.

[Geist]

[chui]

le SNORT!!!!!!!!!

ok...now thats just too much.....poor prof had no idea what he was getting into......

[VoOs]

Hehehehe, that is so cool! I wish I had been there.

[K.Matsuri]

He said it would be impressive if one could "sneeze on command" to get their lover's attention and I was doing my best not to laugh like a hysterical idiot.

But...but...isn't that already how it works? Or am I missing something? Oh wait, on command. Well, isn't that what inducing is for?

That is an absolutely amazing lecture!! I love it when professors and students alike are passionate about their subjects - it just makes things more fun!

[doggo]

Bwahahaha so cool! Damn, I can't wait what kind of scientifical discussions on this matter are yet to come...

[vote_for_pedro]

He said it would be impressive if one could "sneeze on command" to get their lover's attention and I was doing my best not to laugh like a hysterical idiot.

But...but...isn't that already how it works? Or am I missing something? Oh wait, on command. Well, isn't that what inducing is for?

Good call, K.Matsuri. I was totally thinking the same thing!

[army-girl]

Sorry, not even that could make conditioning any less tedious than it already is to me ^.^= but it's a good effort! I love how cooperative he got and all but this wouldn't be the first time I've heard it suggested

Weirdest case of fetish via conditioning I've heard of was on some TV show thingy special, anyway, this person who has a ring-fetish, he explained that when he was a little boy he used to sit on his auntie's lap and she had ginormous breasts and he used to play with the rings she had on her fingers, so he somehow learned to associate breasts and all things sexual to rings and female hands. He actually stops women in the street telling them he's a photographer and he likes their rings and would like to take a picture and stuff, though of course it's really for um... later use.

[Geist]

Sorry, not even that could make conditioning any less tedious than it already is to me ^.^= but it's a good effort! I love how cooperative he got and all but this wouldn't be the first time I've heard it suggested

Weirdest case of fetish via conditioning I've heard of was on some TV show thingy special, anyway, this person who has a ring-fetish, he explained that when he was a little boy he used to sit on his auntie's lap and she had ginormous breasts and he used to play with the rings she had on her fingers, so he somehow learned to associate breasts and all things sexual to rings and female hands. He actually stops women in the street telling them he's a photographer and he likes their rings and would like to take a picture and stuff, though of course it's really for um... later use.

I am so telling him about that one....

Yeah, I've been a believer in the whole "classical conditioning/sneezing fetish" theory for ages....it was just the first time I'd heard something so close to sneezing mentioned as an example in a college setting.

[Lady Tori]

When I was doing some research into fetishism I read about this. I don't see how it applies to those of us who can't remember a time when we didn't have the fetish, which I guess just proves that this theory is questionable.

Anyway, what a great story Aku, wish I had been there!

[count tiszula]

Yes, fabulous story; what fun you had, Tenshi.

I agree with Lady B. As the professor pointed out, it's difficult to time sneezes correctly. I din't know enough about classical conditioning ; is it suggested that a single instance of associating sneezing and sexuality could cause our wonderful situation?

While I can see it is possible, my own theory is that at least some of us have an inherited and innate pleasure in our own sneexing when we are polymorphously perverse which leads to us linking sneezing with sexuality by extension when we see it in others; in fact the same is presumably true of all "fetishes" involving bodily functions.

Of course, you could ask the professor to demolish this theory.

[Geist]

Bah, I don't have to ask him! I'll do it myself!

Actually, the theory is even easier to prove via this method. Children are very, VERY impressionable beings....they are like sponges and readily absorb information and make....ready? Pleasurable associations at a very early age. They also learn unpleasant ones.

Let's look at the classic example of Little Albert, shall we? Back before ethics was considered in experimentation, J.B. Watson decided to try something. He banged a loud metal object behind the baby's head until it cried. After doing this several times, he began to put a white rat (a then neutral stimulus) upon the baby's lap. At first the baby was interested and oriented to the white rat until.....Watson made the loud noise again. So, every time Watson put the white rat on little Albert and then made the noise, the baby would cry. Eventually, Little Albert began to cry when the white rat was put on his lap, regardless of the noise or not. This is a prime example of classical conditioning at its worst. Little Albert was afraid of other white objects as well, not just the rat....in essence, he was "conditioned" to have a phobia.

