|
|
|
|
I followed a link yesterday which took me to another link which took me here.
http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/homosexuality/a0000055.cfm
I thought I would throw this out for discussion. I'm sure this has been done on a number of occasions here, but perhaps always good to do it again.
My reaction when I read the stuff presented on this page was "Holy Shit! They’re describing me!" So many of the things presented here are my experience as a child. Not all, but probably most. I believe that just because they describe the symptoms properly doesn’t necessarily mean that their conclusions are correct, but I don’t rule those conclusions out either.
I remember as early as 5 years old loving and wanting to be intimate with (kissing) another little boy that I knew. I never felt that way about girls at that age. This was prior to everything going to shit in my home, and while I still felt safe and secure. All the mayhem that came along a year or two later only served to accentuate the issue in my opinion.
I'm not arrogant enough to believe that there is one single answer to the question of sexuality. I do believe that in many cases it is hardwired into a person's genes at conception. I also believe it can come from other causes, including what is presented here, or simply choice.
When considering the presentation I've linked to, one also must also consider the source. It is another of good old Dr. Dobson's "family" of websites, so keep in mind that it is NOT an unbiased source for information.
Teddy
“There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is.” - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is all hypothetical, and talks about homosexual "behaviour" yet never refers to sexual attraction at all. I have never had any homosexual experiences -- not even solo sexual experiences until recently -- and yet I am certainly at least bisexual by the fact that I appreciate the physical beauty of young men.
It insults those gay people who do have strong fathers. It portrays a gay person as a victim -- indeed, a willing victim who slides into homosexuality and then clings to it. It relies on stereotypes and assumes that gay people are necessarily promiscuous and pathetic. It even seems to claim that homosexuality is an illness that can be cured, something that in the first case is factually incorrect, and in the second has never been shown to be true.
I think, Teddy, that even if you recognise some traits it describes it is an extremely bad idea to start agreeing with any of the conclusions. It is evidently written with someone with an agenda, someone who has no idea what it means to be gay. In other words, it is a thinly veiled piece of propaganda.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has brought me back from hibernation!
I think that this is an incredibly dangerous site, and none of its conclusions would be supported by any (current) mainstream psychoanalyst. I say this with some confidence: it is an issue I have discussed at length with my aunt, who is a psychoanalyst, senior member of staff at the Anna Freud Centre, and a respected author on developmental approaches to child psychotherapy. I urge non-one to give it any credence.
I specifically object to the value-laden language the author uses: describing a boy as "vulnerable to" homosexuality, talking about "efffeminate" behaviour (reading and intelligence are hardly gender-specific!), repeating the old myth about the alleged promiscuity of homosexuals .... It is a propagandist site from the worst kind of false-reasonable anti-homosexual bigot. The article is copyright NARTH, which kind of gives the game away!
However, some points have some merit for some of us. Many gay kids do grow up with some kind of difficult relationship with one or both parents, which may lead to a hunger for hugs and cuddles. The same is true of straight kids. The difference - I think - is that straight kids from puberty onwards have a lot more socially-accepted ways of gratifying this - gay kids often don't, or can only do so by finding a narrow socially-acccepted outlet (such as being very camp and attracting a selfconsciously "fag-hag" circle of female friends - not a choice that many make).
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The really appalling thing is that it does not seem to have occurred to Dr Satinover that homosexuality might ever not be a bad thing. The whole thing is designed to make people feel guilty and wretched for being gay. That a member of a supposedly enlightened society (a doctor, no less!) can say such things without holding his head in shame makes me lose all faith in human nature.
Part 12 is a blatant advertisement for therapy intended to "cure homosexuality". There is no evidence that this works. I cannot believe that telling a person that he is sad and pathetic and has deep psychological issues that will take years to work out can possibly be "extraordinarily fulfilling".
To be honest, Teddy, I always end up feeling really upset whenever someone posts an article like that here. It's happened several times before. It's a bit like pouring petrol on a quietly smouldering fire.
David
[Updated on: Sun, 19 November 2006 18:15] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
> I always end up feeling really upset whenever someone posts an article like that here. It's happened several times before. It's a bit like pouring petrol on a quietly smouldering fire.
