This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I benefited from conversion talk therapy. Nobody claimed a particularly high success rate, but I got the impression that most of these therapists thought a majority of people improved somewhat. I never heard discussion of aversive practices, I didn't get the impression it was common or normal, or even really part of the same world. Everybody was religious and had strong views about family systems and the like. It was, mostly, fairly standard therapy with some unusual homework exercises centered around a self conception as a man/woman designed by God for that role. These therapists took other, non-conversion therapy clients and cases, I suspect the bulk of their clientele were dealing with trauma or whatever. The list I was given was, overwhelmingly, male, and a few women were highlighted for those that preferred a woman to talk to(this was, clearly, intended for women who don't feel comfortable discussing certain things with men). Unlike with most therapists, they freely and frequently recommended talking to someone else, changing therapists often, etc, as it was thought that different people specialized on different specific issues within the complex that causes homosexual ideation. The theory of treatment was based on a book written by some Dutch reactionary psychiatrist, this was freely shared with me and I read it out of curiosity(unfortunately, I purchased it on an old kindle account which I no longer have access to).
I should note that it did, factually, work in my case. I not only lost disordered urges but also became more stereotypically masculine, developed a greater interest in sports and the like. I'm happier for it.
As far as the vote pattern goes, it seems like the most intelligent liberal justice is attempting to mitigate the damage done to state mandation of official social liberalism. This is an issue in which I am, of course, keenly interested in given my ideological views, but it does seem like Kagan and Sotomayor recognize at least some constitutional limitations, whereas KJB simply rambles in favour of whatever the current dem party line is. No wonder Kagan is reportedly tired of her.
Most of the information I've seen suggests that formal use of 'hard' aversive stimuli (eg, electric shocks, physical impacts, harsh chemicals) fell out of favor by the mid 1980s. There's claims of it since, but they tend to revolve around extremely marginal cults and/or really sketchy political activist backstories. Even before it was marginalized in the social conservative sphere, it was considered (probably reasonably!) as likely to backfire, end up with asexual or otherwise less-sexually-functional-than-before outcomes, or trigger even weirder behaviors in the Nicholas Cummings side of the sphere.
(Although I was under the impression van den Aardweg himself was prone to flirting closer than most talk therapy-focused groups: there's always some fuzzy edges between exercise as process versus exercise and punishment, but the whole Failed Male and Failed Social Relationship framework seemed prone to leaping off that edge, in addition to just being hilariously wrong in a number of cases I know firsthand.)
Yeah, that's not unprecedented or unbelievable. I was trying to keep to the legal arguments above, but the factual side of this is an ungodly mess.
My impression is that there's a small portion of people (either bisexual or malleable for other reasons like their approach to sexuality or very pressing in the 'every hole is a goal' sense sex drives) for whom even the 'standard' form of Man Up works, or could probably even work themselves into a pretty wide variety of results in the Dodo Bird Verdict sense. There have been a few bihackers that were successful going the other direction, and happy with it, and I kinda do have to mention that there's a ton of guys who were perfectly straight and then spent some time in the furry fandom and discovered Oh No He's Hot.
But the flip side is that a lot don't, even within the small group who seek this out the hardest: a large portion who try are only able to shove down same-sex interests for short periods, or they're able to function with women but still crave men in ways that they're not really comfortable with. Likewise, you get bihackers that aren't grossed out by gay sex anymore, but wouldn't actually look out for the stuff, or might struggle to even top (or even top the 'most gay lite' guy available, cw: furry comic).
I'm not kidding when I say Cumming's 14% number seems really optimistic.
The flip side to that is that we've got a lot more tooling available, now. At the moderate level, there was a long-standing theory that gay guys just needed to have a couple good rounds of 'healthy' sex with a woman to Become A Man, and contra the invasive therapies and wireheading from erwgv3g34's older example, these days some gay guys can do it with a Little Blue Pill and a weekend in Vegas. It doesn't work -- a few still can't get it up or keep it up, and a much larger number can pump away and just don't really feel satiated at the end -- but it seems like it should be something that redefines how a lot of frameworks around everything here should go, and it really hasn't.
