Dr. Keith Ablow says "environment determines sexual orientation"

[JayQueer]

WTF?

Dr. Keith Ablow, a medical doctor (a psychiatrist) in New York City who also works for Fox News, says that "environment determines sexual orientation" and likens homosexuality to pedophilia. This is disappointing even for Dr. Ablow, who several years ago (before he worked for Fox News) condemned reparative therapy or the idea that gays "could change."

Has anyone seen this article, printed today? Read it now --

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/...netics-determines-sexual-orientation/#content

Here are a few excerpts --

"As a psychiatrist who has helped adolescents and adults make sense of their sexuality, I am convinced that, for many people, environment and social influences do indeed impact sexual desires and sexual behavior.

Some percentage of men deprived of access to women (by, for example, incarceration) may exhibit more homosexual behavior than they had previously. Whether or not they harbored underlying homosexual tendencies misses the point; in some cases, those tendencies would not have been expressed were it not for them being placed in an environment that normalized homosexuality—in this case, prison.

Similarly, some adult men who have unresolved issues connected to important females in their lives during childhood and adolescence will close the door (perhaps permanently) to intimacy with females and find their sexual drive directed out of necessity toward males. They may not be unhappy about this situation, but the outlet for their erotic drives might indeed have been based partly on the tenor and tone of their early relationships, not purely on their genetic makeup."

He also criticizes trangendered people who seek sex reassignment surgery --

"The same can be said for the celebration of transgender surgeries. When those who resort to major surgery to "become" female or male are applauded on talk shows, rather than being empathized with because they are on tortuous, tragic paths through confused identity issues, that can encourage people to think that their own very understandable ambivalence about some aspects of masculinity or femininity could mean, instead, that they are trapped inside the wrong body. It can actually kindle gender dysphoria that was not consciously present and would never have been psychologically debilitating."


His comments are sickening.

 

[highwindcaleb]

ima light shit on fire!!! heads will roll

 

[jasoncrew03]

By and large, the psychiatric community has disproven that environment is a factor in sexual orientation. Regardless of his bigotry, I wouldn't go to him professionally because he either ignores or doesn't read about modern psychiatric research findings.

 

[mikeyjon]

Works for Fox...says it all.

 

[justdra]

a fat paycheck will change your mind. i could care less what any one says, just don't put your hands on me, or you are gonna think my environment was the state pen, lol.

 

[Swellegant]

I actually found his comments interesting... especially in his mitigated wording: "sometimes" and "can" and "perhaps might." And he does not say that orientation is environmental... he says that some sexual behavior can be traced to environmental factors. Which is actually true... but considering his audience, he really ought to have been clearer.

Unfortunately, he goes off the rails with his statement that seeing post-op transgendered people celebrated, or sexualized images of children, can create desires where none existed before, which sadly undoes his rather more important statements of how sexualized images of children can normalize pedophilic ideation, thereby making a person more likely to act on impulses that would otherwise be shunned. The impulse, the predilection to the attraction has to already be there, otherwise the images won't have any power.

When he speaks of the phenomenon that Kinsey called "institutional homosexuality," where men who would otherwise not behave homosexually will do so in all-male environments, he is discussing something that is accepted truth: men removed from access to females will often indulge in and even enjoy homosexual behavior that they might never have explored otherwise; and men who might have been attracted to females as well as males will, if given sufficient disincentives to trust or sexualize females, will become exclusively homosexual instead of bisexual.

Note that he never says that a person would otherwise be heterosexual; only that the person might have acted on desires differently if certain social and experiential circumstances had been different. Remember that in ancient and/or "uncivilized" societies, where homosexuality is encouraged, there will still be some who do not enjoy homosexual behavior as well as some who enjoy nothing else. There's that whole spectrum in between, an almost liquid state that is acted upon almost entirely by social expectation and experience.

The idea that orientation can be solely or even largely attributed to environment is not found in that article (except perhaps in the title, though not explicitly); though of course a person who thinks it is will not be dissuaded from that idea by this article. And his thinking that seeing things can create desires that didn't exist holds some water: I mean, I never desired to have a laptop computer before I saw one I liked. And if I'd never seen a man in my whole life, how would I know I wanted one? The predilection was always there, but the desire was a product of later information.

I think it's a mistake to try and attribute sexuality purely to birth; there is a lot of societal and experiential influence there. An orientation, where exactly one stands in the spectrum of attraction, might be a random concatenation of DNA; but how you react to and relate to that orientation is very much a product of your society and your upbringing. There are sexual impulses that can be quashed by societal expectations just as there are impulses that can be encouraged by societal expectations, just as there are impulses that cannot be either quashed or encouraged.

