Am I the only one who thinks the sexuality can change overtime theory isn't real?

I tend to avoid the whole sexuality as being fluid scenario. Just the other day I was told about conversion therapy by someone who was trying to "help". It is hard for me to associate changing sexual orientation with anything positive. My dreams are gay, my thoughts are gay, and any attempt to imagine changing that is like climbing a steep hill. Better to stick with who I am.

 

Thanks for the link, Almost Blue. I did read the article, and it actually highlights what I was talking about.

From the article:

Your actual sexual orientation doesn't change. How you identify your orientation can change as you gain different understandings of your desires and attractions, or perhaps meet someone new and you find an attraction you didn't know before, for example. The article is very clear to delineate sexual orientation versus sexual orientation identity.

As this discussion relates to OP's question - OP wanted to know if it's really true that your orientation doesn't change. Any advice, in my opinion, shouldn't really include the idea that OP's orientation is fluid because scientific consensus tells us that it isn't. What is fluid is our understanding of it.

This difference is crucial to our understanding of sexual orientation, especially because many people come here confused about their attractions and what they mean. Someone who has previously been only attracted to the opposite gender and discovers a same-sex attraction may think that their sexual orientation changed. It hasn't. What has changed is their sexual identity. Bisexuals sometimes find their sexual identity to be fluid. In either case, though, the orientation didn't change.

ride:

 

I'm gay and Chip, thanks for such a constructive response!

I'd like to address a few things. First of all, my main point isn't to say that sexual orientation is absolutely fluid. What I wanted to contribute to this discussion was the difficulty in determining what is permanent and what is not permanent, and that research also precisely demonstrate this difficulty. In that case, some may indeed experience sexuality to be fluid, and I wanted to show that there is indeed validity to that claim, though not applicable to everyone. What is most important and clear, however, is that sexual orientation/identity is not a choice, and I think we should focus on this point the most for a constructive discussion to help others come to terms with their sexuality.

I'm gay:
You make a solid argument by appealing to scientific consensus. However, the problem of that sentence is that "scientific consensus" is supported by the 3 researches quoted. They claim scientific consensus, but that is not necessarily accurate. The following section precisely demonstrates this problem:

"While the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and American Psychiatric Association state that sexual orientation is innate, continuous or fixed throughout their lives for some people, but is fluid or changes over time for others,[13][14] the American Psychological Association distinguishes between sexual orientation (an innate attraction) and sexual orientation identity (which may change at any point in a person's life).[15] Scientists and mental health professionals generally do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice.[1][2]"

There are conflicting theories, also arising from the difficulty with terms, which you have also pointed out. What seems to be the consensus amongst all the differences is that sexuality is a product of many different factors including genetics and socio-cultural influences. How exactly do they impact the individuals on what level (identity, action, orientation, etc) is still much debated. That's why I argued against you as you said clearly in your other post that sexual orientation is biologically determined. That is only one aspect of sexual orientation/identity (these terms are not scientific clear definitions, but they are created for distinctions and vary depending on researches, something I will discuss more below), and it is not as simple as to be able to say that we all have an essential sexual orientation which we access throughout our lives depending on the context and environment. This could indeed be the case, but it is something we still cannot claim, according to researches.

Chip:

Thanks for looking into the sources. I'd first point out that the first 6 sources are cited not to provide conflicting views, but to support the same sentence, except the last 3 sources do not appeal to scientific consensus and do mention more about changes in sexuality. Since you critiqued the latter 3, I'll do the same for the first 3.

1. College of Psychiatrists' statement on sexual orientation has a specific agenda politically, to protect LGBT people from being treated as having a disorder. Therefore, it emphasizes the stability and health of sexuality. However, the newer statement from 2014 that can be found online (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf) is more nuanced in its wording. It states that:

" It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not
vary to some extent in a person’s life. Nevertheless, sexual orientation for
most people seems to be set around a point that is largely heterosexual or
homosexual. Bisexual people may have a degree of choice in terms of sexual
expression in which they can focus on their heterosexual or homosexual side."

