Ex-male escort ... 'turns straight'

[Syne]

Dominic, who has appeared on Channel 4's Naked Attraction,

That’s showbiz. 

The new Dom, just another role, more publicity, more tv appearances, a book, movie, fortune & fame?

That dismissal doesn't fly in the age of people demanding we accept what gender/orientation people claim they are born as. 
If we accept their gender/orientation identity on their word alone, we must also accept when they admit they weren't born that way or that they can change/have a choice.
Otherwise, we'd just be cherry-picking the LGBT experiences we prefer for some narrative

Playing Devils Advocate and not naive enough to think there are no ulterior motives. Got nothing against LGBTQ community but this smells IMHO. This article has just as much producer's salt  being shaken into it as a locker on Storage Wars.

As long as you're not equally skeptical of the woman SS told us about. If you are, then the turn on a reality/dating show may only be an excuse for being sold on the media narrative, which does cherry-pick "born this way" views.

Since this guy's story runs counter to the media narrative, I seriously doubt it's going to picked up by many outlets, much less lead to a book or movie.

---

I wonder why as a culture, we get so concerned over who other people sleep with, and that it is considered ''news.'' I could see if he were breaking laws, then it deserves a headline. But, ''breaking news...gay man decides to stop sleeping with men, and realizes he wants to sleep with women.'' Who cares?????????

Couldn't care less what happens behind closed doors between consenting adults. Where I do care is when an agenda warps the science, pushes public policy, and even leads to worse mental health outcomes. And chinks in that narrative armor are welcome.

He is breaking the law, according to the politically correct gatekeepers. He's undermining their whole "born this way" propaganda.

---

I wonder why as a culture, we get so concerned over who other people sleep with, and that it is considered ''news.'' I could see if he were breaking laws, then it deserves a headline. But, ''breaking news...gay man decides to stop sleeping with men, and realizes he wants to sleep with women.'' Who cares?????????

Only sex-deprived prudes are interested in other people's sex lives.

I generally agree. People overly interested in the salacious activities of others are often repressed.

But then there's things like public health concerns and public policy debates, neither of which are confined to the bedroom.

[Secular Sanity]

If given a chance, natural biology tends to reassert itself.

The only thing fluid is how nurturing affects nature. Barring traumatic experience and its lingering consequences, millions of years of evolutionary psychology predominates.

And nurture is part of our nature. Don’t be so stupid. Birds do it, bees do it, and we do it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an...l_behavior

Whatever the fuck we do is considered natural.

Within science, the term natural refers to any element of the physical universe — whether made by humans or not. This includes matter, the forces that act on matter, energy, the constituents of the biological world, humans, human society, and the products of that society. So even though we might not think of them as "natural" (in the everyday sense of the word), science can study things like the human smile, human decision-making, artificial sweetener, and learning algorithms for robots because they are part of the physical universe around us.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural

[Syne]

If given a chance, natural biology tends to reassert itself.

The only thing fluid is how nurturing affects nature. Barring traumatic experience and its lingering consequences, millions of years of evolutionary psychology predominates.

And nurture is part of our nature. Don’t be so stupid. Birds do it, bees do it, and we do it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an...l_behavior

Whatever the fuck we do is considered natural.

Are you a complete moron, or just intentionally equivocating? O_o

I'm really hoping you're aware of the nature/nurture dichotomy, as it's elementary psychology and even fairly common knowledge.

The nature versus nurture debate involves whether human behavior is determined by the environment, either prenatal or during a person's life, or by a person's genes.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

If you don't understand the distinction in determining what motivates human behavior...no wonder you've always been so clueless about psychology. Way to faceplant.

Hell, you didn't even seem to notice that neither of your links even mentions nurturing.

[Secular Sanity]

Are you a complete moron, or just intentionally equivocating? O_o

I'm really hoping you're aware of the nature/nurture dichotomy, as it's elementary psychology and even fairly common knowledge.

The nature versus nurture debate involves whether human behavior is determined by the environment, either prenatal or during a person's life, or by a person's genes.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

If you don't understand the distinction in determining what motivates human behavior...no wonder you've always been so clueless about psychology. Way to faceplant.

Hell, you didn't even seem to notice that neither of your links even mentions nurturing.

I knew that one would go over head. You and I have discussed it on numerous occasions, duh! Of course, you never seem to remember but that’s another story altogether.

What type of nurturing or abuse is causing all those animals to display homosexual behavior, hmm?

Like I said, it is fluid and it goes both ways. Some heterosexuals become homosexual later in life and vice versa.

This is your favorite topic, isn't it? There must be some underlying issue.

