so widely that people have been labelled as engaging in exclusively homosexual patterns of behaviour when in fact they have both hetero- and homosexual encounters.

3. We sometimes hear in the media about people (particularly men) suddenly deciding that they "are homosexual" [sic] after they've been apparently happily (heterosexually] married for years and have children (makes a more shocking story, I guess, if they have children?).

What we don't hear about is that whilst there are a number of people who shift from heterosexual to homosexual behaviour, there are also people moving in the opposite direction. Psychologists are interested in both groups, and despite the claims by some extremists on the homosexual-preferers side of the discussion, there is now plenty of evidence that many of the people who move from homosexual behaviour to heterosexual behaviour stay with their new choice (some subjects have been observed for over 20 years) and display a complete re-orientation, even in the contents of their dreams.

So what does this have to do with Sven's question?

I'd suggest that if homosexual behaviour is chosen behaviour - and despite all the attempts to find a genetic basis for homosexual behaviour none have yet succeeded - then if Sven wants to change his choice then it should be possible. If he wants to change his choice using NLP then maybe he could start by using the 'Decision Destroyer' process. Though I'm not sure there's a knob he could turn to stop him halfway between the two "all the way" options.

THISI

(That's how I see it)

Be well

Andy B.

Andy B. wrote:

Though I'm not sure there's a knob he could turn to stop him halfway between the two "all the way" options

He wants to stop turning knobs.

Andy.

I think the figures are distorted by many factors, a lot of which have to do with the attitude of society.

People move to big cities because they think they will have an easier life.

Many men who are attracted to men try to pretend otherwise because of the response they expect. This explains why a lot of younger men get married and only later in their lives accept the fact.

I do know two men who were living their lives happy with their gay sexuality and then fell in love with a woman. In both cases it was a specific woman that they fell for and when walking down the street it would still be mainly men that they found attractive. Both of them told me that it was largely being cool with their sexuality that allowed them to be open to other possibilities.
Tom Robinson is one of them and he has spoken about the situation on his website and in the press.

I have also spoken to quite a few women when working on gay switchboard who had considered themselves heterosexual until they met a particular woman and fell in love.

These things may be more flexible that formally thought but unless society, particularly the churches stop trying to force people into particular boxes then there will be a lot of unhappy people.

BMcKenna wrote:

And raise your hands who here believes there's such a thing as "the gay lifestyle"? The only times I've heard that particular phrase before have been when it comes from someone expressing their belief that being gay is somehow unnatural.

I don't know, but maybe you don't have much to do with homosexuals?

In my experience there are people - who have opted for homosexual behaviour - who regard the "gay lifestyle" as a reality, and just as many others who don't.

I guess it matters to some extent what people think the term actually means.

By the same token, if you think about it you might find that the argument about what is "natural" and "unnatural" cuts both ways.

And before you even have a chance to think bad of me:

In his book "They F**k You Up!" (asterisks as in the original) psychologist Oliver James suggests that there do seem to be certain patterns that regularly (not always, just often) appear in association with people who have opted for a homosexual pattern.

He also explains why the research shows that even if there was a genetic basis for homosexual behaviour, it would be very unlikely to account for more than 25% of the influence on a person's actual behaviour (i.e. the difference between the genotype and the phenotype).

Be well

Andy B.

sven_johansson wrote:

there you have it.
SO is it possible to change?

I have absolutely no idea whether you are genuine or not. But you sure do sound, in that post, like quite a few of the people I've come across who had opted for the homosexual pattern.

Having said that, if you want to make achange I think maybe you need to be more focused on your positive reasons than you seem to be at the moment.

Be well

Andy B.

Sven,

you wrote

FYI-
the prejudice is definitely a factor for me wanting to change
also-
most gay men do not want a relationship
it seems like there is no love in it when I have sex with another male
i feel like i am attracted to men sexually and women emotionally
i cannot connect emotionally with a man
i desire non sexual male friendships
i feel used after i have sexual relations with a man
my religion does not fit in with my behavior
i desire children and a wife

Well, you can do all of the above or none of the above and tag yourself with whatever label you wish to. Being gay, straight or bi doesnt come with a list of 'must and must-not', ultimatly you are an individual and are free to do whatever with whoever. Anyway, since when did you feel an over whelming urge to conform to stereotypes?

Is being homosexual, bisexual or straight a tag that refers to

-your bedroom activities?
-your social scene?
-your personal apperance and image?

All, some or none of the above? I don't know, but maybe you can choose what is right for YOU in each situation and then build your life towards that happiness rather than taking on other peoples perception of how a person should behave, be whoever you want to be.

Is change possible- HELL YEAH!

You've just got to decide what you want to change into and be sure you are doing it for the right reasons. There are numerous NLP activities that can help you with this, is there a possibility you can meet up with an NLP practitioner for a 'live' chat?

Thanks

Matt

Redsimo wrote:

There are numerous NLP activities that can help you with this, is there a possibility you can meet up with an NLP practitioner for a 'live' chat?

I offered my help, since I happen to live just 40 min away from Stockholm. Haven't heard a word from Sven either on my mail or phone so far.

sven_johansson wrote:

28 on the 21st

Interesting.

The last parts of our brains to become fully functional (when the process of myelin sheathing is completed), are the frontal lobes - where the sort of processes that are likely to be involved with your situation - are situated.

This completion does not occur until some time in our 20s, up until which time our emotional centre is even more influential than it is from there on out.

Picking up on Chris Morris' excellent point about deciding who you are, it *might* be that this is very literally the point that you have reached.

Throughout our teenage years we are literally re-growing much of our brains (i.e. the dendrites and synaptic connections) after the major pruning that takes place around 10-11 years of age.