Now, let's take another example. Say you are an infant and your mother is breast feeding/bottle feeding you. It's the height of allergy season and while she's preparing the milk or sitting down, she begins to sneeze. Let's say this happens on a frequent basis. Since the infant enjoys the pleasure of food, a neutral stimulus such as a sneeze then becomes something just like the white rat, but positive. The infant experiences POSITIVE feelings of expectation because hey, babies are MUCH smarter than we think. MUCH. (Do some research if you have your doubts. I did...) Eventually, the baby associates the sneeze with an act of pleasure. Dopamine is released and ta dah.... you've got yourself a case of unintentional classical conditioning. If exposed to such things at such a young age, it's more likely that they will "stick." That's how fetishes and phobias get started.

Soooo, there it is. You may not remember it, but chances are, none of us were "born" with it. We were conditioned in some form (probably by accident of incident) to associate a sneeze with pleasure. This also explains why there are varying degrees of this fetish and why certain people are attracted to certain aspects and not others. Like Little Albert, all things sneeze related may turn us on or perhaps, only a select few.

By the way, if you do not believe that someone can be classically conditioned to associate a sneeze with pleasure, he's a simple one. When Mr. Aku sneezes, do you know what happens? He gets a Pavlov reaction in his pants, that's what. It's a learned response. He knows when he sneezes, I get excited and that leads to pleasure. Does he have my fetish? Not yet. But he remarks on sneezes quite a bit and even seems to get excited by mine.

Interesting, isn't it?

~Aku

[Niceguy]

I'm sorry. I can't disprove it (of course) but I'm just not buying "classical conditioniong" as an explanation for all fetishes. Sure - I might believe that you could condition someone to get a fetish (in theory) but I just can't buy "conditioning" as an explanation/cause for such a wide and varied thing as 'fetish.' And demonstrating the possibility to cause such a thing does not prove that it was the same cause in every case. Doesn't really proove anything, except the power of conditioning. But to "give" someone a true "fetish" just by conditioning? I don't know... I just can't make that leap. (Has it been done? In a controlled experiment, I mean? Just curious, I'm not exactly well read on the matter! Just opining! )

Still - very interesting (and stimulating) lecture though! (I loved my psyche courses! Too bad I only took two!)

And yes Aku.... Very naughty of you!

[Geist]

Oh, I certainly do not believe it to be the answer to EVERY fetish. I don't think I said that, but if I did....I AM A LIAR!

However, I can most certainly see it for some, including this one. Also, to experiment by "giving" someone a fetish or phobia through classical conditioning would be technically unethical in most instances, I'm afraid. I mean, little scenarios like the "cough" that my prof mentioned are a different thing, but there are too many confounding variables such as the truthfulness of the person, the measure of biological functions of individuals, and even the amount of sleep subjects get before the experiment.

On an off-topic note (but since it's MY topic, I'll go here if I want! ), I DO plan on trying to find a correlation between emetophobia and a sneezing fetish at some point. Just how I am going to do that remains to be seen, but there are just TOO MANY people here who have both. I want to explore it and if classical conditioning can help explain either one, I'm all for it.

For the record, I'm not trying to take away the "mystery" of having this fetish, so if anyone feels that way, stop. I like logic and reasoning just as much as mystique and intrigue.

~Aku

[Rhomberg Rabbit]

[SeaHeart]

So, we're talking about classical conditioning in my psychology class today. I've studied this numerous times before, but this was just FUNNY!

For those who don't know what that is, classical conditioning is basically just associative learning....that is, learning signals and associations. It's when a once neutral stimulus suddenly elicts a reflex after repeated exposure. Think Pavlov. Ring the bell, the dog salivates because it's expecting meat powder. It came to associate the bell with the meat powder, so the reflex is salivation.

Anyway, my prof was talking about a little experiment we could do to our partners or spouses. He suggested that before you give your partner a kiss, cough. Just once. Then kiss them. Keep doing that one little cough before you kiss them and eventually, they will begin to associate the cough with the kiss. He then said, "now, do this somewhere awkward like a family reunion. Walk up behind them, cough, and then walk away smirking."

I know my expression was at that point because WTF, that's EXACTLY what this fetish is! I know this is no new "discovery" as far as what triggers this fetish, but wtf, it made me CACKLE like a FIEND. He then said, "can anyone think of an example of odd classical conditioning?" I raised my hand and said, "a fetish or phobia." He got all excited then and started naming off odd phobias and fetishes and asked what were some "odd ones" we could think of. You know what I said, right? Yep.

He said it would be impressive if one could "sneeze on command" to get their lover's attention and I was doing my best not to laugh like a hysterical idiot. Right, I knew I was a psych major for a reason!