>
I also get upset by stuff like this - perhaps because there is no way to effectively challenge it, unlike in real life where one can at least have the option of making a stand.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jedediah
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: Made in NZ
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 170
|
|
|
Don't be upset Deeej - Well, do! Be very upset, but not with Teddy. Be upset with the stupid a***holes who propogate propoganda like that.
I agree totally with the rest of what you said.
cheers
E Te Atua tukuna mai ki au te Mauri tauki te tango i nga mea
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Interesting, somewhat patronising, self serving (Does this guy offer alleged reparative therapy?), and actually just plain incorrect.
These people have their own agenda. We need to ignore them like we ignore any charlatan
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Ah, I see me might:
"Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.D. has practiced psychoanalysis for more than nineteen years, and psychiatry for more than ten. He is a former Fellow in Psychiatry and Child Psychiatry at Yale University, a past president of the C.G. Jung Foundation, and a former William James Lecturer in Psychology and Religion at Harvard University. He holds degrees from MIT, the University of Texas, and Harvard University. He is the author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Baker Books, 1996)."
So he has written a book that is ten years old, and thus obsolete. OK. Anyone wonder why he has not quoted a current publication?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jedediah,
I'm not upset at Teddy -- I'm upset because, as NW says, there is no way to effectively challenge the article. It makes me feel very impotent. This is not something I come across routinely in the UK, thank goodness, but that does mean I don't have a strategy for dealing with it.
But if there is no way of dealing with something, is there any point in posting about it? Teddy said, "I'm sure this has been done on a number of occasions here, but perhaps always good to do it again." It would be my personal opinion -- which you're welcome to challenge -- that it's worth it doing that only if the circumstances have changed, or something of particular note has come up. The article does not highlight new research, or even mainstream, contemporary opinion. It is potentially very offensive, especially to people who do not in any way fit the stereotypes it relies upon, but offers nothing that mitigates it.
By posting someone else's article, Teddy has allows us to hear Satinover's opinion, but there is no way for Satinover to hear ours. In other words, it's not really a discussion at all, because all we can do is consider it among ourselves, and I suspect that we all think exactly the same thing of it.
David
[Updated on: Sun, 19 November 2006 19:08] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
And the site is a religious view of homosexualty. He thus wants to cure us because we doubtless fly in the face of god. Well, how arrogant is that? I thought his deity was inerrant. Zero mistakes.
No, guys, ignore this site of alleged love that practices bigiorty and hatred
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Ah yes. Read those links. He makes money by "curing" people, then. No wif he offered his services free..... I would still be worried, and still ignore him
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jedediah
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Made in NZ
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 170
|
|
|
That's true - but if discussion in here helps to clarify our own thinking on issues like this then, hopefully, it may be carried out to other arguments in the real world. The world can be changed, one person at a time - look at what JC did - though the religious types do their best to stuff it up.
cheers
E Te Atua tukuna mai ki au te Mauri tauki te tango i nga mea
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jedediah
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Made in NZ
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 170
|
|
|
Satin over what? by the way - an iron fist in a velvet glove maybe?
E Te Atua tukuna mai ki au te Mauri tauki te tango i nga mea
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I'm happy to see the article referred to here. I see nothing at all wrong with showing it to the world. It allows us to see a man whose opinion is already discredited attempting to ply his alleged curative trade and foisting it upon the multitude.
The web site is wholly biased. But surely so is this one?
We are many people with subjective opinions. What we are "sure of" should always be challenged. Chllenging my certainties allows me to become more sure of my own ground.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy,
The circumstances have changed somewhat since I first posted, for everyone else has rallied round.
When I first read Teddy's post no-one else had yet responded to it. I could not judge Teddy's own opinions because he did not really commit himself. But I could certainly judge the author of the article's, and I felt personally affronted by it. In fact, I felt a terrible "here we go again" feeling of the sort that we have had in the past over issues of religion and science when dealing with fundamentalists -- a feeling of deep unease about where the conversation could be going: did Teddy's words imply I was supposed to agree with it?
Since no-one else had yet responded, I felt I ought to reply as soon as possible because not to do so might be seen as a tacit agreement. This feeling of obligation added to the unease because I felt that I should write a good and convincing response -- something I am not always convinced I can do!
