Is it actually possible to change your sexual orientation?

First off, let me just say—I am 100% not trolling here. This isn't some joke. It’s a situation that’s been eating at me for a while now, and honestly, I haven't felt comfortable opening up to anyone because... well, people can be judgmental. (Kind of like how flexxx acts).

Anyway, I'm 19.

Also, I really do fall for girls. In fact, there's a huge chance that once I'm actually in a relationship and totally head-over-heels for someone, this whole issue might just vanish. I've had girlfriends before.

Fourthly—and maybe I didn't phrase this right earlier—but I don't just "believe" things have changed, I *know* it. I can feel the difference in myself. I used to be this super quiet, withdrawn kid, but now I'm finally coming out of my shell.

Fifthly... well, back when I hit puberty, I was mostly attracted to girls. But over the years, something feels like it shifted, like a glitch occurred, and suddenly I started finding guys attractive too. Now that I'm trying to work through it, everything feels totally muddled and I'm just lost on what to do next.

slyraven9 said:First off, let me just say—I am 100% not trolling here. This isn't some joke. It’s a situation that’s been eating at me for a while now, and honestly, I haven't felt comfortable opening up to anyone because... well, people can be judgmental. (Kind of like how flexxx acts).

Anyway, I'm 19.

Also, I really do fall for girls. In fact, there's a huge chance that once I'm actually in a relationship and totally head-over-heels for someone, this whole issue might just vanish. I've had girlfriends before.

Fourthly—and maybe I didn't phrase this right earlier—but I don't just "believe" things have changed, I *know* it. I can feel the difference in myself. I used to be this super quiet, withdrawn kid, but now I'm finally coming out of my shell.

Fifthly... well, back when I hit puberty, I was mostly attracted to girls. But over the years, something feels like it shifted, like a glitch occurred, and suddenly I started finding guys attractive too. Now that I'm trying to work through it, everything feels totally muddled and I'm just lost on what to do next.

No offense intended, but this still sounds a bit suspicious to me. 🤷

Think about it: there’s no logic in being offended. If you're just trolling, then there's clearly nothing to take personally; and if you aren't, then I'm obviously mistaken, which means there's still no reason to get upset over someone else's wrong assumption. 😬 🤷

Gary James88 said:Some people go through identity crises, so I assume there are cases where orientation shifts over a lifetime, though you could argue they were never "truly" gay to begin with, whatever that implies.

The scientific consensus is pretty much that once a sexual orientation is established, it doesn't change. There have been attempts by certain hardline religious groups to force that change, but the results were disastrous—mostly just leaving people more traumatized.

It’s interesting how 90% of the people pushing the idea that orientation can be altered are backed by some kind of religious faction.

That movie, Cocaine Nights, nailed it!

lonegardener said:The issue is your use of the word "fact." That isn't actually a fact, because those kinds of studies aren't even conducted anymore—they're considered totally unethical.

It seems to me you’ve taken the opinion of a *scientist* (and a highly respected one at that) and dismissed it as mere "belief"—even though it's actually expert opinion—while treating your own stance as an absolute "fact."

Plus, you're being biased. 😍

That's a common, unfounded objection. We don't have a way to read minds yet; how are you supposed to judge whether a change is just in behavior or also in "orientation"? Just because it feels that way to you? If someone claims they've changed their orientation, they're obviously lying, right? 😬 Look, Spitzer believed him; I don't see why I should find your opinion more relevant than his.

Emotional makeup isn't written in the stars, nor is it set in stone. People can change. Sometimes, quite drastically.

Just because you know many such stories doesn't prove that this is how it works in every single case. Something a scientist would surely know. Actually, I'm confident you do know. 😬

🤷 If you can actually find enough volunteers for that, then it’s a brilliant idea. You might even become famous. Personally, I wouldn't mind participating, and I won't jump to conclusions about what the results might show. 😬

(Though, if you're asking, I probably wouldn't step up as a volunteer myself. 😈)

Except they've been doing them for decades, and they're still doing them today. There are therapists "curing" people right now, and there are even church-run camps trying to force the "right path" and all that.

The success rate of all those old attempts, and even the current ones, shows just one thing: total failure.

I think you've easily taken the opinion of a *scientist* (and a respected one at that) as common 'belief' (it's actually an 'expert opinion')—while treating your own stance as some kind of 'fact.'

Fine, we can debate Spitzer if you want.. should we start with him saying he's ashamed he once pushed for masturbation to be in the DSM? Maybe he'll say he's ashamed of that too next time..

You wanna start quoting Paul Cameron too (since someone mentioned Bruna, so why not..)?

And on top of that, you're biased. 😍

I'm not.

That's a standard, baseless objection. We don't have a mind-reader yet; how are you supposed to judge if it's just a change in behavior or a change in 'orientation'? Just because it seems that way to you?

No.. there are ways to assess a person, to track them over time.. and the fact is, the "cured" always end up back where they started...

And if a person claims they changed their orientation, they're obviously lying, right. 😬 Well, Spitzer believed them; I don't see why I should consider your opinion more relevant than his.

The question is whether you want to develop an objective opinion or just find evidence to support your existing bias. 🙂

Emotional makeup isn't written in the stars, nor is it set in stone. People can change. Sometimes drastically.

But sexuality is pretty much set in stone...

Just because you've heard a bunch of stories doesn't mean that's how it works every single time. As a scientist, you should know better than to assume that. Honestly, I'm pretty sure you actually do know. 😬

And look, in my career as a scientist, I’ve never come across a single "treatment" case that proves otherwise. Neither have any other researchers in this field. Until science proves something else, we stick to what's been proven. You should realize that when you're constantly throwing the word "science" around... there's zero room for blind faith in this business.