It's all very complex, like everything else about human behavior.

 

[sixthson]

I'm not sure why it is so important for it to be all about nature for some people. It does not offend me that nurture might play a role in our sexuality. Either way, we did not choose our attractions.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Dr. Keith is a rightwing nut job.

Self-loathing, closet case homos should love him. After all, FOX is "fair and balanced" doncha know. Dr. Keith will be the next Surgeon General if Republicans can ever win back the Presidency.

 

[pat grimshaw]

I glanced at the thread title and assumed this person might be suggesting a healthy mountain-dweller is different from those from 'the cities of the plain'

 

[SonOfSlobone]

And this is based on what research?

 

[Beachguyj]

 

[BearBoi]

What makes animals gay?

 

[Swellegant]

^Watching Animal Planet and getting grossed out by the mating footage. ;-)

 

[eddielee]

"Experts" who are biased against gay and lesbian people, always come up with dubious explanations for sexual orientation. I'm sure Dr Laura Shitslinger agrees with Dr Ablow.

 

[onetwothreefour]

I think we know very, very little about sexuality.

What I find troubling is that the people who either research sexuality or claim to know about it have an agenda they feel is supported by their beliefs on the origins of homosexuality.

I hear some gay people and generally most liberal people say people are born gay, and for some reason I don't understand, that idea is linked to a defense of homosexuality.

I then hear conservatives saying homosexuality is based on environmental factors, past relationships, etc., and for some reason I don't understand, that idea is linked to saying homosexuality is illegitimate.

There is a fundamental problem here in that people don't seem to want the truth on either side. They want to form a position. For me the legitimacy of homosexuality is never in question. I don't care why someone wants to be with someone of the same sex. They have nothing to prove to me.I am however disturbed at the stagnation of our understanding of sexuality because the legitimacy of homosexuality is on the table for both sides. How can you do honest research if you feel you need to either cling to the very simplistic explanation that people are born gay or if you have to cling to the idea that gay people can and should change?

Why is the origins of homosexuality a threat to its legitimacy to begin with? Do we have to understand why someone has blue eyes to accept him or her?

I do believe that sexuality is complicated and I have felt frustrated trying to explore my own sexuality (which is also complicated and not expressible in clear ways and has never been expressed with another person) because when I speak to psychologists they speak in politically correct aphorisms about being gay and seem to know very little theory on sexuality, leading me to believe theory has been stagnated in an attempt to line up with a political position rather than doing pure research with no motive. And then on the other side you have the reparative people wit their pop psychology theories on homosexuality which they inextricably link (and therefore invalidate to me) to Jesus and the whole conservative movement. I am so open to being gay. I just don't quite meet the definition. I know I'm not straight. I have no idea what I am and I'm almost 29 and I would like to understand myself better and explore myself and I am open to whatever the answer is--so I am someone who would like to know what influences sexuality. And at the same time I am not opposed to homosexuality in any way. I don't identify entirely as gay but I don't hide that I'm confused and most people who know me for simplicity sake identify me as gay. This is not a case of being in the closet or wanting to go back in. I look at myself unflinchingly.

And I just don't see much intellectual honesty on either side.

BTW, I consider myself progressive (voted for Nader, Kerry, Obama), just not a group thinker. I say that preemptively because if I wrote this on the Huffingpost I would be labeled a tea partier and worse. I notice sometimes liberals will come across something unfamiliar, that's not a liberal platitude, and not realizing it's actually a progressive sentiment will go into attack mode. I've had that bad experience before and I guess I am just wary because I don't that I've written anything like this on JUB before that I so much felt risked crossing the party line. I am writing this mostly because I don't feel I have encountered who think the same way I do on this or who even seem to think about it at all and instead become somewhat reactive thinkers.

Thank you for indulging me.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

I think we know very, very little about sexuality.

What I find troubling is that the people who either research sexuality or claim to know about it have an agenda they feel is supported by their beliefs on the origins of homosexuality.

I hear some gay people and generally most liberal people say people are born gay, and for some reason I don't understand, that idea is linked to a defense of homosexuality.

I then hear conservatives saying homosexuality is based on environmental factors, past relationships, etc., and for some reason I don't understand, that idea is linked to saying homosexuality is illegitimate.

