![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 46 to 70 of 158. Go back in thread:
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:35
In reply to Re: Scientology, Homosexuality, and its tentacles » Ken Blades, posted by Quintal on March 17, 2007, at 13:38:58
>You're in denial if you think there IS a solution
to the 'problem'!I get the impression you're assuming I want to change my sexuality in some way? I would rather change my gender (albeit temporarily) for sex. In my imagination I take the female role, literally of being mounted and penetrated. I can feel the penis entering my vagina. So from this I might be better categorized as transsexual? The problem is that I identify my gender as male, I'm comfortable in a male body, have no wish to change it, yet have the sexual and 'emotional disposition' of a woman. I can also imagine myself penetrating a man - so long as he has a vagina......... I wish there were a race of men that had vaginas and female reproductive organs. They would be my ideal sex partners.
It brings into question the meaning of gender - is it really in the gonads, or is it as the intersex people suggest, more about facial features, hair, clothes and personality? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Chase_(activist)
I can't help but think this has more to do with my mother treating me as a girl when I was a child rather than some congenital disposition that would have happened anyway. I also think this could easily be categorized as pathological, certainly an adjustment disorder.
Q
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:35
In reply to Sexuality With Reference to Gender, posted by Quintal on March 17, 2007, at 14:13:58
Quintal firstly a good majority of the best looking guys to me are homosexual and it really sounds more to me that you might be one of those people as it's very commone to be born looking like one sex and really being the opposite. I know a lot of surger is being done to correct the mistake mother nature made. Love Phillipa
Posted by FredPotter on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:35
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » UgottaHaveHope, posted by yxibow on March 17, 2007, at 11:04:05
> Speaking of which the board has been very slow.
Yes nobody comments on my posts. I feel like I'm keeping the whole thing going Fred
Posted by Declan on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:35
In reply to Sexuality With Reference to Gender, posted by Quintal on March 17, 2007, at 14:13:58
Congratulations.
Posted by Iansf on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:35
In reply to Sexuality With Reference to Gender, posted by Quintal on March 17, 2007, at 14:13:58
> I can't help but think this has more to do with my mother treating me as a girl when I was a child rather than some congenital disposition that would have happened anyway. I also think this could easily be categorized as pathological, certainly an adjustment disorder.
>
> QThere's definitely a distinction between transgender identification and homosexuality. A significant percentage of people, especially men, who seek gender reassignment are straight and, indeed, become gay or lesbian only by virtue of changing gender. Being dressed and treated as a girl by your mother may have influenced many aspects of your personality, but it likely had nothing to do with your being attracted to men.
Posted by Ken Blades on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:35
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent?, posted by FredPotter on March 17, 2007, at 19:18:20
Don't worry Fred...I feel the same way[except
for THIS thread unfortunately lol]...
just take a look around...MY posts many times
are THREAD KILLERS! Makes me hesitant to
participate[which may be the idea lol].[such power I wield!]
-----------------------------------------
Yes nobody comments on my posts. I feel like I'm keeping the whole thing going Fred
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:35
In reply to Thinking outside the box » Quintal, posted by Declan on March 17, 2007, at 20:23:15
All would be solved if only God/the creator being person(s) would follow my blueprint for human reproductive organs outlined below;
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p46/Serepham/HermDraw2.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p46/Serepham/HermDrawFront.jpgNo more arguments over leaving the toilet seat up, childbearing could be shared/alternated between partners, no more discrimination for gays/bisexuals/transgendered persons etc, etc, etc.
Q
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:35
In reply to Re: Sexuality With Reference to Gender » Quintal, posted by Iansf on March 17, 2007, at 21:15:00
If my childhood experiences were powerful enough to mould my personality into identifying emotionally with the opposite sex, it seems very likely that it would also have influenced my sexuality in some way.
Q
Posted by Ken Blades on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:36
In reply to Quintal's Final Solution, to the Gender Question, posted by Quintal on March 18, 2007, at 0:50:57
Did Dr. Frankenstein[Colin Clive]call Dr.
Pretorius[Ernest Thesiger]and put in an
order to Fritz[Dwight Frye]? When is the
experiment to proceed?