Once again, the purpose of this article is to fight against those who believe that one can change their orientation at will, so this article is not appropriate when discussing the nature of sexual fluidity beyond will. Even then, they vaguely acknowledge this aspect of non-willed fluidity in that passage above.

2. Handbook of Identity Theory and Research is probably the most reliable and thorough source cited here. However, the citation is taken out of context. The authors of this chapter recognize that terms are used differently in different researches that make consensus difficult to achieve, and therefore distinguishes between sexual orientation, sexual orientation identity, and sexual identity. The purpose is to support the claim that sexuality is both the result of essentialism and constructionism, and conceptualizing it in this manner gives coherence to many independent studies:

"sexual orientation can be conceptualized as having inherent biological determinants (essentialism) as well as being strongly influenced by and given meaning through socio-cultural forces (constructionism). That is, rather than understanding sexual orientation from either a social constructionist or an essentialist paradigm, the integration of aspects from both perspectives may better reflect the mluti-dimensionality and dynamics of human sexual orientation" (652)

Therefore, the authors assign the term "sexual orientation" to refer to the biological nature of sexuality, and "sexual orientation identity" for the cultural aspect, and "sexual identity" as the activity. Them claiming that sexual orientation is mostly stable is based on their own definition. At the end, they also acknowledge other researches that support the theory that sexual orientation may not have any permanent determinants. They question this by bringing up once again the difficulty of determining the difference between experience and acknowledgement, which is what the user I'm gay is referring to. Even then, they do not completely dismiss their theory, as you seem to do:

"Yet, it is not clear from existing research whether sexual orientation is more variable across time for some individuals and not for others, or whether individuals may be relatively more or less open to experiencing and acknowledging variations in sexual arousal and desire at different points in their personal development" (653)

Finally, I have experience in scientific peer review process, and I can tell you that just because something is peer reviewed does not mean it is reliable. Some researchers will continuously send the same text over and over even after suggestions of change, and the reviewer will finally just let it pass without the change, as it becomes a waste of time. Also, often times, articles can still be cited and propagated long after they have actually been debunked. Just a word of caution not to believe too much in the peer review process.

This has become long, but I hope you understand my main point, which is that at this point, no one should strongly claim that sexual orientation is completely biological, or that it cannot change, especially as many who research this topic do not do so. It is still a hot topic that will require more research. It is possible to claim that you think it is more unchangeable than it is changeable, which seems to be accurate according to the studies so far, especially interpreted by the last source. However, the general direction that modern research is taking is investigating the nature of fluidity. Essentialism is an older concept. This does not mean that it is necessarily inaccurate, but it is worth noting that constructivist research on sexuality is becoming more and more prominent, and we should not disregard this movement just because there are no conclusive evidence just yet.

I am especially concerned when people claim black and white theories without absolute proof, as it can potentially hurt those who personally feel they do not fit such a model. There are many on this forum who experience fluidity, so let's be more mindful to those people when making bold claims. Like I said, what's most importantly determined in this debate is that sexuality is not a choice, and that is something we can all agree on and focus on.

-------

I forgot to mention that the third source: Dennis Coon, John O. Mitterer (2012). Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews, is a general introduction to psychology text book, so it is not a strong source for this specific discussion.

 

AlmostBlue,

Although Chip may wish to discuss the merits of the research further, I would rather focus on a different issue.

One of the challenges of posting here in this support forum is attempting to discern specific information from a post that just contains what it contains and nothing more - with the exception of OP's previous posts, which I did read. Most often, people come here to seek support and advice, but often provide minimal information on their situation.

