More and more people have friends, family members, and co-workers who are ex-gay, and so it’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny their existence.
Some of these ex-gays are in wonderful, heterosexual relationships and have been for decades. Others have seen a real decrease in same-sex attraction in their lives, for which they’re thrilled. And others are still attracted to the same sex but recognize this as wrong in God’s sight and contrary to His design, and they are enjoying their new lives in God, even as singles.
In all cases, “gay” no longer defines them, and there are too many of these precious men and women to ignore. In fact, I’m facing a new problem now. I’m getting flooded with requests to write endorsements or forewords to books by men and women who formerly lived as gay, bisexual, or transgender. That is who they were. It is not who they are.
Not only so, but the whole myth of homosexuality being “innate and immutable” has been exposed, with some gay activists even saying that they don’t need to use the argument anymore, acknowledging that sexuality is fluid. As a recent headline in USA Today announced, “’Born this way’? It’s way more complicated than that.’”
Regarding the notion that some people are born gay and can’t change – something that has been a central mantra of gay activism for decades – the article notes that, “many members of the LGBTQ community reject this narrative, saying it only benefits people who feel their sexuality and gender are fixed rather than fluid, and questioning why the dignity of gay people should rest on the notion that they were gay from their very first breath.”
Old myths die hard, but they do eventually die.
I haven’t heard of there being enough ex-gays to change the minds of the LGBTQ community before, which makes me wonder if this is the beginning of a trend. Now that they mention it, the old mantra of “born this way” has given way to a constant use of “fluid” to describe sexuality.
If r/K Theory is correct, then homosexuality is just an over expression of the reversal in sex specific traits and preferences which you see in r-selected species. There, females grow masculine and aggressive to provision and protect the children they raise alone, while males become effete and feminine to facilitate avoiding and fleeing from conflicts with other males. As a result, sexual preferences also shift, with males preferring masculine traits in mates, and females preferring feminine traits, since each form is, respectively, the fittest model of the species in times of r-selection.
As the book showed, there is a study linking the 7r allele of the D4 dopamine receptor gene to homosexuality, and there is an anecdotal case of a dopamine agonist used to treat Parkison’s causing a strait male father to become a promiscuous homosexual, a situation which reverted back when he ceased use of the medication.
There is also intriguing evidence that an aggressive deficiency in development of part of the amygdala is linked to homosexuality.
So, expose someone to extreme dopamine, or the amygdala atrophy of r-selection, and their reproductive strategy, and presumably their sexual preferences in mates, can shift. Guys will prefer muscular, manly ball-busting women who bang like it is an Olympic sport, and women will gravitate to effete, conflict averse, socially manipulative hipsters. On occasion that shift in preferences may overshoot, producing men who desire so much masculinity they actually like men, and women who desire such femininity that they actually prefer outright women.
But that will also go the other way. Expose people to the harshness of K-selection, and their reproductive strategies will shift back, and with it should go the reversal in sexual preferences.
If all of that is correct, as r shifts to K, and dopamine is reduced and amygdala begin to get exercised, we may see the rise of the “ex-gay.” I imagine such would be confusing to the individuals involved, as they look back on their previous sexual tastes with a strange loss of interest in the past tastes, and a new preference having developed. However in light of r/K Theory, this would make perfect sense to them, so perhaps r/K can have another purpose as well, facilitating the transition of gays back to heterosexuality.
So, given how the gays hate the idea of their numbers being diminished, there is one more group which will be horrified by the spread of r/K Theory.
r/K Theory truly makes everything not only explainable, but predictable. I cannot imagine how cool it will be in fifty or a hundred years, as the next r-phase shifts from peak r into K, to be able to look back on all of this, know exactly what is coming, understand the mechanism behind all of it, and be able to see the last iteration in the form of youtube videos and news articles from this time.
I imagine the leftist panic will probably be epic, as they watch youtube videos of the pogroms and street executions of leftist traitors, and read accounts of the horrors their diverse pets will inflict upon them the moment the food grows scarce.
Good times coming all around, and they are all due to r/K Theory.
Tell others about r/K Theory, because panicked leftists, about to die, will be a funny sight
[…] Ex Gay Is Now Becoming A Thing […]
This makes perfect sense, as there is opportunistic bisexuality in my family too. Researchers have long puzzled that, while there has always and everywhere been gay sex, sometimes tolerated, sometimes not, the concept of “gay people” appears only in the West, and only after 1850. For most of history, people identified as members of a particular family, tribe, community, nation, or profession. Identity based on what you do with your genitals, or which rock band you listen to, is hedonistic, degenerate, and lame.
There really is no ex-gay who hasn’t reverted back eventually. It’s a proven con. You don’t provide scientific evidence of that group you claim are now ex-gays and are now in heterosexual relationships with women. Are they sexual with each other or are they partnering as companions or sharing financial expenses? You don’t know. You can’t say, Hopeful and naive, you look everywhere for proof of your hypothesis. It’s called wishful thinking.
Since there is no rigorously performed study yet, I can only look at what I see anecdotally. Way back I remember everybody, gays included, saying they were born that way, just like we were, and they couldn’t change. Now I never see that, and everybody is saying the word fluid, which is a change. Like I said, it will be interesting to see if it becomes common once the Apocalypse hits.
