Having seen this said a number of times and having seen it said by Markos on a thread last night, I have come to wonder where this comes from. I have not seen it in the articles and I have not seen Dr. Harley say this in the Love Busters or Fall in Love, Stay in Love book.

Essentially it's 'we can fall in love with anyone that meets our needs...man, woman, animal (yes, Markos said animal)'

This is bothering me because essentially it's saying that we don't have a sexual identity, that we are all one need away from engaging in homosexual activity or deviant activity (in the case of animals or children/teenagers). Look, we�re either gay or straight or there are a few of us that are bi-curious. For those that are truly gay, homosexuality is not a choice�it is what it is.

There are sick stories all over the place...I don't think a car can meet needs, yet there are people who, erm...

ANYONE can have a psychotic break. That is most certainly true.

But everyone's needs are different. I don't think my needs are the same as a sexual deviant's needs. I think that's the key in that statement.

So, a person may be one need away from that, but that particular need is the individual's specific need. And it needs to be met the way that person wants it met.

*I* think that you already have to have that need, that desire to have it met in a way only a homosexual (or any other "type") can, for a same sex affair to happen.

Not sure if I made sense, I'm still half asleep

k_t, I just listened to the radio show from 12 April 2011. The topic is listed as "there is no intimacy in their marriage".

During the call, Dr Harley raised the possibility that the H (the spouse with no sexual interest in his wife) was attracted to men. He made a similar statement to the one markos cites above. I found it helpful to hear Dr Harley's explanation of same-sex attraction in his own words. I think you might find it beneficial to listen to this. http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/marriage-builders-radio/

He also explained his much-derided claim that he can re-train somebody who is interested in the same sex (he was again talking about a man in this case) to find sex with his wife pleasurable and to give up same-sex thoughts.

It should be borne in mind that Dr Harley is talking about men who are married and who want to have fulfilling marriages but who have same-sex thoughts or acts. He is not advocating grabbing perfectly contented gay men off the streets and forcibly converting them to heterosexuality.

If a couple goes to Dr Harley in crisis because of the H's interest in men and lack of interest in sex with his wife, Dr Harley works with them to create the fulfilling marriage that they desire. He does not tell the man that he is gay and his best course is to accept that, and that for the wife, the best course is divorce.

He is working with couples that choose to go to him, and they do that because they are not quite ready to let go of the marriage. He reports "scores" of cases in which his behavioural re-training has worked to focus the man's sexual attention on to his wife. I don't know why he is ridiculed for saying that he has done this. Do people think he is actually making up his data?

Hey, kilted, you are to be commended for starting a new thread to discuss this rather than being disruptive. Thank you for being a great guy!


I don't remember what I said specifically on that thread, but the way I remember Dr. Harley saying it, he didn't even limit it to animals. I think he was implying fetishes with inanimate objects.

Specifically I've heard Dr. Harley talk about this on the radio show. There is a wealth of information and Harley opinions offered on the radio show that don't show up here so much. It's free and being a regular listener is awesome! The paid archive is also less than $100 a year and has more hours than you'll ever be able to listen to. The show I was citing was from 2006, but I know there were some on the subject last year.

Dr. Harley may also discuss this in Defending Traditional Marriage. I don't know, because I haven't bought this book. I've actually shied away from it because I'm not entirely sure I agree with Dr. Harley politically and wasn't sure what I would think about it, but I've seen enough to know that there's probably some information there I'd like to see some day.


I really don't know what the scientific evidence says. I know that a gay friend recently told me that evidence shows that if one identical twin is gay there's only something like a 30% chance the other will be, so if that is true, it sounds like the cause is not genetic. I know that media headlines sensationalize and manipulate scientific claims all the time (http://www.xkcd.com/882/) and so I try to always reserve judgment on things nowadays until I have checked it out for myself. Years ago Prisca and I researched the subject of labor and birth extensively, and discovered that even though actual scientific studies universally pointed to particular conclusions, the American medical establishment completely rejected those conclusions, which was very disturbing, so I always consider that a "consensus" among an establishment may be wrong and subject to change down the road.

The way I would reword what I've heard from Dr. Harley is probably not the way he would say it, but I take away the idea that everyone is potentially bisexual, that if someone were to entertain a particular sexual appetite they might find that appetite becoming stronger and stronger. Given that the American LGBT community also believes that people can find out or admit that they are gay or bisexual I don't see that this in and of itself should be that controversial an idea. If someone can think they are hetero and be wrong and discover they are gay, then I don't see what's wrong with suggesting to someone who thinks that they are gay that they might in fact also be capable of attraction to the opposite sex. It would certainly help marriages if a person who has had a same-sex sexual experience can in fact become attracted to their opposite-sex spouse, and Dr. Harley claims to have helped achieve this in numerous cases.

I do think Dr. Harley says that the "threshold" for the feeling of romantic love (attraction) toward a person of the same sex varies from person to person, i.e., for some people it would take a TON of conditioning to exercise the potential for same sex attraction to the point where they are attracted, and for others the threshold might be much lower. But it sounds to me like he is saying everyone is essentially at some spot in a continuum of sexual attraction, which is rather similar to the belief I've heard expressed in the LGBT community that everyone's sexual identity is unique and is on a continuum rather than fitting rigorous polar definitions.