So, when someone posts a question asking if their sexual orientation can change, answering with conflicting research on alternative theories isn't really going to help them. Are there people who experience fluidity (or at least think they do)? Of course. But the vast majority of people do not and are just trying to come to terms with their sexuality. Giving people who are questioning their sexuality the scapegoat that keeps them in the closet seems more harmful to me than potentially dismissing someone with true fluidity in their orientation - especially with limited research in this area.

ride:

 

I'm gay:

Thanks for focusing on that part, as that is my main concern after all. You do have a point, and if the OP had phrased his question differently, I would've responded differently too. In this case, he asked if sexual fluidity is real or not, and he seemed quite set on denying its existence, so I decided to express the validity of the theory of fluidity. I also defended fluidity since the comments on this post were pretty divided with a few more comments siding on non-fluidity, and wanted to offer my attempt at reconciling the extreme divide. Had he seemed confused about his own sexuality, or asked if he should try to change his sexuality, then I would not have emphasized fluidity in this manner. This concept is tricky indeed, because when people think that something can change, then often times they think you can change it by will power, but that is not the case when it comes to sexual fluidity. That's why I mentioned that I believe it's most constructive to focus on the idea that sexuality is not a choice.

However, I do think that even if it is to support someone to take a healthier path, I believe in providing them with different interpretations and with accurate and careful information. It's important for me to clarify what someone can truly claim, and what they cannot claim, especially at this age of post-truth. Even if it makes things less certain and more scary, I do believe that understanding yourself properly requires acknowledging reality. I relate to Socrates' famous statement in Apology, that "Unexamined life is not worth living". That is my personal approach and I don't expect others to feel the same, but I do think my posts naturally reflect that ethics, but you can let me know if you ever feel that my posts are not helpful. I do try to be careful though, and thanks for reminding me further.

 

What about the testimonies of people who say their orientation has changed? Do we just discount their testimonies? Do we say we know better than them?

If there were evidence that you could change orientation , could people here accept it?

I think its very comfortable to say 'born that way' and I think its true in some cases, but I think sexual orientation has a number of 'causes' , and I doubt one cause covers all.

I would be wary of consensus. Consensus has been overturned a number of times, especially in issues like this, which have also become politically charged.

 

Okaaaaaay, sexuality CHANGES. But mine hasn't. So from my experience SO FAR, I can say that it's fixed. Should I ever fall for a girl - that's fine. It really is. I'm not going to deny my feelings, heavens forbid.

We're all different, so one's experience doesn't undermine another's. Only YOU can know what you REALLY feel.

 

Just my two cents , ultimately what makes one happy in life is all that matters , I been looking for the science and even other views and ultimately my devolution is looming in the mirror and figuring out if I am happy regardless of any label and certainly trying to understand at minimu the Kinsey scale and the fact that sexuality is a spectrum. Again I am far from an expert at all , just a guy still dealing with my own sexuality and finding my way

 

I wonder if some of us feel our sexuality is fluid because environmental conditions change that stimulate our attractions? It may fool us into believing that our underlying sexual orientation is changing. As a bisexual, I have experienced periods of my life where I have rarely been sexually attracted to ANY other guy. I emphasis ANY because, even during these periods, the right guy would push those buttons and I would feel my same sex attraction come to the surface.

So, I have felt that my position on the Kinsey scale changes. But, I don't know that it does. Having opportunity, acceptance, and being open to understanding what I am really feeling, is probably what is providing what I PERCEIVE to be fluidity in sexual orientation.

That said, for us bisexuals, accepting the spectrum of our sexual attractions and being flexible in expressing those attractions is a good thing.

 

I think your theory has some merit as I deal with my own sexuality and trying to really reconcile it so I can look my wife in the eyes and be satisfied with who I feel I really am

 

I'm sexually fluid myself and it's very real. I have found myself to feel only attraction to males for a time then the next day only like females. It depends on circumstances.

 

I have mixed feelings about it. I think it's important to fight the idea that you can pray away the gay or whatever, because that's never going to work. At the same time, I don't agree with tying LGBT rights to the idea that we're all born this way. Why should it matter? We deserve rights regardless, because we're not doing anything wrong.

My personal experience has felt a lot like my sexuality has changed, but in reality it was more a matter of socialisation and circumstance that made it take a while to realise who I was. I imagine that's the case for a lot of people, but I'm not going to go around insist sexuality can't possibly change. I can't speak for anyone but myself.