Posted by FredPotter on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:36
In reply to Sexuality With Reference to Gender, posted by Quintal on March 17, 2007, at 14:13:58
Yeah! The Who. I'm a boy, I'm a boy, but my Ma won't admit it! There's a lot in that song. Your post was very interesting. But a point of order Mr Chairperson. Gender is a grammatical term having often more than two types (neuter is the third - there are probably more). What's wrong with the word sex?
Fred
Posted by kaleidoscope on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:36
In reply to Sexuality With Reference to Gender, posted by Quintal on March 17, 2007, at 14:13:58
Hi Q
>I can also imagine myself penetrating a man - so long as he has a vagina......... I wish there were a race of men that had vaginas and female reproductive organs. They would be my ideal sex partners.
.....but Q, if he had a vagina, he wouldn't be a man.........and I thought you were attracted to men. If you want a vagina, why not have sex with a woman? I am a little confused by this.
K
Posted by kaleidoscope on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:36
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent?, posted by FredPotter on March 17, 2007, at 19:18:20
Hi Fred
You make some very good points, especially about the way men are being humiliated.
K
Posted by kaleidoscope on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:36
In reply to Quintal's Final Solution, to the Gender Question, posted by Quintal on March 18, 2007, at 0:50:57
So Q, you basically want a partner who is both male and female all in one? How novel.
K
Posted by Ines on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:36
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » UgottaHaveHope, posted by yxibow on March 17, 2007, at 11:04:05
Dunno if this is off topic, but I can think of many examples in the animal world where homosexuality is present. In many primate species sex is used as a bonding or conciliatory gesture between members of the same sex. Bonobos are notorious for this, with females engaging in more sexual behaviours with one another than they do with males. What I cannot think of is any examples of individuals being exclusively homosexual. A behaviour that evolved for a particular purpose (reproduction) is being used to serve a different purpose in a society (like being used to strengthen bonds between males or females in a group of primates). We cannot say that that's an unnatural behaviour when it's widespread in non human species and serves a useful purpose to them.... Also that surely goes some way towards explaining the origins of homosexual behaviour in humans? Of course that would only explain how that behaviour could have evolved in our ancestors the first place. How it develops in any one individual, or the role it plays in human society, is a completely different matter.
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:36
In reply to Re: Sexuality With Reference to Gender, posted by kaleidoscope on March 19, 2007, at 17:31:50
>.....but Q, if he had a vagina, he wouldn't be a man
Or would he, if in every other aspect he had the appearance of a man? Are you saying gender is purely an issue of genital tissue?
>and I thought you were attracted to men.
Yup.
> If you want a vagina, why not have sex with a woman?
Because she wouldn't be a man, and therefore I would find her sexually repellent. I don't find a vagina particularly attractive, it just so happens it fits my genitals properly making sex easier. I don't find the penis particularly attractive on a man, it's his buttocks and shoulders that I find most erotic. I find the vagina equally as erotic as the penis with all its erogenous folds of flesh etc. Therefore it would make little difference to me if men were to have vaginas. Allow if you will that gender had evolved the other way around, with women having the penis and men having the vagina. Would the genital tissue make all the difference to you? For example, do you find 'shemales' attractive simply because they have a penis? I don't because I still perceive them as women despite their anomalous appendages. So in reverse, I think I would still find a 'man' attractive if he had a vagina. This also has the advantage of allowing procreation between two homosexuals. I believe an oversight has been made in this regard by God/'mother nature'/ various creator beings, and I would urge them to give serious attention to my blueprints listed earlier.
>I am a little confused by this.
That is normal. It has a lot to do with the photo I found. After seeing that it made me question what it is that attracts me to my own sex, and I had to conclude it wasn't the gonads, it's something else - some hard to pin-down-and-examine essence of man that I often find lacking in myself and fellow homosexuals.
Q
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:36
In reply to Re: Quintal's Final Solution, to the Gender Question » Quintal, posted by kaleidoscope on March 19, 2007, at 17:36:05
>So Q, you basically want a partner who is both male and female all in one? How novel.
