Sign On
Create Account


single31-Jan-2001sex/relationshipsBane_15 by votes901657.1%


Can a person's sexual orientation be changed?

28No, sexual orientation cannot be changed.
27Yes, sexual orientation can be changed.
24I don't know

jettles Survey Central Subscriber
posted 1-Feb-2001 2:14pm  
i tend to think of sexual orientation as a continuum. society generally wants it to be black and white. i don't think it changes but i also don't think it is black and white....... so i feel some people are attracted to men sometimes and women at other times, some to just men and some to just women.
bill Bronze Star Survey Creator
posted 1-Feb-2001 2:54pm  
I think it can change, but that's not quite the same as 'be changed'. I don't like the implication that someone is trying to change something unnaturally.
romkey Survey Central Gold Subscriber
posted 1-Feb-2001 10:19pm  
I'd say "can change", not "can be changed". Also one's understanding of one's orientation can change over time as well.
posted 1-Feb-2001 10:29pm  
This survey needs an "it depends" option. Nothing in this life is completely the same for everyone.
posted 2-Feb-2001 12:45am  

I am a bisexual person. I have always had bisexual feelings as long as I have memory.
I have lived as a heterosexual.
I have lived as a lesbian.
Basically, my orientation remains bisexual no matter if I choose to act on my bisexual feelings..or repress them so that I can have a monogamous relationship.
posted 2-Feb-2001 5:08am  
I wouldn't know, I've never been to a sexual orientation.
posted 2-Feb-2001 9:11am  
Yes but you need the Ronco Sexual Orientation Change Kit. For a limited time you get a FREE Ronco smokeless ashtray!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted 2-Feb-2001 9:33am  
I think you are born with it but situations in life can sometimes hide it from your own feelings!!

God, I've always fancied micah!!

(reply to Wicksy) posted 2-Feb-2001 10:03am  
Are you telling God your twin? smile
posted 2-Feb-2001 11:46am  
posted 2-Feb-2001 1:09pm  
I don't much care for the question, or the available options. I picked "Yes" just to be obstinate. I think that most people have sexual desires. These desires run the gamut of innumerable variations that would boggle the mind. Whether or not one chooses to act on these desires is a matter of personal choice. At least that's how I see it. I really don't agree with the concept of "sexual orientation" I think it is very limiting to the range of human experience. People identify with a word that is almost supposed to define their very existence. Every person is an individual. People are not words.
posted 2-Feb-2001 2:26pm  
Depends on the person. Theoretically there is no reason that we couldnt change anyone's, but practically there are going to be some limitations given current psychological and physiological knowledge. Of course, there are also questions about how far we can move them along the spectrum (it certainly wouldnt be possible to move ANYONE entirely from one end to the other), given current...
Simple answer though, yes. Through psychotherapy we can turn *someone* (not everyone) who today is strictly homosexual and has no attraction to the opposite sex, into a heterosexual. The opposite (obviously) can be done with relative ease, through the mere exposure effect, throught training, CSA, trauma, etc.

A question to those people who say "NO"... how do you explain the STRONG statistical correlation between victims of CSA (Childhood sexual abuse), and homosexual tendencies later in life?
(reply to ASB) posted 2-Feb-2001 3:10pm  
posted 2-Feb-2001 8:36pm  
Like all behavioural changes, they have to be made and desired by the individual.
posted 3-Feb-2001 7:14pm  
No, I have been attracted to women for as long as I can remember. I had to keep my secret feelings to myself for years because I grew up in a small redneck town and nobody would have understood. They probably would have thought I was mentally ill or something.
(reply to cody) posted 3-Feb-2001 7:18pm  
I don't know about correlations between CSA and homosexual tendencies later in life but I have been attracted to persons of my own sex since I was 7-8 yrs old and I was never abused physically, mentally or sexually. Where did you get your stats from?
(reply to cody) posted 4-Feb-2001 6:14pm  
Where did you get your statistics?
I have plenty of gay friends and none of them were abused.
On the other hand, I was abused my someone of my own sex, and I am not homosexual.
(reply to darkshadowsseeker) posted 4-Feb-2001 6:38pm  
It is a "one way" correlation. That means that just because x perecent of victims of CSA become homosexual, does not mean that x percent of homosexuals are victims of CSA :) So your single case reference which simply proves that it is a 1 way correlation (which is implied unless explicitly denied), aside from the fact that it is a single case out of millions and millions, says nothing.
Your going to need to give me until wednesday, I have seen a study or two, and I have heard many references by Psychologists to studies (as well as personal experience), but I must admit that a proper citation doesnt come to mind. Wednesday, I promise, Ill either come back with some citations or tell you "I suppose Ive got my head up my ass".

