We have theories. Hey, even gravity is a theory.

There are multiple ways of viewing the development of sexual identity, and academics acknowledges this. Some perspectives, however, have a bit more empirical backing indicating their possibility than others. Those are the ones that we further investigate.

WOW — lends a whole new dimension to how I think about myself! 🙂

Glad you are looking at all this, Warren, I have been long dissatisfied with any of the theories or explanations for the development of our gender identiy and sexual orientation. Especially when any one theory seems to be held up as THE explanation, or they are all dismissed as if they have no merit,

Although I think there is also some interesting research on the sexual plasticity of women (as opposed to such observations in men).

I have long thought that explaining same-sex attraction may not be the exact same development in women and men. However, I would extend that to say that I don’t think the process is the same for even every woman or every man in that group. Like heterosexuality, I think we come to our varied preferences through multiple paths.

What I think we can say (per “biological exuberance” and other such works) is that there is a consistent portion of numerous species that seem to be same-sex oriented, with the majority being opposite-sex oriented. Occurring in hundreds of species whose only reference is instinctual drive fulfillment…it’s a pretty good indication that biology leans us one way or another.

Papa penguin’s neglect and the hurt feelings of the little one likely has little to do with why his son wanted to pair with another male.

BSJ (you know who you are) – Very true, however, what I am suggesting is that ex-gay men may not be bisexual in the usual way of thinking of bisexuality but rather may be better conceptualized as having triggered desire by falling in love. I need to start a study that would classify this but anecdotally it seems to have some foundation.

I think it is important to note that Diamond drew her conclusions from observing women. I have long thought that sexual orientation in men and in women functions very differently. Observations made about gay women may or may not be applicable to gay men.

I think in previous threads, we’ve danced around the idea that sexuality is a deeply personal thing — and it is deeply individual, a very different experience from one person to the next.

The fact that we recognize something of a continuum between homosexuality, through bisexuality, to heterosexuality suggests that we recognize this, but all too often things break down into a hetero/homo dichotomy that assumes that there are only two discrete classes of experience. Or maybe three if someone remembers to speaks up and say, “Hey! What about bisexuals?” But even three classes are too limiting.

Who was it that suggested we look at sexual attraction on a two dimensional scale, with one scale being a degree of homosexual attraction, the other scale being the degree of heterosexual attraction, and the origin representing perfect asexuality?

And even that may be too limiting.

Now you’ve gone and muddied everything even further by throwing in one of the greatest mysteries of all: love. Nobody can measure it; nobody can define it. And try as they might, even the poets and philosophers can’t quite nail it down.

I remember meeting someone who had divorced, a gay man who says both he and his wife knew he was gay when they married. I don’t know him well to assess the quality of the relationship or the wisdom of their marrying, or even why they divorced. But I remember asking him if he knew he was gay, and she knew he was gay, then why on earth did they marry? He simply said, “Sometimes you can’t help who you fall in love with.” Regardless of the outcome of their marriage, that always stuck with me.

That’s why I simply don’t agree that even a successful marriage demonstrates a change in someone’s orientation–not even partial change, or movement toward change. My view is well summed up by the subtitle of the APA article: “… romantic love isn’t limited by a person’s sexual orientation.”

I am happy for those who establish a successful marriage, and, as I’ve said before, I wish them the best for a long and happy future with their spouses. But please don’t make a claim that someone’s orientation has “changed” unless there is objective evidence that the person is now truly more interested in the opposite sex in general, and not just in his/her spouse.

It’s not just a matter of semantics. People who are trying to make decisions about their future need to understand the reality of what “ex-gay” or “valued life” approaches can offer. The promise of “change” is very potent and very alluring, and the word should not be used lightly.

But that’s just my experience. Other people may have some sexual attractions to one or both sexes with some or none of the above. And all of this may indeed be somewhat fluid over time. Anything is possible, I suppose. Still waiting to meet someone who was 100% and strongly homosexually oriented who is now 100% and strongly heterosexually oriented — what I would consider a true “ex-gay”. I’m not saying such a person does not exist — just that I would like to meet him.