Chapter 22
.
The etiology of homosexuality
.
.
To characterize something as a mental illness it is necessary to be clear
about what a mental illness is. Homosexuality is such an illness;
however,
much more is required than appeal to past authority, such as the
classification
of the American Psychiatric Association that was in full effect until
1973-1974.
.
A special case known as "ego dystonic homosexuality" was recognized as
a separate category until 1987 and is still in use by Catholic psychology
professionals and in some foreign nations. This refers to homosexuals
who reject homosexuality and wish to receive professional help to cease
being homosexual.
.
In either case, to this point we still need to adequately answer the
question:
Why should anyone conclude that homosexuality is a psychological disorder,
sickness, or psychopathology?
.
There has been debate among psychiatrists and others about whether there
really is such a thing as a mental illness, and this dates back to the
1970s,
a viewpoint mostly associated with Thomas Szasz, but his ideas on this
subject never gained much traction because of obvious facts, namely,
for sure, some people are insane, their actions and what they say are
hopelessly dysfunctional and there is no way to deny it. However, that
still leaves open questions about 'gray areas' where there is real world
evidence but which can be interpreted in different ways.
.
Now, according to a New York Times article by T. M. Luhrmann,
published on January 17, 2015, the debate has taken a new turn.
The essay, "Redefining Mental Illness," says that the British Psychological
Society, in a recent paper, “Understanding Psychosis and Schizophrenia,”
has challenged the standard view.
.
Still, at least based on information is the Times article, the logic of the
British researchers seems faulty. This new view says that "mental illnesses
are complex individual responses — less like hypothyroidism, in which you
fall ill because your body does not secrete enough thyroid hormone, and
more like metabolic syndrome, in which a collection of unrelated risk
factors
(high blood pressure, body fat around the waist) increases your chance
of heart disease."
.
What this says is that life experiences -what happens during interactions
with others- play a major role in "who becomes mentally ill, when they
fall ill and how their illness unfolds." From which we can say that any
kind
of therapy requires a beneficial mix of interventions, not just analysis
in one or another form, and not just drugs or medications.
.
But didn't we know this already? Some mental illnesses simply cannot
be treated successfully without chemicals; others are best treated with
some form of psychotherapy or clinical practice. In other cases a mix
of drugs and therapy is advisable. This insight is hardly new.
It sounds like someone has just re-invented the wheel.
.
Ergo, there still are mental illnesses and they can be classified into
different types even though some cases may feature symptoms
that defy easy categorization. So what?
.
The question remains, is homosexuality a mental illness per se?
.
You would think that particulars of APA resolution number PDF: 464KB
of December 15, 1973, define what a mental illness is well enough to
serve as the basis for discussion. According to this statement
a psychiatric disorder must:
.
Cause subjective distress, impair social effectiveness, and impede
social functioning.
.
The reasoning of the 1973 resolution otherwise was specious on the
face of it. Here is the crux of the matter as seen at that time:
.
"The only way that homosexuality could....be considered a psychiatric
disorder would be the criteria of failure to function heterosexually,
which is considered optimal in our society and by
many members of our profession."
.
This is an absurdity. Even in the 1970 era surely it was recognized that
a condition that was linked to various medical conditions or cognitive
malfunctions was sufficient reason to call it a psychopatholgy. And the
further view stated in the resolution that "many homosexuals are quite
satisfied with their sexual orientation" tells us nothing because many
criminals are "quite satisfied" with their criminality and many grossly
obese people are satisfied with their excess lard.
.
As for impaired social effectiveness, this may or may not be a marker
for mental illness, but for sure some homosexuals not only have limited
social skills, they may be obnoxious, they may be uncontrollable
exhibitionists, they may be sado-masochistic, and much else.
This doesn't count? To claim that homosexuals as a group
do not manifest anti-social behaviors is ridiculous even if
some numbers know how to comport themselves in public
and not make complete fools of themselves.
.