In any event, in your particular case, I can make a sweeping generalization, and from there a number of assumptions based on yoour 3 line post.
Firstly, it is irrelevant when you claim to have first been attracted to members of the same sex, due to a well known tendency called "selective memory".

At one point or another, I have had some sexual attraction to males... whether it be during a dream at night, a fleeting thought while masturbating, a guy who was just plain cute and I noticed, or more significantly, the occasional ackward feeling around a guy which is more usually associated with a cute girl. Looking up and seeing a guy staring at me, feeling a little weird, looking back in five minutes to see if he still is, he now thinks Im staring at him... on on on. Thats a guy girl thing, but it happens occasionally with guys too. I even had a couple boy/boy things when I was 7. Point is, I'm not gay (on the 0(straight) to 100 (homosexual) spectrum, I'M resting comfortably at 3.) HOWEVER, were I too at some later date become gay (as usually happens as a result of being taken advantage of in a time of insecurity and self doubt by a 3-8 years older male), I could easily say "Ive had homosexual tendencies as far back as I can remember", and discount my STRONG attraction to the opposite sex.

Ive NEVER met a girl, who, (after) sufficient trust-building and discussion, wasnt willing to admit
1) Some girls are really cute (as in sexy, pretty, hot, beautiful), and in general, girls are better looking than guys.
2) If I were drunk enough and another girl were to approach me, and she were cute enough, Id probably go for it.
3) Ive had a girl girl experience at some point in my life.
4) Sex with a woman, under the right circumstances, would feel good.
5) I have put some minimal amount of consideration into whether I was bisexual.

Ill admit
1) Some guys are hot.
2) If I were drunk enough and he was agressive enough...
3) A few things that went on early on.
4) A guy could probably get me off as well as a girl could.
5) I wondered for at least 2 minutes of my life whether I was gay.

once again, I repeat, IM NOT GAY. But all it takes for a normal 15 year old who is a little weaker than me, is dealing with the "left out/different" emotion that almost everyone has at that age.. can admit 1-5 (like nearly eveyrone who is honest can... Unless they dealt with these issues so long ago that they really cant remember, or they are too old to have known what gay was until they were at least 14.), to become gay, is for a 19 year old to come along, tell him that because of 1-5 he IS gay, and its alright to be gay and remove any feelings of shame, give him a good lollipop, make him feel comfortable and secure, give him attention, treat him better than his parents do, tell him he is being oppressed, buy him a subscription to the advocate, take him to the gay/lesbian community center where he makes friends who "support" him... and tada! Youve got another assembly line homoseual! Now, later on, he begins to lose/deny attraction to females because the boy girl game is a HELL of a lot harder to play than the boy boy one... his memory serves him right and comes up with HUNDREDS of cases in his life where he was in doubt, and proves to him that he has "known it all along"... etc. etc. etc.

Now, dont get me wrong, Im not making any moral objection to homosexuality, in theory I dont give a crap (In practice they do a lot of things that piss me off).

