![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 158. Go back in thread:
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:35:19
In reply to Re: Scientology, Homosexuality, and its tentacles » Quintal, posted by yxibow on March 14, 2007, at 3:02:42
>as a gay male I run screaming.............
That's pretty much what they're saying here with reference to the character of homosexuals, and the value of people to society lying partly in their ability to deal with truth;
______________________________
"The tone scale is a characterization of human mood and behaviour by various positions on a scale. The scale ranges from -40 ("Total Failure") to 40 ("Serenity of Being"). Positions on the tone scale are usually designated by an emotion, but Hubbard also described many other things that can be indicated by the tone scale levels, such as aspects of a human's health, mating behaviour, survival potential, or ability to deal with truth. The tone scale is frequently used by Scientologists to evaluate humans. According to Scientology, the lower the individual is on the tone scale, the more complex and convoluted one's problems tend to be, and the more care and judgment should be exercised regarding communication and interaction with that individual."
"Hubbard further defined perversion in his 1951 book Science of Survival: Prediction of Human Behaviour. Here he introduced the concept of the "tone scale", a means of classifying individuals and human behaviour on a chart running from 40 (the most beneficial) to -40 (the least beneficial). Sexual perversion, a category in which he included homosexuality, was termed "covert hostility" and given a score of 1.1, "the level of the pervert, the hypocrite, the turncoat, ... the subversive." Such people were "skulking coward[s] who yet contains enough perfidious energy to strike back, but not enough courage ever to give warning."
Hubbard's 1951 book Handbook for Preclears likewise classified homosexuality as "about 1.1 on the tone scale", along with "general promiscuity". He set out what he saw as the cause of homosexuality: a mental "aberration", with the result that "an individual aberrated enough about sex will do strange things to be a cause or an effect. He will substitute punishment for sex. He will pervert others. Homosexuality comes from this manifestation and from the manifestation of life continuation for others." The "aberration" was caused by a child trying to "continue the life" of a dominant parent of the opposite sex. [9]
Hubbard's views on homosexuality were given a fuller explanation in a 1972 book by Scientologist Ruth Minshull, How To Choose Your People, which was published through the Church of Scientology, copyrighted to Hubbard and given "issue authority" by the Scientology hierarchy. Scientology churches sold the book alongside the works of Hubbard until 1983.[10] Minshull described the "the gentle-mannered homosexual" as a classic example of the "subversive" 1.1 personality, commenting that they "may be fearful, sympathetic, propitiative, griefy or apathetic. Occasionally they manage an ineffectual tantrum." They were claimed to be social misfits:
"Homosexuals don't practice love; 1.1s can't. Their relationships consist of: 1) brief, sordid and impersonal meetings or 2) longer arrangements punctuated by dramatic tirades, discords, jealousies and frequent infidelity. It could hardly be otherwise since the tone is made up of suspicion and hate, producing a darling sweetness interspersed with petty peevishness. Their "love" turns to deep contempt eventually." [11]
Homosexuals had no redeeming "social value," in Minshull's view. She cautioned that "homosexuals should not be abused or ridiculed. But a society bent on survival must recognize any aberration as such and seek to raise people out of the low emotion that produces it."___________________________________
I am not a Scientologist and have no intention of becoming one. It was just a surprise to see such an accurate description of the problem written there, along with a potential cure at a time when conventional psychiatry likes to pretend homosexuality is a healthy variation of human sexuality. At the same time pathogenizing other seemingly normal traits like low mood and poor attention span etc. It seems the Scientologists are in the lead when it comes to theories of human sexuality, most psychology textbooks I've read claim it's a genetic/hormonal problem which seems the lazy way out to me. It really won't do at all.
Q
Posted by Iansf on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:25
In reply to Re: Scientology, Homosexuality, and its tentacles » yxibow, posted by Quintal on March 14, 2007, at 3:42:45
Excuse me ... are you serious? Talk about something being "made up of suspicion and hate." I think the Scientological description itself qualifies on that count. It reeks with hate and fear.