And is normal heterosexuality some sort of "option" for our species
as if it was a matter of social indifference whether there would even be
human beings in the future? Failure to function as heterosexuals
is not like failure to function like a basketball player or opera singer.
Considerably more is at stake. The logic of the APA leadership
in 1973 was some kind of joke.
.
There are other definitions of mental illness to turn to, however.
Among them is the view found in DSM-IV; the 1973 decision
was based on DSM-II. The more recent Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual says that a metal disorder is:
.
a psychological pattern (aka syndrome) dysfunction; causes distress
either because of pain or disability, or increases the risk of death, pain, or
disability; and is associated with important loss of individual freedoms.
.
This is a major improvement although it has new limitations which,
indeed, the APA recognized later when asking for further revisions.
Yet -and completely obviously- the definition in DSM-IV which carried
over into newer versions of the manual, "increases the risk of death, pain,
or disability," applies directly to homosexuals. All that it takes to see
this fact for what it is, is some basic honesty and that the APA seems
to be incapable of.
.
The major change to the DSM for its 5th edition that is relevant here
is that for a symptom to be regarded as manifesting a mental illness
it should reflect "an underlying psychobiological dysfunction."
That is fair enough. "Disability" is also defined in a useful way
as "impairment in one or more important areas of functioning."
.
These things said, it may be suggested that there is a simpler way to
go about defining mental illness, namely, a compulsive pattern of
symptoms that does not contribute to a person's well-being and that,
instead, interferes with well being. But how do you define "well being"?
.
At least that isn't terribly difficult:
* Is able to function productively in normative society
provided that the society itself isn't pathological, such as Islamic
society,
totalitarian society, or tribal groups that practice cannibalism, or the
like,
.
* shows appreciation for forms of expression that further the interests
of society to survive even in difficult times, and to reproduce itself, and
.
* is fundamentally in agreement with the view that social cohesion is good
for all normal people in it and seeks to contribute to that cohesion
through
such things as participation in the work force, taking advantage of
opportunities
for education, good nutrition, cultivation of social skills, and so forth.
.
Some number of homosexuals can, in fact, "function productively in
normative
society" but all fail the other two measures, sometimes dramatically.
.
That is, when homosexuals seek to overturn the values of a successfully
functioning society, don't give a damn for social cohesion, don't care if
a society survives times of crisis nor whether it reproduces itself,
by definition they are pathological.
.
When these basics are understood then we can discuss specific pathologies
to good effect -this assumes that the strengths of DSM definitions, but
only
the strengths, are accepted as valid and valuable.
.
.
Of course there is an even simpler way to define mental illness as it
pertains
to homosexuals, the usage of Dr. Charles Socarides which says that the
design of nature is manifestly heterosexual. Human beings are designed
by nature with interlocking sex organs and, as evolutionary psychology
tells us, the sexes have appropriate gender roles that nature prescribes,
generally having to do with reproduction and sexual dimorphism, viz.,
a variety of physical and body chemistry traits that differentiate males
from females giving each sex distinctive observable attributes.
.
This being true, any form of behavior that is not clearly heterosexual
in character is ipso facto a psychopathology. Simple as that.
.
Arguments about exceptions are pointless. Are some animals capable
of homosexual behavior? Yes. In that case they have some equivalent
of a mental defect. Is lifelong chastity as a religious ideal pathological?
It can be but it must be borne in mind that some people sacrifice their
desires for greater good of normal society, a society that is based on
families and human well-being, hence Catholic priests and Buddhist
monks. You can say that kind of sacrifice isn't really necessary
and that there is a better alternative but that is another question.
Let's not get sidetracked by false analogies, shall we?
.
It can also be argued that society has a vested interest in heterosexual
relationships -which it necessarily regards as normal, hence society
defines homosexuality as sexually deviant and abnormal because
unless it does so it becomes dysfunctional and suicidal.
This is simpler, still.
.
Each of these considerations are assumed here as defining mental illness
in contrast to mental health.