Then there was the feeling of impotence I've already mentioned, the feeling that even if I replied there would be no way to respond directly to the author, because the source of the difference of opinion is not another poster but a citation to another site.
It was a relief when NW posted shortly after me, for I knew I was not alone in my opinion on the article.
This is what usually happens when someone posts something provocative on the board: there is a brief period when there are few responses during which it feels like an affront, a troll -- even if it's not meant that way by the poster. So I would request that people think about the purpose of posting such material before doing so, or put a strong disclaimer on it when they do, so that it can't be taken the wrong way.
I appreciate that my argument is a rather selfish one, but I wonder if it applies to anyone else as well.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I am not quarreling with you. Your reaction was genuine, disgusted, and from the heart.
What these jerks do not realise when they set out in their zeal to "cure" us, is that we none of us chose to be homosexual. I never chose to be right handed, either.
The man is a charlatan and a rogue if he suggests we can be cured.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
To me, Teddy, it was clear that you posted this article to inform us about a quack.
Since others did not recognise this so easily, any chance you could make this even clearer when you post other similar items?
I see When considering the presentation I've linked to, one also must also consider the source. It is another of good old Dr. Dobson's "family" of websites, so keep in mind that it is NOT an unbiased source for information. as being clear, but maybe it was too near the foot.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy said,
>What these jerks do not realise when they set out in their zeal to "cure" us, is that we none of us chose to be homosexual. I never chose to be right handed, either.
In this case, I don't think you're right. I think Satinover does appreciate that homosexuality is not a deliberate choice. Instead he uses the far more insidious and unpleasant argument that we have ended up with such grave psychological problems that we "enjoy" playing the part of the sad, victimised, promiscuous homosexual, and therefore we have a psychological block which prevents us from realising that we are really just fucked up heterosexuals.
By regarding homosexuality as a sort of mental illness, despite mainstream opinion, it gives him an excuse to regard us as non-people whose wishes are irrelevant and should be disregarded by enlightened people such as himself. That he is saying this in a cynical attempt to earn money as a therapist is really absolutely disgusting.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I was generalising. But he is advertising. I expect he enjoys being holier than we are
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Teddy,
I have read some articles about this issue a number of times but this one is just as Deeej seems to be pointing out. I know of other people with rather good credentials who would perhaps agree with some of the points made, but fundamentally disagree with others. I dont happen to think that we are born gay, but neither do I think it is some kind of conscious decision on our part to be that way either. It is just not so simple. I think there are many factors influencing how we behave sexually and it cannot be easily put into some kind of neat little package.
I have pointed out to some people how I know exactly when, where, how, what, and why I became afraid of heights. I perhaps could have pinned it down to the exact moment, but it does not mean I can do anything about it. Once I had my experience, the one that made me aware I should be afraid, there was no going back to being unafraid, no matter how illogical it was to be afraid. I know that is some instances I can minimize my fears and work around them so I can function in my job on a ladder for instance. However, no matter how intellectually I approach my fear of heights, I cannot undo it and go back to where I was not afraid. I think becoming attracted to the same sex is much the same thing. No matter what has caused it to happen, it is irrelavent now and very few can go back to being straight. I think some can resolve the issue to lead a hetrosexual lifestyle, but they are merely suppressing some of the "bi" part of their being in my opinion.
It is a hot issue here on this site and on many gay sites and is usually tied to the belief that God can somehow help you overcome being gay. I will not say it cannot be done, as religion is a strong influence in many lives, but it is unlikely to allow someone to go from being gay to being straight. I think the attractions, although repressed or suppressed, would still be there. I will always think it better to live a straight lifestyle if you can fit into it, but it is really a bad idea to try to pretend you are not who you really are. It is unfair to the other person for one thing and is almost always doomed to failure.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
> By regarding homosexuality as a sort of mental illness, despite mainstream opinion, it gives him an excuse to regard us as non-people whose wishes are irrelevant and should be disregarded by enlightened people such as himself. That he is saying this in a cynical attempt to earn money as a therapist is really absolutely disgusting.
Deeej, I completely agree that he is casting us as having some sort of dysfunctional (but explicable and understandable) adjustment to circumstance, which he can "treat".