I feel like I’m constantly battling this identity crisis. For the longest time, I’ve always been exclusively into guys, but then there are these phases where I find myself falling for a woman. It usually happens out of nowhere—just a passing thing—but then suddenly she’s all I can think about for days, and I’m just counting down the minutes until I see her again. Meanwhile, everything with my boyfriend seems totally fine, except maybe when we're being intimate; I catch myself imagining his touch is actually hers, though he has absolutely no clue what's going on in my head. Then, just as quickly as it started, the feeling fades. I can't really explain it. I just know I don't have the guts to approach any of these women I find attractive, even though a part of me really wants to. I'm terrified that if I actually tried, I might find out I actually enjoy physical contact with them, and that scares the hell out of me. I’ve always told myself I was only attracted to men, and I’d really prefer to keep it that way. Things are great with my boyfriend, and I tend to view these feelings as just some passing phase that might eventually disappear on its own, so why risk everything? What do you guys think? Is it worth taking the leap to figure out who I really am, or should I just keep playing it safe and stay the course as I have been?

slyraven9 said:First off, let me just say—I am 100% not trolling here. This isn't some joke. It’s a situation that’s been eating at me for a while now, and honestly, I haven't felt comfortable opening up to anyone because... well, people can be judgmental. (Kind of like how flexxx acts).

Anyway, I'm 19.

Also, I really do fall for girls. In fact, there's a huge chance that once I'm actually in a relationship and totally head-over-heels for someone, this whole issue might just vanish. I've had girlfriends before.

Fourthly—and maybe I didn't phrase this right earlier—but I don't just "believe" things have changed, I *know* it. I can feel the difference in myself. I used to be this super quiet, withdrawn kid, but now I'm finally coming out of my shell.

Fifthly... well, back when I hit puberty, I was mostly attracted to girls. But over the years, something feels like it shifted, like a glitch occurred, and suddenly I started finding guys attractive too. Now that I'm trying to work through it, everything feels totally muddled and I'm just lost on what to do next.

There’s no "disorder" here. It’s just a normal part of growing up. Adolescence is when your sexuality actually takes shape, and if you want to figure it out, you’ve gotta stop fighting it and just feel what you feel.

If you’d just said you’re 19 right off the bat, we wouldn't be having this massive debate. According to some experts, sexual identity can still be forming well into your twenties, so figuring out your orientation takes time.

A "homosexual phase"—if you even want to call it that—isn't rare during your teen years. Plenty of people go through it, whether it sticks or not. Sure, maybe you are Bi or Gay. The only way to actually know what's going on is to lean into those feelings and see where they lead.

But honestly? If you’re starting from the mindset that you *don't* want this and you're just looking for excuses to convince yourself it's a phase, you're headed for a disaster. My advice? Go see a therapist. Work on yourself and learn how to accept this part of who you might be.

Honestly, you aren't going to find a fix for this here—it’s just not the place. If I were you, I'd reach out to actual pros who deal with this specific stuff, like Sigmund Freud. He isn't just some guy; he's a sexologist over at Facebook within the Department of Sociology and Chair of Sexology, plus he's part of an association packed with clinical psychologists and psychiatrists specifically trained for the exact issues you're facing. You can find his website and email listed right on the Facebook pages.

redharbor9 said:Except they've been doing them for decades, and they're still doing them today. There are therapists "curing" people right now, and there are even church-run camps trying to force the "right path" and all that.

The success rate of all those old attempts, and even the current ones, shows just one thing: total failure.

I think you've easily taken the opinion of a *scientist* (and a respected one at that) as common 'belief' (it's actually an 'expert opinion')—while treating your own stance as some kind of 'fact.'

Fine, we can debate Spitzer if you want.. should we start with him saying he's ashamed he once pushed for masturbation to be in the DSM? Maybe he'll say he's ashamed of that too next time..

You wanna start quoting Paul Cameron too (since someone mentioned Bruna, so why not..)?

And on top of that, you're biased. 😍

I'm not.

That's a standard, baseless objection. We don't have a mind-reader yet; how are you supposed to judge if it's just a change in behavior or a change in 'orientation'? Just because it seems that way to you?

No.. there are ways to assess a person, to track them over time.. and the fact is, the "cured" always end up back where they started...

And if a person claims they changed their orientation, they're obviously lying, right. 😬 Well, Spitzer believed them; I don't see why I should consider your opinion more relevant than his.

The question is whether you want to develop an objective opinion or just find evidence to support your existing bias. 🙂

Emotional makeup isn't written in the stars, nor is it set in stone. People can change. Sometimes drastically.

But sexuality is pretty much set in stone...

Just because you've heard a bunch of stories doesn't mean that's how it works every single time. As a scientist, you should know better than to assume that. Honestly, I'm pretty sure you actually do know. 😬

And look, in my career as a scientist, I’ve never come across a single "treatment" case that proves otherwise. Neither have any other researchers in this field. Until science proves something else, we stick to what's been proven. You should realize that when you're constantly throwing the word "science" around... there's zero room for blind faith in this business.

Look, I’m no expert here. It’s entirely possible you’re right; I have no way to verify that objectively. The point is, Spitzer claims it’s still possible (if I may add, he also mentions it's "extremely difficult" and "not worth the effort"); I’m simply reacting to your absolute assertion that it’s "impossible."

redharbor9 said:Except they've been doing them for decades, and they're still doing them today. There are therapists "curing" people right now, and there are even church-run camps trying to force the "right path" and all that.

The success rate of all those old attempts, and even the current ones, shows just one thing: total failure.

I think you've easily taken the opinion of a *scientist* (and a respected one at that) as common 'belief' (it's actually an 'expert opinion')—while treating your own stance as some kind of 'fact.'

Fine, we can debate Spitzer if you want.. should we start with him saying he's ashamed he once pushed for masturbation to be in the DSM? Maybe he'll say he's ashamed of that too next time..

You wanna start quoting Paul Cameron too (since someone mentioned Bruna, so why not..)?

And on top of that, you're biased. 😍

I'm not.

That's a standard, baseless objection. We don't have a mind-reader yet; how are you supposed to judge if it's just a change in behavior or a change in 'orientation'? Just because it seems that way to you?

No.. there are ways to assess a person, to track them over time.. and the fact is, the "cured" always end up back where they started...

And if a person claims they changed their orientation, they're obviously lying, right. 😬 Well, Spitzer believed them; I don't see why I should consider your opinion more relevant than his.

The question is whether you want to develop an objective opinion or just find evidence to support your existing bias. 🙂

Emotional makeup isn't written in the stars, nor is it set in stone. People can change. Sometimes drastically.

But sexuality is pretty much set in stone...