This leaves one unresolved issue, the question of choice.
.
.
Pathological Choice
.
Paul Cameron in his 1997 paper, "What Causes Homosexual Desire
and Can It Be Changed?," apparently assumed that the standard
psychoanalytic interpretation of mental illness was the only one that
matters. Hence, in the view of psychoanalysts, "homosexuals have
unnatural or perverse desires as a consequence of poor familial
relations in childhood or some other trauma." The resulting
condition therefore is non-voluntary and predetermined
and this constitutes it as a mental illness.
.
This is not the outlook expressed here. To speak personally again,
I have learned a great deal in my reading of the literature of
psychoanalysis;
there are many lessons to be learned from Freud and those who followed
in his footsteps -particularly people like Anna Freud, Sandor Rado, and
Dr. Socarides, but especially from neo-Freudians like Erich Fromm,
Karen Horney, and Abram Kardiner. Erik Erikson also belongs in this
category but my knowledge of his work is too limited to 'recommend' him.
Regardless, there are also a variety of questionable assertions and
assumptions that are part of Freudian system of thought and there is
no good reason to accept the bad along with the good.
.
My approach, then, is pragmatic and eclectic and follows no orthodoxy;
its motto is "whatever works, whatever makes the best sense." In this case
it decidedly is not to use a Freudian definition of mental illness. It may
well
be that homosexuality indicates some type of "arrested development,"
and in some cases this may be a major factor, but the view here is that
it is always a matter of choice.
.
Dr. Cameron insists that "homosexual behavior is learned." I completely
concur. There isn't the least argument from me to any other effect. Where
we seem to disagree is whether or not someone can, in effect, choose
to have a mental illness.
.
Of course, no-one chooses any such thing consciously, but, unconsciously
an individual may do exactly that. But is this really possible?
.
First of all, there are such things as self-inflicted illnesses. People
do
choose to be physically sick. The best known example of this is a
malady known as "Munchausen syndrome," basically a psychological
disorder is which someone fabricates a medical illness or psychological
madness in order to receive health care or hospitalization. But that is
not really what is involved here.
.
The best comparison is to problems that are called "lifestyle diseases."
You are free to choose some other path but decide, instead, to choose
a course that you very much want even though you understand it will have
negative consequences. Hence, some people stuff their faces with tasty
foods
regardless of calories and never desist from this habit and end up as wide
as they are tall. Other freely chosen pathologies include:
.
Being "house poor," sacrificing every imaginable need for the sake
of owning a deluxe home. Generally the reason is status, a feeling that
unless one owns a house that is large and attractive then one cannot
be respected by people who are important. There may be other
reasons, but in all cases this kind of decision throttles one's life for
many
years, it has chronic effects, and may reflect deep seated feelings of
pretension or inferiority, or may indicate totally unrealistic expectations
about future income. Or simple irresponsibility because in some sense
the person has never grown up. If you know even one individual with
this problem you know perfectly well that it is pathological;
if you know two, there isn't the least doubt.
.
That I am aware there is no name for this psychological condition but it
certainly exists and damages lives everywhere. Needless to say the same
principle applies to someone who buys a car he or she cannot afford,
or spends a month's wages for a weekend at a resort, and etc.
.
Asking for trouble. This mostly refers to such things as working at
a high stress job, knowing full well that the pressures you are under
are not good and may well result in a nervous breakdown or some
cardiovascular problem. The choice always exists to take concrete steps
to change one's occupation but this is never done. The problem also
can feature a woman who enters "bad neighborhoods" knowing the risks
she takes, or a man who habitually drives too fast, and so forth. In any
event this is to speak of high risk behaviors where the likelihood is that
you will pay the price -as opposed to more normal low risk choices
where the odds are in your favor.
.