It begins around 22:00. Very interesting!

What did you mean by "sexual deviant"? Were you talking about homosexuals?

Okay. But doesn't anyone find it odd that men specifically would even have a passing curiousity about being with another man? I listened to most of the Dr. Harley segment.

I just can't see a legitimately straight man even having a romantic feeling for another man even if he was meeting his top ENs (AS and SF aside).

We're not living in Brokeback Mountain in which we are "wow, I've never realized I had feelings for a man" have an affair with another man and then go back home to our wives.

I don't understand your point, k_t. The series of statements above do not seem to be making a point.

Dr Harley says that he has helped many marriages where the man has been attracted to other men. He successfully helps the man to learn to have a fulfilling sexual relationship with his wife. He doesn't seem to need to define him as a "legitimately straight man".

Do you have an argument or disagreement with what Dr Harley says he has accomplished?

I think Dr. Harley only concentrates on the fact that there's an affair and not the sexual identity (other than he delved into the molestation issue).

Maybe I'm just too black and white on this in that straight men don't fantasize about having sex with other men.

I am curious now as to how many men that Dr. Harley has dealt with has had an affair with another man.

But I'm not sure this thread will really go anywhere so it's prob not worth persuing anymore.

I have a disagreement with the idea of reforming homosexuals (and FYI- a man who's attracted to men is gay, or bisexual, not straight and confused and thus 'fixable'). You can PRETEND to be straight, live a straight lifestyle, but if you are a homosexual that's what you are! So the question is not really, 'can men train themselves to enjoy sex with their wives and enjoy sex with women', but 'is that something anyone should do?', or 'is it fair for someone to feel they need to deny or repress their sexuality or that this sexuality is somehow wrong?". I would claim a resounding no to both of those questions. But I'm not the men in question going to therapy either (I'm a long time open bisexual in a straight monogamous marriage- but I would never claim to or seek to erase any physical desires for women just because I married a man and have vowed to only have sex with him).

I have never understood the logic behind these kind of statements. Why can't the reverse be true? Why can't a person PRETEND to be homosexual, live a gay lifestyle, but if you are heterosexual thats what you are! Is there some special and magic human trait that ONLY applies to homosexuality but nothing else? That is not rational. It could just as easily be said that if a person was once heterosexual "that is what you are!!" I think folks are in the habit of just accepting such stereotypes at face value without question.

Much of what we have been taught about homosexuality is little more than cultural sterotypes.

Even so, here is Dr Harley's position on the subject:

Aradia, Dr Harley helps men who are married who go to him. They go to him for help because they do not want to give up on their marriages just yet.

You say "the question is not really, 'can men train themselves to enjoy sex with their wives and enjoy sex with women', but 'is that something anyone should do?'"

Well, if a married couple is attempting to have a sexually fulfilling marriage, or to save their marriage after a same-sex affair, then they must have sexual fulfilment within that marriage. They must take their focus off other people and place it on each other.

This is "something that anyone should do" IF they are seeking to stay married and be happy and fulfilled in that marriage.

Would you agree that you have exercised a choice about how you will live? Haven't you chosen to be in a monogamous, lifelong marriage, despite other options that were open to you?

Agree w/sugar cane, it's their choice but not one I would make.

MelodyLane it can go the other way around! Gay men can pretend to be straight and live straight lifestyles also but it does not change their innate orientation. I have to say I disagree with the doctor on this one. His logic is not 100% solid- for example in the last paragraph he's confusing gender changing operations with changing ones sexuality when the two are completely separate things. He's also pushing the 'thinking themselves gay' myth, if someone straight has one gay experience born out of childhood curiosity they will suddenly be changing their own brains to believe that gay is the way to be. LOL!! Yeah right! Do you think gay children who have a sexual experience with a member of the opposite sex think themselves into being straight? There's absolutely no science whatsoever to support that.

And believe it or not, there IS a gene, and they are closer to discovering it every day (yes people really ARE born gay). www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/15/have-scientists-found-gay-gene

I would just have easily married a woman if SHE had been the love of my life. It turned out it was a man. That doesn't change my orientation.

But who would pretend to be a homosexual and engage in sexual relations that repulses them (how many straight men would really pretend to be gay and ummmm...have sex with men)?

Who would pretend to be straight and engage in sexual relations that repulse them? The door swings both ways. Gay sex is not more "gross" than straight sex. If you agree with Dr. Harley then gay people should be able to learn to enjoy straight sex too, so you've anwered your own question.

That question can be asked in the reverse, though. Who would pretend to be heterosexual and engage in sexual relations that repulse them? It doesn't make any sense to say that only a homosexual cannot change his orientation and not the reverse.

Well, I'm a heterosexual male, so I do think that male gay sex is gross. I have some gay friends that gross out when it comes to man/woman sex.

Strangely enough, at my wifes place of employment there have been 3 husbands that once the kids were out of the house announced that they have been closet gay and could not maintain the straight lifestyle any longer because they have been miserable and faking it. And since the kids were out they felt they were now free to go and live teh lifestyle they really want.

Strange world sometimes. I don't understand faking your sexual orientation.