Just because you've heard a bunch of stories doesn't mean that's how it works every single time. As a scientist, you should know better than to assume that. Honestly, I'm pretty sure you actually do know. 😬

And look, in my career as a scientist, I’ve never come across a single "treatment" case that proves otherwise. Neither have any other researchers in this field. Until science proves something else, we stick to what's been proven. You should realize that when you're constantly throwing the word "science" around... there's zero room for blind faith in this business.

Honestly, that's a weak argument, LOL. Maybe he'll feel "ashamed" about his role back in '73, too? It's pointless. Who knows what you'll be embarrassed about 30 years from now? (Or me, for that matter.)

redharbor9 said:Except they've been doing them for decades, and they're still doing them today. There are therapists "curing" people right now, and there are even church-run camps trying to force the "right path" and all that.

The success rate of all those old attempts, and even the current ones, shows just one thing: total failure.

I think you've easily taken the opinion of a *scientist* (and a respected one at that) as common 'belief' (it's actually an 'expert opinion')—while treating your own stance as some kind of 'fact.'

Fine, we can debate Spitzer if you want.. should we start with him saying he's ashamed he once pushed for masturbation to be in the DSM? Maybe he'll say he's ashamed of that too next time..

You wanna start quoting Paul Cameron too (since someone mentioned Bruna, so why not..)?

And on top of that, you're biased. 😍

I'm not.

That's a standard, baseless objection. We don't have a mind-reader yet; how are you supposed to judge if it's just a change in behavior or a change in 'orientation'? Just because it seems that way to you?

No.. there are ways to assess a person, to track them over time.. and the fact is, the "cured" always end up back where they started...

And if a person claims they changed their orientation, they're obviously lying, right. 😬 Well, Spitzer believed them; I don't see why I should consider your opinion more relevant than his.

The question is whether you want to develop an objective opinion or just find evidence to support your existing bias. 🙂

Emotional makeup isn't written in the stars, nor is it set in stone. People can change. Sometimes drastically.

But sexuality is pretty much set in stone...

Just because you've heard a bunch of stories doesn't mean that's how it works every single time. As a scientist, you should know better than to assume that. Honestly, I'm pretty sure you actually do know. 😬

And look, in my career as a scientist, I’ve never come across a single "treatment" case that proves otherwise. Neither have any other researchers in this field. Until science proves something else, we stick to what's been proven. You should realize that when you're constantly throwing the word "science" around... there's zero room for blind faith in this business.

Yes, you are. You might claim your bias doesn't affect your judgment, but you can't deny that you have one. Besides, I have one too.

redharbor9 said:Except they've been doing them for decades, and they're still doing them today. There are therapists "curing" people right now, and there are even church-run camps trying to force the "right path" and all that.

The success rate of all those old attempts, and even the current ones, shows just one thing: total failure.

I think you've easily taken the opinion of a *scientist* (and a respected one at that) as common 'belief' (it's actually an 'expert opinion')—while treating your own stance as some kind of 'fact.'

Fine, we can debate Spitzer if you want.. should we start with him saying he's ashamed he once pushed for masturbation to be in the DSM? Maybe he'll say he's ashamed of that too next time..

You wanna start quoting Paul Cameron too (since someone mentioned Bruna, so why not..)?

And on top of that, you're biased. 😍

I'm not.

That's a standard, baseless objection. We don't have a mind-reader yet; how are you supposed to judge if it's just a change in behavior or a change in 'orientation'? Just because it seems that way to you?

No.. there are ways to assess a person, to track them over time.. and the fact is, the "cured" always end up back where they started...

And if a person claims they changed their orientation, they're obviously lying, right. 😬 Well, Spitzer believed them; I don't see why I should consider your opinion more relevant than his.

The question is whether you want to develop an objective opinion or just find evidence to support your existing bias. 🙂

Emotional makeup isn't written in the stars, nor is it set in stone. People can change. Sometimes drastically.

But sexuality is pretty much set in stone...

Just because you've heard a bunch of stories doesn't mean that's how it works every single time. As a scientist, you should know better than to assume that. Honestly, I'm pretty sure you actually do know. 😬

And look, in my career as a scientist, I’ve never come across a single "treatment" case that proves otherwise. Neither have any other researchers in this field. Until science proves something else, we stick to what's been proven. You should realize that when you're constantly throwing the word "science" around... there's zero room for blind faith in this business.

That isn't a fact; it's just a politically correct postulate. For that to be a "fact," you'd need a study that tracks, say, 200 random people over a 10-year period and shows exactly what you're claiming in every single case. Do you have a reference to a study like that or anything similar? As far as I know, those kinds of studies aren't even conducted; what you're describing is just an "educated guess."

redharbor9 said:Except they've been doing them for decades, and they're still doing them today. There are therapists "curing" people right now, and there are even church-run camps trying to force the "right path" and all that.

The success rate of all those old attempts, and even the current ones, shows just one thing: total failure.

I think you've easily taken the opinion of a *scientist* (and a respected one at that) as common 'belief' (it's actually an 'expert opinion')—while treating your own stance as some kind of 'fact.'

Fine, we can debate Spitzer if you want.. should we start with him saying he's ashamed he once pushed for masturbation to be in the DSM? Maybe he'll say he's ashamed of that too next time..

You wanna start quoting Paul Cameron too (since someone mentioned Bruna, so why not..)?

And on top of that, you're biased. 😍

I'm not.

That's a standard, baseless objection. We don't have a mind-reader yet; how are you supposed to judge if it's just a change in behavior or a change in 'orientation'? Just because it seems that way to you?

No.. there are ways to assess a person, to track them over time.. and the fact is, the "cured" always end up back where they started...

And if a person claims they changed their orientation, they're obviously lying, right. 😬 Well, Spitzer believed them; I don't see why I should consider your opinion more relevant than his.

The question is whether you want to develop an objective opinion or just find evidence to support your existing bias. 🙂

Emotional makeup isn't written in the stars, nor is it set in stone. People can change. Sometimes drastically.

But sexuality is pretty much set in stone...

Just because you've heard a bunch of stories doesn't mean that's how it works every single time. As a scientist, you should know better than to assume that. Honestly, I'm pretty sure you actually do know. 😬

And look, in my career as a scientist, I’ve never come across a single "treatment" case that proves otherwise. Neither have any other researchers in this field. Until science proves something else, we stick to what's been proven. You should realize that when you're constantly throwing the word "science" around... there's zero room for blind faith in this business.