Some types of diabetes. People who choose to eat foods that
have little nutrition value, that have high concentrations of various
fats, etc., and people who choose sedentary lifestyles year in and
year out, never getting sufficient exercise. While diabetes may not
result, these kinds of behaviors greatly increase the chances -to the
extent that only very stupid people do not realize the problem.
.
Gambling addiction -which it really is. Yet the same people who throw
money way playing roulette, or playing the market without assessing the
actual risks, do not have to do so. In fact, most of their lives they may
be model citizens. It just that when weeks or months of frugality allow it,
they splurge at a casino or buy hundreds of lottery tickets. The point is
that a choice is made to gamble or not to gamble.
.
.
There is also "self-harm." The Wikipedia article on the subject discusses
the many ways people inflict injuries upon themselves, sometimes to the
extent of self mutilation. As the article puts it: "The most common form
of self-harm is skin-cutting but self-harm also covers a wide range of
behaviors including, but not limited to, burning, scratching, banging or
hitting body parts, interfering with wound healing (dermatillomania),
hair-pulling (trichotillomania) and the ingestion of toxic substances
or objects." None of this is good, all of it is freely chosen even if
there may be an inclination at work. That is, many people suffer
discomfort when wounds heal and scabby tissue forms, but most
people do not pull of their scabs, they allow the healing process
to restore an affected area of the body. Either way, for good or ill,
a choice is made.
.
As the article continued, "the motivations for self-harm vary and it
may be used to fulfill a number of different functions. These functions
include self-harm being used as a coping mechanism which provides
temporary relief of intense feelings such as anxiety, depression, stress,
emotional numbness or a sense of failure or self-loathing" and the like.
Regardless, each instance of self harm is a behavioral choice.
.
There is another worthwhile article on the subject available at WebMD.com
under the title, "Mental Health and Self-Injury," which treats the issue
under the rubric: "Self-injury disorder."
.
All of which surely says that homosexual behavior is also a choice even if
there may be an inclination toward a homosexual choice..
.
Of course, there are dynamic processes to consider.
.
In her 2005 book, co-authored with Sally Satel, One Nation Under
Therapy, Christina Hoff Sommers noted that the path to addiction is
a process of choices. That is, few if any addicts start out with the
concept
in mind that they will end up addicted -to anything. Or, by extension,
that they will find themselves under the dark spell of a psychopathology.
.
As Sommers put it: It is doubtful that anyone sets out to become an
addict. Nonetheless, countless red flags have shot up along the way
to becoming one." And "when we retrace the addict's steps, it is
quite clear that the trajectory leading to compulsive use was marked
by scores of small, deliberate choices, made many times a day..."
.
Each decision usually reinforces a previous choice and makes the possible
addict "more vulnerable to continued use. These small decisions, then,
are also critical to becoming an addict..." But this is also good news
because similar small steps "are also critical to recovery."
.
In other words, there is such a thing as free will. A "chemical does not
neutralize free will" nor does an absent father or a domineering mother
or anything else which is theorized to contribute to homosexuality.
.
This point of view can be characterized as "existentialist." This says that
you are what you experience and the choices you make follow from
previous experiences. Do you want a new life, do you want to
start over and do it right this time? The do something that seems
likely to contribute to those kinds of experiences that will give you
a new life or a fresh start.
.
"Essentialism," the doctrine that we are beings with inner essences that
cry out for self expression isn't false but it presupposes that you
understand
that you have limits, that not every urge contributes to well-being, that
the psyche can malfunction, and that one needs a good deal of self
reflection -self analysis s'il vous plait- to be sure that you can
discern
what is an essence and what is its counterfeit. And, after all, we are
social beings. There may be perceived ego advantage in some inclination
but if at the same time as someone indulges in an urge it causes harm to
others, including such things as turmoil in a family, there is no
possibility
that it is a legitimate essence.
.
Existentialism also means, as Daniel Shapiro remarked about brain scan
images, quoted by Sommers on page 103, "you can examine pictures
of brains all day, but you'd never call anyone an addict unless
he acted like one."