Just had to share that....

~Aku

Yeah, just your post made me "laugh like a hysterical idiot!" *dork*

I loved that! Aku, Your balls are showing! hehe

I think I need to go back to school!

[DragonDust]

I have NO idea how I got the fetish, I mean I used to watch cartoons and stuff and enjoyed watching sneezes, but how this had any sort of sexual connotation is beyond me. Not that I'm complaining

[count tiszula]

Bah, I don't have to ask him! I'll do it myself!

Actually, the theory is even easier to prove via this method. Children are very, VERY impressionable beings....they are like sponges and readily absorb information and make....ready? Pleasurable associations at a very early age. They also learn unpleasant ones.

Let's look at the classic example of Little Albert, shall we? Back before ethics was considered in experimentation, J.B. Watson decided to try something. He banged a loud metal object behind the baby's head until it cried. After doing this several times, he began to put a white rat (a then neutral stimulus) upon the baby's lap. At first the baby was interested and oriented to the white rat until.....Watson made the loud noise again. So, every time Watson put the white rat on little Albert and then made the noise, the baby would cry. Eventually, Little Albert began to cry when the white rat was put on his lap, regardless of the noise or not. This is a prime example of classical conditioning at its worst. Little Albert was afraid of other white objects as well, not just the rat....in essence, he was "conditioned" to have a phobia.

Now, let's take another example. Say you are an infant and your mother is breast feeding/bottle feeding you. It's the height of allergy season and while she's preparing the milk or sitting down, she begins to sneeze. Let's say this happens on a frequent basis. Since the infant enjoys the pleasure of food, a neutral stimulus such as a sneeze then becomes something just like the white rat, but positive. The infant experiences POSITIVE feelings of expectation because hey, babies are MUCH smarter than we think. MUCH. (Do some research if you have your doubts. I did...) Eventually, the baby associates the sneeze with an act of pleasure. Dopamine is released and ta dah.... you've got yourself a case of unintentional classical conditioning. If exposed to such things at such a young age, it's more likely that they will "stick." That's how fetishes and phobias get started.

Soooo, there it is. You may not remember it, but chances are, none of us were "born" with it. We were conditioned in some form (probably by accident of incident) to associate a sneeze with pleasure. This also explains why there are varying degrees of this fetish and why certain people are attracted to certain aspects and not others. Like Little Albert, all things sneeze related may turn us on or perhaps, only a select few.

By the way, if you do not believe that someone can be classically conditioned to associate a sneeze with pleasure, he's a simple one. When Mr. Aku sneezes, do you know what happens? He gets a Pavlov reaction in his pants, that's what. It's a learned response. He knows when he sneezes, I get excited and that leads to pleasure. Does he have my fetish? Not yet. But he remarks on sneezes quite a bit and even seems to get excited by mine.

Interesting, isn't it?

~Aku

It is interesting. And I can see all these points and agree it is a possible origin. In fact there is a YouTube vid precisely showing a mother sneezing while holding her baby. But there are still a couple of questions I am interested in.

Firstly, how many times does the event have to happen to induce conditioning? Can it be just one single occasion? I think some would say that it can. I mean, although I obviously can't remember my babyhood, I am not aware of any member of my family being allergic to anyhthing. Do we posit an allergic person I can't remember, or perhaps a single cold from someone more familiar, or even one chance single sneeze?

Secondly, is polymorphous perversion out at present? It used to be widely thought that the baby would be aroused by almost every kind of physical stimulus, some of which would stick and others not; does it not seem likely that sneezing oneself is one of these? In those instances where some of us are very aroused by our own sneezing.? The same would be true of eg tickling. Infact, remaining as delicate as possible, it must be apparent to any internet user that eg urination is a big sexual interest [is it urolagnia?] and surely this must derive from the child's own experience of the feeling of micturition?

And this may bear on the emet issue; there must be some particular connection with control over bodily functions; after all, many of us are almost phobic about sneezing themselves. And I still suspect that a tendency to have some of these heightened sensations may be iinherited [like everything else except intelligence]. After all, you would scarcely say that homosexuality is conditioned.

[Jorm]

[March Hare]

He HAD to have YOU in his class, didn't he! Geniaal.

I really wonder where it comes from then, if so. And what in the WORLD made me associate sneezing with that tingly, restless, funny feeling back when I was young.

By the way: in the light of Aku's example of our mothers sneezing while they breast-fed us, or cuddled us or something, it's interesting to note that so many of us, now we're 'at home' with the fetish, absolutely HATE to hear our mother or father or other member-of-family sneeze?