Does the reverse apply too? 😍

redharbor9 said:Except they've been doing them for decades, and they're still doing them today. There are therapists "curing" people right now, and there are even church-run camps trying to force the "right path" and all that.

The success rate of all those old attempts, and even the current ones, shows just one thing: total failure.

I think you've easily taken the opinion of a *scientist* (and a respected one at that) as common 'belief' (it's actually an 'expert opinion')—while treating your own stance as some kind of 'fact.'

Fine, we can debate Spitzer if you want.. should we start with him saying he's ashamed he once pushed for masturbation to be in the DSM? Maybe he'll say he's ashamed of that too next time..

You wanna start quoting Paul Cameron too (since someone mentioned Bruna, so why not..)?

And on top of that, you're biased. 😍

I'm not.

That's a standard, baseless objection. We don't have a mind-reader yet; how are you supposed to judge if it's just a change in behavior or a change in 'orientation'? Just because it seems that way to you?

No.. there are ways to assess a person, to track them over time.. and the fact is, the "cured" always end up back where they started...

And if a person claims they changed their orientation, they're obviously lying, right. 😬 Well, Spitzer believed them; I don't see why I should consider your opinion more relevant than his.

The question is whether you want to develop an objective opinion or just find evidence to support your existing bias. 🙂

Emotional makeup isn't written in the stars, nor is it set in stone. People can change. Sometimes drastically.

But sexuality is pretty much set in stone...

Just because you've heard a bunch of stories doesn't mean that's how it works every single time. As a scientist, you should know better than to assume that. Honestly, I'm pretty sure you actually do know. 😬

And look, in my career as a scientist, I’ve never come across a single "treatment" case that proves otherwise. Neither have any other researchers in this field. Until science proves something else, we stick to what's been proven. You should realize that when you're constantly throwing the word "science" around... there's zero room for blind faith in this business.

True, it’s a bit set in stone and a bit fluid—it really depends on the context of the debate we're having. 😈

redharbor9 said:Except they've been doing them for decades, and they're still doing them today. There are therapists "curing" people right now, and there are even church-run camps trying to force the "right path" and all that.

The success rate of all those old attempts, and even the current ones, shows just one thing: total failure.

I think you've easily taken the opinion of a *scientist* (and a respected one at that) as common 'belief' (it's actually an 'expert opinion')—while treating your own stance as some kind of 'fact.'

Fine, we can debate Spitzer if you want.. should we start with him saying he's ashamed he once pushed for masturbation to be in the DSM? Maybe he'll say he's ashamed of that too next time..

You wanna start quoting Paul Cameron too (since someone mentioned Bruna, so why not..)?

And on top of that, you're biased. 😍

I'm not.

That's a standard, baseless objection. We don't have a mind-reader yet; how are you supposed to judge if it's just a change in behavior or a change in 'orientation'? Just because it seems that way to you?

No.. there are ways to assess a person, to track them over time.. and the fact is, the "cured" always end up back where they started...

And if a person claims they changed their orientation, they're obviously lying, right. 😬 Well, Spitzer believed them; I don't see why I should consider your opinion more relevant than his.

The question is whether you want to develop an objective opinion or just find evidence to support your existing bias. 🙂

Emotional makeup isn't written in the stars, nor is it set in stone. People can change. Sometimes drastically.

But sexuality is pretty much set in stone...

Just because you've heard a bunch of stories doesn't mean that's how it works every single time. As a scientist, you should know better than to assume that. Honestly, I'm pretty sure you actually do know. 😬

And look, in my career as a scientist, I’ve never come across a single "treatment" case that proves otherwise. Neither have any other researchers in this field. Until science proves something else, we stick to what's been proven. You should realize that when you're constantly throwing the word "science" around... there's zero room for blind faith in this business.

Exactly. There’s no room for believing something is impossible just because it hasn't been proven impossible yet. If you claim it can't be done, I’d love to see a reference "proving" that it is literally impossible. Honestly, I don't see how you'd even go about proving that—it reminds me of trying to prove that all swans are white.

placidwolf2 said:I feel like I’m constantly battling this identity crisis. For the longest time, I’ve always been exclusively into guys, but then there are these phases where I find myself falling for a woman. It usually happens out of nowhere—just a passing thing—but then suddenly she’s all I can think about for days, and I’m just counting down the minutes until I see her again. Meanwhile, everything with my boyfriend seems totally fine, except maybe when we're being intimate; I catch myself imagining his touch is actually hers, though he has absolutely no clue what's going on in my head. Then, just as quickly as it started, the feeling fades. I can't really explain it. I just know I don't have the guts to approach any of these women I find attractive, even though a part of me really wants to. I'm terrified that if I actually tried, I might find out I actually enjoy physical contact with them, and that scares the hell out of me. I’ve always told myself I was only attracted to men, and I’d really prefer to keep it that way. Things are great with my boyfriend, and I tend to view these feelings as just some passing phase that might eventually disappear on its own, so why risk everything? What do you guys think? Is it worth taking the leap to figure out who I really am, or should I just keep playing it safe and stay the course as I have been?

You're probably bisexual. If you were purely gay, you wouldn't be into guys at all.
They tend to be very straightforward about it; they actually can't stand men. Just like how gay men are—they can't even imagine being with a woman. Not out of some personal hatred or anything, it's just that they can't picture it. I heard that from a guy who is strictly gay.

silentbison23 said:You're probably bisexual. If you were purely gay, you wouldn't be into guys at all.
They tend to be very straightforward about it; they actually can't stand men. Just like how gay men are—they can't even imagine being with a woman. Not out of some personal hatred or anything, it's just that they can't picture it. I heard that from a guy who is strictly gay.

Thanks for the input. 😘 I get where you're coming from, and I've actually considered that possibility. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, but when I fall for a woman, men basically cease to exist in my mind—I just don't perceive them anymore. 😕 It feels like an all-or-nothing situation for me; there isn't much middle ground. The real issue is what happens if I actually commit to a woman after having physical experiences with one. That pull is obsessive, yet at the same time, it absolutely terrifies me.