I will say the biochemical mechanism makes sense to me. And given gay seems to correlate with a specific brain structure involving diminished development of one part of the amygdala, which should be able to be changed based on the principle of neurological plasticity, it is not impossible it can be changed through a specific stimulus, at least in a percentage of the subjects.
You only admitted the wishful thinking I claimed you were doing. Anecdotal evidence is nothing. What you are referring to by “fluid” is just another trendy way of talking about sex. “Homosexuality” as a label didn’t exist until the 19th century. There have always been a wide spectrum of sexually expressive human beings. You can erase the last 200 years of history about homosexuality and get the same result — no homos. Homosexuality was invented by “science” in the first place.
Says the guy who just makes his own assertion, and offers nothing to back it up.
As I see it, at the very least there is a tolerance for homosexuality that waxes and wanes. Guys did not take male dates to the prom in the fifties. Meanwhile we know Rome had homosexuality and even pederasty. Now we are seeing a shift in the media which could support r/K, and I said watch for ex-gay to become a thing. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t, but we will see.
If you are saying it is static, and all of the talk of flux is imaginary, you have to prove it.
I cannot write you the summary of 200 years of history as to how 19th century science established the label of “homosexual” which did not exist as an “identity” before that period. The “proof” lies not in logical argumentation or reasoning. It lies in history and research. In fact, in my earlier comment, I failed to add that even the label “heterosexual” was a 19th century invention as well. This research on this topic is generally available in the library and online. Most people think references in the past to “homosexuals” came through the label “sodomite,” but interestingly sodomy is not a requisite behavior shared among all homosexuals and even heterosexuals have engaged in this behavior for centuries. Who is the pot calling which kettle black? So the very notion of “fluidity” between the genders is just a trendy word describing very old and continuous human behavior. To give the topic some direction, I will provide you a Wikipedia link. Wikipedia claims that Foucault started the idea that “homosexual” as an identity was a 19th century invention. You don’t need him to give you “proof” of the assertion. Read the sexual manuals about those same-sex homos once called “inverts” from the 19th century and the Jewish psychologists who believed and “proved” through “science” that homosexuality was not an aberration. Science is not all what it’s cracked up to be. So much of it is scientism but in a technocratic culture that we’re immersed in, few know the difference between scientism and science since politics and social control can no longer be separated out as to how “science” is conducted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_homosexuality
I’m not really sure what we are arguing about. Are you saying that same sex-attraction is always constant? My point was it (and societal tolerance of it) has varied over history, probably alongside fluctuations in resource availability in accordance with the rules of r/K Theory.
That said, I don’t see why somebody who is aggressively homosexual now, (as a commenter on this thread claims to be, and others have claimed), can’t be labeled as such to confer the idea, and be labeled “ex-gay” if they find those urges abate and then end up exhibiting more heterosexual behavior later.
I have spent a lot of time in Bangkok and it’s common to see “normal” looking western men with local Lady boys. I half jokingly tell people that the western dudes started as guys who probably couldn’t get laid in their home country and then they went from barrenness to plenty so fast that they needed to increase the rush. Waitresses throwing themselves at you become two or three hookers become etc etc to the point where you are now openly in a relationship with a Man/girl, a proposition that would have disgusted you years earlier.
Your statements about dopamine rushes and amygdala satiation lend a certain credence to my half joking theory.
Wow, that is weird, even as it comports with my understanding of the mechanism.
When sex shifts from being procreation, to recreation, is when things go awry. There are few orgies happening in times of harsh K selection.
You should consider citing sources. Even if linking to non-conservative sites in the footnotes, it’d add weight to your arguments.
I do this as a hobby, so my position is, if you want the sources, sign up for the free book, and check it. It’s all in there.
I generally feel drawn to men. Check this out: Dopamine is inhibited by Carbohydrates. I know because I follow a fasting and very low carb eating plan. When I ate carbohydrates I would feel a lot more effeminate and whiny and I would want to fuck men all the time and masturbate a lot. Since fasting that urge has remarkable almost gone to zero. I don’t become horny and I don’t crave men. I don’t exactly crave women either though.. Every gay guy who is leftist and “in the lifestyle” is practically a food/carb addict. Diet relates to dopamine receptors for sure……
I think as I raise my spiritual awareness I might even fall in love with a woman. Possibly, but we will see.
Very interesting.
No such thing as “ex-gay.” Who said so? The leaders of the ex-gay ministries from the US to Australia (after 40 years). Every major, decades-old ex-gay ministry closed forever in 2013. Most of the testimonials of ‘change’ online were made before the truth came to light. Nobody should be advising a gay to wed an opposite sex spouse. 9 of 10 such marriages end in divorce, and all cause pain to entire families. You cannot pray away the gay.
Also, gay conversion therapies have been proven in court to be consumer fraud (JONAH case) and the Supreme Court saw no need to hear the appeal of the quack therapists. The World Psychiatric Association has joined every national medical association calling for a legal ban on sexual orientation change therapies because they cured nobody, but harmed many.
For those who want to see extensive studies, check out Kathy Baldock’s encyclopedic book, “Walking the Bridgeless Canyon.”
Meh, if you look at Global Warming you get the same thing.
As for the ex-gay ministries, they may have found conversions are nearly impossible as things are going r.
There’s very little evidence, beyond the fact things fluctuate.