[Sapphire]

I'm going to have to agree with Fifi that science has not definitively proven that homosexuality is biological and genetic. I do know that many gays and lesbians have supported the biological explanation because if they are born that way and have no control over it, then they cannot be blamed and should be given equal rights by law.

After all, you would scarcely say that homosexuality is conditioned.

Actually, you could, and plenty of people have. I'm not saying their right, but it can be argued. In the end it really doesn't matter when it comes to sexuality and gender identity because regardless of whether it is nurture of nature both are cemented by about the age of five and beyond that point really can't be changed. Obviously people can and do change their behaviour and awarness in regards to these and can go so far as to convince themselves that they have in fact changed their sexuality, but biologically and psychologically speaking the wiring in the brain remains the same.

Honestly? I wouldn't rule out the possibility of homosexuality being conditioned at least in some cases. I also wouldn't rule out the possibility that it's entirely biological. We just don't know. But it's absolutely NOT out of the realm of possibility that sexuality can be classically conditioned. I'd even say that being transgender could be the cause of either nature or nurture. I know that it is SOMETIMES a result of biological factors which I won't get into because I've already threadjacked enough, but that doesn't mean that it isn't also sometimes a result of nurture in some way.

[Sapphire]

Also, I'm blanking out right now, but I know that one of our members who studies psychology is strongly in favor of the classical conditioning hypothesis of fetish development. I'm too lazy to search, but I know that he has posted about it before. Anyway, I always thought that his ideas were interesting on this subject.

Me -- I've posted many times about my doubts that any of us were born with a sneezing fetish and about how I definitely was not from what I can remember. I would not bore people by discussing that again; not only that but I would bore myself.

[(hippo)]

By the way: in the light of Aku's example of our mothers sneezing while they breast-fed us, or cuddled us or something, it's interesting to note that so many of us, now we're 'at home' with the fetish, absolutely HATE to hear our mother or father or other member-of-family sneeze?

Maybe that's becuase after a while, it becomes a sexual thing and we all know- family and sexual feelings do NOT GO TOGETHER!!

I guess it could have been anyone sneezing when we were little, regardless. Maybe it was just the ACT of sneezing. *shrug*

[Niceguy]

I'm going to have to agree with Fifi that science has not definitively proven that homosexuality is biological and genetic. I do know that many gays and lesbians have supported the biological explanation because if they are born that way and have no control over it, then they cannot be blamed and should be given equal rights by law.

After all, you would scarcely say that homosexuality is conditioned.

Actually, you could, and plenty of people have. I'm not saying their right, but it can be argued. In the end it really doesn't matter when it comes to sexuality and gender identity because regardless of whether it is nurture of nature both are cemented by about the age of five and beyond that point really can't be changed. Obviously people can and do change their behaviour and awarness in regards to these and can go so far as to convince themselves that they have in fact changed their sexuality, but biologically and psychologically speaking the wiring in the brain remains the same.

Honestly? I wouldn't rule out the possibility of homosexuality being conditioned at least in some cases. I also wouldn't rule out the possibility that it's entirely biological. We just don't know. But it's absolutely NOT out of the realm of possibility that sexuality can be classically conditioned. I'd even say that being transgender could be the cause of either nature or nurture. I know that it is SOMETIMES a result of biological factors which I won't get into because I've already threadjacked enough, but that doesn't mean that it isn't also sometimes a result of nurture in some way.

OK *thwack* me for continuing the thread-jack here a little, but I'm calling shenanigans here.

The fact is that the majority of actual MEDICAL SCIENCE on the subject of homosexuality, leans towards the genetic/biological (or the "born with it" or the "nature") camp. Of course you can always argue otherwise, but much of your evidence is going to be tainted with outdated-info (and quoting Freud in a modern context would qualify here) and/or religious and/or political propaganda. (Again you can find some legimiate material, but the majority of objective info leans towards nature over nuture.)

Now that's not to say that there aren't legimate arguments for nurture (vs. nature). I myself believe very much in the power of determinism, which can be taken (philosophically speaking) as just a extension of classical conditioning. (Think about it - One explains why the other one works, no matter which one you start with.) But to dismiss genetic/biological factors is patently absurd. It is those very biological/genetic factors that MAKE the conditioning (if that even plays a role) work.