John
> >as a gay male I run screaming.............
>
> That's pretty much what they're saying here with reference to the character of homosexuals, and the value of people to society lying partly in their ability to deal with truth;
>
> ______________________________
>
> "The tone scale is a characterization of human mood and behaviour by various positions on a scale. The scale ranges from -40 ("Total Failure") to 40 ("Serenity of Being"). Positions on the tone scale are usually designated by an emotion, but Hubbard also described many other things that can be indicated by the tone scale levels, such as aspects of a human's health, mating behaviour, survival potential, or ability to deal with truth. The tone scale is frequently used by Scientologists to evaluate humans. According to Scientology, the lower the individual is on the tone scale, the more complex and convoluted one's problems tend to be, and the more care and judgment should be exercised regarding communication and interaction with that individual."
>
> "Hubbard further defined perversion in his 1951 book Science of Survival: Prediction of Human Behaviour. Here he introduced the concept of the "tone scale", a means of classifying individuals and human behaviour on a chart running from 40 (the most beneficial) to -40 (the least beneficial). Sexual perversion, a category in which he included homosexuality, was termed "covert hostility" and given a score of 1.1, "the level of the pervert, the hypocrite, the turncoat, ... the subversive." Such people were "skulking coward[s] who yet contains enough perfidious energy to strike back, but not enough courage ever to give warning."
>
> Hubbard's 1951 book Handbook for Preclears likewise classified homosexuality as "about 1.1 on the tone scale", along with "general promiscuity". He set out what he saw as the cause of homosexuality: a mental "aberration", with the result that "an individual aberrated enough about sex will do strange things to be a cause or an effect. He will substitute punishment for sex. He will pervert others. Homosexuality comes from this manifestation and from the manifestation of life continuation for others." The "aberration" was caused by a child trying to "continue the life" of a dominant parent of the opposite sex. [9]
>
> Hubbard's views on homosexuality were given a fuller explanation in a 1972 book by Scientologist Ruth Minshull, How To Choose Your People, which was published through the Church of Scientology, copyrighted to Hubbard and given "issue authority" by the Scientology hierarchy. Scientology churches sold the book alongside the works of Hubbard until 1983.[10] Minshull described the "the gentle-mannered homosexual" as a classic example of the "subversive" 1.1 personality, commenting that they "may be fearful, sympathetic, propitiative, griefy or apathetic. Occasionally they manage an ineffectual tantrum." They were claimed to be social misfits:
>
> "Homosexuals don't practice love; 1.1s can't. Their relationships consist of: 1) brief, sordid and impersonal meetings or 2) longer arrangements punctuated by dramatic tirades, discords, jealousies and frequent infidelity. It could hardly be otherwise since the tone is made up of suspicion and hate, producing a darling sweetness interspersed with petty peevishness. Their "love" turns to deep contempt eventually." [11]
> Homosexuals had no redeeming "social value," in Minshull's view. She cautioned that "homosexuals should not be abused or ridiculed. But a society bent on survival must recognize any aberration as such and seek to raise people out of the low emotion that produces it."
>
> ___________________________________
>
> I am not a Scientologist and have no intention of becoming one. It was just a surprise to see such an accurate description of the problem written there, along with a potential cure at a time when conventional psychiatry likes to pretend homosexuality is a healthy variation of human sexuality. At the same time pathogenizing other seemingly normal traits like low mood and poor attention span etc. It seems the Scientologists are in the lead when it comes to theories of human sexuality, most psychology textbooks I've read claim it's a genetic/hormonal problem which seems the lazy way out to me. It really won't do at all.
>
> Q
>
>
Posted by Declan on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:25
In reply to Re: Scientology, Homosexuality, and its tentacles, posted by Iansf on March 14, 2007, at 16:28:01
>skulking coward[s] who yet contains enough perfidious energy to strike back,<
The funniest thing all morning.
