I agree that those individuals who have experienced trauma can benefit from exploring how that has impacted their lives. However, I am saddened at this claim:

I would further add that there are plenty of individuals who, regardless of gender preference, may not recall traumatic experiences in their early life. That doesn’t mean those experiences didn’t happen.

This reminds me a bit of the child who claims that it was unicorns that ate the cookies, not him, and the reason you don’t see them is because they are invisible. The notion that there are unknown trauma, or recovered memories, or unidentified roots leaves both the therapist and the patient chasing invisible unicorns.

I think that the psych professions have experienced a long history of damage done and lives destroyed by fighting against invisible unicorns.

Now as for your second point (external psychological pressures), I didn’t address it mostly because there’s nothing to address. You believe that orientation (what you refer to as preference) is the result of these pressures; I, on the other hand, think that this is hooey. There is not currently adequate evidence to prove one way or the other… so we just end up in disagreement.

Some, in the effort to fit cultural norms or allude the pressure of living in a same-sex relationship in our society, might find it preferable to coexist in an opposite-gendered relationship. Some call this “change,” I call it sad.

This girls direction from her therapist is clearly unprofessional…but, I would argue equally unprofessional to direct a gay/lesbian client against their inclinations or…to “direct” anyone at all.

As a society we love to have people fit into neat little boxes…unfortunately, sexuality is just not so neat.

We see gender preference variance across species – in everything from insects (please, just TRY to tell me that a dragonfly was sexually abused and sought solace in the same sex), to bears. It’s not an easy or clear issue – but what we know, is that it varies…why are we so intent on making everyone the same?

Unethical therapists and tragic life circumstances (like abuse) complicate the issue…but these are really peripheral issues that have little to do with innate sexuality, and more to do with the problems of society at large.

I also was not speaking necessarily about sexual trauma, or advocating “treating” gender preference by discussing family dynamics. I do think that confronting issues relating to early family dynamics can have broad healthful effects on an individual, with the likely result that their relationships with other people in general would improve. That may or may not change the individual’s gender preference, or shift them one way or the other on the scale of Same-Other gender preference. Or — not.

I don’t believe that this kind of work requires actual interaction with the family — although that might be beneficial.

I would further add that there are plenty of individuals who, regardless of gender preference, may not recall traumatic experiences in their early life. That doesn’t mean those experiences didn’t happen. There is really no way to tell — which is one reason why what I said is no more than a theory.

Also, your comment in that regard fails to consider the pressures (in either direction, for either gender) of my second point. I think the interplay of forces at work is far more complex than your brief rebuttal suggests to me that you believe

RE Jag’s comments, I think his 2nd paragraph is very hard to disagree with. But I’m not sure. It really depends on what “direct” means — or what the situation is. Perhaps there are situations in which it is actually important to do so, briefly.

His third paragraph seems highly possible to me, but not exclusive. The same results could come about for other reasons.

After that, it all starts to – I don’t get what you’re saying there, Jag.

Number one? A therapist should not, in my opinion, be directing their client. It fosters dependency, suppresses independent thought and problem-solving, etc..and is poor practice.

Also – this seems to suggest that women would sexually go to other women because of “damage” done to them by men. This is a silly notion started some time ago, in my opinion, to make a male ego feel better about a woman who can live a life completely independent of them – having financial means, and sexual gratification.

let’s be realistic, statistically If all women who were victims of sexual abuse dated women, this country would likely have an astonishing proportion of lesbians.

But hey, many people would never return to what they are never exposed to. I never tasted pistachio iced cream until last year…and now, I love it. Turns out I’ve been a latent pistachio lover all along.

Perhaps we have more inherent bisexual inclination than our repressed culture allows us to explore or experience.

But now you seem to be saying that you find yourself attracted to men when amidst a traumatic situation with women.

You are espousing a variation on the old “sexually broken” notion. This idea is popular amoung those who try and use reparative therapy to heal such trauma. For example, Melissa Fryrear claims she’s never met a gay person who wasn’t sexually abused.

But your notion doesn’t really hold up well to testing. There are far too many gay persons who never had any sort of trauma and there are far too many heterosexual who have.

From what I’ve heard, looking for such truama (the “root” as it is often called) and seeking to heal it can cause a great deal of drama and blame within families and seldom seems to result in anything.

RE your June 15, 2007 @ 10:27 am post, et. al. by others, having just read through about 10 years of my journals, I find that the degree to which I find the idea of physical intimacy with men attractive is greatly increased when I am in the midst of an emotionally traumatic experience with a woman.

My take on this is issue at this point (which I here present for discussion purposes), is that if there is anything we are wired for (beyond procreation — which in a genetic sense requires an opposite-gender partner) as regards this subject, it is physical intimacy itself. I think the extent to which our desires re different genders vascillates is affected primarily by two things:

1) Traumatic experiences involving one (or the other) gender — particularly such experiences early in life — possibly well before we actually develop sexual attractions at all.

2) Psychological (not sure that’s the right word) biases of varying degrees of potency, that are instilled in us from outside sources — such as religious doctrine, the media (what’s cool), peer pressure, unconsciously experessed parental expectations coupled with our desire to please them, simple example (what we see working for the people around us), et cetera.

I suspect that — genetic variation being what it is — there will always be a comparatively small number of random individuals who carry — to varying degrees (you can see how this theory allows for such a broad rannge of preference and behaviour) — a unique genetic proclivity toward an unexpected gender preference, but I think that in your (genetically speaking) standard, stock, general, farm-dog, plane-jane variety human, those two things I listed are of the most importance.

I may be beating this into the ground, but when you said “Many boys and men have a “fear” of women, that may not be externally evident — but shows up strongly when “emotional intimacy” is on the table.” – I’m guessing that can apply to men as well. Said trauma could cause some men to fear other men, especially when intimacy is on the table???

Trauma comes in many forms, rarely so obvious as rape — but all of them could lend themselves to forming a strong and perhaps lifelong bias towards or against a particular gender.

Many boys and men have a “fear” of women, that may not be externally evident — but shows up strongly when “emotional intimacy” is on the table.