People having widespread changes to their sexuality as a result of hormonal supplementation is common, if not universal.
(At the more extreme, I'd expect rTMS to have some impact, and while I think experimenting like that is a terrible idea regardless of what you're trying to change your mind on, it's far from the most terrible idea to get massive support and grants. On the flip side, I can understand why both social conservatives and LGBT advocates think it's a really dumb weapon to invent and then leave around for someone else to mandate!)
On the flipside, with the possible exclusion of the Kaiser SF program, it's weird how messy "improved somewhat" is as a term of art. Does that mean they were still gay, just got perceived hypersexuality under control? Still gay, but could run on the masc4masc side of grindr? Still gay, but less conflicted about it? Could they now have sex with their wives, and if so did they enjoy it or see it as a chore? Or did they have reduced same-sex attraction, in the sense that they jorked it to gay porn instead of cheating on their significant other? Because some of these endpoints -- even and maybe especially if they are desirable for the patients in question -- seem like they could be confronted in ways that don't revolve around 'changing orientation' as the central result, rather than a rare side effect.
Even assuming as a given the whole progressive mainstream philosophy as true, there’s a lot of this stuff that could be relevant and interesting and important, completely divorced from sexual orientation change, and they’re not looking into it deeply either.
I think using positive punishment in order to create a conditioned response is just a very, very bad idea to do to people and can mess them up in ways that we don't fully understand. #JusticeForLittleAlbert
Ok, this is one of your sentences I had to read thrice before I got it. I thought you were talking about the straight-to-gay people here (I guess you call them the 'bihackers'?) and I was genuinely confused for a few minutes because I thought you were saying "they could only shove down" in the sense of "avoid throwing up because of" same-sex interests for short periods, and I was trying to discern how that was different from your next sentence about the guys who were no longer grossed out by gay sex. It took me longer than I care to admit to understand you meant "repress" and not "keep a full stomach on", which are very much the opposite thing.
I thought about making a matrix joke, but then I realized that making a matrix joke about gender and sexuality wasn't particularly original.
Wait, is the point that the 'most gay lite guy available' is a trans man with a vagina? I will admit that I've found some people who call themselves trans men attractive, but this is on the "I have changed literally nothing about my appearance--I am now wearing masculine clothing but I've done nothing irreversible--I am a proud trans-masc-femboy and this is a masculine pink skirt I'm wearing" spectrum of trans men, or in other words the ones where they could just say 'I am a woman' and no one would think anything of it. When male-pattern hair or surgeries start getting involved that's where my brain nopes out. I suppose that's a long-winded way of saying I'm not attracted to trans men.
I mean, this doesn't not sound like someone's kink. We already live in a world in which gay hypnosis pornography exists.
Yeah. There's still some small groups trying it for smoking cessation and addiction therapy, but even in that specific context it's controversial, and for a reason. When using it with sexual arousal, it seems like giving people really unpleasant BDSM kinks is kinda the best-case scenario, and broad hangups or extreme social discomfort more likely. But like the lobotomy, it was popular for a time.
My apologies. This last interpretation is the correct one: of the small group of gay men who actively search out therapy to become less gay or more straight, a large majority either only find themselves 'less gay' in that they're able to go more time without a strong hunger for gay sex, or 'more straight' in the sense of having the ability to have sex with women but not the ability to enjoy it or to find it preferential to sex with men, and in both cases not being any more comfortable with their same-sex attraction.
This is separate from bihackers (mostly straight-to-bisexual-seeking), where there are a small number of unequivocal success stories who aren't sure if they became bisexual or just became comfortable being bisexual, a tiny number who had organic changes cause overt and undeniable differences in attraction (mostly trans people on hormones, kontextmashine's brain tumor), and then a large majority where it couldn't change their likely romantic (or grindr) focuses even as they became comfortable.