Nice to see some people are getting lots of sex.
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:25
In reply to Re: Scientology, Homosexuality, and its tentacles, posted by Declan on March 14, 2007, at 18:16:49
I believe strongly that homosexuality or lesbianism is biological period. Love Phillipa And also just returned from pdoc's and he said he want's me off all ad's said they make my anxiety worse and now down to 12.5mg of luvox then off. And changing valium l5mg to long acting xanax 2mg twice a day with lunesta. Thinks my anxiety is related to thyroid. And that in my case anxiety leads to depression control the anxiety and no depression.
Posted by notfred on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:25
In reply to Re: Larry Hoovers, Quintal, Yxibow, Blueberry??? » UgottaHaveHope, posted by Quintal on March 13, 2007, at 23:37:12
Lets move out of the dark ages, this study was in
1957:http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/hooker_e.html
Hooker's friends had dared her to subject them to the standard psychological exams so as to determine whether conventional wisdom regarding the degeneracy of homosexuality was true. She administered three personality tests, including the Rorshach ink-blot test, to thirty pairs of men--one homosexual, one not--matched by IQ level, age, and other factors. These tests were accepted by the community of medical and mental health professionals as indicating the presence of emotional and mental disorders. Presumably, homosexual persons would be easy to differentiate owing to the presence of pathology.
Hooker turned the results of the tests over to a panel of three prominent experts, asking them to diagnose which of the sixty men had a psychiatric disorder, as revealed by the test. She further asked these experts to determine which of the men in each pair was homosexual, not having indicated beforehand that any might be, or the ulterior motive behind this research. The experts concluded that the gay males were no worse, and sometimes better adjusted than the rest, and proved unable to identify correctly the gay male in each pair.
On its face, this research suggested that the assumption that homosexuals were necessarily psychiatrically disordered is erroneous; what is more, it suggested that such diagnoses of disorder may be based not on objective fact, but, instead, may be grounded in popular stereotype.
Hooker concluded from her research that the patterns of homosexuality are as varied and as complex as those of heterosexuality, and that one cannot assume that homosexuals can be easily distinguished from heterosexuals on the basis of emotional and psychological adjustment.
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:25
In reply to Re: Larry Hoovers, Quintal, Yxibow, Blueberry???, posted by notfred on March 15, 2007, at 1:51:11
Interesting then that nearly all the emotionally disturbed males posting here are homosexual. Quoting studies to the contrary won't make it not so.
In my own case the homosexuality is almost certainly not of a biological nature as some seem to believe, nor is there reason to suspect it would be since there are no other homosexuals in my family. It was almost certainly produced by being alternately mollycoddled and abandoned by my mother, resulting in an unhealthy obsession with her. I particularly like quote "The "aberration" was caused by a child trying to "continue the life" of a dominant parent of the opposite sex." because that is exactly what my mother instructed me to do. After being disabled she bred me as an extension of herself - a probe into the world that she could control and manipulate as she desired. She told me this.
This even went as far as buying girls clothes and dolls for me to play with - to replace the belongings she wanted but never had as a child. I had to wear a pink cardigan she knitted me with her favourite sheet music as the dominant pattern. I vividly recall flushing with shame at discovering a 'One Size Fits All Ladies' label inside my new pair of gloves during a school trip (again, a deep fuchsia color with chintz pattern). No wonder I was a loner.
So that's why blanket statements of homosexuality being biological just don't cut it with me, and also why those words of L. Ron Hubbard are so persuasive. They carry the ring of truth.