All Im saying, is that if you are typical, around age 5-10, you were more interested in your own sex than the other one... if sexual development has occured a little bit, youve probably had some sexual experience with your own sex, later on, you have asked yourself on a number of occasions whether this made you gay. You can accept that there are some good looking members of both sexes (The abillity to judge beauty is NOT attached to the x and y chromosomes:), that gay sex would at least physically feel good, and in the right situation youd be willing to try just once. Around age 12-16 you are feeling "different" and left out, questioning at least some aspects of your sexuality (even if it is as silly as whether you "measure up..."), and your sexual history is primarily homosexual. Someone a little older comes along, gives you a good orgasm, introduces you to some friends, treats you well, gives you attention (which you crave at that point), makes you feel welcome and comfortable, and you develop some emotion for them. If that person is of the opposite sex (And most people can *name* who this person was in their life. Her name was Laura :) ), you end up like the rest of us. If it was of the same sex, you end up telling eveyrone how youve "always known"... ever since you were 7-8...
(reply to spidertea) posted 4-Feb-2001 6:51pm  
Youve done a MUCH better job of making a case than kate did. Good question, and I answered it already. 3 days...

Im happy to hear that you have had plenty of gay friends and (to your knowledge) none of them were abused... however, it is unlikely that you know a significant number of homosexuals well enough that they are going to tell you they were sexually abused. IN any event it is a one way correlation.

NOW your attacking from the right direction. You were CSA victim, and you are not gay. Unfortunately, it is still once case out of hundreds of millions. Also, many gay people DONT consider the 3-6 year older person who legally raped them when they were 13, 14,15,16,17, to be a rapist, and they dont consider it SA. The psychological community, DOES. It fits into the "Non traumatic" column :) Ask around, do a little research, most people who are gay, had a relationship with someone a few years (2.5-10), older than them while they were between 12 and 18. On average, they were 15 and their first (gay) sexual partner was 18.

(reply to cody) posted 4-Feb-2001 7:28pm  
I have had experience with both male & female (I do have a grown son) and frankly sex with men does nothing for me. As director John Landis says "see you next Wednesday". By the way, my hetero experience was years before my first homo experience.
(reply to darkshadowsseeker) posted 4-Feb-2001 7:56pm  
There are a lot of women out there who are not lesbians, for whom sex with men is roughly equivalent to rubbing their hand up and down on the top of their foot. Probably a psychological block which could be worked on. Plenty of people disatisfied with sex lives... not all of them become gay :) If your first hetero experience was "years" before your first homo experience, that in itself may be something worth looking into! I really am not qualified to comment on individual cases on the basis of under a page of information... A couple hours of questions and answers IRL, and I'd be willing to make a handfull of statements. Of course, I dont expect you to be willing to go for that, (i sure as fudge wouldnt!). Without a FULL explanation of events we cannot have a good debate on the issue.. so let it suffice that I say: If I had all the info, I could find the hole, and even in the worst case scenario (for me); Hmm.. I guess you are the exception!
posted 5-Feb-2001 2:40pm  
I don't know...if you're askin...can you change a gay friend into straight...if they truely love who they're I don't think so.
posted 7-Feb-2001 2:56am  
of course!...what if the instructor has an emergency and can't make it?
(reply to darkshadowsseeker) posted 7-Feb-2001 4:03pm  
Well, after 6 hours of research in the library yesterday, I came to a conclusion. I have no idea how to find articles in journals... it is tough. I had originally posted references to about 5 articles, but one of them is much more powerfull than the others, so I will just post it... a page which has a good amount of references is , if you are looking for quantity over quality :)

Dr. David Finkelhor (if you dont know who he is put his name in a a search engine), did a study in 1979. It is described in

Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, (New York: The Free Press, 1984), the pages 180-200.

Here is what the study concluded.

No sexual abuse...11% engaging in homosexual activity in last year. (N=174). Sex with peer at young age...20% engaging in homosexual activity in last year (n=30). Sex with much older partner at young age, 45% engaging in homosexual activity within last year (n=11).

