| | |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Erin Pavlina Discuss ideas, articles, and podcasts from ErinPavlina.com. New threads are automatically generated for Erin's latest blog posts. |
|
Welcome to the Personal Development for Smart People Forums, the place for lively, intelligent discussion of all personal growth issues -- physical, mental, financial, social, emotional, spiritual, and more. You're currently viewing as a guest, which gives you limited read-only access. By joining our free community, you'll be able to post your own messages, access many members-only features, see the new messages posted since your last visit, and of course remove this header message. Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please join today. If you arrived here from a search engine, you may want to explore the main site first, which includes hundreds of deep and insightful articles on a variety of personal development topics. |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| |||
| So, you think someone can be argued out of being homosexual? There are moral, religious, and philosophical arguments against females, too; the people who make them are generally considered to be misogynists (operating out of hatred or prejudice). If a person tries to make an argument against homosexuality, which a person is born with (like being female), I would believe that person is likewise operating out of hatred or prejudice. |
| |||
| Quote:
Whether people, especially women, are 'born' homosexual is still debated ,and probably too politicized to be discussed openly. -certainly there are women who have changed their orientation over time. I don't know what you mean (nor do i care what you mean ) by 'against females'. You can believe that person is operating out of hatred all you want. But making these arguments you're only making my point: "the people who make them are generally considered to be misogynists (operating out of hatred or prejudice)" labeling, name calling and not discussing. it translates to 'since the people who making them are haters their argument is hateful. That's a tight little circular argument. ....as you have made clear, there is no point in even discussing this with you. |
| |||
| You can be treated out of being female, too. Are we proposing sex changes?
__________________ "I read, I interpret, I think, I criticize, I oppose, I listen, I write, I question, I reply, I quote, I tell, I name, I discuss, I interpolate..., I learn, I teach, I live, therefore I am." -- Marc-Alain Ouaknin, "Mysteries of the Kabbalah", p383. Favorite Essays I Wrote: love, identity & growth, economics, education, equality, definitions. Recent Books I liked: Anansi Boys, Fly By Night, Hyperion. |
| |||
| Quote:
By the way, I wasn't making an argument at all, circular or otherwise, (but thanks for telling me I have a tight little anything.) I'm saying that a person trying to argue another out of being something there born with (like homosexual, or female), regardless of whether or not that characteristic can be changed, would be making what I'd consider a hateful argument. Because it's intolerant and interventionist -- that's what I would call hatred. |
| |||
| Quote:
Quote:
That is a circular reference. if you intended it to mean something else, the intention was lost on me. I am not going to waste my time with this any longer, anymore than I am going to waste my time providing facts about northern ireland. I won't respond to your posts anymore. Michael: I don't think that's relevant, or necessarily true, but I am not proposing anything, only saying it is possible. Last edited by dor : 01-23-2007 at 08:58 PM. |
| |||
| Quote:
@ Michael Chui: Good joke! Of course, I could be treated out of being a homosexual by having my sex changed, but... nah... I'd rather not. |
| |||
| It was a simile, Dor. I was saying that arguing someone out of being homosexual is like arguing someone out of being female, and that I would consider such an argument to be a hateful argument, because it doesn't leave a person free to be what they were born as. That's not an argument, circular or otherwise. It's stating how I feel about a subject. Another opinion I have that I'd love to be persuaded out of: that your heart is so hardened against me because my opinions are often so different from your own that you can't clearly "hear" what I say. (hence, "no you didn't, you said...") There's room for all kinds of opinions! |
| |||
| Quote:
I agree with many points of steve's blog... However, I do think treatment should be offered as an alternative or discussed and not just shunned away as 'impossible' as many activist groups do - Even if there was some genetic basis -tendency is different from behavior - that's why people go around in circles about alcoholism (is it genetic or behavior) what is one (even if you don't drink every day, anyone who gets cravings for alcohol, etc) - and thus one making a 'moral' argument might say, ..an alcoholic has a predisposition to drink but that doesnt' mean he's condemned to die in the gutter with a a bottle in his hand. What I find disturbing in all these medical/scientific debates is politicization of them - on both sides. (Granted even science get get politicized or become political. ) let there be discussion. Personally and actually getting back to the topic on hand I know people and have read of people who have had radical spiritual transformations and their orientations changed. Last edited by dor : 01-23-2007 at 09:30 PM. |
| |||
| "Spitzer admits that he had 'great difficulty' finding people who claimed to have changed their orientation from gay to straight. Ex-gay groups regularly claim to know of 'thousands' of people who have 'changed' or 'left homosexuality.' But after searching for nearly a year and a half, Spitzer could only find 274 possibilities." Virtually all were evangelical christians. Dr. Robert Spitzer finally studied 143 "ex-gays" and 57 "ex-lesbians" who had reported that they had become "straight." During 45 minute telephone interviews with each subject, they were asked 60 questions about their "feelings and behavior before and after their efforts to change orientation. They discussed their motives for change; their strategies, which included counseling, support groups, prayer and mentoring; and their current relationships with the opposite sex". Dr. Spitzer reported: -- That 86% of the men and 63% of the female subjects emerged from therapy still having feelings of attraction to persons of the same-sex. That is, after therapy they are bisexuals, not heterosexuals. -- That sixteen (11%) of the men and 21 (37%) of the women report that they now have a heterosexual orientation. It is not known how many of these had entered therapy as bisexuals and how many had been homosexuals. -- "Of the 112 men (out of the total 143) who acknowledged that they masturbated, more than half (56 percent) said they used homosexual fantasies some of the time and about one-third (31 percent) said they seldom had opposite-sex masturbation fantasies." I sure wouldn't want to be one of the poor christian women who find themselves married to one of these "recovered homosexuals." Or the guy who finds himself in that position, either! |