Q
Posted by Ken Blades on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:25
In reply to Re: Scientology, Homosexuality, and its tentacles » yxibow, posted by Quintal on March 14, 2007, at 3:42:45
Q~
You might want to take a look at this...might
give you another outlook on Hubbard/Scientology/
homosexuality.http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_scie.htm
I am NOT pushing Scientology..
far from it! Unless you have lots of money to
flush down the john!Ken
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:25
In reply to Re: Scientology, Homosexuality, and its tentacles » Quintal, posted by Ken Blades on March 15, 2007, at 7:43:57
Thank you for the link Ken, it contains the same information listed on the Wiki site I posted earlier. Maybe they used that page as one of their sources?
I'm not very taken by the Scientology methods as a whole, but that particular passage on homosexuality has resonance for me. Hubbard's view was not original - as stated it reflects the ideas held by psychiatry and their attitude towards homosexuals at that time. My mother's old 1959 Psychology has similar theories, but the proposed cures are much harsher. They seem to be proposing the 'Psychosexual Hermaphroditism' theory of homosexuality here.
__________________________________________________
UNNATURAL ATTRACTION
Inversion or homosexuality;
This is the emotional 'love' for a member of the same sex, with or without physical gratification. There are a few people of both sexes who by reason of glandular abnormalities are not properly differentiated into one sex or the other. These 'feminine' men and 'masculine' women may have the physical sexual formation of one sex but the emotional disposition of the other, and so may be manifestly homosexual. It should not be thought however, that all men who look feminine, or all women who look masculine are homosexual, for this is emphatically not so. Much more commonly homosexuality is determined by an obstruction of emotional growth at the undifferentiated adolescent stage, or regression (a harking back) to that stage of development of sexual emotion. As has been pointed out, there is a tendency for the sexes to be segregated at this mid-adolescent stage, so attachments to persons of the same sex are easily established. Homosexual tendencies may start at this stage because of obstruction or regression which are determined by conflicts and guilt feelings. As a rule, these are due to bogey teaching, or absence of teaching on sexual matters, or to terrifying experiences before the child has reached an appropriate stage of sexual maturity so that the patient fear the next advance towards the full development of his, or her, sexual life.
__________________________________________________Q
Posted by notfred on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:25
In reply to Re: Larry Hoovers, Quintal, Yxibow, Blueberry??? » notfred, posted by Quintal on March 15, 2007, at 4:30:14
Quoting studies to the contrary won't make it not so.
>
But it does show that in the general population this is a falsehood and a stereotype.
Posted by one woman cine on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:26
In reply to Re: Scientology, Homosexuality, and its tentacles » yxibow, posted by Quintal on March 14, 2007, at 3:42:45
.."along with a potential cure at a time when conventional psychiatry likes to pretend homosexuality is a healthy variation of human sexuality."
Homosexuality doesn't need to be cured and psychiatry isn't pretending it's normal. Because it is normal & that's the general scientific consensus from biologists to physicians.
Variations occur all the time, not just sexuality - try reading "Sexing the Body" by Fausto-Sterling.
Thanks for including the quotes by Hubbard - no wonder they are listed as a hate group here in the US.
Posted by Dinah on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:26
In reply to homosexuality is a normal variation of sexuality, posted by one woman cine on March 15, 2007, at 14:45:02
The civility rules require that nothing be posted that could lead other posters to feel accused or put down.
This would apply to comments made both about homosexuality and about Scientology.
If anyone has questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing themselves, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
In particular:
"Please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong. Please be sensitive to their feelings even if yours are hurt. Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place."
Also, if anyone sees anything they consider uncivil, please use the option to notify the administrators, and be careful to respond with civility.
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override or upgrade deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Ken Blades on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:26
In reply to Re: Scientology, Homosexuality, and its tentacles » Ken Blades, posted by Quintal on March 15, 2007, at 12:24:15
Hi Q~
Since homosexuality has been[until recent times]
considered a disorder of psychosexual development,
an abnormality, of course there had to be some
explanation for it[psychiatry HATES a vacuum lol].