Uh... I was kinda trying to motion around really-really-feminine guys, regardless of the anatomical side; that's just a comic that's really explicit about it without being actual porn on the same page.
But it does apply there, too. I'd kinda naively expected trans men with vaginas to maybe be less psychologically difficult for a 'straight' man trying out gay sex, (and a lot of trans guys reasonably don't like being seen as training wheels), if only in a 'it's nothing you haven't
seenfucked before' sorta way, but your specific reactions seem fairly common for guys who strongly prefer women. Even well before male pattern baldness or mastectomy, most normally-straight guys, no matter how much they've gotten used to the idea of men having sex, aren't into a bit of even soft and downy chest hair. Go figure on that one!For that specific comic, with the warning that it's almost certainly too much information :
Fair. And since I do have an actual orientation play kink, if one that doesn't overlap much with conversion therapy or orientation change (or mind control), so that also makes this whole matter complicated to talk about. I definitely don't want to mix real-world advice and smut-world logic, or pretend that pulling psychoanalysis from smut is going to give some broad and consistent view of human thought.
But I also have to recognize the limits of my introspection, so I can't just say I'm looking at the topic completely dispassionately, either for or against.
It's still shocking to me that it won the nobel prize. I understand the harsh experiences and conditions of the instutionalized and that people genuinely did 'improve' in the sense that they didn't express wild emotions any more, but the null hypothesis for any such change, especially when it came with cognitive impairment, would obviously be that you've butchered them and something about their internal experience has been seriously degraded. I wonder at times whether the lobotomy was a product of behaviorism, or of the medical neglect of the mentally ill. Probably both.
This seems hard to tease apart. But I guess it's genuinely an open question how someone actually "discovers" what turns them on, and what the difference is between "being comfortable with it" and "being it sexual." Even within a particular orientation there are obvious features that seem culturally determined, like of course the tension between the "I want me a woman as thin as a rail" guys and the "I want that venus tummy" guys.
Really? In terms of being attracted to people of a very different kind than before, not just being more attracted to the same kind of people?
I will say that I think straight men love the general body shape and appearance of women more than they love the vagina, specifically. I guess 'pussy pics' are a thing, but it's telling that the main thing men want to see in a woman is really something more like the curves, the breasts, the buttocks. Even more than that, there's an angle on the female body positivity movement that's 'vulva positivity', because a lot of pornography selects for ladies with minimal labia minora, which suggests a kind of genital minimalism in men's attraction to women. Perhaps this contributes to why gynandromorphilia is so common as a thing that it has a whole porn category?
(To be clear, I don't think men actually have strong opinions about the size of a woman's labia, and it is sad, I guess, if women feel bad because they think their genitals look ugly. This is a kind of body positivity I can support.)
Chest hair specifically is very male, and it wouldn't be suprising to me if, in recent primate evolution, it became one of the primary selection points for males to tell themselves apart from females. Perhaps this remains as a sexual preference that subtly encodes heterosexuality. You might say something about breasts, but lots of women naturally have small breasts. Some men even prefer it -- "Itty Bitty Titty Committee" is apparently a lesbian film (TIL), but I've always heard the phrase online as a joking discussion of male preference for the small-breasted. It's not a wild leap from "this small-breasted lady is hot" to "this pectoral gentleman is hot" or even "this individual who once had breasts but no longer does is hot" (although mastectomy scarring can jarring to a lot of people), but body hair serves as kind of an immediate "THIS IS MALE, CANNOT BE REPRODUCED WITH, ABORT" signal in the broad and crude sense that lots of evolved preferences are. Noticable facial hair is also a major turn-off, perhaps for the same reason, and this is where a lot of trans men I think explicitly try to simulteneously mascmaxxx and minimize their attractiveness to the straights by growing a beard.