BOTTOM LINE: NO amount of classical condition will make me enjoy having sex exclusively with men. IOW - NO amount of "classical conditioning" will MAKE me homosexual... Simply because I AM NOT. If I was BORN with homosexual tendencies, then classical conditioning takes over right away anyway - having sex with men is fun/rewarding, having sex with women is not, so I pursue men. Is that a victory for classical conditioin? (i.e. the 'nurture' argument) NO. because it is predicated upon me having the preference to begin with.

(And if I'm only having sex with men becasue of years of electric shocks and tasty food pellets am I really gay, or just traumatized/brainwashed?)

I'm sorry. (And I'll gladly debate this point - I'm not going to back off of this one.) Anyone who dismisses outright the genetic and biological factors for homosexuality does not have medical science (or even psychology) on their side. And IMHO: THEY ARE WRONG. And unless they can argue around [the success of the conditioning requiring the underlying preference, as explained above] then they don't even have a valid argument.

(And also, of course, there are like 100+ semantic arguments to clarify at this point, but I'm not going to go into them here. PM if you want to get into that level of detail!)

Now... how does that relate to fetsihes? Well, I can't say for sure that I wasn't conditioned to enjoy this. After all, I was ~4 years old when I was first aware of getting aroused when I heard a lot of sneezing and/or talk of allergies. (Also of feeling uncomfortable when the source of said experience was a family member.) So my memories leading up to that point are, needless to say, a little hazy. All the same, I'm still not buying it. After all: what anyone of us experienced growing cannot be so radically different from what anyone else experienced, so that being the case: why is fetishism in general, and ours in particular so rare? If it was conditioned, there should be more of it out there. (Just my opinion. Feel free to $#!t on it if you want, I can deal.)

I'll buy that it's possible to condtion a fetish. (Totally. It is. I do believe that.) But I also truly believe that to be the exception and not the rule, to the point that [classical conditioning's] contribution to our community [independantly of genetic/biological factors] is negligible.

(It still sounded like an interesting lecture though. I wish I could have heard more. Maybe my conlusion would have been different.)

[Geist]

Regarding the fetish:

Our fetish is not any "rarer" than many others. I could cite you example after example of how it is possible that we were "conditioned" TOWARDS the enjoyment of sneezing. In fact, I can almost assuredly trace my fetish back to very close origins, thanks to hypnosis. The fact that sneeze is likened to orgasm is not coincidence.

I realize many here like to think we're part of some "rare" group with some "special" fetish, but I don't buy THAT, either. We'll never know for sure just how mainstream this fetish is because this forum IS NOT an accurate representation of "all of the sneeze fetish population." It simply isn't a proper sampling of such a thing.

I used to believe that one could be "born" with a fetish or phobia, but I don't think so any longer. I believe that the PREDISPOSITION can be there, but not the actual fetish or phobia itself.

And as for sexuality...

Psychodynamics aside, culture has a LOT to do with sexuality. A LOT. And THAT has been proven as well. There are some cultures where men are raised to have ONLY same-sex partners until adulthood for various cultural reasons. You can't tell me that EVERY single man there was "born" with a "homosexual" tendency. That just isn't so. The people are enculturated in this manner so that they are accepted as "proper" citizens of that region.

Therefore, all the scientific evidence in the world cannot explain sexuality. It never has been able to do so and I feel certain it will never be able to reach a conclusion that everyone can agree upon whole-heartedly.

I don't mind if you guys debate about other stuff in this thread, btw. If it gets too off-topic, I'll just move it.

~Aku

[Niceguy]

I respect you. So I must debate!

OK... let's see...

Our fetish is not any "rarer" than many others.

This may be a semantic issue, but I'm going to question this. The may be "many" rarer fetishes, but our is hardly mainstream, comapred with say - feet, bondage, watersports, and at least a few others. Now I'll admit I don't have any hard evindence, but I'm basing that conclusion on the amount of material that is out there, on the web, or otherwise, that cater to each. Market forces being what they are (very powerful) if there were that many of us out there, then they'red be more stuff, and no so much disbelief upon revelation/realization. I knew quite a bit about 20 different fetishes I didn't have before I ever learned that I shared this one with anyone. That's what I qualify as "rare". That there are "many" that are more rare, doesn't make this common / mainstream.

I could cite you example after example of how it is possible that we were "conditioned" TOWARDS the enjoyment of sneezing. In fact, I can almost assuredly trace my fetish back to very close origins, thanks to hypnosis. The fact that sneeze is likened to orgasm is not coincidence.