I know the general consensus is that sexual orientation mostly solidifies during adolescence, and back then, my feelings definitely leaned toward guys. That’s why I’m so conflicted. If anyone here knows the clinical take on this: is it actually possible to suddenly realize you're homosexual right as you're hitting thirty? When you're young, you just drift along without overthinking things like I am now. I'm scared to dive into something REAL that could completely overhaul my life, because part of me keeps telling me this is all just some temporary phase.🙄

Jesus, you’re still young, and honestly, puberty is still doing its thing with those hormones running wild. Just give it some time and try to relax. You can't force yourself to be straight or gay through sheer willpower. No matter what your sexual orientation ends up being, the only thing that's actually going to matter is the kind of person you choose to be 🙂

lonegardener said:Look, I’m no expert here. It’s entirely possible you’re right; I have no way to verify that objectively. The point is, Spitzer claims it’s still possible (if I may add, he also mentions it's "extremely difficult" and "not worth the effort"); I’m simply reacting to your absolute assertion that it’s "impossible."

Honestly, that's a weak argument, LOL. Maybe he'll feel "ashamed" about his role back in '73, too? It's pointless. Who knows what you'll be embarrassed about 30 years from now? (Or me, for that matter.)

Yes, you are. You might claim your bias doesn't affect your judgment, but you can't deny that you have one. Besides, I have one too.

That isn't a fact; it's just a politically correct postulate. For that to be a "fact," you'd need a study that tracks, say, 200 random people over a 10-year period and shows exactly what you're claiming in every single case. Do you have a reference to a study like that or anything similar? As far as I know, those kinds of studies aren't even conducted; what you're describing is just an "educated guess."

Does the reverse apply too? 😍

True, it’s a bit set in stone and a bit fluid—it really depends on the context of the debate we're having. 😈

Exactly. There’s no room for believing something is impossible just because it hasn't been proven impossible yet. If you claim it can't be done, I’d love to see a reference "proving" that it is literally impossible. Honestly, I don't see how you'd even go about proving that—it reminds me of trying to prove that all swans are white.

I know exactly what Spitzer claims because I actually follow his debates. And trust me, other big-name experts say something totally different. They don't take him seriously and they definitely don't think he's right.

You can't just cling to one guy just because his opinion fits your narrative.

Quentin:

That's a total non-sequitur, LOL. What, is he gonna be 'ashamed' of his role back in '73? Please. Who knows what you'll be embarrassed about in 30 years? (Or me, probably.)

It was said in terms of being wrong and flawed... just like his own views, for that matter.

Quentin:

Sure you can. You can claim your bias doesn't affect your judgment, but you can't deny you have one. We all do.

Yeah, sure. You'll call me biased because I'm gay, and I'll call you biased because your prejudices make it impossible for you to use logic since everything is driven by emotion... and then we just end the debate because nobody is objective? Yeah, I'm not playing that game.😍

Quentin:

That's not a fact, it's just a political postulate. For that to be a 'fact,' you'd need a study tracking, say, 200 people over 10 years that proves exactly what you're saying. Got a citation for a study like that? As far as I know, those aren't even done; what you're doing is just an 'educated guess.'

A study like that is impossible to pull off, but it's based on case study facts. Sure, there are gaps, but there are statistical methods to account for all those variables. I don't know if anyone's specifically done it that way, but my stance is backed by experts way more qualified than me or anyone else in this thread.

Quentin:

Yeah, it's a bit rigid, a bit fluid—depends on how you need it to be for whatever argument you're making... 😈

Actually, it depends on what we're talking about. To me, it's like sex. Your sex is set at birth and you can't just change it later to be something else. Even the behaviorists admitted they were lost on that one.

Quentin:

Exactly. You can't just claim something is impossible without proof. If you're gonna insist it's a dead end, show me the actual reference proving it’s literally impossible. Honestly, I don't even see how you'd "prove" that—it's like trying to prove every single swan in existence is white.

Look, in science—which is what you're leaning on here—not everything is strictly proven through empirical data (some stuff just can't be, and some shouldn't be), but that's why we build theories and draw conclusions based on probability and availability. It's way more solid than just holding onto implicit biases... though there are people on this forum who could give you a much better lecture on actual science and the scientific method.

placidwolf2 said:Thanks for the input. 😘 I get where you're coming from, and I've actually considered that possibility. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, but when I fall for a woman, men basically cease to exist in my mind—I just don't perceive them anymore. 😕 It feels like an all-or-nothing situation for me; there isn't much middle ground. The real issue is what happens if I actually commit to a woman after having physical experiences with one. That pull is obsessive, yet at the same time, it absolutely terrifies me.

I know the general consensus is that sexual orientation mostly solidifies during adolescence, and back then, my feelings definitely leaned toward guys. That’s why I’m so conflicted. If anyone here knows the clinical take on this: is it actually possible to suddenly realize you're homosexual right as you're hitting thirty? When you're young, you just drift along without overthinking things like I am now. I'm scared to dive into something REAL that could completely overhaul my life, because part of me keeps telling me this is all just some temporary phase.🙄

Yeah, it happens. I've seen it plenty of times. Usually with women in their 30s or 40s. They just suddenly realize they're attracted to women, even if they already have a husband and kids. It almost always ends the same way—divorce and leaving the guy (and the kids) behind..

Don't ask me about the "why" or whatever. I don't dig into the past like that; I just deal with what's happening right now. But yeah, it's possible and it definitely happens..

redharbor9 said:I know exactly what Spitzer claims because I actually follow his debates. And trust me, other big-name experts say something totally different. They don't take him seriously and they definitely don't think he's right.

You can't just cling to one guy just because his opinion fits your narrative.

Quentin:

That's a total non-sequitur, LOL. What, is he gonna be 'ashamed' of his role back in '73? Please. Who knows what you'll be embarrassed about in 30 years? (Or me, probably.)

It was said in terms of being wrong and flawed... just like his own views, for that matter.

Quentin:

Sure you can. You can claim your bias doesn't affect your judgment, but you can't deny you have one. We all do.

Yeah, sure. You'll call me biased because I'm gay, and I'll call you biased because your prejudices make it impossible for you to use logic since everything is driven by emotion... and then we just end the debate because nobody is objective? Yeah, I'm not playing that game.😍

Quentin:

That's not a fact, it's just a political postulate. For that to be a 'fact,' you'd need a study tracking, say, 200 people over 10 years that proves exactly what you're saying. Got a citation for a study like that? As far as I know, those aren't even done; what you're doing is just an 'educated guess.'