I'm not sure that I agree that he's doing it for the money (or even the publicity) though - I rather sense that he is sincere but misguided. That's a pity - those in it for the money can be dissuaded by boycotts, adverse publicity, and professional scorn, but there's very little indeed that one can do to counter a closed-minded bigot except limit their ability to infect others.
As he specifically casts himself as a psychoanalyst, rather than a general therapist, I could wish that he was capable of understanding the advice Freud gave:
"Dear Ms. X.- Homosexuality is assuredly of no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classed as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function... Many highly respected individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc. ). It is a great injustice to prosecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too...
By asking me if I can help, you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way, we cannot promise to achieve it... What analysis can do for your son runs in a different line. If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency, whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed... "
Sigmund Freud - Letter to an American Mother
OK, not all analysts achieve that (I went to two shitty ones in my youth), but the best of them strive to, and when successful, can certainly make a big difference (as my last one did).
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Ken,
I think you are comparing apples and oranges.
Fear of heights (acrophobia) is a phobia. Phobias can usually be cured if addressed clinically. Phobias are also disorders and unquestionably not good things to have.
Sexuality has all the hallmarks of being immutable. It would be playing right into these people's hands to regard homosexuality in the same way a disorder, for then it becomes right to try and "cure" it rather than to accept it as something that just "is". Homosexuality for many people is a good thing.
I'm not going to argue the point further, but I do think that this comparison weakens rather than strengthens your position.
Incidentally, the secret to overcoming a phobia is exposure, not intellect -- if you try that as a strategy it may help you more. I don't know of anyone who has "turned straight" by spending more time with women!
David
Edit: a typo rendered acrophobia as agoraphobia. My mistake.
[Updated on: Mon, 20 November 2006 02:23] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One thing that there was in the article did strike me as interesting:
maybe it was just that his own needs were unique enough that his father, a decent man, could never quite find the right way to relate to him
I'm absolutely certain this doesn't apply to everyone, but this was probably so in my own case - certainly my father never abused my brother or sister in the same way that he did me. But I don't think it's a cause of my homosexuality, although it has had a big effect on my life. I'm gonna start a new thread on this ...
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Oddly I have some kind of empathy for the positions of "quacks" like this guy. He is most definitely ignorant, mentioning AIDS in an article about homosexuality seems quite archaic given the fact that third world heterosexuals are the ones having the real problems with AIDS nowadays. His story tells but one possibility. Maybe someone gay could follow his "path" to becoming gay and maybe it would be something they would regret. Maybe, for them, the best way out of it WOULD be to be "cured". When you have a lot of negative memories associated with a particular facet of your life, it can be easier to avoid that side of yourself. But his strategies hardly cover the vast spectrum of gay people.
I don't feel guilt about my current relationship which has lasted longer than the relationships of most straight couples my age. I don't feel guilt about my attraction to boys, even though I used to. I have been able to come to a peace within myself, through relationships, through fire and tears and in part through travelling to Asia and seeing other cultural opinions of homosexuality.
The problem with homosexuality is that it does contain a choice component. You can choose to sleep with men or not to, other minorities usually don't have that luxury of choice. To a degree a black man can act "white", but he can't change the colour of his skin (with one notable exception). A disabled person can't become non-disabled, though they might pass as non-disabled if their disability is minor. Women often "act like men" to climb the corporate ladder, but they can always be seen as women. Being gay, I choose for people to know my position as part of a minority, I choose my actions and the only way I can be "known" to be gay is by people knowing my thoughts.
That said, I don't really believe that homosexuality can be easily changed, if at all. It's a pretty strong part of me, albeit, in my mind unimportant. Then again, clinical depression is quite hard to change through councelling alone. I'm sure there's plenty of true disorders that are as hard as homosexuality, if not harder to "cure" without drugs. But even if it is curable the question is "why bother?", no-one is perfect and even if homosexuality is a "flaw", does it have a negative impact on my life? Not at all. Why waste time and money trying to change diversity. No-one is perfect and I don't see people trying to change left-handedness (anymore) even though it is divergent, potentially troublesome (so much smudged ink) and possibly changable through many years of therapy.