There have been different theories and different
modes of 'treatment' over time, none of which have
stood the test of time. The supposed inclusion of
prohibitions against homosexuality in the Old Testament is the genesis of the 'pathology'
classification, and continues to be used
by religious zealots like Dobson, Nicolosi, Socarides, Reisman as their bases for
'therapeutic' extermination of homosexual
behaviors. The people are self-righteous,
deluded, Biblical fundamentalist whackos.I understand how you might identify with
some of these supposed explanations found
in Hubbard, etc, but I hope this does not
last....it ain't good for your mental health!
A lot of the circumstances theorized as
organic to the development of homosexuality
are also experienced by those who are
heterosexually oriented as well. How
do they manage to 'escape'? Blows THAT
theory!No one really knows for sure why homosexuality
exists..whether it is genetic or partially
genetic and partially experiential, it makes no
difference. You're gay and it's ok. Gay people
can have the same psychiatric problems as the
rest of the population but they exist separately
from one's orientation. It is likely that the negative experiences that a gay person is likely
to have during childhood and adolescence would
tend to aggravate the emotional problems one
would be burdened with later on.You're ok Q....other than being a nut like the rest of us lol!
Ken
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:26
In reply to homosexuality is a normal variation of sexuality, posted by one woman cine on March 15, 2007, at 14:45:02
>Homosexuality doesn't need to be cured and psychiatry isn't pretending it's normal. Because it is normal & that's the general scientific consensus from biologists to physicians.
Homosexuality clearly isn't normal (it may be acceptable in many circles, but not normal), and I don't know of any biologists or physicians that would categorize it as such. ADHD and low mood don't need to be cured either; they could be considered a normal variation of human behaviour, yet in modern psychiatry they are pathogenized, categorized as disorders that should be treated because of the impairment and pain they cause to a person wanting to be a successful and respectable member of society. I don't see why homosexuality shouldn't be classified as such. In my view it's only political correctness that's standing in the way.
>Because it is normal & that's the general scientific consensus from biologists to physicians.
My old pdoc told me "that isn't something we usually treat" when I told him my sexual orientation. It was clear by his expression and tone of voice that he regretted more aggressive treatments for homosexuality were not at his disposal. I'm sure many heterosexual psychiatrists hold similar views but don't speak them out of fear of litigation and losing their job - peer pressure I suppose. It is still mentioned as a adjustment disorder in the DSM.
Q
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:26
In reply to Re: Scientology, Homosexuality, and its tentacles » Quintal, posted by Ken Blades on March 15, 2007, at 15:42:06
Thank you for the reassurance Ken, but I'm very relaxed about the whole issue - that's why I feel comfortable bringing this stuff up for discussion.
>I understand how you might identify with
some of these supposed explanations found
in Hubbard, etc, but I hope this does not
>last....it ain't good for your mental health!How would you know what's best for my mental health? It doesn't depress me to hear statements like those made by Hubbard, I find them interesting and liberating.
>A lot of the circumstances theorized as
organic to the development of homosexuality
are also experienced by those who are
heterosexually oriented as well. How
>do they manage to 'escape'?I don't know anyone who has had the sort of upbringing I had and still turned out a normal, well adjusted heterosexual man.
>Gay people can have the same psychiatric problems as the rest of the population but they exist separately from one's orientation.
No, I don't think they do. A lot of the depression and anxiety (particularly social anxiety) homosexual men suffer is directly due to their sexuality and the problems it causes adjusting to society. I'm confused by the results of the Hooker study because it's always been clear that rates of depression and suicide are much higher among gay men than their heterosexual peers. Gay men make up the majority of male mental health consumers as far as I'm aware, and it is always likely to be that way no matter how tolerant society becomes because afterall few people want to be gay, and beneath all the veneer and bluster of Gay Pride self-loathing still runs deep.
>You're ok Q....other than being a nut like the rest of us lol!
Again, thank you for the support, but I'm not OK or I wouldn't be here. I don't think denial helps solve the problem at all.