I am comfortable playing both male and female roles in the sexual act (so long as the man has a vagina when I am taking the dominant, penetrative role), though the female feels more appropriate relative to my attraction to men (i.e. passive, submissive, yielding to penetration), but since I'm stuck with male genitalia for this life cycle, I would realistically have to seek a being that was overtly male yet endowed with a vaginal opening as a mate. I like the idea of 'Psychosexual Hermaphroditism', an obsolete diagnostic category that I think is more descriptive of the idiosyncrasies of my sexuality than the simple 'Homosexual'.
Q
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:36
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » FredPotter, posted by kaleidoscope on March 19, 2007, at 17:33:39
>You make some very good points, especially about the way men are being humiliated.
I agree, but don't you think this is simply a reversal of the roles (though women always claimed they would have more sense than to indulge in the silly behaviours of men)? Man seems to have taken pleasure in humiliating woman for a great deal of time, so it is perhaps expected that woman would do the same when she came to dominate?
Q
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:36
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » kaleidoscope, posted by Quintal on March 19, 2007, at 20:11:49
Google Dr. Bob Diedre she sounds like the same needs as you. But seriously don't you see something wrong with this? There are cousellors that deal in gender identification. Maybe you would be happier as a female? But counselling could help you figure out what is going on. Love Phillipa
Posted by FredPotter on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:37
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » kaleidoscope, posted by Quintal on March 19, 2007, at 20:11:49
yes pendulums swing before they finally, if ever, settle somewhere sensible. And there's a lot of compensation to be made to women by men.
I agree with your other point. Gonads don't have all that much to do with sexual attraction as they all turn out almost identical anyway. As someone once said, " the trouble with oral sex is the view"
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:37
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » Quintal, posted by FredPotter on March 19, 2007, at 21:17:37
Fred you're funny they just swing back and forth and look ridiculous. I always say mooo looks like cow the underside. Love Phillipa maybe tie a bell around something down there like the cows in Switzerland all have different bells?
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:37
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » Quintal, posted by Phillipa on March 19, 2007, at 21:16:38
>But seriously don't you see something wrong with this?
Well yes and no. I don't see it as any greater problem than homosexuality (in fact it wouldn't surprise me to find something similar going on in the subterranean layers of most gay men's psyche - I believe that's where the term 'Psychosexual Hermaphroditism' originated from, but since homosexuality is no longer pathological we don't usually go digging there in therapy anymore).
I'm not confused about my gender, rather I think I've peeled a whole layer of psychic flesh away and caught a glimpse of the inner workings. Just thinking outside the box as Declan suggested. I have no problem with being in a male-male relationship. It's just seeing a photo of that intersexed person made me realize I'd probably be happiest (in theory) as a hermaphrodite, so I could both penetrate and be penetrated as I desired. I wouldn't be any happier as a female because my male part of my psyche would probably start longing for a male body to act out its fantasies, though I'm slightly effemme in a male body I'd seem a little too butch in a female body and neither would be wholly satisfying. So I reckon the term psychosexual hermaphrodite fits the bill. An affinity for both sexes but not bisexual. As I've said before, I'm very comfortable with this. I wouldn't want to be any other way because it's allowed me to see the world from perspectives I might never have been able to see otherwise.
I thought it might make an interesting discussion and so it has.
Q
Posted by elanor roosevelt on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:37
In reply to Re: Homosexuality is an 'adjustment disorder' » Quintal, posted by yxibow on March 16, 2007, at 1:37:28
heterosexuality as the "norm" is a social construct
it's conveniently repressive
it is homophobia
affecion and erotic notions are not naturally gender-based
homophobics think it should be "cured"
don't worry homosexuality is here to stay
Posted by FredPotter on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:37
In reply to heterosexuality: a social construct, posted by elanor roosevelt on March 19, 2007, at 22:10:23
don't worry about things like this. Just take an SSRI or MAOI. That'll stop all this sex nonsense
Posted by Ken Blades on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:48
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » Phillipa, posted by Quintal on March 19, 2007, at 21:59:38
Not to tell you how to run your life Q....
But maybe you'd be happier if you skipped
all the self-analysis and introspection
and just go out and LIVE.Ken
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:48
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » Quintal, posted by Ken Blades on March 20, 2007, at 9:26:08
Would it make you feel more comfortable if I did?
Q
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.