I'm happy being homosexual, and if a cure was around I wouldn't take it. If I was a "mad scientist" I wouldn't want to be cured, either. So called "disorders" bring diversity to society and while some are debilitating homosexuality is not, at all. Even if it is a choice, it isn't a wrong choice.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well -- I do get the impression that people such as Dr Satinover stick to their position out of more than simple misguidedness. The rest of mainstream psychiatry and psychology cannot possibly have passed him by without him noticing. At the very least there is an arrogance and conceit to his position; this suggests either a personal interest (perhaps he is a repressed homosexual himself); a lack of intelligence (but he does not strike me as all that unintelligent); or a political, religious or pecuniary motive (in America it could well be all three). As he seems to be someone who offers "extraordinarily fulfilling" gay therapy I assumed that his motive was to gain business for himself, but I admit it could be for another reason. I would not wish to probe too hard, to be honest.
I found Freud's letter very interesting; thank you for quoting it.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
First, let me say that I agree entirely with Deeej's view of the linked article; I regard it as a thoroughly pernicious piece of work, and will expand on that view in a moment.
That said, though I share Deeej's frustration that Satinover cannot easily be challenged, this is true of innumerable websites; indeed to an extent it's true of newspapers and other media - a source with 'an agenda' will never provide equal exposure to opposing views. But it strikes me that, in the light of recent discussions in another thread about the significance of lurkers, we may in our own small way making our challenge; at least those who visit this forum will be presented with an alternative view. We may collectively be a little acorn, but we all know what little acorns can produce.
I hope that Teddy doesn't feel that he has been criticised in any way. Deeej was clearly - and rightly - incensed by the linked article, not by the poster; and, when he doubted the benefit of posting that article, he was expressing an opinion rather than making a criticism. Expression of opinions is what keeps this forum interesting! I think Teddy made his personal views perfectly clear; it wasn't a long post, and his reservations logically fitted into his final paragraph.
Returning to the article itself, Satinover may have superficially impressive academic qualifications, but this was in no sense an academic statement. No sources were quoted, prevalent views were ignored or distorted, and sweeping assumptions abounded. The really pernicious aspect was the way in which widely accepted conclusions were mentioned but underplayed, especially in the opening section. It is true that there is widespread agreement that homosexuality is neither wholly genetic, nor wholly environmental. I've trotted out the evidence before, and I won't go through it all again but, for the benefit of anyone new to the site, the only truly significant and independent evidence in this area derives from studies of twins, and especially twins who were separated at birth. These studies show clearly that if one identical twin is gay, there is a high probability that the other will also be gay. In the case of fraternal twins (those who have developed from two eggs rather than a single egg), the likelihood is significantly less, but still considerably higher that the incidence of homosexuality among the population as a whole. This demonstrates two things. First, as identical twins have the same genes, there must be a significant genetic factor to account for the high correlation mentioned above. This is borne out by the lower, but still abnormally high, correlation for fraternal twins, who share only half the genes of their siblings. But of course the fact that the correlation for identical twins is well short of 100% demonstrates that the causes of homosexuality cannot be wholly genetic. Environment must make a contribution, in some way providing a 'trigger' which brings the genetic predisposition into operation. Environment begins with conception, not with birth, so the 'trigger' could be a hormonal or other chemical influence in the womb, or it could be a post-natal event. The balance of probability favours the former, but there is at present insufficient evidence to rule out the latter. Satinover mentions all this in passing, but then proceeds on the assumption that a post-natal event is the most important element in determining orientation. In fact, the prevalent view is that it is the least important; it's even possible that it has no effect at all. And everything Satinover goes on to say is equally distorted.
I would seriously argue that it is impossible for anyone committed to fundamentalist Christianity to take a wholly objective view of a physiological condition against which he has a religious bias. There are homosexuals in the vast majority of human cultures; in some, they are freely accepted. It is of scientific interest to determine the causes of the homosexual condition, but in detached terms those causes will be the same, whatever religion (or lack of it) the subject, or the researcher, may profess.
The elements of Satinover propaganda which struck a chord with Teddy are another example of Satinover's duplicity. It is true that certain childhood experiences or desires are slightly more prevalent in homosexuals that in the population at large, but there is no evidence whatsoever that such experiences or desires influence the future development of sexual orientation. Satinover puts the cart firmly before the horse. It's perfectly possible that a prospectively gay child may yearn for affection from an unloving father, but this doesn't MAKE the child homosexual. As a psychoanalyst, Satinover must be well aware that lack of paternal affection (in a family in which the father is present) has a far higher correlation with violent behaviour in adulthood than with a homosexual orientation.