There is a fundamental problem here in that people don't seem to want the truth on either side. They want to form a position. For me the legitimacy of homosexuality is never in question. I don't care why someone wants to be with someone of the same sex. They have nothing to prove to me.I am however disturbed at the stagnation of our understanding of sexuality because the legitimacy of homosexuality is on the table for both sides. How can you do honest research if you feel you need to either cling to the very simplistic explanation that people are born gay or if you have to cling to the idea that gay people can and should change?

Why is the origins of homosexuality a threat to its legitimacy to begin with? Do we have to understand why someone has blue eyes to accept him or her?

I do believe that sexuality is complicated and I have felt frustrated trying to explore my own sexuality (which is also complicated and not expressible in clear ways and has never been expressed with another person) because when I speak to psychologists they speak in politically correct aphorisms about being gay and seem to know very little theory on sexuality, leading me to believe theory has been stagnated in an attempt to line up with a political position rather than doing pure research with no motive. And then on the other side you have the reparative people wit their pop psychology theories on homosexuality which they inextricably link (and therefore invalidate to me) to Jesus and the whole conservative movement. I am so open to being gay. I just don't quite meet the definition. I know I'm not straight. I have no idea what I am and I'm almost 29 and I would like to understand myself better and explore myself and I am open to whatever the answer is--so I am someone who would like to know what influences sexuality. And at the same time I am not opposed to homosexuality in any way. I don't identify entirely as gay but I don't hide that I'm confused and most people who know me for simplicity sake identify me as gay. This is not a case of being in the closet or wanting to go back in. I look at myself unflinchingly.

And I just don't see much intellectual honesty on either side.

BTW, I consider myself progressive (voted for Nader, Kerry, Obama), just not a group thinker. I say that preemptively because if I wrote this on the Huffingpost I would be labeled a tea partier and worse. I notice sometimes liberals will come across something unfamiliar, that's not a liberal platitude, and not realizing it's actually a progressive sentiment will go into attack mode. I've had that bad experience before and I guess I am just wary because I don't that I've written anything like this on JUB before that I so much felt risked crossing the party line. I am writing this mostly because I don't feel I have encountered who think the same way I do on this or who even seem to think about it at all and instead become somewhat reactive thinkers.

Thank you for indulging me.

cheer up their folk know lots about sexu ans whole planet manage very well fa millions of years

just send ya country ta padded playschool fa cookyjars ans theys can play out their

OOOOH is wanna be A BONEEEEE

they can get real job ans ooh

Kool

 

[freefall]

I agree to the title of the thread and some explanations which are correlated with it. Homosexuality is multifactorial and not only genetic plays a very strong part but also, the role of environment is very important in determining someone's sexual attraction, despite the exact factors are yet to be defined. I agree that we still know very little about human sexuality.

The remaining detailed explanation, however, is a partial junk bag full of turd. Homosexuality is one of the mysteries of biology and he claimed by controlling environments he can prevent homosexuality to be expressed? We didn't even know what exact factors contribute to homosexuality. Sounds to me he's trying to use a correct fact to justify his homophobia.

And even though he's using other psychiatric cases as comparisons, I don't like the way he interprets the results. It's like he's suggesting homosexuality as a disorder.

Are we back to the '60s already?

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

I agree to the title of the thread and some explanations which are correlated with it. Homosexuality is multifactorial and not only genetic plays a very strong part but also, the role of environment is very important in determining someone's sexual attraction, despite the exact factors are yet to be defined. I agree that we still know very little about human sexuality.

The remaining detailed explanation, however, is a partial junk bag full of turd. Homosexuality is one of the mysteries of biology and he claimed by controlling environments he can prevent homosexuality to be expressed? We didn't even know what exact factors contribute to homosexuality. Sounds to me he's trying to use a correct fact to justify his homophobia.

And even though he's using other psychiatric cases as comparisons, I don't like the way he interprets the results. It's like he's suggesting homosexuality as a disorder.

Are we back to the '60s already?

nahhhhhhhhhhhh! but one word right Biology

Kool

 

[kallipolis]

I am curious to know how this psychiatrist explains the causation of bisexual sexual behaviour; more especially among mature adults who are not incarcerated in prison.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

I am curious to know how this psychiatrist explains the causation of bisexual sexual behaviour; more especially among mature adults who are not incarcerated in prison.

please luvre readin da educateds funny pages

they pay folk moneys ta this a pyschicycles thangs?

wonder if world bank preisdents use dildos what da color of money?

haa