It was a chart at first but that doesnt work on sc.
(reply to darkshadowsseeker) posted 7-Feb-2001 4:19pm  
It is necessary to note that the subjects were male.
posted 7-Feb-2001 4:48pm  
Now, for a little history of the modern belief that homosexuality is genetic... The BIG article, which changed a lot of peoples minds on the issue, which spurred a newsweak cover "Gay Gene?", was released in 1993 by Dean Hamer... he was so upset by the misleading new coverage he went on to state, in many different forums, the following message:

"From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors"

The article he wrote began with "...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic." Translation offerred by the website ...
"It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is." Of course, genetics DO play a role.. they play a role in EVERYTHING! However, correlation is not causation.
(reply to cody) posted 7-Feb-2001 7:41pm  
Unfortunately, back then homosexuality was still considered by some in the mental health field as a form of mental illness. Thank heavens that most mental health specialists no longer treat homosexuality that way. Except maybe idiots such as Dr. Laura and I am not even sure she has any kind of medical degree.
Enheduanna Survey Central Subscriber
(reply to darkshadowsseeker) posted 7-Feb-2001 10:25pm  
Oooh, I hate her!
posted 8-Feb-2001 12:19am  
It can, but the thought grosses me offense to anyone out there but I just can't imagine wanting to become another gender!
(reply to darkshadowsseeker) posted 8-Feb-2001 2:21am  
Although the phrase "Mental illness" is definately pushing it [it sure as hell isnt in the same league as schizophrenia], I would argue that homosexuality is both a psychiatric problem with psychiatric causes [and biological susceptability], as well as psychiatric treatments.
We know for a fact that homosexuality can, and in most cases SHOULD (for the benefit of the individual), be dealt with in a clinical manner. The following is a GREAT article on the subject;
For future reference Kate, Dr. Laura's degree is in Economics [She never said otherwise!].

True or not true Kate: Most homosexuals experience emotional disturbances as a result of their homosexuality, and, if given the choice, would choose to be heterosexual? Just because people did not choose to be homosexual (or alcoholic for that matter) doesn't mean we cannot treat them in a clinical setting! What is inherently wrong with the arguement that
1) Homosexuality is an emotional, psychiatric, PROBLEM, in at least some individual cases. 2) It can be treated by a psychologist. 3) At least some homosexuals don't like being that way. 4) Given 1, 2, 3, some homosexuals should seek treatment.

This is a VERY strong arguement. VERY strong.
Tell me which number you argue with... 4 is a REALLY tough one to disagree with because we can exchange "alcoholism" for homosexuality in all instances, and it is without a douibt true. Number three is impossible to argue with as well... naturally, there is at least one homosexual who doesnt like being that way in the world. Number one is really hard to disagree with as well... homosexuality does cause emotional and psychiatric problems... a wife, 2.6 kids... a white pickette fence... its hard to give up your dreams.
The only thing which is really even up for debate is 2, and from THOUSANDS of case studies of treated homosexuality, anyone with an objective outlook will agree with it... INCLUDING most members of the psychological community (Don't believe me? Ask one.)
(reply to darkshadowsseeker) posted 8-Feb-2001 2:28am  
Seriously Kate, whats wrong with believing that homosexuality is a psychiatric disturbance that can be treated? What I feel bad about, is the fact that many people have had their lives destroyed [I would cite unusually high suicide rates among adolescent homosexuals], because society denied them the reality that they can change. We need to quite bullcrapting ourselves, accept it as a problem in at least some individuals (Some people may, very well LIKE being gay... some alcoholics like being that way too], and then we can get to treating those people who want to be treated, in an effective and efficient manner.
(reply to cody) posted 10-Feb-2001 12:24am  
Cody, some homosexuals experience problems because of many people's *reaction* to their homosexuality, not because of the homosexuality itself. Just like many blacks have historically felt inferior because they internalized others' perception of them, not because there was anything inherently wrong with them.