In short, the article is unscientific propaganda, and is of no merit whatsoever.
Finally, in response to Ken, you've mentioned that you suffer from vertigo several times before, but I have to agree with Deeej that vertigo is a phobic fear - a completely different phenomenon from homosexuality. Phobic fears can often be traced to an originating event in a sufferer's life, though this may be lost in early childhood. And, as Deeej has said, they can be cured - the body of evidence is overwhelming - though as with any other mental condition, a desire to overcome is a prerequisite for successful treatment, and, even then, a small minority may not respond to that treatment.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good grief, Cossie, we're in total agreement!
[Updated on: Mon, 20 November 2006 02:25] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... that you feel empathy with Satinover. I think that the key factor here is that Satinover is NOT a quack. Unless he is an outright liar, and I have no reason to suppose that this is the case, he is a fully (and relatively highly) qualified psychoanalyst, who has allowed his religious beliefs to take precedence over his medical training and his ethical obligations. I might agree with you if he were simply a religious zealot (though, on reflection, I probably wouldn't) but his academic qualifications make him a dangerous man.
As regards 'choice', it's an illusion rather than a reality. It's true that an individual may choose to repress his homosexual inclinations, but in most cases he pays a fairly heavy price for doing so. The participants in this forum (myself included) afford ample proof of that. In essence, the choice is not between being homosexual and not being homosexual; the only options are to accept or to repress.
I absolutely applaud your decision to accept yourself for what you are. My only niggle is with your statement that you are at peace with your attraction to boys. I see no inflexible significance in legal age limits, and I see no problem with a lasting affection for boys (which I certainly feel myself), provided that the affection is not acted upon in adulthood. You've had a long and fulfilling relationship with Ryan, and I'm wholly supportive - maybe even in some way envious - of that. I just hope that you mean that you are happy with your attraction to Ryan when he was under age - and that you do NOT mean that your love will be re-directed as Ryan becomes older.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a student, I still sometimes use the word "boy" to mean "young man around my age" (especially when contrasting to "girls"). Though I don't know precisely what he meant, from the context I assumed that Saben simply meant "the male sex".
Beyond that, I think it is, or at least has been, common practice to call young gay men boys in the UK. Possibly this is on the way out because of the age of consent hysteria in this country and the danger of being misunderstood.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I guess my point is more just that I think that in SOME cases, Satinover MAY provide a positive outcome. I think that "reparative" councelling (or whatever the hell it is called nowadays) helps some people more than it hurts. I do think in the vast majority of cases it is entered into wrongly and often forced upon teens by their parents. But for an adult who struggles with their sexuality, especially one that might be highly religious and/ or married, what is wrong with finding potential "causes" (whether accurate or not) and potential "solutions" that can in some cases help people be more comfortable in their lives. The "out and proud" way is not the best way for everyone.
Medical "knowledge" changes over time and to say that any one position, even the mainstream one adopted by the APA, etc is accurate, to me, is quite wrong. Why has the APA declassified homosexuality as a disorder? Isn't it more of a statement of political correctness? A statement against the techniques that used to be used to "cure it"? A statement against the forced "curing" of many people that didn't actually want to be cured? How many people have gone into councelling, etc wanting to be cured and been unable to change? How does this compare to the rate of "curing" manic depression without the use of drugs, for example?
The gay community is so happy to accept transexuals undergoing gender realignment surgery, so why is it so hard to accept that gay men may wish they were straight? I can understand the fear that if a "cure" were to be found everyone would have to undergo it, but I just don't think that enough research has been done on the topic of sexuality to honestly declassify it as a disorder (though I do think that the APA did so rightly and for the right reasons at the time). That isn't to say I think that homosexuality IS a disorder, just that from what I've read (which isn't as much as others such as Deej and cossie) homosexuality is still quite a fuzzy topic and even a concrete definition isn't really in place by the scientific community. I mean, even the twin studies are quite inconclusive when a lot of gay men probably don't even recognise that they are gay!
