Paraphilias are sexual perversions and deviations, some of which are classed as disorders that require psychiatry to correct, though I'm no authority on paraphilias. Could you elaborate on what you meant by the following?

bringing reason or conscious will into it will probably just repress actual attraction into a pressurized reservoir where it will remain until it bursts and you're suddenly idealizing someone to both of your mutual detriment. — csalisbury

Meanwhile, could you please elaborate bullet 3? — Izat So

What an individual will accept for themselves. For example, somebody who in truth feels attracted to a person of a specific description but is unable to accept the love of such a person due to self-perception, and as @csalisbury previously touched on; confusing their own conscious mind and reasoning with something more biologically determined. Getting in their own way. I hope that provides you with the clarity you need.

Also the last bullet seems to be an empirical question. — Izat So

If it's possible to decide sexuality through will, then it's possible to decide whom you should be attracted to. Again, whether that constitutes true attraction is up for debate.

And I don't think these can be disentangled because they coevolved. — Izat So

Upon reflection I agree. Perhaps this question was too broadly framed to achieve a concise discussion around the nature of sexuality and sexual attraction.

In any case, bringing reason or conscious will into it will probably just repress actual attraction into a pressurized reservoir where it will remain until it bursts and you're suddenly idealizing someone to both of your mutual detriment. — csalisbury

This is profound. Has this been evidenced or formally classified? Would you say that this is where the realm of paraphilias lie? If so, once a paraphilia has become set as a result of the burst as you put it, how would one determine the difference between true sexual attraction and a paraphilic attraction?

Imagine it's 100 or so years ago, before Einstein released his findings concerning relativity and the like. And imagine you, saying "I would ask that you or others try to imagine how Newton's Laws could possibly not be adhered-to." — Pattern-chaser

True, until such an event can be evidenced then I'll maintain that regardless of whether or not we're aware of the cause, it exists.

Not being able to imagine a spontaneous event does not mean there are none. — Pattern-chaser

True but likewise, being able to imagine a spontaneous event does not mean that there are. Both spontaneous and determined, premeditated events have a cause and I think the only difference is, as implied in their literal definitions, we're only consciously aware of the latter. Would an effect be causeless because I was too cognitively inept to see it? Perhaps only to me.

I think the answer to the question "Are causeless effects possible"? can simply be written as no as a grammatical truth. How do you find something that will not be found? If it were possible for me to rationalise an effect without a cause then would I not have done it? Like Isaac, none of this is to say that in the future I will not come across a causeless effect, perhaps then I can relinquish the burden of responsibility.

Effect implies cause. Definitively, for something to exist it must have a cause. It would be unhelpful to describe examples of causality as I believe it's unnecessary, instead I would ask that you or others try to imagine something that you know to exist but that which does not have a cause. Beware not to conflate cause with meaning, as the two are certainly distinguishable. Cause is simply A hits B, B becomes sore and A feels guilty, assuming psychopathy is absent.

Patterns are the study of cause and effect.

I'm new so forgive the poor formatting.

No problem with your argument. True unconditional love doesn't exist as to love unconditional is a condition in itself. I merely pointed out the common sentiment. It's gross.

So how do we love unconditionally? I'm really not sure, and to be honest I don't care for I have no desire to forgo my standards. I seem to have a mental block about it though. A bit like the first time you wonder what lies beyond the fringes of existence and find a great dark void.

I believe the notion of unconditional love stems from a being's need for acceptance, though this form comes without the individual needing to take the responsibility of one's life in order to achieve the desired standards required for a person to achieve being loved, which are most efficiently the standards a person seeks in a partner. These standards and conditions are of course varied and are determined by individual taste, hence why it's best to find yourself and just be that. It'll find you. This kind of love is my absolute definition of love.

You're arguing that in order to experience literal unconditional love that there can be no conditions or orders that are required to produce one's love for another, or even for oneself. If true unconditional love is as described, then in order to achieve it the only condition is itself, that you love unconditionally, no matter what. It not nonsensical nor is it even a good idea, in fact it's a very bad one. From it comes the abolition of all discomforting notions of truth and standards of being, subsequent cultural decline and systemic anarchy and societal collapse, ringing any bells? Why should you love unconditionally? What is the moral obligation to do so if not to preserve innocence and protect a being from suffering? Isn't that just a moralistically grotesque, unwittingly malevolent pursuit of righteousness?

When a person falls into love there is an overwhelmingly compelling desire to let go and pursue, regardless of the risk of danger or emotional vulnerability. It's quite a magnificent force. It's not something you ought to try to seek out as it'll only find you. When it does finally arrive the question of conditions becomes far more relevant.

The prevention of owning the responsibility for one's own action, thoughts, emotions and life are and will forever be humanity's greatest weakness.