Throughout that process most of us are very susceptible to outside influence, especially the dreaded peer pressure. Still, we can be influenced in at least two ways rather than just one. Most people conform, some rebel.

Once one has "grown up", however, one may consciously or unconsciously review one's situation and either reject the previous choice, or at least question it.

**Maybe** that's where you are at the moment.

So again, Chris Morris' advice makes a lpt of sense.
First, decide who you are, knowing that you have many options, regardless of what you did or didn't choose before.

And whoever you decide to be,

Be well

Andy B.

Andy B. wrote:

I don't know, but maybe you don't have much to do with homosexuals?

Not the case.

Andy B. wrote:

In my experience there are people - who have opted for homosexual behaviour - who regard the "gay lifestyle" as a reality, and just as many others who don't.

I guess it matters to some extent what people think the term actually means...

Sorry, Andy - I guess I wasn't being quite clear there. Sven's words were "the gay lifestyle", and I chose to interpret that as "THE gay lifestyle". I've yet to hear a hetero person refer to "the straight lifestyle", but I often hear "the gay lifestyle" bandied about by people whose contact with homosexuals is so limited as to think that their lives are constrained to a particular way of living by their sexual orientation. To me that's just bollocks, and usually bollocks promoted by people who believe there's something wrong with the way someone else lives and loves. In the case of gay people who believe there's only one "gay lifestyle", I guess maybe they just don't get outside their immediate circle much.

I agree with Phil and Nick that sexuality is a wide spectrum of preference and behavior that's entirely individual and subject to different expressions in different times and places, like so much else about being human.

Andy B. wrote:

Not really surprising since homosexual behaviour on its own obviously excludes procreation, which according to evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins is all we are here for.

I don't remember where I read this, so I can't give you a reference.

There has been some research that showed a statistically significant correlation between a male being homosexual and his mother having a stronger-than-usual sex drive. It appears that homosexuality can be inherited, for evolutionarily positive reasons, despite the fact that it itself is an evolutionary dead end.

southnick wrote:

I have also spoken to quite a few women when working on gay switchboard who had considered themselves heterosexual until they met a particular woman and fell in love.

Yes, I think that may be quite common. Though I doubt it happens out of a clear blue sky.

southnick wrote:

These things may be more flexible that formally thought but unless society, particularly the churches stop trying to force people into particular boxes then there will be a lot of unhappy people.

I wondered when that would show up.

1. With the possible exception of Buddhism, do you know of any major religion which countenances homosexuality? So you really should be criticising temples, synagogues, etc., as well.

AND, of course, you better not leave out the scientists!

To expand on my earlier point, according to Richard Dawkins et al (and I don't actually remember coming across a dissenting voice amongst evolutionists), human beings, like any other life form, have one primary reason for their existence - to pass on their genes to the next generation. Logically, then, since anyone who follows a purely homosexual pattern of sexual activity will, by definition, never produce offspring (except through artificial insemination, which I suspect involves very few of the people we're talking about), they are behaving in a very UNnatural way.

Thus evolutionist who hold to the "troop carrier" thesis are in fact closet homophobes!

You might want to consider the possibility that only blaming "churches" is like eating the candles and ignoring the rest of the cake.

JAT

Be well

Andy B.

I think the selfish gene has become irrelevant nowadays as medical science changes the life chances of people who would otherwise be selected in or out.

As to why it should have happened in the past, I understand that the main reason why it would provide an evolutionary advantages is that in times of reduced resources there would be an extra male to support a sibling's children.

Andy B. wrote:

To expand on my earlier point, according to Richard Dawkins et al (and I don't actually remember coming across a dissenting voice amongst evolutionists), human beings, like any other life form, have one primary reason for their existence - to pass on their genes to the next generation. Logically, then, since anyone who follows a purely homosexual pattern of sexual activity will, by definition, never produce offspring (except through artificial insemination, which I suspect involves very few of the people we're talking about), they are behaving in a very UNnatural way.

Perhaps a better word here would be UNusual.

Anything that occurs in the natural world is natural by definition. Just because Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring you would be in error to concluded therefore that the practice would naturally die out.

Andy B. wrote:

Thus evolutionist who hold to the "troop carrier" thesis are in fact closet homophobes!

I have 2 questions here:
1 What is an evolutionist? Do you mean An Evolutionary Biologist which is what Richard Dawkins is?
2 What does the sentence mean?

John

If god doesn't like the way I live let him tell me, not you

Michael_DeBusk wrote:

I don't remember where I read this, so I can't give you a reference.

There has been some research that showed a statistically significant correlation between a male being homosexual and his mother having a stronger-than-usual sex drive. It appears that homosexuality can be inherited, for evolutionarily positive reasons, despite the fact that it itself is an evolutionary dead end.

I'm not sure I got exactly the same story, but I think I know what you mean, and yes, it seemed to come from a genuinely scientific source.

Same two ptroblems as always:

1. It doesn't apply to all people who select homosexual activity.

2. There's no proof that this factor, even where it can be established, does anything more than create a possibility. Or in simple terms, "Yeah, but you can find the same behaviour/inclinations in the mothers of many mothers of children who grow up to select a homosexual pattern."

3. If the theory were correct it would seem to indicate that any child born to a nymphomaniac should grow up to choose homosexual pattern behaviour.

4. According to part of Oliver James' analysis (FWIW) an overbearing mother (who is possibly channeling her sexual urges into other forms of release) is often (but certainly not exclusively) a factor in the childhood of many people who grow up adopting homosexual pattern behaviour. So an over-sexed mum might indeed be involved - but on the "nurture" side of the equation (which I for one would not argue with) rather than on the "nature" side.

Be well

Andy B.