Curing same-sex attraction

Discussion in 'Problematic Sexual Behavior' started by jack_hammer, Feb 24, 2020.

  1. That is? Exploiting pseudoscientific personal ideas like those of ultrafabber, as it were facts? He is a sexual neurotic. (just read his ideas about sex with vegetables and getting sex toys...) Afraid of any orgasm or sexual activity at all, detecting "homosexual seduction" everywhere, even in straight porn. You need only the very basics of Freud to understand, that this will not lead anywhere better, except more sexual neuroticism.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  2. Fighter&Croat

    Fighter&Croat Fapstronaut

    6
    7
    3
    This is exactly what I was talking about. Instead of checking out on scientific facts, trying to understand them or maybe see where they could have gone wrong, you automatically call them "pseudoscientific" and "personal". On the other hand, your labels like those and such juicy attributes to other people are okay and that's what we should encourage here in the discussion? Seriously, man, for what point, instead of getting into fight?
    The thing is that these discussions are far from what they should be. People coming with opinions that are already made before entering the discussion and then forcing them and rejecting anything relevant to the opposite opinion.

    Seriously, get your own place to talk about your issues and let others speak freely, despite that you might disagree.
     
    Scorcher2000 likes this.
  3. AtomicTango

    AtomicTango Fapstronaut

    This is partly why I never talk about this kind of thing unless its grouped in with some other topic. If you make a thread like this you are almost always inadvertently inviting the same argument to happen. I imagine its kinda disheartening to start a thread, go away, come back to see a lot of replies, only to be like "Oh, its just people arguing". I'm guilty of it as well to some extent but I can imagine its annoying.
     
    ....... likes this.
  4. That's an opinion. Please check the scientific research for facts.

    Think about this. When I was young (long before internet porn existed to cause HOCD), being gay was universally illegal and indeed dangerous. So, if being gay were really a lifestyle choice, what sane person would wake up one morning and think, "Hmm, being gay would mean that I might go to jail. I would be subject to ostracism, being beaten up, prejudice, loss of career, even being killed. I know… I'll be gay!"

    Alternatively, let me ask you (and any straight homophobic man), "How old were you when you chose to be straight?" The answer is inevitably, "What?! I didn't choose! I'm straight!" It makes you think, doesn't it?
    The latest research indicates that there might be a genetic component. However, the prevailing scientific opinion (still contentious) is that sexual preference is formed in the womb by the hormonal mix. That is why a younger male sibling is statistically more likely to be gay than an older male sibling, because the hormonal mix in the womb for a second male is different from that of a first male.

    The only solid conclusion, after finding that the extent of homosexuality is consistent throughout all populations, ethnicity, sex, culture, religion, etc., is that a person is born straight, gay, or on a bisexual spectrum. It's most definitely not a choice.

    Finally (I wish that I still had the link), some fascinating research was done on a group of straight men. Researchers measured their levels of homophobia, and then measured their sexual arousal to different types of porn. (The arousal was measured objectively not subjectively, so the volunteers couldn't lie.) Interestingly, the levels of arousal to male gay porn corresponded directly to the levels of homophobia.

    This wasn't a surprise to me, as I've long suspected that homophobia is borne in a fear of one's own sexuality.
     
  5. AtomicTango

    AtomicTango Fapstronaut

    Maybe its because I never experienced HOCD or anything similar but even as someone who consumed non-straight porn I never wondered if I was gay or not, and never thought it had any real effect on my attempts at recovery. This is why I always feel compelled to comment saying the same thing on threads like this; that (in my opinion and personal experience) focusing on the sexuality aspect of it is less important than focusing on overcoming the addiction itself, and if anything worrying about sexuality can muddy the waters and make the process harder.

    I dont doubt this study exists but the results and methodology seem a bit suspect to me. How would you go about objectively measuring someones homophobia? How many people were in this study for its results to be statistically relevant? There are too many vague aspects to this for my taste.
     
  6. There are standardised tests.
    Sorry, I don't recall. As I say, I wish that I had kept the link.

    You have asked valid questions; but it's definitely invalid to assume that someone's sexuality is a lifestyle choice.
     
  7. ultrafabber

    ultrafabber Fapstronaut

    1,358
    1,662
    143
    There's literally a 500,000 people study published in august 2019 that has failed to find ANY gay gene. Please stop inventing stuff.

    No, they have no clue and those are just suppositions. And they also chose to ignore the obvious impact of molestation on sexual orientation, among others. Or the fact that it was already proven on mice that manipulating serotonin influences sexual interest. But you don't want facts to interfere with what you want to believe, so just ignore those.

    It's mostly because of social ranking, as social ranking and serotonin go hand in hand and play a crucial part in homosexuality.

    Lol, absolute bullshit. A very easy example is the chinese attitudes and experiences on masturbation and homosexuality (study in 2015 called Sexual Attitudes and Behavior of Chinese University Students in Shanghai). By the age of 22, 50% did not even masturbate.