A study like that is impossible to pull off, but it's based on case study facts. Sure, there are gaps, but there are statistical methods to account for all those variables. I don't know if anyone's specifically done it that way, but my stance is backed by experts way more qualified than me or anyone else in this thread.

Quentin:

Yeah, it's a bit rigid, a bit fluid—depends on how you need it to be for whatever argument you're making... 😈

Actually, it depends on what we're talking about. To me, it's like sex. Your sex is set at birth and you can't just change it later to be something else. Even the behaviorists admitted they were lost on that one.

Quentin:

Exactly. You can't just claim something is impossible without proof. If you're gonna insist it's a dead end, show me the actual reference proving it’s literally impossible. Honestly, I don't even see how you'd "prove" that—it's like trying to prove every single swan in existence is white.

Look, in science—which is what you're leaning on here—not everything is strictly proven through empirical data (some stuff just can't be, and some shouldn't be), but that's why we build theories and draw conclusions based on probability and availability. It's way more solid than just holding onto implicit biases... though there are people on this forum who could give you a much better lecture on actual science and the scientific method.

You just don't get it.

You said "that's impossible." You didn't even bring up Spitzer or the ongoing debates and disagreements surrounding this. Instead, you just went straight to—"it's impossible." Who are you trying to single out there? To me, that’s hardly scientific. As long as there is a meaningful disagreement, there is a conflict; you can't just pretend "everything is settled" when it clearly isn't. It isn't scientific to dismiss opposing views just because they aren't politically correct.

And honestly, his stance doesn't "bother" me at all. I don't have any personal skin in this game.

redharbor9 said:I know exactly what Spitzer claims because I actually follow his debates. And trust me, other big-name experts say something totally different. They don't take him seriously and they definitely don't think he's right.

You can't just cling to one guy just because his opinion fits your narrative.

Quentin:

That's a total non-sequitur, LOL. What, is he gonna be 'ashamed' of his role back in '73? Please. Who knows what you'll be embarrassed about in 30 years? (Or me, probably.)

It was said in terms of being wrong and flawed... just like his own views, for that matter.

Quentin:

Sure you can. You can claim your bias doesn't affect your judgment, but you can't deny you have one. We all do.

Yeah, sure. You'll call me biased because I'm gay, and I'll call you biased because your prejudices make it impossible for you to use logic since everything is driven by emotion... and then we just end the debate because nobody is objective? Yeah, I'm not playing that game.😍

Quentin:

That's not a fact, it's just a political postulate. For that to be a 'fact,' you'd need a study tracking, say, 200 people over 10 years that proves exactly what you're saying. Got a citation for a study like that? As far as I know, those aren't even done; what you're doing is just an 'educated guess.'

A study like that is impossible to pull off, but it's based on case study facts. Sure, there are gaps, but there are statistical methods to account for all those variables. I don't know if anyone's specifically done it that way, but my stance is backed by experts way more qualified than me or anyone else in this thread.

Quentin:

Yeah, it's a bit rigid, a bit fluid—depends on how you need it to be for whatever argument you're making... 😈

Actually, it depends on what we're talking about. To me, it's like sex. Your sex is set at birth and you can't just change it later to be something else. Even the behaviorists admitted they were lost on that one.

Quentin:

Exactly. You can't just claim something is impossible without proof. If you're gonna insist it's a dead end, show me the actual reference proving it’s literally impossible. Honestly, I don't even see how you'd "prove" that—it's like trying to prove every single swan in existence is white.

Look, in science—which is what you're leaning on here—not everything is strictly proven through empirical data (some stuff just can't be, and some shouldn't be), but that's why we build theories and draw conclusions based on probability and availability. It's way more solid than just holding onto implicit biases... though there are people on this forum who could give you a much better lecture on actual science and the scientific method.

And yours, I hope?

redharbor9 said:I know exactly what Spitzer claims because I actually follow his debates. And trust me, other big-name experts say something totally different. They don't take him seriously and they definitely don't think he's right.

You can't just cling to one guy just because his opinion fits your narrative.

Quentin:

That's a total non-sequitur, LOL. What, is he gonna be 'ashamed' of his role back in '73? Please. Who knows what you'll be embarrassed about in 30 years? (Or me, probably.)

It was said in terms of being wrong and flawed... just like his own views, for that matter.

Quentin:

Sure you can. You can claim your bias doesn't affect your judgment, but you can't deny you have one. We all do.

Yeah, sure. You'll call me biased because I'm gay, and I'll call you biased because your prejudices make it impossible for you to use logic since everything is driven by emotion... and then we just end the debate because nobody is objective? Yeah, I'm not playing that game.😍

Quentin:

That's not a fact, it's just a political postulate. For that to be a 'fact,' you'd need a study tracking, say, 200 people over 10 years that proves exactly what you're saying. Got a citation for a study like that? As far as I know, those aren't even done; what you're doing is just an 'educated guess.'

A study like that is impossible to pull off, but it's based on case study facts. Sure, there are gaps, but there are statistical methods to account for all those variables. I don't know if anyone's specifically done it that way, but my stance is backed by experts way more qualified than me or anyone else in this thread.

Quentin:

Yeah, it's a bit rigid, a bit fluid—depends on how you need it to be for whatever argument you're making... 😈

Actually, it depends on what we're talking about. To me, it's like sex. Your sex is set at birth and you can't just change it later to be something else. Even the behaviorists admitted they were lost on that one.

Quentin:

Exactly. You can't just claim something is impossible without proof. If you're gonna insist it's a dead end, show me the actual reference proving it’s literally impossible. Honestly, I don't even see how you'd "prove" that—it's like trying to prove every single swan in existence is white.

Look, in science—which is what you're leaning on here—not everything is strictly proven through empirical data (some stuff just can't be, and some shouldn't be), but that's why we build theories and draw conclusions based on probability and availability. It's way more solid than just holding onto implicit biases... though there are people on this forum who could give you a much better lecture on actual science and the scientific method.

Look, there’s no point in pretending. You truly believe I'm being biased—but honestly? I think you are. That doesn't mean we can't have a decent debate, but we aren't going to "overcome" bias just by acting like it doesn't exist. It's clearly right there, which is exactly what your last paragraph proves. 🙂

redharbor9 said:I know exactly what Spitzer claims because I actually follow his debates. And trust me, other big-name experts say something totally different. They don't take him seriously and they definitely don't think he's right.