It's interesting, in all of your arguments, you give no specific reason why homosexuality is inherently harmful or maladaptive. One could even argue that it's MORE adaptive than heterosexuality, given the overpopulation that exists many places, and given the fact that homosexuals are less likely to spawn.

In your "strong argument" above, do you believe you could replace "homosexual" with "heterosexual" and still have a valid argument? Do you believe that your heterosexuality could be treated by a psychiatrist?

Finally, although I know it's probably pointless, I will explain to you why "There are a lot of women out there who are not lesbians, for whom sex with men is roughly equivalent to rubbing their hand up and down on the top of their foot. " It is because there are many men out there who are not gay, for whom sex with women is roughly equivalent to jerking off! Many men do not know a clit from a carburetor, nor care to learn. Many men do not give a damn about their partner's satisfaction, beyond the ego points they can rack up for themselves by hearing how great they are.

Come to think of it, I KNOW it's much more sane to be a lesbian than it is to be a straight woman, given the number of creepy het guys out there relative to the number of creepy lesbian women. smile
(reply to sequel) posted 10-Feb-2001 12:38am  

Well said!
(reply to mandy) posted 10-Feb-2001 11:45pm  

Why thank you...
(reply to sequel) posted 11-Feb-2001 4:41pm  
If you deny that in at least some people, homosexuality is a problem in and of itself, then you are not worthy of having a discussion on the subject with.

In any event, lets ignore these people and look at the people you refer to.

Some alcoholics experience problems because of many peoples reaction to their alcoholism, not because of the alcoholism itself.

REgardless, you cannot seperate the two issues, regardless of what is the origin of the problem, there is a cause/effect relationship between homosexuality and many other mental disorders in some people. These people should be treated even if the origin of the effect is external.

Another example: "Many people with acne experience problems as a result of other poeoples reactions to their acne, not because of the acne itself (the main INTERNAL consequences is a little irritation/pain every once in a while [depending on severity]).

Should we, or should we not, treat it?

Your attempt at explaining away *all* womens sexual problems by referring to their husbands inabillity to do it right is silly at best, please read one of the hundreds of books written on the subject of treating women psychologically for sexual problems.

(reply to sequel) posted 11-Feb-2001 4:44pm  
BTW, do you believe that a psychiatrist can treat you for your non-alcoholism? Sure, a psychiatrist COULD turn you into an alcoholic, but why?
(reply to cody) posted 12-Feb-2001 7:42am  
sequel quite clearly used words like "some" and "many", rather than words like "all". Please don't erect strawmen for others; it's unbecoming a thinking individual.
You did bring up a valid point regarding the internal vs external "costs" of various conditions. The only problem is that it's not particularly applicable to the case that you make: whether the problems stem from internal or external factors (or a mix of both) is very relevant to determination of a proper treatment.
Let's take homosexuality: the internal "costs" are essentially non-existent (and feel free to disagree); it's almost entirely the external social stigma that causes problems. To treat these problems there are a few different approaches. If there was a substantial internal component then changing the condition is pretty much required. All the social approval in the world won't stop an alcoholic from abusing alcohol. Some attention to the stigma surrounding alcoholism will help by making alcoholics more likely to admit their problem but it won't fix everything. If the problems are caused largely by external factors you have two additional options: reducing the social disapproval exhibited by the rest of society (a Sisyphean task) and reducing the individual's need for validation by a society that stigmatizes them.
If treating the internal causes of the "problem" of homosexuality were a relatively painless operation (on a par with, say, antiseptics and antibiotics for acne sufferers) then I might (ethical questions aside) be more willing to consider this sort of thing. Instead, "treating" homosexuality, that is, changing someone's sexual orientation is not easy, painless, cheap, or even particularly successful. If acne treatment required something as difficult, painful, and costly as chemotherapy then I'd be advocating that we just get over our obsession with smooth, pimple-free skin. The cure is worse than the disease.
There is an additional wrinkle in this: attempting to fix the internal and external causes cannot be done simultaneously, indeed fixing one will almost certainly make the other worse. To fix the internal cause, the therapist is working from a position that homosexuality is a problem that should be treated, reinforcing the social stigma that causes so much harm. If the therapist works on the external causes (to the degree possible), they will be working from the position that homosexuality is healthy and normal: validating the feelings of our hypothetical homosexual.
You can't do both: either convert the homosexuals into heterosexuals or convert the society into one accepting of homosexuals. Alternatively, do nothing and accept the high levels of suicide, etc. of homosexuals.
Wow, that was much longer than intended; congratulations on hitting a hot button.
(reply to daver) posted 12-Feb-2001 11:06pm  
Congratulations on being one of the few people in the world who are capable of forming a valid argument.

