Homosexuality - a Learned Behavior
This paper was written by a clinical psychologist who has been in practice for several years. He has worked with issues surrounding sexuality for many years, and his opinion on this matter should be taken seriously because of his years of experience and his willingness to have an open mind. This willingness to have a "different" opinion has sometimes been quite controversial for him.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Learning and Unlearning of Homosexual Preference
In October of 1982, the Social Justice Committee of the Minnesota Council of Churches issued a highly controversial "Statement of Ministry To and With Gay and Lesbian Persons." Most of the controversy has centered around the statement's assertions that homosexual behavior is morally acceptable. Quite aside from the morality issue, I found one particular assertion in the statement contrary to scientific evidence. The Text reads: "The matter of one's sexual or affectional orientation is not necessarily a matter of choice. Evidence continues to suggest that there is a giveness about it." That statement is simply not true. There is no demonstrable connection between sex hormone levels and/or chromosome structure and sexual preference. Drs. John P. Brantner, Norman Garmezy, and Erving I. Gottesmen, prominent psychologists at the University of Minnesota, verify this. Their opinion is further corroboration of an earlier research summary made by the University of Minnesota's Dr. Ephriam Rosen, who wrote in 1965: "It can be stated with confidence that no consistent abnormalities of endocrine function have been observed in any group of sexual deviates." Interestingly, the homosexual himself frequently believes in a constitutional explanation, endocrine or otherwise. I was born that way and it's unfair to expect me to behave differently, is his claim. It was the conclusion of these University of Minnesota scholars and researchers that no persuasive evidence exists for a genetic or physiological cause of homosexual preference. It is, of course, possible, that at some time in the future some such evidence might be discovered. But the important point is that, at the present, no such persuasive evidence exists.
On the contrary, the most likely hypothesis in the light of available data is that sexual preference is learned. The basic law of learning, the law of reinforcement, states that organisms develop preferences for those behaviors for which they are strongly, frequently, and immediately reinforced by closely related rewards. Sexual arousal and climax are among the most powerful of reinforcers, and are therefore among the most powerful of teachers. Whatever activities an individual engages in frequently, if they are followed by the reinforcing event of orgasm, will become strongly preferred. Even the imaginary rehearsal of behaviors in fantasy thinking, if followed by the reinforcing event of arousal and climax, will become preferred. Thus, masturbation, with its attendant fantasies, has played a critical role in the learning of homosexuality ans well as heterosexuality, depending upon the content of the masturbation fantasies. For example, if a young boy has an early homosexual experience with a seducing adult or older boy, and later reinforces this experience by himself with masturbation and fantasy thoughts, the boy's preference may become homosexual. There are other factors which might predispose an individual to indulge in this self-teaching process. A boy who has considerable anxiety about females or who is preoccupied with winning the love and acceptance of other males, or who identifies with a feminine gender role, might engage in the requisite learning process leading to the development of homosexual preference. This does not mean that the individual sets out at an early life stage deliberately to learn homosexual preference; the entire process of self-teaching may be quite unconscious. Indeed, it may seem to the individual that one day he or she "discovers" a preference for sexual activity with members of hor or her own gender. Learning theory suggests that when such a "discovery" takes place, it is merely the coming to awareness of a self-instruction process that has been underway for a long period of time.
If sexual preference is learned, then it can be unlearned and relearned in an opposite direction. There is a growing body of evidence for such unlearning and relearning. An article appearing in the American Journal of Psychiatry for December, 1980, reports on eleven men whose sexual orientation changed from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality through participation in a pentecostal church fellowship which apparently was a powerfully effective learning environment. Religious doctrine, learned in a close-knit religious fellowship, offered the subjects a "folk therapy" experience which was important in producing their change. On the average, their self-identification as homosexual occurred at age eleven, their change to heterosexual identification occurred at age twenty-three and their period of exclusively heterosexual identification at the time of this study was four years.. The developmental sequences of these men were remarkably similar. All had been actively engaged in homosexual relationships and activities. All except two had "come out" and had been openly active in the gay lifestyle. After their commitment to heterosexuality, their social relationships with women and there attraction to women developed. Six of them married because of sexual attraction and love for a woman. Five were unmarried. None of the unmarried men engaged in heterosexual intercourse because of the religious prohibitions of their church fellowship. However, all of these looked forward to marriage and three were actively dating at the time of the study. The "folk therapy" of religious learning and supportive fellowship was, by itself, effective in their learning heterosexual preference.
There is much additional evidence that homosexuals who wish to change can alter their sexual orientation. It is true that earlier psychotherapeutic strategies, following the general Freudian approach, did not have encouraging success record. But since the late 1960s, the various behavior-oriented therapies based on efficient unlearning and relearning processes, have yielding success rates ranging from 57 percent to 100 percent. The most encouraging behavior-oriented therapies employ a multi-modal approach. They combine breaking the mental association between pleasurable feelings and homosexual fantasies, building as association of relief and anxiety reduction with heterosexual fantasies, and training, where needed, in appropriate courtship skills and assertiveness.
It is important to note that these high success rates are for persons who want to change to a heterosexual preference. We do not insist at IPT that a homosexual attempt to become heterosexual. In fact, we work with homosexuals on many problems without trying to change their sexual orientation. But for persons who do come to us requesting change, we make use of the multi-modal approach with encouraging results.
Institute for Psychological Therapies,
Dr. Ralph Underwager, M. Div,. Ph.D.,
Licensed Consulting Psychologist
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I suspect that I am less forgiving than Dr. Underwager. While I do respect their free agency to choose their own lifestyle, it is my view that, in order to perpetuate the homosexual lifestyle, it is absolutely necessary to recruit in order to continue to exist at all. This means to me that, by necessity, they can be expected to prey on others in hope of recruiting them to accept -or participate- in their choice of lifestyle. I personally have seen this recruitment, and I believe that while they employ what I feel is despicable and underhanded methods of recruitment, they must, by their own inability to otherwise continue their lifestyle continue their inappropriate methods of recruitment.
To often, this means your children -or mine- are being recruited behind our back. This is simply unforgivable, and cannot and should not be tolerated.
I am willing to listen. Anyone that would like to rebut the above discussion is free to do so. I will post here, any honest, dissenting opinion that disagrees with the position statement or suggestions I have made here. My e-mail address is
RussS@INet-1.com.
My homepage is at:
http://www.inet-1.com/~russs/homepage.htm and there are several articles similiar to this one linked from there. Check it out!