    There's so many absurd things in that.. the premise itself that one is against the thing he really is or cares for. That's like saying Trump supporters are actually Bernie fans and Bernie fans are Trump supporters.

    ....and the fact that "homophobia" is not a word because a phobia is an [1]irrational, [2]pathological (meaning you need specialized mental health intervention) [3] FEAR. Literally nobody is afraid of homosexuals, let alone to a pathological level and there is no way to prove they are irrational because of their stance anyway

    The study itself is hilarious, not that @Mordobarn even has a clue because it's standard procedure to go into arguments without even knowing or bothering to find out the name of the study you're referencing. Let alone actually reading it.

    The study is called "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?" DOI: 10.1037//0021-843x.105.3.440 and consisted of only 64 participants. What Mordobarn and the rest of NPCs have no clue about is that BOTH groups showed an increase in penile response... so by that logic all the specifically chosen heterosexual men in the study were GAY to some degree. lol. That aside, the order they showed the clips is also highly problematic because they showed the heterosexual images first, let the men return to baseline, then lesbian images, then homosexual porn. The residual sexual arousal likely influenced the results, that's why in research you alternate and randomize these things.

    It doesn't stop there really, the Index of "Homophobia" (A Strategy for the Measurement of Homophobia , doi.org/10.1300/J082v05n04_02) used in the "study" is a very questionable tool, not only on the basis of it's premise but it's methodology too. First of all, it has no cutoff point. Obviously. There is no point on the 1-100 scale where "homophobia" begins. The authors themselves acknowledge that. Another blatant flaw is that he sample group of 300 people consisted of only 33% males yet the index is applied in the "study" on a group of 64 men only. LOL#2.

    On the statistical side, it's distribution is not normal, more like a Student's, which should not happen since it's a 300 people thing, so not a small sample of 30. It's 1st percentile (first 25%) is only 3.8% and last percentile (last 25%) is 7.2%. What they could've done since there is no cutoff would've been to ignore the 2nd and 3rd percentile and group "non-homophobes" as 1st percentile and "homophobes" as 4th percentile... but they couldn't because the distribution would render that irrelevant (because only 3.8% and 7.2% would be there). On top of that the distribution is skewed to the right (mean at 53). They also don't show the actual distribution of results or specific numbers. All of this goes hand in hand with the "study" where they couldn't isolate the non-homophobic group from the rest because there were too few people there so they chose a random cutoff of 50%.

    I could go on but honestly i've wasted too much time on a joke study.

    For anyone actually interested in reading studies as opposed to speculating and talking without having a clue, sci-hub offers you any full study in pdf format if you provide the doi.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2020
    alexg1709 likes this.
  8. Inventing stuff? I read what I reported, and you might have noticed that I emphasised the word "might" in my original post.
    For goodness' sake, ad hominems are not a valid argument. Do you really think that that's how I want things to go? I'm trying to have a serious discussion here, and you're responding to me in the same style as a troll.

    Therefore, I am not going to respond to any more of your posts in this thread.
     
  9. AtomicTango

    AtomicTango Fapstronaut

    I would say there are some situations where sexuality is a lifestyle choice, for example in situational homosexuality such as in prisons or other similar instances, but those I would assume are outliers. Getting into that discussion would involve debating over common usage of the word "sexuality", somehow finding a way of measuring what is and what isnt "genuine sexual attraction", what that by itself even means, and so on. Like I said I'm unsure how relevant all this is to recovery, I'm leaning towards not that relevant, but the discussion is an interesting one.
     
  10. AtomicTango

    AtomicTango Fapstronaut

    This reminds me of this image. It did always seem a bit simplistic to me to just say "well if you dont like a thing it means you are projecting and secretly like said thing". It is possible to not like something or otherwise be opposed to it and that be the end of it lmao.

    [​IMG]
    Thanks for the info on the study, it did seem a bit fishy to me and the info you have provided illustrates whats wrong with studies like this; its too easy to perform a vague experiment without enough quality control and come to a conclusion that is wishy washy and inconclusive at best and is outright false at worst. To me, the study is flawed before it even begins, because it is pretty much impossible to control enough variables to make the results worth a damn.
     
    ultrafabber likes this.
  11. ultrafabber

    ultrafabber Fapstronaut

    1,358
    1,662
    143
    Yes, inventing stuff. When you use "might" you're implying something. If i say "the latest RESEARCH indicates that Mordroban likes to sniff glue", there is already a significant bias on it being likely. When in fact it was NEVER proven genetics play a role, it was something they invented in the first place to normalize homosexuality. And your own statement that "The latest research indicates that there might be a genetic component" is factually false, when the opposite is true - all the research done in the last couple of decades culminating with a very recent (2019) genetic study of HALF A MILLION people did not find any gay gene.

    An ad hominem is insulting your character/you as a person. I did not do that. Saying you don't care for facts was based on your own post where you made several baseless and simply wrong statements, culminating in referencing a study that you don't even remember the name of and stating your conclusion based on that.