[Syne]

Are you a complete moron, or just intentionally equivocating? O_o

I'm really hoping you're aware of the nature/nurture dichotomy, as it's elementary psychology and even fairly common knowledge.

The nature versus nurture debate involves whether human behavior is determined by the environment, either prenatal or during a person's life, or by a person's genes.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

If you don't understand the distinction in determining what motivates human behavior...no wonder you've always been so clueless about psychology. Way to faceplant.

Hell, you didn't even seem to notice that neither of your links even mentions nurturing.

I knew that one would go over head. You and I have discussed it on numerous occasions, duh! Of course, you never seem to remember but that’s another story altogether.

What type of nurturing or abuse is causing all those animals to display homosexual behavior, hmm?

Like I said, it is fluid and it goes both ways. Some heterosexuals become homosexual later in life and vice versa.

This is your favorite topic, isn't it? There must be some underlying issue.

Oh, I'm sure you've discussed your own confused equivocation/conflation of nature and nurture before. Too bad you never managed to differentiate the two. You must be willfully ignorant.

Who said animal homosexual behavior was caused by nurturing or abuse? O_o
This is just a sad straw man that seems to make the unfounded assumption that animals are just as complex as humans.
Animals do sometimes display homosexual behaviors, but not homosexual orientations.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-...al-animals

Homosexual orientation is strictly human. None of the reasons animals display homosexual behavior can explain why some humans think they are born homosexual and feel exclusively attracted to the same sex. But go ahead. Try telling a homosexual that he/she is only mounting the same sex as an evolutionary ploy to mate with the opposite sex or moderate violent competition or enlist cooperation. See how that goes over.

And how do gays feel about you trying to infer someone is gay as a gibe? You think it's okay to use homosexuality as an insult? O_o

[RainbowUnicorn]

what type of person wishes to continually try and touch other peoples sexuality & change it ?

[Secular Sanity]

Homosexual orientation is strictly human. None of the reasons animals display homosexual behavior can explain why some humans think they are born homosexual and feel exclusively attracted to the same sex. But go ahead. Try telling a homosexual that he/she is only mounting the same sex as an evolutionary ploy to mate with the opposite sex or moderate violent competition or enlist cooperation. See how that goes over.

Does a sheep know he's a sheep?

Only two species have been observed showing a same-sex preference for life, even when partners of the opposite sex are available. One is, of course, humans. The other is domestic sheep.

Nevertheless, your topic is indicting that our sexuality may not be as stable as we once thought.

From your link:

"It seems obvious that this built-in need to keep reproducing would manifest itself in a powerful sex drive, one that might well spill over into mating while females are infertile, or same-sex matings. Victorian scientists saw animals having more offspring than seemed necessary: today we see animals having more sex than seems necessary.

"Homosexual behavior doesn't challenge Darwin's ideas," says Zuk. Instead there are many ways it can evolve and be beneficial.

We may never find a wild animal that is strictly homosexual in the way some humans are. But we can expect to find many more animals that don't conform to traditional categories of sexual orientation. They are using sex to satisfy all sorts of needs, from simple pleasure to social advancement, and that means being flexible."

And how do gays feel about you trying to infer someone is gay as a gibe? You think it's okay to use homosexuality as an insult? O_o

Oh, I wasn’t taking a jab at you. I don’t pull my punches. And unlike you, I don’t think homosexuality is unhealthy or an insult, nor do I think that you have repressed homosexual urges.

I was thinking masculine insecurity.

[RainbowUnicorn]

Quote:
Only two species have been observed showing a same-sex preference for life, even when partners of the opposite sex are available. One is, of course, humans. The other is domestic sheep.

= fake news

[Syne]

Homosexual orientation is strictly human. None of the reasons animals display homosexual behavior can explain why some humans think they are born homosexual and feel exclusively attracted to the same sex. But go ahead. Try telling a homosexual that he/she is only mounting the same sex as an evolutionary ploy to mate with the opposite sex or moderate violent competition or enlist cooperation. See how that goes over.

Does a sheep know he's a sheep?

Only two species have been observed showing a same-sex preference for life, even when partners of the opposite sex are available. One is, of course, humans. The other is domestic sheep.

And from the same source you just cherry-picked:

LeVay suggests that the same gene that promotes homosexual behaviour in male sheep could also make females more fertile, or increase their desire to mate. The female siblings of homosexual sheep could even produce more offspring than average. "If these genes are having such a beneficial effect in females, they outweigh the effect in males and then the gene is going to persist," says LeVay.

