|
|
3. The Imprint Hypothesis of Sexual Preference
The whole concept of sexual orientation, whether 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual', is a social delusion. People believe they have an 'orientation' because that is the prevailing myth in our society and people just assume it is true. No one is born with the sexual attractions that they manifest later in life. If you are a 'heterosexual', why are you not attracted to all members of the opposite sex, under all circumstances? The reality is, you are sexually aroused by certain specific members of the opposite sex, and only under specific circumstances. Let's say you are powerfully sexually aroused by long-haired Latino girls who dress punk, when you see them dancing. Can anyone seriously believe that information this specific is coded in your genes? Instead of a generalized sexual orientation, what people really have are Sexual and Affection Arousal Cue Imprints. These are very specific, and are not genetic at all, whether they are 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual' in nature. You cannot "choose" what your Arousal Cue Imprints will be, they are simply an accident of the process of development. Neither can they be changed, once acquired - by force of will, prayer, or divine intervention. Because most people have a very long list of Arousal Cue Imprints, and many of them are slight variations of the others, they become blurred together in our minds, and we come to see them as a generalized 'orientation'. However, careful observation of what specifically causes a sexual or affection response in you will reveal that your Arousal Cue Imprints are indeed very specific. Sexual and Affection Arousal Cue Imprints account for all manifestations of sexual desire, there are no exceptions. Therefore, this hypothesis explains things that cannot otherwise be explained by the theories of "genetics" or "choice". For example, the existence of 'bi-sexual' persons. If 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality' are genetic, where do 'bisexuals' come from? Similarly, if sexual arousal is a matter of 'choice', then why can't you just choose to be sexually aroused by office furniture? Or your grandparents? Try 'choosing' to be sexually aroused by Rosie O'donnel or George Bush Sr., and see what happens. This theory also accounts for sexual attractions considered to be deviancy like bestiality, rubber and leather fetishes, sado-masochism, etc. No one 'chooses' to be aroused by these things, and it is simply ridiculous to think that they might be genetically coded. You have the Sexual and Affection Arousal Cues that are specific to you, because a sub-conscious process that you cannot directly observe recorded them, in some manner, at some point prior to your achieving physical maturity. Please note that this does not mean that you will have a conscious memory of the event which created your Imprint(s), nor does this process necessarily require a rational correspondence between an event and it's corresponding Imprint. In other words, you don't have to be seduced by a blond German barmaid as a child in order to be aroused by blond German barmaids in later life. The correspondence may be quite oblique, but then, that is how the subconscious works. Many other species have great difficulty achieving sexual arousal unless certain specific cues are present in their environment; seasonal cues, a specific geographic location, the presence of pheromones from another of their species which is in “heat”, etc. Human beings do not suffer from any such limitations to our ability to become sexually aroused (obviously). We are capable of becoming aroused and mating in virtually any circumstance. It seems likely that at some point in our evolution we developed a subconscious facility which ‘imprints’ aspects of our immediate environment as arousal cues, so that we would not be tied to ancient environmental cues in order to achieve arousal. This has quite obviously been a very successful strategy as, despite our best efforts to annihilate each other over thousands of years, there are now over 6 billion of us on the planet. The ‘polymorphously perverse’ behavior of some other primates suggests that this may be a trait shared by all primates. Instead of being restricted to cycles of “heat” or ancient ‘mating grounds’, humans are capable of achieving arousal at any time, in any location. This is largely because we do not in fact inherit specific arousal cues genetically, but instead possess a subconscious function which ‘imprints’ things we encounter in our early lives (and are therefore likely to encounter in our later lives) . This subconscious function may be triggered by intense emotion, and is capable of recording not only visual images of what is taking place at the time, but also tactile and olfactory input, emotional states, and such abstract things as relationship dynamics like submission and dominance. The subconscious function casts as wide a net as possible, and thus it may end up imprinting things as diverse as sexual organs, other body parts, bodily functions, clothing styles, hair color, inanimate objects, pets, a piece of music, the age or gender of another person present at the time, an emotional state, even a social circumstance such as humiliation. When it casts it’s net in this seemingly indiscriminate manner, it is not hoping to direct us to attempt to mate with the things it imprints. It is not hoping to cause us to attempt to mate with rubber boots, for example. It is simply recording things from our immediate environment, the presence of which in later life may trigger arousal. This is why the existence of homosexual imprints is not a contradiction of its purpose. It is a fortunate thing for the gene pool when, as a result of a male’s arousal he ends up depositing semen in a fertile female. However, the subconscious function being described here doesn’t care what we do with our arousal. That isn’t it’s department, so to speak. It is concerned solely that we should become aroused, and by as many things in our environment as possible. A male who becomes aroused by the sight or the thought of other males genitalia is not a failure of this function. He is aroused, and that is what matters to this subconscious function. In point of fact, many homosexually inclined persons do end up fathering children. They are able to generate sufficiently arousing mental images of other males to enable them to fulfill the male function in intercourse and impregnate a woman. In the course of random chance, there will be some persons who end up predominantly or exclusively with imprints for people of the same sex. If they choose to never put their arousal to the purpose of creating children, that is unfortunate for the gene pool but is hardly likely to result in extinction. The choice of what to do with our arousal is left to so-called “higher functions”, which determine our sense of morality. Some imprints are quite unfortunate and may generate attractions that ought not to ever be acted upon – such as attractions to minor persons or to violence. Once again, however, the subconscious function that imprints these things as attractions is unconcerned with morality. It cares not at all whether our arousal ultimately leads to other people being harmed or traumatized. It is up to us as individuals to harness our rational function and exercise control over our impulses if they may lead to harm to others.
An in-depth discussion of the Imprint Hypothesis on SubDimension; |