Posted by notfred on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:27
In reply to Homosexuality is an 'adjustment disorder' » one woman cine, posted by Quintal on March 15, 2007, at 15:48:40
"Homosexuality clearly isn't normal (it may be acceptable in many circles, but not normal), and I don't know of any biologists or physicians that would categorize it as such."Well, there are quite a few that do, given that it is no longer listed as a pathology and happens throughout the animal kingdom.
Take a look a kin selection.
Posted by Declan on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:29
In reply to Re: Homosexuality is an 'adjustment disorder', posted by notfred on March 15, 2007, at 17:08:16
Edmund White in "My Lives" dealt with the normative aspect by saying that (by implication) he 'wasn't some middle class twerp trying to be normal'.
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:32
In reply to Re: Homosexuality is an 'adjustment disorder', posted by notfred on March 15, 2007, at 17:08:16
>given that it is no longer listed as a pathology
I think we've already discussed that topic.
>and happens throughout the animal kingdom.
Why would that automatically mean it's not a pathology? Surely many illnesses and disorders are naturally occurring (especially when they're biologically determined)? Besides, models of animal sexual behaviour are not reliable models for human sexuality.
Q
Posted by Declan on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:32
In reply to Re: Homosexuality is an 'adjustment disorder', posted by Quintal on March 15, 2007, at 17:50:18
Why people would go to semi-scientific sources like psychiatry for definitions of pathology is beyond me.
At least religion (other than fundamentalism) sometimes has something decent to say about desire and the implications of disordered desire.
Disordered desire is one definition of Original Sin.
Buddhism is OK on the subject too.
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:32
In reply to homosexuality is a normal variation of sexuality, posted by one woman cine on March 15, 2007, at 14:45:02
>Variations occur all the time, not just sexuality - try reading "Sexing the Body" by Fausto-Sterling.
Yes, I read "Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex" a while ago. It was a very enlightening read that answered many unspoken questions I harboured from an early age.
I'm more acquainted with that issue than you'll ever know.
Q
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:32
In reply to Re: Scientology, Homosexuality, and its tentacles » Ken Blades, posted by Quintal on March 15, 2007, at 16:39:38
My best friends have always been gay and I've worked with a lot of gay males and they are not uncomfortable with their sexual orientation nor did any of them see psychiatrists. We have a lot of neighbors here that are very successful and gay. I've never met anyone here in the States that Thinks there is something wrong with it. I just think everyone's a persona and is entiteled to their sexual preferences. Love Phillipa
Posted by FredPotter on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:32
In reply to Re: Homosexuality is an 'adjustment disorder', posted by Quintal on March 15, 2007, at 17:50:18
Edward O Wilson says in one of his books that homosexuality has an evolutionary advantage to groups in the form of baby-minding, presumably while the Mother is out working in the fields or sewing skins. Why isn't the homosexual out working we ask? This kin-selection is not endorsed by Richard Dawkins (not very much) which may be a good thing. Whether it is on a parallel with memes I haven't the energy to work out
Fred
Fred
Posted by FredPotter on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:32
In reply to Re: Scientology, Homosexuality, and its tentacles » Quintal, posted by Phillipa on March 15, 2007, at 19:07:23
But Phillipa it's not the real deal. They can't (usually) have children. Me, I hope for grandchildren and if one of my boys turned gay I would be disappointed for that reason. I also have gay friends and often they're more artistic and sensitive, but not always. None of this is to say they are ill, unhappy or to be given therapy or treated differently. Just my groat's worth
Fred
Posted by Declan on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:33
In reply to Re: Scientology, Homosexuality, and its tentacles » Phillipa, posted by FredPotter on March 15, 2007, at 23:11:17
I made my kids straight for life by telling them I would be delighted if they were gay.