While male sheep do show lifelong homosexual preferences, this has only been seen in domesticated sheep. It's not clear whether the same thing happens in wild sheep, and if LeVay's explanation is right it probably doesn't. Domestic sheep have been carefully bred by farmers to produce females that reproduce as often as possible, which might have given rise to the homosexual males.

So LeVay and Vasey still say that humans are the only documented case of "true" homosexuality in wild animals. "It is not the case that you have lesbian bonobos or gay male bonobos," says Vasey. "What's been described is that many animals are happy to engage in sex with partners of either sex."
- http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-...al-animals

God forbid you read/quote enough to give an intellectually honest argument.

Animals can be sexually indiscriminate, due to their instinctual sex drive, without any specific sexual attraction/orientation. Assuming orientation in animals is just anthropomorphizing.

Nevertheless, your topic is indicting that our sexuality may not be as stable as we once thought.

"Indicting"? You either meant "indicating" or you're using words you don't understand. I'll assume the former.

From your link:

"It seems obvious that this built-in need to keep reproducing would manifest itself in a powerful sex drive, one that might well spill over into mating while females are infertile, or same-sex matings. Victorian scientists saw animals having more offspring than seemed necessary: today we see animals having more sex than seems necessary.

"Homosexual behavior doesn't challenge Darwin's ideas," says Zuk. Instead there are many ways it can evolve and be beneficial.

We may never find a wild animal that is strictly homosexual in the way some humans are. But we can expect to find many more animals that don't conform to traditional categories of sexual orientation. They are using sex to satisfy all sorts of needs, from simple pleasure to social advancement, and that means being flexible."

Apparently you missed the bolded part of your own citation.

If you really think humans have no more say or complexity in their sex drive than animals, that's on you. That would make rape just as valid a form of copulation in humans as in animals.

And where does anything claim an animal's sexual behaviors are unstable? Flexible does not imply a changing preference/behavior over time...which is what the OP article is about.

And how do gays feel about you trying to infer someone is gay as a gibe? You think it's okay to use homosexuality as an insult? O_o

Oh, I wasn’t taking a jab at you. I don’t pull my punches. And unlike you, I don’t think homosexuality is unhealthy or an insult, nor do I think that you have repressed homosexual urges.

I was thinking masculine insecurity.

Really? Not taking a jab at me, huh?

This is your favorite topic, isn't it? There must be some underlying issue.

Now you're just lying.

I don't think homosexuality is an insult, which is exactly why I called you on it. I think it is pitiable, due to the correlated prevalence of substance abuse, depression, and suicide. But I similarly think a cancer diagnosis is pitiable due to its diminished life quality and mortality rate.

I would suspect that if I were insecure I'd avoid these kinds of subjects like the plague. After all, the idea that a straight man could engage in so much homosexual behavior and then realize he's actually straight could only exacerbate any such insecurities. Much more so than there just being life-long gays who were born that way. That narrative would be much better at quelling any cognitive dissonance, which might be why so many do go along with it.

[Secular Sanity]

If you really think humans have no more say or complexity in their sex drive than animals, that's on you. That would make rape just as valid a form of copulation in humans as in animals.
…
I think it is pitiable, due to the correlated prevalence of substance abuse, depression, and suicide. But I similarly think a cancer diagnosis is pitiable due to its diminished life quality and mortality rate.

Valid? Pitiable?  

You’re comparing it to rape and cancer—an immoral act and a disease.

Homosexuality in animals is seen as controversial by social conservatives because it asserts the naturalness of homosexuality in humans, while others counter that it has no implications and is nonsensical to equate natural animal behaviors to morality. [source]

No one wants to be the object of your pity, Syne. They want acceptance. You don’t have to be a genius to understand that social acceptance is central to our lives. Rejection, in and of itself, can wreak havoc on, not only our mental health, but our physical health, as well.

Now you're just lying.

No, I wasn’t lying. Your biases are playing tricks on you. Did you think I was going to go with, "Only two thing come out of Oklahoma"? 

It wasn’t a jab, silly boy. It was an uppercut, and just so you know, that’s how you read—someone that struggles with their masculinity.

Who knows, though? It looks like most people think that sexual orientation is supposed to be more stable in men.

I wouldn't doubt it. Sexual desire in men is very object oriented, whereas in women it is experience oriented. Objects don't change, but experiences can come from a wide variety of sources.

I disagree.

There’s a little thing called 'status' that might contribute to this. When a man takes a jab at another man, the terms are usually associated with our feminine nature because men are more valued in society. I think that this is why women are granted more freedom to act on their fluidity than men. It’s more socially acceptable.