The path to homosexuality always involves choices. The path out of
homosexuality involves different choices that give someone different
kinds of experiences than he or she was creating for himself or herself
until then. This principle is not all that difficult to understand. What
is
says can be summarized with popular folk wisdom:
.
Experience is he best teacher.
.
.
Freud and Freudians
.
This does not say that you cannot learn a great deal from books like
Socarides' 1978 opus, Homosexuality. Several quotes make eminently
good sense -as long as they are not taken as dogma that overrules
all other considerations. In discussing Freud's paper, "Negation,"
for instance, Socarides said: "The ego is capable of extending its
boundaries to accept what would otherwise be repressed with
the proviso that it be consciously denied." This certainly is true,
or is ordinarily true. So is this:
.
"When personality disorders occur, heterosexuals tend to develop
benign psychoses while homosexuals are prone to have chronic
paranoiac and schizophrenic illnesses."
.
And this:
.
In sexual perversions like homosexuality "repressive efforts are
directed against both libidinal and aggressive drives. The result of the
repressive compromise...produces a remarkable transformation of
aggression, hate, hostility, envy, and into their opposites and provides
a high pleasure reward..." ( p. 149)
.
.
Socarides was a true Freudian, of course, and this brings up something
that has become a standard defense from Freud on the part of homosexuals,
a quote from a letter he wrote in 1935 to a distraught mother. Here is the
incriminating passage; this was first published in The American Journal
of Psychiatry, in 1951:
.
Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be
ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as
an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function
produced by a certain arrest of sexual development.
.
Uncritical use of this quote, since it is cited very frequently, deserves
some comment.
.
It would be helpful to know the context, for example. By the time Freud
wrote this informal letter he was only a few years from his death; he
would
die in 1939. He had been suffering from a lengthy illness, squamous cell
carcinoma, oral cancer, which he was diagnosed with in 1923. By this point
he had undergone about 30 (thirty) surgeries to try and remedy the
worsening
problem. In other words, his major work was far behind him, he was
struggling
to survive, and whatever he might say at this point because of his
medical
circumstances is highly suspect.
.
And just what is he supposed to say to a near-hysterical woman? Have you
ever known an hysterical woman? If you have any intelligence at all
you say whatever it takes to shut her up.
.
And what, exactly does this letter prove? In it Freud claimed that Plato
was homosexual, for instance. Except that Plato was anti-homosexual
as his book, The Laws, demonstrates unequivocally. At that, in his
dialogue, "The Symposium," he portrayed Socrates as disinterested
in homosexuality, averse to it, and immune from it even during a test
to see if he would 'experiment.' Freud profoundly misread Plato.
.
As well, he passed along malicious gossip from the Renaissance era
to the effect that Michelangelo and da Vinci were perverted. However,
the most anyone can say about either is that no-one knows what their
sexuality consisted of. There is just about no evidence on the matter;
all that is known for sure concerns Michelangelo who, still a young man,
had some kind of romantic interlude with a young woman. Yes, it is
possible that one or the other took part in same-sex activities, even
that one or the other became homosexual, but that is speculation
and nothing else; it is just as likely that one or the other, or both,
were smeared by rivals or detractors.
.
Beyond these considerations is the fact that Freud never retracted his
earlier findings about homosexuality. Which says that the "hysteric woman"
view is very plausible. The letter, if taken at face value, would have
Freud
contradicting Freud. Not a contradiction of a short letter from the first
decades of the 20th century but published works that Sigmund gave
a great deal of thought to over many months in every case.
.
If homosexuals want to make an issue out of Freud then let us discuss
the man as known in his published works. Yet there is one final comment
to make about the 1935 letter. Freud said:
.
"If [your son] 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...."
.
The letter clearly says that reparative therapy can work. Is it now the
position of the psychology department of the University of California
at Davis, whose site talks about the letter in glowing terms, that
those homosexuals who seek therapy can look forward to
possibly being cured of their arrested sexual development?