As for my comment about my attraction to boys. It is primarily teenagers I am attracted to, but I am in love with Ryan as much now as ever. And I am still immensely attracted to him. I still find early teens attractive but my attraction is slowly shifting upwards. Possibly because I was able to begin my relationship with Ryan when he was at my primary age of attraction, as he gets older my attraction "grows up" with him, sort of like the chapters in a book progressively closing and bringing about some kind of closure from my own teen years. Even so, though, I hesitate to say I'm attracted to "men" because that word conjures up all kinds of nasty imagery about body hair and muscles. Even when I find a 20 year old attractive it usually is more for his boyish or effeminate features rather than his manly ones. Most of the guys I find attractive are of legal age now, though, around the same age as Ryan.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I definitely don't mean little boys and do mean the male sex in general. But that sounds so... sterile. I probably wouldn't say "I have sex with boys" because of the AoC hysteria, but I don't mind saying I am attracted to boys, generally meaning teens through to people my own age (and rarely older). I might use "guys" instead of "boys" but I will rarely use "males" (too sterile) or "men" (too broad and usually old).
Ryan and I have kind of coined a new word "teen-boy" that refers to a generally twinky, attractive guy, but we generally only use it with each other. It's become quite broad in its usage, however, often taking the place of an adjective ("teen-boy muscles" are what you might expect from a sporty 15-17 year old, "muscles" without the preceeding adjective would be much older and well, muscly).
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
.... that's the most worrying thing I've heard all day!
Seriously, I don't think we ever disagreed about anything except the extent to which others should be left to their (often misguided) beliefs without frontal attack!
I've just been reading Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion'; I recommend it to any thoughtful reader of any religious persuasion. Dawkins is Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, and is a formidable intellectual force - but the book is easy to read, even occasionally a bit too simplistic. Dawkins is a prominent self-proclaimed atheist.
In the book, he postulates seven grades between total belief and total atheism. Grade 6 is "Very low probability (of the existence of God), but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'" Grade 7 is "Strong atheist. 'I know that there is no God, with the same conviction as (C.G.) Jung knows there is one.'". The relevant quote from Jung is "I do not believe, I know." Dawkins goes on to describe himself as falling within category 6, leaning towards 7. That's where I stand, too, but I prefer the word 'agnostic' simply because it acknowledges the fact that I cannot know for certain.
So it is with other unclear issues - and here I am in full agreement with Dawkins. If something is uncertain, I may (and probably will) regard it as unlikely, but I won't dismiss it out of hand if it is possible to present a possible, though untested, alternative hypothesis. (Dawkins puts belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden in Group 6, though I lean very firmly towards Group 7!)
I was sorry that we had something of a falling out; in terms of intellectual perception I think we are very close indeed. I didn't - ever - mean to be hurtful; I was simply trying to put across the point that scientific thought should always be outreaching - and, therefore, it should never dismiss that which it does not understand without the same due rigour we would expect from research into any new scientific theory. On the topic of conspiracy theories, I regard them as a fun things in which to attempt to pick holes - though I have to admit that I still can't swallow the inherent improbability of the official view of the death of JFK - and, by association, that of Marilyn Monroe.
Deeej, I very much hope we can be friends again.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
In terms of a supreme being I am probably somewhere around a Grade 2 or 3, but if you mean the Christian God I am most definitely hovering around Grade 6 or 7! I probably wouldn't ever say anything is a Grade 1 to me, probably more along the lines of a Grade 1.2, I don't believe I can know ANYTHING for real, only what my limited human perception allows me to see and think I know! Sounds like an interesting concept, though.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but I'm not wholly in agreement with some of your propositions. I wouldn't presume to deny gays the opportunity to become ex-gays if that was what they truly wanted - provided that they are made aware that the therapy may not work and, even if it does work, it may result in serious mental illness. I doubt that, in current USA practice, any of these three preconditions are met.
As for what you say about Ryan and yourself, I suspect that you are wrong in self-diagnosing an affection for 'boys'; what you have seems to be an affection for guys younger than yourself. I see nothing wrong with that; though you grow older, your partner remains younger than you - in fact, that's exactly the way I felt at your age.