You can't just cling to one guy just because his opinion fits your narrative.

Quentin:

That's a total non-sequitur, LOL. What, is he gonna be 'ashamed' of his role back in '73? Please. Who knows what you'll be embarrassed about in 30 years? (Or me, probably.)

It was said in terms of being wrong and flawed... just like his own views, for that matter.

Quentin:

Sure you can. You can claim your bias doesn't affect your judgment, but you can't deny you have one. We all do.

Yeah, sure. You'll call me biased because I'm gay, and I'll call you biased because your prejudices make it impossible for you to use logic since everything is driven by emotion... and then we just end the debate because nobody is objective? Yeah, I'm not playing that game.😍

Quentin:

That's not a fact, it's just a political postulate. For that to be a 'fact,' you'd need a study tracking, say, 200 people over 10 years that proves exactly what you're saying. Got a citation for a study like that? As far as I know, those aren't even done; what you're doing is just an 'educated guess.'

A study like that is impossible to pull off, but it's based on case study facts. Sure, there are gaps, but there are statistical methods to account for all those variables. I don't know if anyone's specifically done it that way, but my stance is backed by experts way more qualified than me or anyone else in this thread.

Quentin:

Yeah, it's a bit rigid, a bit fluid—depends on how you need it to be for whatever argument you're making... 😈

Actually, it depends on what we're talking about. To me, it's like sex. Your sex is set at birth and you can't just change it later to be something else. Even the behaviorists admitted they were lost on that one.

Quentin:

Exactly. You can't just claim something is impossible without proof. If you're gonna insist it's a dead end, show me the actual reference proving it’s literally impossible. Honestly, I don't even see how you'd "prove" that—it's like trying to prove every single swan in existence is white.

Look, in science—which is what you're leaning on here—not everything is strictly proven through empirical data (some stuff just can't be, and some shouldn't be), but that's why we build theories and draw conclusions based on probability and availability. It's way more solid than just holding onto implicit biases... though there are people on this forum who could give you a much better lecture on actual science and the scientific method.

Let me restate: where exactly does the claim that this is *impossible* come from?

I can get behind arguments like "it's incredibly difficult," "it might be impossible," "it isn't worth the effort," or even "the ethics are questionable." But I simply won't accept the blanket statement that it's "impossible." From my perspective, that isn't a scientific claim at all—it’s more like an arbitrary postulate.

redharbor9 said:I know exactly what Spitzer claims because I actually follow his debates. And trust me, other big-name experts say something totally different. They don't take him seriously and they definitely don't think he's right.

You can't just cling to one guy just because his opinion fits your narrative.

Quentin:

That's a total non-sequitur, LOL. What, is he gonna be 'ashamed' of his role back in '73? Please. Who knows what you'll be embarrassed about in 30 years? (Or me, probably.)

It was said in terms of being wrong and flawed... just like his own views, for that matter.

Quentin:

Sure you can. You can claim your bias doesn't affect your judgment, but you can't deny you have one. We all do.

Yeah, sure. You'll call me biased because I'm gay, and I'll call you biased because your prejudices make it impossible for you to use logic since everything is driven by emotion... and then we just end the debate because nobody is objective? Yeah, I'm not playing that game.😍

Quentin:

That's not a fact, it's just a political postulate. For that to be a 'fact,' you'd need a study tracking, say, 200 people over 10 years that proves exactly what you're saying. Got a citation for a study like that? As far as I know, those aren't even done; what you're doing is just an 'educated guess.'

A study like that is impossible to pull off, but it's based on case study facts. Sure, there are gaps, but there are statistical methods to account for all those variables. I don't know if anyone's specifically done it that way, but my stance is backed by experts way more qualified than me or anyone else in this thread.

Quentin:

Yeah, it's a bit rigid, a bit fluid—depends on how you need it to be for whatever argument you're making... 😈

Actually, it depends on what we're talking about. To me, it's like sex. Your sex is set at birth and you can't just change it later to be something else. Even the behaviorists admitted they were lost on that one.

Quentin:

Exactly. You can't just claim something is impossible without proof. If you're gonna insist it's a dead end, show me the actual reference proving it’s literally impossible. Honestly, I don't even see how you'd "prove" that—it's like trying to prove every single swan in existence is white.

Look, in science—which is what you're leaning on here—not everything is strictly proven through empirical data (some stuff just can't be, and some shouldn't be), but that's why we build theories and draw conclusions based on probability and availability. It's way more solid than just holding onto implicit biases... though there are people on this forum who could give you a much better lecture on actual science and the scientific method.

Well, you see it as being like sex, but I don't.

(Besides, people are changing their gender nowadays, LOL.)

redharbor9 said:I know exactly what Spitzer claims because I actually follow his debates. And trust me, other big-name experts say something totally different. They don't take him seriously and they definitely don't think he's right.

You can't just cling to one guy just because his opinion fits your narrative.

Quentin:

That's a total non-sequitur, LOL. What, is he gonna be 'ashamed' of his role back in '73? Please. Who knows what you'll be embarrassed about in 30 years? (Or me, probably.)

It was said in terms of being wrong and flawed... just like his own views, for that matter.

Quentin:

Sure you can. You can claim your bias doesn't affect your judgment, but you can't deny you have one. We all do.

Yeah, sure. You'll call me biased because I'm gay, and I'll call you biased because your prejudices make it impossible for you to use logic since everything is driven by emotion... and then we just end the debate because nobody is objective? Yeah, I'm not playing that game.😍

Quentin:

That's not a fact, it's just a political postulate. For that to be a 'fact,' you'd need a study tracking, say, 200 people over 10 years that proves exactly what you're saying. Got a citation for a study like that? As far as I know, those aren't even done; what you're doing is just an 'educated guess.'

A study like that is impossible to pull off, but it's based on case study facts. Sure, there are gaps, but there are statistical methods to account for all those variables. I don't know if anyone's specifically done it that way, but my stance is backed by experts way more qualified than me or anyone else in this thread.

Quentin:

Yeah, it's a bit rigid, a bit fluid—depends on how you need it to be for whatever argument you're making... 😈

Actually, it depends on what we're talking about. To me, it's like sex. Your sex is set at birth and you can't just change it later to be something else. Even the behaviorists admitted they were lost on that one.