Just thought I'd ask.
.
.
Whatever one thinks of Freud when he was very sick and nearing death,
it would be more useful to take a quick look at his work when he was
announcing and explaining his breakthroughs in psychology, mostly
when he was from about 45 years old until 65 or 70. These are clinical
statements, not propaganda on behalf of "inverts," "perverts," or
"Uranians,"
the vocabulary he used to designate homosexuals.
.
He also used the word "homosexual" but clearly it was a fairly new word
for him, which is understandable since it was a new word for everyone
else;
it did not exist until about 1870 and was not in wide use until some years
into the 20th century. And while I have my own reasons for never using
the term "lesbians," Freud also did not use that word, or maybe used it
infrequently but that I am unaware of. He called them "female
homosexuals."
Here are some quotes:
.
Pages 35-36 in Socarides' 1978 book quotes from Freud's 1905 volume,
Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. "The nature of inversion is
explained neither by the hypothesis that it is innate nor by the
alternative
hypothesis that it is acquired. In the former case, we must ask in what
respect it is innate, unless we are to accept the crude explanation that
everyone is born with a sexual instinct attached to a particular sexual
object. In the latter case it may be questioned whether the various
accidental
influences would be sufficient to explain the acquisition of inversion
without
the cooperation of something in the subject himself. The existence of this
last factor is not to be denied."
.
Also from the same 1905 publication is this statement:
"Inversion can be removed by hypnotic suggestion, which would be
astonishing in an innate characteristic."
.
Freud noted in 1905, as well, that boy prostitutes " imitate women
in all the externals of their clothing and behavior" and in their voice
and mannerisms show some physical resemblance to women. Thus
what is going on isn't some sort of affirmation of "good" in male
homosexuality but unhealthy psychological displacement. Indeed,
elsewhere Freud was clear that, as Socarides paraphrased
Sigmund, there is
"great similarity between a neurotic symptom
and homosexuality."
.
Another summary of Freud appears on page 61 in Homosexuality
but is a position that may be argued with; these comments
seem to me to be no more than partly true or, more appropriately,
true for some, maybe substantial numbers, but not all:
.
"The homosexual fears persecution on many levels. Some of these,
social censure, for example, seem realistic, but others involve threatened
castration at the hands of either parent or both; he fears anal attack;
he
fears the use of feces as a destructive powerful weapon; and he fears
poisoning due to intense, oral-sadistic incorporative drives. The presence
of archaic mechanisms suggest the primitive introjective-projective
dilemmas which beset him."
.
Finally, concerning Sigmund Freud, here are some of his views as
expressed in his Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis of 1915.
.
...we now come to a long series of abnormal people whose sexual activity
diverges more and more widely from what seems desirable to a sensible
person. In their multiplicity and strangeness they can only be compared
to the grotesque monsters painted by Breughel.....
.
...[this] group includes those who have renounced the union of the
two genitals and who replace the genitals of one of the couple engaged
in the sexual act by some other part or region of the body; in this they
disregard the lack of suitable organic arrangements as well as any
impediment offered by feelings of disgust. (They replace the vulva,
for instance, by the mouth or anus.)
.
We find from them that the excretory functions, which have been put aside
as improper during the upbringing of children, retain the ability to
attract
the whole of sexual interest.
.
Now there cannot be the slightest doubt that all these crazy, eccentric
and horrible things really constitute the sexual activity of these people.
Not only do they themselves regard them as such and are aware that
they are substitutes for each other, but we must admit that they
play the same part in their lives as normal sexual satisfaction
does in ours
.
...what attitude are we to adopt to these unusual kinds of sexual
satisfaction?
Indignation, an expression of our personal repugnance and an assurance
that we ourselves do not share these lusts will obviously be of no help.
Indeed, that is not what we have been asked for. When all is said
and done, what we have here is a field of phenomena....
.