Happily, there are sufficient gays who have an inherent attraction to older guys, so nature restores the balance!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I can only recommend that Dawkins' book is well worth a read. You won't necessarily be convinced, but your assumptions will be rigorously tested! (Not sure if it has been published in Australia yet - if not, it soon will be! The publisher will be Random House Australia (Pty) Ltd, 20 Alfred Street, Milsons Point, Sydney, NSW 2061; the ISBN reference is 0593055489 - from January 2007, this number should be prefaced by '978')
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Saben,
I understand your position absolutely. I tend to say I'm attracted to "young men" these days -- even here -- simply because of the risk of misunderstanding. What I generally mean is 16-25 year-olds, though the attraction (and just the attraction) sometimes goes a few years below that.
Personally, I'm a bit insecure about committing myself to any sexuality, since I'm inexperienced and until a few weeks ago I was pre-sexual. "Men" is the safest and most politically-correct option ("women" doesn't work) but it conjures up images of a completely different generation. It particularly irritates me on Facebook -- I don't want to be seen by my peers as someone who likes older men! But I long ago came to the conclusion that it's just a label and hopefully one that I can withdraw at a later stage if necessary.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Guys,
There were a number of reasons I linked to that article. I'll try to elaborate on one or two of them.
Let me say unequivocally that I am not in complete and unquestioning agreement with the things expounded upon therein. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I do agree with NW where he said,
“some points have some merit for some of us”
I read that article and it was like they were describing my life as a child and teenager. I have to tell you it hit me right between the eyes.
Now having said that, I recognize bigotry and closed mindedness when I see it and I believe I stated in my original post that just because they’ve identified some characteristics does not mean that they’ve drawn the correct conclusions.
I guess my views as to the causes of my sexuality are not as set in concrete as many of the rest here and, frankly, I think I want to keep it that way (nothing against any of you, it's a personal thing). I believe there are many contributing factors not all of them present in every case, and to rule out one cause simply because the other side is stating that it’s the only possible truth is less than honest, at least for me.
One of the reason’s I posted this was that I, personally, needed feedback from the rest of you. I am what I am, and I know that. I’ve accepted it to a large degree, but I think there was an element of needing validation for my somewhat ambiguous disagreement with the article. Does that make sense? Is there room here for people whose opinions are not as set as some of the rest of here? Is there room for questioning? If not, then what the hell good are we doing?
I think the danger that folk like Dobson and Satinover bring to the table is that by their biased insistence on their religious, dogma based opinion, they condemn many young kids to a life time of tormented self-hatred.
Lastly, let me say that I have not been hurt or put off by any of the comments here. I value them, and I believe there are others here, lurkers perhaps, who have been helped by this discussion as have I.
Hugs to all and thanks for all the comments,
Teddy
“There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is.” - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
It's just that I don't regard my views as being in any way personal or inflexible, but simply in accordance with the current state of scientific research. You're entitled to disagree, but - if you do - I think you should put forward evidence to support your dissenting view.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie,
My comment expressing surprise was very light-hearted; I tend to get hot-headed on the spur of the moment but I find it almost impossible to bear a grudge against anyone for longer than a couple of days. I'm sorry that I didn't point this out earlier.
I appreciate I have a somewhat irritating habit of defending something I have said to the hilt, even if it per se is not entirely self-consistent, and I apologise for this, for it can make me seem somewhat dogmatic. For instance, I might say as an aside during a conversation, "Fairies do not exist at the bottom of the garden -- that is absurd". Usually no-one would challenge me. But if, for example, you did, you might accuse me of arrogance for stating an absolute and dismissing the subject without having fully looked into all the available evidence. In fact, almost all of my absolutes are absolutes on the level of my belief in God, which is firmly a 6 and never a 7. I ought to add this as a postscript, really, for almost everything I say ("this is a belief based on the evidence I have seen so far"), but sometimes I am lazy and omit it on those things that I perceive as very unlikely simply to save space. If you don't see them as very unlikely, you are likely to see my dismissal as arrogance, and I understand why.
A weak atheist -- a 6 on the scale -- might well say, "There is no God", even though he cannot categorically state this, for in most cases it is good enough as an approximation. It is not precisely what he meant, though.
As far as I am concerned we are already friends again. Sorry if I'm incoherent (or worse, I sound arrogant!) tonight, but I should have been in bed four or five hours ago.
Best wishes,
David
[Updated on: Mon, 20 November 2006 04:26] |
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