Quentin:

Exactly. You can't just claim something is impossible without proof. If you're gonna insist it's a dead end, show me the actual reference proving it’s literally impossible. Honestly, I don't even see how you'd "prove" that—it's like trying to prove every single swan in existence is white.

Look, in science—which is what you're leaning on here—not everything is strictly proven through empirical data (some stuff just can't be, and some shouldn't be), but that's why we build theories and draw conclusions based on probability and availability. It's way more solid than just holding onto implicit biases... though there are people on this forum who could give you a much better lecture on actual science and the scientific method.

Exactly, and that is precisely why scientists generally avoid making claims like "this is impossible." It doesn't mean, however, that there aren't scientists out there prone to making those kinds of assertions.

redharbor9 said:Yeah, it happens. I've seen it plenty of times. Usually with women in their 30s or 40s. They just suddenly realize they're attracted to women, even if they already have a husband and kids. It almost always ends the same way—divorce and leaving the guy (and the kids) behind..

Don't ask me about the "why" or whatever. I don't dig into the past like that; I just deal with what's happening right now. But yeah, it's possible and it definitely happens..

So, what you're saying is it's possible for someone to think they're straight, only to realize later—maybe after 30—that they're actually gay. But the reverse isn't possible? That someone thinks they're gay, only to find out later they're actually straight? 😬

That's a pretty interesting asymmetry, I have to admit...

redharbor9 said:Yeah, it happens. I've seen it plenty of times. Usually with women in their 30s or 40s. They just suddenly realize they're attracted to women, even if they already have a husband and kids. It almost always ends the same way—divorce and leaving the guy (and the kids) behind..

Don't ask me about the "why" or whatever. I don't dig into the past like that; I just deal with what's happening right now. But yeah, it's possible and it definitely happens..

Well, thanks for the consolation. At least I don't have kids to drag away from a boyfriend or a future husband just so I can take them off to live with my new wife.😂

I haven't really kept up with the legal side of things here in the US: are same-sex couples allowed to adopt children?

And judging by your tone, you must be from my neck of the woods.😲 I went through psychotherapy about five or six years ago for a different issue, but I wouldn't mind going back. Since you specialize in sexuality, consider me a client on your couch tomorrow.🙂

We can always move this to private messages if my questions are getting too intrusive.😉

lonegardener said:So, what you're saying is it's possible for someone to think they're straight, only to realize later—maybe after 30—that they're actually gay. But the reverse isn't possible? That someone thinks they're gay, only to find out later they're actually straight? 😬

That's a pretty interesting asymmetry, I have to admit...

Yeah, that's probably possible too... why wouldn't it be?

placidwolf2 said:Well, thanks for the consolation. At least I don't have kids to drag away from a boyfriend or a future husband just so I can take them off to live with my new wife.😂

I haven't really kept up with the legal side of things here in the US: are same-sex couples allowed to adopt children?

And judging by your tone, you must be from my neck of the woods.😲 I went through psychotherapy about five or six years ago for a different issue, but I wouldn't mind going back. Since you specialize in sexuality, consider me a client on your couch tomorrow.🙂

We can always move this to private messages if my questions are getting too intrusive.😉

Look, this is a massive headache of a question. If someone already has a kid and moves in with a partner of the same sex, that's fine. Of course, things get messy when (like an ex-husband) calls Child Protective Services and starts making up wild stories...

But that’s totally different from adoption. One person can adopt (which is basically impossible anyway), but you can't do it as a couple...

Not my specialty, so I can't give you the full breakdown. That's all I know. 🙂

Quentin:

I can tell you're from my neck of the woods😲 I went to psychotherapy about 5 or 6 years ago for something else, but I could go back. Since you deal with sexuality stuff, count me in—I'll be on your couch tomorrow.🙂 We can just DM if my questions are getting too intrusive.😉

Not at all, I'm not hiding who I am on this forum... I do therapy as part of training for therapists, and right now I actually have a ton of clients (mostly because I attract the most wild, one-of-a-kind cases😍). But seriously, hit me up in my DMs if you want or need to (since I specialize in sexuality).😉

placidwolf2 said:Thanks for the input. 😘 I get where you're coming from, and I've actually considered that possibility. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, but when I fall for a woman, men basically cease to exist in my mind—I just don't perceive them anymore. 😕 It feels like an all-or-nothing situation for me; there isn't much middle ground. The real issue is what happens if I actually commit to a woman after having physical experiences with one. That pull is obsessive, yet at the same time, it absolutely terrifies me.

I know the general consensus is that sexual orientation mostly solidifies during adolescence, and back then, my feelings definitely leaned toward guys. That’s why I’m so conflicted. If anyone here knows the clinical take on this: is it actually possible to suddenly realize you're homosexual right as you're hitting thirty? When you're young, you just drift along without overthinking things like I am now. I'm scared to dive into something REAL that could completely overhaul my life, because part of me keeps telling me this is all just some temporary phase.🙄

That’s pretty standard for anyone who identifies as bisexual. When you're crushing on your own gender, you feel gay. When you're into the opposite sex, you feel straight.😉
Take a friend of mine, for example. She's bi, but it's funny how her "type" shifts. When she's into guys, it's always those textbook alpha males🤣, but when she leans toward women, they're always super feminine. Meanwhile, I'm over here wondering why
I'm exclusively drawn to dudes who are basically just physical and mental clones of women. WTF?

Just wanted to throw this out there... I don't know what your deal is when it comes to religion, but if you happen to be Catholic, I’ve honestly realized over the years that things like homosexuality, bisexuality, or "sexual orientation" in general are just labels people cooked up to justify their own deep-seated emotional struggles. In the eyes of the Church, none of that exists because it’s just not how God intended things to work. If you really are Catholic, I’m telling you from the heart—start actually living out your faith. The only real salvation for us is found in our one almighty Father, God. Don't forget that He's always there to help you if you just let Him in. Seriously; all these modern concepts are just inventions for people to serve their own interests. Embracing your faith will help you in every aspect of life, not just regarding sexuality—that's where the real happiness lies. As for those of you who are constantly pushing back and looking for flaws in the Church, maybe take a second to ask yourselves who you think you are to judge something sacred. A little respect goes a long way.