    That being said...

    You have proven you are not trying to have a serious discussion when you don't even bother to check the name of the study and check if what you remember is correct, let alone take your time to actually read the study like I have, let alone analyze it, like i have.

    You simply took for granted what you vaguely remembered and concluded that "This wasn't a surprise to me, as I've long suspected that homophobia is borne in a fear of one's own sexuality." Or you said that "it's definitely invalid to assume that someone's sexuality is a lifestyle choice." Where's the serious discussion?

    I am sick and tired to have the same discussion over an over again with people that don't even bother to check what they are claiming, let alone cite the study, let alone check their sources while at the same time arguing like they are genuinely correct and i am wrong. Of course while calling me names and saying that what i say is wrong. I am not pointing fingers at you for the calling names part but at another handful of people that act that way. I am simply tired of having the same discussion over and over again while at the same time being the only one that is actually informed on the studies on homosexuality/transgenderism because i dedicated probably hundreds of hours researching those.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2020
  12. ultrafabber

    ultrafabber Fapstronaut

    1,358
    1,662
    143

    Yes, all the ~phobic stuff is extremely annoying to me, first of all because a phobia means something else and especially because it's absurd to imply that people that have a phobia actually want that thing. Do claustrophobics secretly crave to be caught in tight,closed places? Do agoraphobics secretly crave human interaction and want to be in huge groups of people? How does that make any sense?

    And ignoring that blatant logical contradiction it's mind boggling that all the attacks on people who oppose homosexuality, calling them "repressed homosexuals", start from one single bad study. But then again, that's LGBT science in a nutshell.
     
  13. Poseidon

    Poseidon Fapstronaut

    949
    1,641
    123
    What a load of bull crap, if you’re into dudes, you should embrace that. I feel sorry for the woman you’re going to marry (and cheat on with other guys) during your mid-life crisis later on in life.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  14. AtomicTango

    AtomicTango Fapstronaut

    But what he said isnt wrong, there are countless examples of people on the forums (and elsewhere if you look) experiencing HOCD and other similar issues and overcoming them with NoFap.
     
    alexg1709 and ultrafabber like this.
  15. AtomicTango

    AtomicTango Fapstronaut

    I dont have much of a stake in the debate itself but I'm always going to question studies done that claim to "prove" things conclusively one way or another, especially when the methods used dont even make logical sense. I'm no statistician but even I can see a lot of these studies are a waste of time. I mean, remember when the media went through that phase of saying various things did and didn't cause cancer, and the things causing the cancer would literally change from one week to the next, as more and more "conclusive" studies were done? This is why I pay little attention to them, and focus on what I know by experience to work for me.
     
    ultrafabber likes this.
  16. Poseidon

    Poseidon Fapstronaut

    949
    1,641
    123
    Countless examples of people who’ve decided to be repressed and fake for the rest of their lives. Just my opinion though, don’t mind me.
     
  17. AtomicTango

    AtomicTango Fapstronaut

    Your opinion in this case isnt really relevant, HOCD is a scientifically proven thing and exists as a subset of regular OCD whether you think it does or not. I have to question why you would come into a thread with a guy being happy he overcome it and try to actively rain on his parade.
     
    alexg1709 and Fighter&Croat like this.
  18. Of course, if he's homosexual, he should embrace that. No one is saying different. Please reread the OP to understand what he's saying — he's a straight man who developed HOCD, and has since cured it.

    You might not realise that many gay men and women have developed the opposite, let's call it non-H OCD, and since cured it. You wouldn't dismiss their stories with, "If you're heterosexual, you should embrace that," would you?
    Bear in mind that the press reports what sells. They cherry-pick reports in order to increase sales. Especially tabloids, which don't give a damn about facts or science. It's easy to believe what you read in the media, but take care not to confuse media with scientific reports!
     
  19. Rusername

    Rusername Fapstronaut

    59
    64
    18
    Sometimes pro lgbt people can be a-holes too.

    If someone would told me few months ago that i should just embrace my sexuality then i would end up with testing if men arouse me, try sex with transexual, change my gender and maybe have sex with person below the age of 13. Oh yeah, forgot bestiality and things that i used to watch. Lets add that to list.

    Today i once again noticed that... uhm... drawing of someone before the age of 13 can make me aroused. Im an atheist, but if some of you are going to write that i should embrace that, then kindly go to hell.
     
  20. Well, I started by watching vanilla porn and end up watching girls fucking animals. I also tried to watch gay porn cuz of hocd and I can even get a boner sometimes, but I am simply repulsed by a penis and don’t feel like jerking off to it or a dude. I think we can get aroused from literally anything, but it doesn’t define our sexuality whatsoever. Your sexuality is what you desire sexually, so if you want men, then you are gay. As for the thread’s author seems like he is gay/bi with internalized homophobia. I mean how could you enjoy gay porn and say that you are completely straight.
     

Share This Page