Posted by Ken Blades on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:33
In reply to Re: Scientology, Homosexuality, and its tentacles » Ken Blades, posted by Quintal on March 15, 2007, at 16:39:38
>>>> Thank you for the reassurance Ken, but I'm very relaxed about the whole issue - that's why I feel comfortable bringing this stuff up for discussion.<<<<<
If you're that comfortable with this 'stuff',
then there's not much reason to bring it up
for discussion, is there? Unless you just
want to litter the board pointlessly. If
you want to indulge in self-analysis,
you don't have to tell the whole world.
>>>>How would you know what's best for my mental health? It doesn't depress me to hear statements like those made by Hubbard, I find them interesting and liberating.<<<<<<I don't know what's best for your mental health;
I only meant that adherence to what you're
finding interesting and liberating looks IMHO
part of the self-loathing you mention. Hardly
liberating.
>>>>I don't know anyone who has had the sort of upbringing I had and still turned out a normal, well adjusted heterosexual man.<<<<<<
Of course you don't, and neither do I. That's
the point. We only know ourselves and maybe
a very few close friends who share their
personal stories; there are lots of people in the
world, and as they say, there ain't much of
anything new. It is amazing that there is such
a wide variability in the ability of human beings to adapt to/tolerate awful life circumstances; some are seemingly little traumatized while growing up but are nevertheless severely mentally ill and the converse can be true. Your statement is pretty much a non sequitur.
>>>>No, I don't think they do. A lot of the depression and anxiety (particularly social anxiety) homosexual men suffer is directly due to their sexuality and the problems it causes adjusting to society. I'm confused by the results of the Hooker study because it's always been clear that rates of depression and suicide are much higher among gay men than their heterosexual peers. Gay men make up the majority of male mental health consumers as far as I'm aware, and it is always likely to be that way no matter how tolerant society becomes because afterall few people want to be gay, and beneath all the veneer and bluster of Gay Pride self-loathing still runs deep.<<<<<
The depression and anxiety/social anxiety is NOT
due to one's homosexuality...it is due to SOCIETAL/parental response TO it...at least
this seems theoretically possible. There are
plenty of gay men who have endured the same
ridicule/rejection/loathing from family/society
who are anything BUT socially anxious! Rates of
depression and suicide are higher in gay people,
especially teens who have not as yet had time to
accept themselves and reject the negative messages
they receive from the greater society. Given time,
experience and maturity, the drive to suicide is
much less. Not eliminated though, certainly.
Whether it is gay male psychopathology that
makes them the greater proportion of male mental
health consumers has not been proven; 'as far as
you're aware' doesn't quite cut it. Also, 'and it is always likely to be that way no matter how tolerant society becomes' seems like wishful thinking; what sense does it make to think that no matter how tolerant society becomes gay men will
always be the majority of nuts on the couch? If
society no longer puts pressure on gays to change,
judges them as sick or sinful, what would be the
origin of those feelings that you say society
inflicts upon us which drive us to therapy?That 'because afterall few people want to be gay'
goes without saying; most people tend to want to
be like their peers[meaning heterosexual]; if only
because it is generally less difficult a life as
it exists in society at present. Some gay men
may seek psychological or lay counseling in the
quest to be 'normal', but I doubt if the larger
proportion would, especially these days. There are lots of qualities that humans posess that they would like to change that cause them anguish; most
adjust to the reality of the situation.And 'beneath all the veneer and bluster of Gay Pride self-loathing still runs deep' might be
reflective of your own phase on the way to
[hopefully] self-acceptance, but that self-loathing still runs deep in the greater gay community is quite a stretch on your part. 'Veneer and bluster of Gay Pride' is an odd observation.
>>>Again, thank you for the support, but I'm not OK or I wouldn't be here.<<<<<I said you were a nut like the rest of us; if THAT'S ok then you misinterpreted something.
If you consider yourself NOT ok because you
are gay, then you don't belong here but on
a gay crisis board. This board is SUPPOSED to be about medications, not rambling on about your
sexuality, self-loathing and some loony sci-fi
writer's opinions about homosexuality, right?