Unless we can understand these pathological forms of sexuality
and can co-ordinate them with normal sexual life, we cannot understand
normal sexuality either. In short, it remains an unavoidable task to give
a complete theoretical account of how it is that these perversions can
occur and of their connection with what is described as normal sexuality.
.
Of course they are not, as they also like to assert, an 'elite' of
mankind;
there are at least as many inferior and useless individuals among them
as there are among those of a different sexual kind.
.
.
There is also Sigmund's daughter, Anna, also quoted by Socarides
on page 111:
.
"Among homosexuals there is "narcissistic object choice" which
leads to full blown narcissism that, in turn, results in hypochondria
and overvalues fantasies, all of which accounts for "the low
frustration tolerance in homosexuals. Due to the primitive character
of the narcissism one frequently uncovers idea of grandeur
paradoxically existing along with poor self image."
.
.
We are free to disagree about any number of claims by Sigmund Freud.
UC Davis is right to note that his conclusions were primarily and
overwhelmingly the product of clinical observation, not controlled
scientific experiments. Much has held up quite well, to be sure,
but there are some very dubious assertions, especially his theory
of polymorphous sexuality in young children.
.
Sandor Rado, among Freud's disciples, rejected that outlook and,
as UC Davis put it, said that "
heterosexuality is natural and that
homosexuality is a "reparative" attempt to achieve sexual pleasure
when normal heterosexual outlet proves too threatening." This seems
correct and helpful. There is no empirical need to think that children
invariably go through a phase in their lives where almost any kind
of sexual experimentation is "normal." It is not. But as Socarides
observed, Freud eventually abandoned that hypothesis and, in any
case, it was not original with him but with Wilhelm Fleiss.
.
What Freud did say was that the psyche goes through developmental
stages such that during one short-lived stage it has homosexual
characteristics. Hence his view that homosexuality is arrested
development. Normal people, said Freud, pass through that state
in early childhood and soon are functioning heterosexuals in every way.
Homosexuals do not and are "stuck" in sexual infantilism. That kind
of metaphor is suggestive for homosexuals and certainly is memorable
language, but empirically we now know that is not what happens.
.
Which is: Sometimes there is no latent disposition at all. Sometimes
there is but is never acted upon and, given normal socialization,
the child eventually discovers his or her natural heterosexual state.
At other times, especially in cases of child molestation, what is
latent -due to a mother's trauma during pregnancy, for example-
is activated. But it is up to the child whether anything happens
that might lead to a homosexual outcome, the "many choices"
that Christina Sommers talked about.
.
And if a child is raised in a religious family he or she is 5 times more
likely
not to go further than maybe some early experimentation. Conscience
operates against any such thing and, knowing what is right and knowing
what is evil and wrong, the child cultivates his or her heterosexual
nature,
which is never absent because it is nature, such that, in time,
it becomes fully functional.
.
.
Homosexuality may well appear to be infantile, however, because
of such things as play with feces, short temperedness, emotional
immaturity, and other characteristics seen in many toddlers, especially
the "terrible twos," are also frequently seen in homosexuals.
That is also an age when there may be a good deal of
spontaneous exhibitionism.
.
Hence Freudian language about regression to a pre-oedipal level
and the like. Where this kind of language is appropriate is with
respect to symptoms that can be characterized as "developmental
failure" or "impairments in ego functions" or "distorted sexual identity."
Such sick people have, as page 487 says, "semidelusional convictions"
and their thinking patterns generally show us "the patient's
own projective anxieties."
.
Freud was also right about female homosexuality, which Karen Horney
picked up on and developed at length. The evidence, as Socarides
put it, makes it clear that for women the usual syndrome follows from
a "disturbance in previous heterosexual relationships rather
than unconscious homosexual wishes."
.
.
So, is homosexuality a mental illness? Obviously it is exactly that,
from Sigmund Freud to all of the evidence now available in 2015.
.
.
.
.
.
(javascript:__doPostBack('dnn$ctr443$dnnACTIONBUTTON1$ico7',''))
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