I will never presume to question the personal experience of any one person. For you - this could be a profound truth. For me... it's undecided. I don't discount the possibility, I'm just skeptical. As for it having any effect on, or "explaining" a large number of us... Please cite away. Until I know what you're talking about, I can't possibly know what you're talking about. Hang on... dizzy...

I realize many here like to think we're part of some "rare" group with some "special" fetish, but I don't buy THAT, either. We'll never know for sure just how mainstream this fetish is because this forum IS NOT an accurate representation of "all of the sneeze fetish population." It simply isn't a proper sampling of such a thing.

True, but I'll stand by my point above, based on my highly esteemed and completely non-scientific "market resaerch."

I used to believe that one could be "born" with a fetish or phobia, but I don't think so any longer. I believe that the PREDISPOSITION can be there, but not the actual fetish or phobia itself.

Well... even in my post, I did not dismiss the importance of nuture/determinism.

Actually, if I take your meaning correclty, it mimicks my own philosphy about ALL personality traits rather closely. I believe that in every way genetics merely gives you a certain amount of potential for any one trait. Your experience then determines how much of that potential is fulfilled. (I think of each personality trait as having as "test tube" and your experience filling (or leaving empty) those test tubes. Thus, someone with a small capacity (test tube) for, say, LOVE who was brought up in a loving home can still end up being a more loving person than someone with an immense capacity (test tube) for LOVE that remained empty.

Are we close on this one?

And as for sexuality...

Psychodynamics aside, culture has a LOT to do with sexuality. A LOT. And THAT has been proven as well. There are some cultures where men are raised to have ONLY same-sex partners until adulthood for various cultural reasons. You can't tell me that EVERY single man there was "born" with a "homosexual" tendency. That just isn't so. The people are enculturated in this manner so that they are accepted as "proper" citizens of that region.

SHENANIGANS!!! This is exactly the semantic argument I was talking about. The people you speak of AREN'T GAY!!!! There's more to being homosexual than just being in a homosexual relationship!!! It is a lifestyle that is CHOSEN (hang on... wait for it...) because it is IHERENTLY DESIRED. (IOW - the tendency was there from the beginning.) If these people you refer to (and in what culture BTW?) decide to marry later in life and then live a bi or heterosexual lifestyle after they reach adulthood / come of age / wehatever then that PROOVES they aren't gay! So I'm not saying ANY of them are gay or were born with homosexual tendencies, except those who STAY homosexal after they reach the age in which all the others marry off. (Go bi / strait / whatever.)

Therefore, all the scientific evidence in the world cannot explain sexuality. It never has been able to do so and I feel certain it will never be able to reach a conclusion that everyone can agree upon whole-heartedly.

Science, both medical and psychological has reached it's conclusion. Religious wing-nuts and the right-wing particsans are the only ones left that are pushing the notion that it's not something you born with. And they do it for the very reason Sapphire quoted - so that they can freely condemn the behavior and continue the mindless predujice being perpetrated against homosexuals. So again: SHENANIGANS!!! The American Psychiatric Whatchafus (you ever forget something? It just happened to me!) went so far as to REMOVE HOMOSEXUALITY form their list of mental illnesses. That's a CONCLUSION. There is no debate - just the task of identifying what all of the factors are.

(Which, once a test for said genetic markers is completed, will turn all these right-wingers into rampant pro-choicers over-night. You just watch. The hypocritical bastards.)

Now - I'm NOT saying that environment has NO effect. (Or can't have an effect.) But I do maintain that it can't make the strait gay, and it can't really make the gay strait. Sure - It can make him/her accept a medicore relatioship and unfulfilling lifestyle. (But hell - we all learn to settle in some ways!) But I hold that the innante desire doesn't go away. (And again - the only "successful" conversions I've ever read about all come from whack-job faith healers and other religious wing-nuts. And more than one of their "success stories" has gone on to commit suicide. Shenanigans!)

Now... if I'm missing the point here please let me know. But what's the value of "conditioning" if it can't cause or reverse the tendenancy? And again - condition doesn't even make a dog not WANT the steak. It just makes them hold still, rather than gulp it down, until they're told. IOW - it elicits a behavior, not a desire.

(I'll concede (I already did, actually) that "fetish" is a grey area. All the same I still hold that the vast majority or "our cases" will not be explained so easily.

....

Captain: So help me God, I'm going to pistol-whip the next one who says "Shenanigans!"

Ramathorn: Hey Farva... What's that restuarant you like, with all the crazy crap on the walls and the mozzerella sticks?

Farva: You mean SHENANIGANS?!