Women naturally have some level of hair (usually quite light, but sometimes darker) on their arms and legs, and while I think men overall prefer them shaved, I don't actually think it's actually a massive turn-off or an intense male fascination the way some feminist takes consider it. Obviously our distant ancestors didn't have any issues with females growing hair all over, so this is probably a recent adaptation in geological time scales and I presume the sex differentiation in hair was very crude and focused on key, noticable differentiators that could be sacrificed without harming survival.
I have a lot of chest hair, and my hair is very dark, women comment on this sometimes. My girlfriend said she showed a picture (fully clothed, so I guess it was just the hair peeking up over my collar) of me to her aunt, who exclaimed, "he's hairy!" Whether this is evidence of my androgens being high, a genetic inheritance from... someone, or just luck of the draw, I don't know. But I will say that this makes me polarizing, and only the true androphiles can understand my appeal.
Ah, I see. I am used to you linking comics with a very... creative set of descriptions for genitals, so I suppose I was linking that terminology to that pattern.
I think personal interaction with a severely decompensated schizophrenic would help make it clear that lobotomy was a fantastic option when we had no other options.
You've probably seen street people - when your choice for your family member is let them live like that, during a time when that was mostly a quick death sentence, or sending them to an asylum to be locked up for the rest of their life....excising part of them while leaving as much as they could behind looks like a good idea.
This is what we do for cancer after all.
Thank god we have other options now, but before...
I bet it's fantastic for people who had to take care of them, but executing them would yield a similar effect in terms of taking a burden off their shoulder.
I mean poor quality of life or poor quality of life that drains on society less...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah. There's a handful of clear-ish cases (eg, latex kink seems like one of those things that's either an instant love or meh, with very few people changing opinions afterward) but even some stuff that seems like it should be less mutable acts weird, too (eg, foot fetishism seems like some neurological mismatch would be the best explanation... but it's really common for artists to pick up a taste for it, organically).
At least in self-reporting, it's pretty common but neither universal nor especially predictable in direction. The Blanchard faction claims up to 40% have some change over their lives (and I have no idea how that's supposed to fit the AGP theory), though they definitely merge in some unrelated to hormone therapy when doing so. Unfortunately, they seem the only people trying to actually run a survey on it.
The data is a hell of a mess, so I can't be too confident: at least some MTFs report a drop in libido as making gynophilic relationships more viable, which isn't of interest to most people, and some new-found FTM attraction is probably 'just' a general libido increase (and some loss of attraction might be downstream of sexual function problems), and of course there's the social identity effects for any self-reports.
Agreed. There's a lot of weird hangups that people develop because of indirectly absorbed beliefs, that it seems like there's a lot of revealed preferences as not existing, available pretty widely? I know there's a lot of 'intrasexual competition' as an explanation, and maybe that's a thing for shoes, but there seems a lot of low-hanging fruit if only the genders could more comfortably talk between each other.
((Admittedly, there's also a lot of weird hangups that might develop as a result. The average straight guy probably doesn't go out of his way to look at testes, given self_made_human's complaint at the end of this post, but even androphilic women tend to find them funny-looking in ways that are vaguely sacrilegious to my perspective.))
That's fair. And apologies for the squick.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How did it work for you? Were you exclusively homosexual before, and are now 100% straight? Or did you reinforce an existing attraction to women?
What kind of homework exercises? I hope you don’t mind me asking - the stereotypical media depiction of conversion therapy is “teenager gets sent to an abusive camp against his will, pretends that it works on him and then has a happy gay adult life”, so how it actually goes on is something I don’t think many people know of.
I’m bisexual myself and despite my best efforts, I never felt like base attraction was something I could exert real control over. Behaviour, yes, but not the underlying desire.
EDIT: is the Dutch book you’re referring to from Dr. Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg by any chance?
When I said something about 'the sticks of men's enforcement,' I didn't particularly mean 'putting rocks in people's shoes and having them walk around,' but I suppose that's not too far off from what I meant.