>>>>>I don't think denial helps solve the problem at all.<<<<<
You're in denial if you think there IS a solution
to the 'problem'!
Posted by yxibow on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:33
In reply to Homosexuality is an 'adjustment disorder' » one woman cine, posted by Quintal on March 15, 2007, at 15:48:40
> >Homosexuality doesn't need to be cured and psychiatry isn't pretending it's normal. Because it is normal & that's the general scientific consensus from biologists to physicians.
What defines normality? Nobody is perfect and its just debasing oneself to consider themselves completely unnormal. I mean coming out to yourself takes a leap but when you do, it is such an incredible relief.
> Homosexuality clearly isn't normal (it may be acceptable in many circles, but not normal), and I don't know of any biologists or physicians that would categorize it as such. ADHD and low mood don't need to be cured either; they could be considered a normal variation of human behaviour, yet in modern psychiatry they are pathogenized, categorized as disorders that should be treated because of the impairment and pain they cause to a person wanting to be a successful and respectable member of society. I don't see why homosexuality shouldn't be classified as such. In my view it's only political correctness that's standing in the way.ADHD can be mitigated just like any biochemical disorder, but like OCD and other illnesses it rarely is "cured."
And for normal, well look at pictures of primates or rhinoceroses or whatever, and you'll find gay animals as well, or at least carrying out homosexual acts.
In part you may have a point about political correctness, but I would put that in the venue of genetic research that could possibly one day "eliminate" homosexuality.Because I know damn sure its genetic -- I wouldn't create a life that is harder to find a partner than the social "norm" around you. You're subject to a harsh rebuke, a punch in the nose, or hate crime murder if you make a pass at someone just by faulty "gaydar."
But in retrospect, at the same time it has been an interesting, a growing up experience that finally allowed me to feel more free and meet a totally different culture and ethos.
And yes, what would I think if the multiple genes and environmental and womb factors created a genetic therapy for being gay -- I don't know, since I was born before a generation that is only beginnning to be mainstream about it in western countries. Its all I have known physically for nearly twenty years.
But you could also think of it in some ways (yes, some gay couples do have children by surrogate or 'test tube' (females) babies) as a population control on the planet which is already reeling from countries where people have way too many children because they think they will die early of disease or need them to tend the farm and take care of them in their dotage, or for religious reasons. And where its allowed, wonderful for adoption of unwanted babies which might end up murdered in some countries.> >Because it is normal & that's the general scientific consensus from biologists to physicians.
>
> My old pdoc told me "that isn't something we usually treat" when I told him my sexual orientation. It was clear by his expression and tone of voice that he regretted more aggressive treatments for homosexuality were not at his disposal. I'm sure many heterosexual psychiatrists hold similar views but don't speak them out of fear of litigation and losing their job - peer pressure I suppose.
Well I had a bastard of a psychologist when I was 12 and finally revealed my sexuality to my parents about 15, who thought at the time that "one doesn't know at that age", but I sure did" -- anyhow after initial reaction both of my parents started to accept it and now even point out news stories, etc.This heavily Christian-influenced (and I mean in the political sense from what I recall, this isn't a bash of all Christians) psychologist tried to get me to "focus" on women in my masturbatory fantasies.
It was gross incompetence, since my subsequent horror of a YBOCS of 39 OCD was triggered by puberty and discovery of my own sexuality. I was so fearful I even believed that people at school would know I had masturbated about men that day. The OCD waxed and waned but basically destroyed the last year of high school with excruciatingly long showers and ended up with a hospital stay and being in a day treatment program.
It is still mentioned as a adjustment disorder in the DSM.> Q
Homosexuality is not mentioned in DSM-IV/DSM-IV-TR
It was removed in 1986 entirely and in DSM-III was only mentioned as "sexual disorders not otherwise specified", which was "persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation."
(http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html)
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.