I will admit a loss on the subject of the straw man in my previous arguement, but only in regards to the "Women sexual problems" portion. I did, inadvertantly, assume that sequel was trying to explain away all of womens sexual problems (or at least the vast majority), by that statement. This of course isnt eh case, and upon looking back I realize that.

HOWEVER, in my original sentence, responding to sequel, I assumed that in his line "some homosexuals experience problems because of many people's *reaction* to their homosexuality", that he meant "Some homosexuals experience problems. The reason these homosexuals experience problems is because of..."

Not, to mean "The reason SOME of the homosexuals who have experienced problems experienced problems is because of peoples...". You see the difference? He claimed, and you continue to claim, the latter.

Your argument here is strong, and without a doubt valid (which doesn't necessarily make it true). My point of disagreement is on a sentence that goes undefended (maybe because you realized how difficult it would be to defend), yet is vital to your logic...
"the internal "costs" are essentially non-existent."

This is something you take as "given", a premise.

I would argue that [without denying the external causes], there are some very powerful internal problems with homosexuality. Many of them revolve around subconscious desires which still exist [but this is Freudian and hard to defend so I'll admit its a weak statement], and hard-wired functional utilities of the mind [Man needs woman, woman needs man, are hardwired into the mind, gay or not gay [another weak statement]]. The more significant ones revolve around being forced to abandon or seriously alter the plans many people have had since birth of having a normal family, having children with the person you love, having normal sex with the person you love [the desire exists even in the homosexual mind], a wedding... being forced to give up these sorts of things (and yes, they are external in some way, originally, but by the time you have reached adulthood in this world they are internal).

I definately agree that you are right about treating not being "Easy,painless cheap", however, early on (say, at 14 or so, and that is when the person FIRST begins to question their identity), it isn't extraordinarily difficult. Depending on the person of course, but at least in a handful of cases it is relatively easy. In any event, you must agree that there are some situations where it would be simple and easy, and I am merely trying to get my foot in the door here.

Now, lastly, you have made a logical error, and dont worry, I can see how it could have slipped past you :)

"If the therapist works on the external causes (to the degree possible), they will be working from the position that homosexuality is healthy and normal: validating the feelings of our hypothetical homosexual."

If the therapist succeeds in changing the homosexual into a heterosexual, the issue of what society thinks about gays will be a non issue, the patient isnt gay, he merely "used to think he was".

You are trying to treat the symptoms through therapy, I view therapy as a way to treat the cause. How about this argument:

1) Homosexuality can be treated.
2) Many homosexuals wish they were straight.
3) Many homosexuals are willing to accept the costs [emotional, psychosocial, financial] of therapy.
4) Why isn't it acceptable for a psychiatrist to treat one of these homosexuals? We act like it is inherently evil.
(reply to cody) posted 13-Feb-2001 7:19am  
You're absolutely right that I take the non-existent internal costs as a given (and I included a parenthetical comment inviting disagreement). Your claim that these costs are (if I read you correctly) as follows: sub-conscious Freudian issues; biological determinism; having a "normal" family", children, and "normal" sex.
You seem disinclined to defend the Freudian issues. Biological determinism is a sham: I do many profoundly unnatural things, not the least of which is typing this message. Every time I use birth control I am going directly against what I am "hard-wired" to do yet I see birth control as a positive thing.
Desiring a "normal" family or sex is an external issue, not an internal one. That leaves children. If it were necessary to change one's sexual orientation in order to conceive I might agree with you. Since it's not, I don't.
Lastly, in regards to my "logical error": If the therapist is working on external problems (as opposed to internal) then they are not trying to change someone's sexual orientation but rather helping someone deal with the reaction of other people to their sexual orientation.
(reply to daver) posted 14-Feb-2001 1:47pm  
Upon carefull examination of what you have said Daver, it looks like you are mostly right. You pointed out a few things I hadn't thought of. I will adjust my argument to more closely fit in with reality.

The only point where I can continue to fight for at this time would be that there are serious psychological stresses and problems that are associated with going against our hard-wiring [I find it difficult to believe that ADD is biological, or that it has existed since before the common era], and that homosexuality [but probably not bisexuality] will further exacerbate these stresses and problems, being more against the nature of the mind and body than a motor activity such as typing, which, itself has problems associated with it which I am sure you know about. When you operate a body/mind in a way that that wasn't intended in its design, it may well work, but there are bound to be problems that arise later on. Everything about the human body and mind were genetically developed with the primary tasks of 1) Sustaining life until such time as it can 2) Mate heterosexually. EVERYTHING about us was tweaked to make us operate smoothly while trying to reach these goals. The second you stray from that path, all of the knobs and levers which had been fine tuned inside your body and mind become the incorrect settings for your current situation. The abillity to handle these inconsistencies differs from person to person, and in many cases, the individual is well adjusted and can handle them quite well, however, there are problems of a complicated nature which would be difficult to directly identify, which are certain to arise in many homosexuals.

For example; What would happen if you decided to drive your car backwards, always? You turn your seat around, set up a new steering system, and you even reverse the drive of the wheels? You are bound to encounter some problems, the car was not designed to run backwards! Homosexuality is operating your body in a way that isn't accounted for in the owners manual, and it does cause problems. Obvious ones which can be accounted for, such as an inabillity to have normal sex.. and less obvious ones that are difficult to.

Everything about the body, from the most obvious external features, to the finest internal ones, is designed in a way to accomplish a single goal. When you stray from that path, problems arise... just like too much typing will screw up your nerves and tendons.
posted 19-Feb-2001 6:44pm  
I don't think so, but I don't want to change mine
posted 25-Feb-2001 5:16pm  
I highly doubt it! The do-gooders in the world have tried without success. I can't believe that anyone would believe that someone would choose to go through a life that is that confused and full of rejection and pain. It can't be easy. People who are gay here leave for other places because it's not accepted. (Did I tell you that we are twenty years behind out here?)
posted 2-Mar-2001 4:07pm  
I think it can change, but it can't BE changed. Suppressed, maybe. Changed, no.
posted 9-Apr-2001 1:08pm  
Mine did. I started crossdressing at age 18. Well at that age I took it seriously. Eventually I wanted to be with men in order to fulfill the female experience and I found I liked it better
posted 12-Apr-2001 9:46pm  
posted 19-Apr-2001 5:20pm  
posted 18-May-2001 9:57pm  
Hey I was typing in random numbers when I found this. And what do you know! Creator, do you know you have the 7000th survey?!?!
posted 9-Jun-2001 10:40am  
I think people can convince themselves of it, but there's only so long you can live a lie. And, sexuality isn't a black and white thing. And, it can change throughout your life. People try different things as they go through life.
posted 2-Jul-2001 4:03am  

If you'd like to vote and/or comment on this survey, please Sign On

Link this survey:

Hits: 0 today (0 in the last 30 days)