There's nothing wrong with sports, fishing, working on cars, and fixing things in some vague sense, although that does lean a bit towards a red tribe and slightly older application of masculine behavior, where a lot of younger guys are fixing computers and installing cat6 in their walls, doing carpentry, and yeah, playing sports/roughhousing alongside competitive gaming or local multiplayer as a bonding ritual. I don't know about putting rocks in your shoes (and that seems very old school Catholic to me, they might as well have been wearing cilices), but it is true that men generally admire competence, doing, endurance, skill, camaraderie, pursuit of an ideal, and stoicism, and I'd count myself among them. I'm willing to admit I'm stereotypical enough to be a fan of Marcus Aurelius.
I do think that sexual attraction is malleable to some degree, and it's probably not all that hard to get someone who's 80% attracted to women to be 99% attracted to women, and perhaps even vice versa. There's probably some segment of the bisexual population for which sexual attraction can be a conditioned stimulus in one direction or another, but I suspect that it would be impossible to make a gay man exclusively attracted to women just as much as it would be impossible to make a straight man exclusively attracted to men.
Did you want to exert control to change your base attraction?
Do you see a link between reinforcing those “masculine” behaviours and it decreasing your attraction to men? Sports and roughhousing especially. Nothing like seeing a hot fit guy take his shirt off in the locker room, or wrestling with the boys, to set a bicurious man straight…
I agree. In my opinion, conversion therapy of that kind is essentially medical fraud, in that it’s extracting money from gullible patients (or parents) for a “treatment” that cannot possibly work. The free speech argument could be used for a priest or a self-help coach, not a licensed therapist.
Yes, and I tried my best! I didn’t want to be attracted to women for various reasons. But in the end feeling guilty over it didn’t help, and there’s no real point trying to repress it.
No, probably not. I think if you're really interested in the masculine form, getting close and personal with it is probably going to be erotic. But more specifically, this world is full of gay bodybuilders and straight guys with a complicated relationship to sports.
My point was not really an apologetic for conversion therapy but was a personal reflection, I guess, on masculine norms and behaviors I see in myself and male friends, which I don't think have much to do with sexual orientation. Obviously, masculine norms are a sore spot for me and neither myself nor my father are very invested in sports culture, cars, or fishing, so I'm often a little amused and a little confused at this being considered constitutive of male identity. The overall topic is a Supreme Court decision, so in that connection, you can read what I said as as an urquan obiter dictum that's not really about the topic of conversion therapy.
I think conversion therapy is unlikely to work. That said, I have a very critical view of many of the therapeutic modalities that licensed psychotherapists often make use of in their practice, like psychodynamic and humanistic methods that are re-headed 20th century woo, but nevertheless popular. The US government actually sometimes pays for veterans to receive EMDR therapy which supposedly 'works' and is 'evidence-based' in treating PTSD, but its actual theoretical basis of bilateral hemispheric stimulation is... wildly dubious, at best, and Wikipedia lists it on the pseudoscience category (same as conversion therapy, humorously enough) because there's no evidence its unique factors do anything.
Basically all therapies are evaluated on the basis of patient self-report, which means that patients' belief that something will work may be as important as any actual therapy method. This means that a huge portion of licensed therapists are, from my point of view, just extracting money from gullible patients for treatments that aren't based on any reasonable theory of how the human brain and mind work -- and nevertheless some of those patients, afterwards, say "wow doc, joie de vivre! joie de vivre!"
I don't really love the whole teen pray away the gay summer camp thing, and Lord knows residential programs intended to cough straighten-out religious youth are often questionable-to-evil, but I have serious concerns that singling out conversion therapy as a broad concept becomes an isolated demand for rigor from a profession for whom 'rigor' means 'lots of people said they liked it.