| |||
| Quote:
I absolutely loved this "perspective" |
| |||
| Quote:
(1) in lots of cases the therapy simply does not work; (2) the side effects can be very bad: depression and the development of suicidal tendencies are not unkown; (3) many ex-gays later turn into ex-ex-gays; (4) no serious medical organization aproves of this kind of therapy; (5) in the case of "aversion therapy" it is rather hard to see how the actual practice of this therapy is to be reconciled with the concept of human dignity; (6) quite often the therapists do not have proper qualifications and, compared to standard psychotherapy practices, seem to operate in rather amateuristic ways. Quote:
Taking Angela's remarks into account it seems more like Spitzer wanted to write something controversial and was looking for evidence than that he knew about the evidence and wanted to write something about it. This is a practice that is also not unheard of in science, unfortunately. |
| |||
| Chris, Quote:
With improved techniques, and as you imply - if more professional bodies took up the practice, we might see better results. Most substance treatment programs like AA and such have low sucess levels too. i don't think its a reason to stop them. You say the side effects can be bad - maybe so, but the successes often say they find new levels of happiness - even one of the psychologists who treated them said he was able to get gays out of a destructive anonymous sex pattern - there are plenty of testimonials here: Interviews/Testimonials regarding spitzer: Spitzer's conclusions are simply this: based on his study, there is evidence to suggest that some gay men and lesbians are not only able to change self-identity, but are able to modify core features of sexual orientation, including fantasies. Spitzer Study Critiqued in the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy It appears that the activist-authors of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy were outraged that the study was published at all, a sad commentary for a professional journal. Spitzer's motives were questioned, his credibility attacked and his research subjected to a kind of scrutiny unparalleled in any scientific arena. As a scientist, I find the journal's approach in this issue to be both disingenuous and intolerant. Disagreement among scientists is healthy. Name-calling and intimidation tactics are not. To me, that speaks volumes. Socarides treated patients for homosexuality throughout his career. He reported that "about a third" [1] of his patients became heterosexual and led heterosexual lives after treatment. Charles Socarides - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far Last edited by dor : 01-24-2007 at 03:57 PM. Reason: clarity, AA |
| |||
| Charles Socarides and his followers' theories revolve around his belief that "Homosexuality is based on the fear of the mother, the aggressive attack against the father, and is filled with aggression, destruction and self-deceit". [Robert Spitzer, quoted in Bayer, p.36] According to Socarides, "almost half of those who engage in homosexual practices have a concomitant schizophrenia, paranoia, or latent or pseudoneurotic schizophrenia, or are in the throes of a manic-depressive reaction". [Bayer, page 35]. Socarides developed an elaborate 'cure' based on these theories and claimed a success rate of greater than 50%. [Bayer, p.37] Interestingly, Charles Socarides was never able to change the sexual orientation of his son, Richard. Richard became a gay rights attorney, worked in the Clinton administration, and went from there to head the corporate communications division of New Line Cinema. |
| ||||
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Socarides is a psychoanalist. When one is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Who says that a psychoanalytical approach to homosexuality is the most suitable? The last few decades a biological approach has produced more interesting results IMO. A rather serious problem in the dicipline of psychoanalysis is that next to nothing seems provable. |
| |||
| Not wanting to stir the pot here, but I'd really like you to elaborate this one more. |
| |||
| Quote:
That remark I made is obviously taken out of the context of that old discussion with Dor, who seemed to believe that homosexuality was something that one could (and should) be "cured" of. I disagree very strongly, and in fact, I find that kind of talk to be hateful, shame-inducing, and completely out of place on a personal development forum. I wasn't willing to let it stand unchallenged. Dor had made a remark that "...there are moral, religious, and philosophical arguments against homosexuality..." and I was simply equating that to the anti-female rhetoric that has come down through the ages. There's a lot of that -- you don't want me to list instances, do you? That's not something I want to focus on. My point was that arguing against homosexuality is like arguing against females, or against the left-handed (an argument that has been strenuously made, amazingly). I believe each individual's sexuality and gender is his/her/its concern, and should not be subject to anyone else's scorn or attempts to change or judge. |
| |||
| Hi, Angela. I guess I'm mostly fine - I'm still alive. Quote:
Quote:
Reason of my questions? Here and there, mostly in spiritual websites I have found feminine described as "divine" or "sacred". But I don't remember any mentioning of divine masculine... So, I'm not a woman, and from what I understand, therefore I am not divine. But I want to be divine too goddammit. Or have I gotten the masculine/feminine and male/female thing wrong? That male has a portion of femininity and female has a chunk(or hunk?!) or masculinity in them? Or some other thing? I guess this doesn't really fit into this thread anymore... maybe there'll be a new thread about it soon... PS: I hope my low self esteem didn't show. :cool. |