I'm not sure what the situation is like in various countries of Europe, but unfortunately, in the US, even the licensing system doesn't do much to prevent significant ethical breaches and therapeutic abuse. There's some wildly dark quackery that licensed therapists claim is therapeutic and whose damage goes far beyond conversion therapy. Jodi Hildebrandt used her sway over Mormon couples to separate children from their fathers because dad occasionally watched a pornhub video, and also prescribed much worse in terms of direct physical abuse and starvation of children for disobedience. Nevertheless -- licensed counselor, with the stain on her record prior to her criminal conviction being her violation of patient confidentiality, not the fact that her psychological and therapeutic theories were, let's say, not on this side of sanity.
Licensed therapists are already permitted to practice therapy that includes elements of a spiritual or religious tradition if this is disclosed and desired by the patient, and many people of faith explicitly seek out counselors who share their worldview (which, given how significant patient belief in the therapeutic modality is, probably means this is more effective for them). It's hard to meaningfully distinguish this from spiritual woo, quackery, and even conversion therapy to some extent, and the freedom of speech concern is that this targets the therapeutic desires of people of faith in a way that violates the fundamental principle of psychotherapy that patients are the ones in charge of shaping treatment goals. At some point, what you're saying is not that therapists can't try to convert their patients' sexuality or gender identity, it's that patients can't desire anything that rhymes with sexuality or gender identity conversion, and that's where the freedom of speech/expression concern comes into view.
If what you're calling for is something more akin to a complete rewrite of standards for psychotherapists and counselors as a profession, or criticism of parents using psychotherapy as a worldview weapon against their children -- I'm with you. But there are some deeper concerns in play.
Ah, this took a turn I didn't expect. I can understand why a bisexual man might not want to be attracted to men (while pursuing a heterosexual marriage, for example), but it's interesting that a bisexual man or trans person might find being attracted to women distressing or guilt-inducing. I really like being attracted to women because women are pretty awesome, but also my pattern of attraction is almost exclusively to femininity, so I suppose it just works to my advantage.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That sounds correct, but I could not reproduce his full name on command.
I was bisexual beforehand, and not encouraged to befriend other patients. Support group dynamics were seen as unhealthy and to be avoided, and no residential programs existed in this world that I am aware of for that reason. So I do not know if this would have been successful for obligate homosexuals but that case was stated to be very rare- I don’t know if this was bubble effect or not.
I had homework that was a mix of standard therapy fair(journaling etc) and developing positive conceptions of myself as stereotypically masculine- bear in mind a positive stereotype of masculinity as conceived by conservative Christian clergy assisted by reactionary philosophers, there were no hooter’s trips etc. The most unusual thing I was asked to do was to admire myself nude and then in my underwear in the bathroom mirror, I think to appreciate the connection between my body and tendencies, but most of it was stuff like growing an appreciation for sports(this meant playing, not watching), doing stuff with my dad/grandad(fishing and working on cars were recommended), learning a new (tangible and masculine)hobby, and so on and so forth. I have no doubt that if I had been noticeably out of shape fixing that would have been considered part of the program, but I wasn’t and weightlifting wasn’t pushed- although undergoing physical discomfort and self discipline was, this mostly meant things like ‘not hitting the snooze button on your alarm’ and ‘walking around with rocks in your shoes all day’. There was actually a lot of attention paid to self image, I think I remember there being clear reasons for that in the book but not what they were. I was supposed to have straight male friends.
Interesting. This kinda supports my hypothesis that people who say homosexuality is a choice tend to be bisexual - it literally is when you’re attracted to both sexes!
At least they’re honest about it not being very effective on exclusive homosexuals, but calling that working conversion therapy feels like a stretch. It’s like having a program that can supposedly convert vegans into carnivores, but it actually just makes people who already eat meat stop eating vegetables.
In the LGBT community it’s already a meme that most bisexuals end up marrying someone of the opposite sex, even in progressive social settings. Add even the slightly bit of social pressure and encouragement to focus on your heterosexual attraction, and pretty much any “conversion therapy” would work.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link