The Power of Popular Culture Chapter 14 Homosexuality: A clinical psychopathology Part 1 Why homosexuals cause feelings of disgust in normal people The Dan McAdams article in the Atlantic magazine for June 2016, which is full of insights and has special importance on objective merits, nonetheless deserves all the criticism it can get. And there are plenty to make.
Yet all of these criticisms pale in comparison to his Leftist screed on the subject of "disgust." The incriminating paragraph starts by citing the work of social psychologist Jesse Graham to the effect that: "Trump appeals to an ancient fear of contagion, which analogizes out-groups to parasites, poisons, and other impurities. In this regard, it is perhaps no psychological accident that Trump displays a phobia of germs, and seems repulsed by bodily fluids, especially women's. He famously remarked that Megyn Kelly of Fox News had blood coming out of her whatever," and he repeatedly characterized Hillary Clinton's bathroom break during a Democratic debate as "disgusting." Disgust is a primal response to impurity. On a daily basis Trump seems to experience more disgust, or at least to say he does, than most people do." Now, disgust is an important psychological reaction to various classes of stimuli. It is primal and necessary to our survival as a species and as individuals. We literally cannot live without the defenses provided to us by feelings of disgust. Nauseating sights, terrible odors, hideous smells, etc., all play a part in protecting us from self destruction. There is a small literature on the topic but an article published in the New Scientist for July 11, 2012, is essential reading. The title is : "The yuck factor: The surprising power of disgust." The sub-title reminds us that from politics to commerce to sex, we need to keep in mind the "forgotten emotion of disgust." In other words, people who repress feelings of disgust may well have something seriously wrong with them. Here are some quotes from the article that get the point across: A "growing body of research has revealed the profound power of disgust, showing that this emotion is a much more potent trigger for our behavior and choices than we ever thought. The results play out in all sorts of unexpected areas, such as politics, the judicial system and our spending habits. The triggers also affect some people far more than others, and often without their knowledge." ... That is, disgust is a natural and self-protective reaction against such phenomena as vomit, rotting meat, feces, pus, classes of insects, and so forth. This is because disgust "evolved to protect us from illness and death." Hence social evolution of the idea as well, often in the form of purity laws or purity customs. You can argue that some purity laws have become dysfunctional with the passage of time, that some were based on superstitions of long ago, or that some are an over-reaction, but the plain fact is that we need some set of prohibitions against what is disgusting. To start with, the essay cites the research of Valerie Curtis of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, "After all, all other humans are potential disease carriers" and therefore "we've got to be very careful about our contact with others; we've got to mitigate those disease transfer risks." Hence we shun -ostracize- people who violate proven (usually reliable) rules against certain kinds of contact, those who violate norms of behavior associated with maintaining good health or social well being. You can argue that we may need to update our objects of disgust and, speaking of medical prohibitions, we have learned to avoid a host of contagions that our ancestors never worried about, like mosquitos that, it turns out, are prime carriers of malaria. We also are aghast at medial personnel who don't wash their hands. Yet other forms of disgust should need no explanation with respect to their utility value. People are disgusted at child molestation, and as far back as early Sumerian texts we find examples of revulsion at pedophilia. There is also a comment to make about ancient laws against homosexuality, laws known not only from the Bible but from Assyrian sacred writings, Buddhist literature, Zoroastrian texts, and so forth. All of which may be contrary to the fictions of homosexuals to the effect that people of ancient times were tolerant of homosexuals, but this view is exactly that, in by far most cases so much fiction. The Ishtar worshipping Assyrians were approximately just as critical of homosexuality as anything you can find in the Bible, and Buddhist practice, we know from historical accounts, was to completely remove sodomites from their midst as a disruptive element that embodied values that were antithetical to everything Buddhist. The typical reaction to homosexual conduct was one of disgust, whether discussing monotheistic religions, including Islam, henotheistic faiths like Zoroastrianism, or religions that venerated hundreds of deities such as Hinduism or Taoism. With good reason. To speak of the functions of historical faiths is to talk about beliefs and rituals that facilitate marriage between men and women, child raising in well organized communities, protection of families, and social stability. Homosexuals, as we can see for ourselves in contemporary America, are disruptive to the entire system. They not only seek to call into question and delegitimate heterosexual man-woman-child families, sometimes man-women-children families, homosexuals promote values that work at cross purposes with normative family formation and family success. Hence, as the Hebrew Bible puts it, homosexuality is an abomination, or as the Apostle Paul put it in the New Testament, it is an odious crime deserving death. And hence, commonplace religious sanction against sodomy by reinforcing any natural tendency to regard homosexuals as objects of disgust. There have been exceptions to this rule in the past in traditional societies. The berdache of the American West, for instance, were not threatened in their persons but were expected to occupy a place in the social order that was liminal to everyone else, on the margins, differentiated by special clothing and rules about who they could associate with, rules against participation in certain events, and the like. Indeed, this was even more-or-less true in the Roman Empire, at least until several bisexual emperors upset the social order, in the process paving the way for a Christian reaction that, ironically, re-established Augustan social norms based on family protection. This subject is complex, needless to say. Any list of objects of disgust would necessarily be lengthy, consisting of whatever was perceived as threatening the social fabric, and even a small number of occupations like those associated with disposal of the dead, but the principle was always the same, stopping sources of "pollution" in their tracks. Disgust is the natural process for doing this and it has evolved both biologically and culturally to carry out this function. Why, exactly, is homosexuality regarded as disgusting? To answer the question, the very best place to turn is a 1998 / 2001 book by O.R. Adams entitled As We Sodomize America. This volume is indispensable to anyone who does serious research into homosexual behavior and values. It is meticulously researched by an attorney from Albuquerque, someone who invested years and many thousands of dollars in writing and publishing the opus. However, you will not find it cited anywhere that really counts. What explains this? Ray Adams is a Christian believer, some people would call him a "fundamentalist." Indeed, the second half of the book is mostly about his religious beliefs, which is to say his motivation for writing in the first place. Not that I am all that impressed at his theology, with which I sometimes disagree rather strongly. But I am impressed at Ray Adam's integrity. I sent him a lengthy review -actually a review essay- of his book which (1) criticized his religion-centric approach, and (2) he published the entire review at his American Traditions website, verbatim. Yes, my review was favorable to his research about homosexuality, but enough was critical of his religious views that it would not have surprised me in the least if he had said, "thanks, but no thanks." However, he didn't do any such thing, he took the truth as it was presented to him, the truth of my honest views and reservations, and put everything online for anyone with an interest to read in its entirety. Ray Adams has been someone I have deeply respected ever since. About his book, he presented as thorough a set of descriptions of homosexual behavior as you can find anywhere. On pages 26-27 of 700 pages altogether, he listed his sources for that behavior, none of which are Right-wing tracts, none of which are Evangelical screeds, and none of which consist of guesswork or suppositions. A few titles will get the point across: * What Homosexuals Do, Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, 1987. * T.C. Quinn, W.E. Staum, and others, "The Polymicrobial Origin of Intestinal Infections in Homosexual Men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1983. * "Sexual Practices and Risk Infection by the Human Immunodeficieny Virus," The San Francisco Men's Health Study, Journal of the American Medical Association, January 16, 1987. * L. McCusick, et. al., "AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported by Gay Men," American Journal of Public Health, 1985. These titles were supplemented by more recent research findings by people like Paul Cameron, Dr. James Jones of the Kinsey Institute, and, later in the book, by Dr. Judith Reisman, the well known critic of Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute. >From these sources and similar publications, including self-descriptions of homosexual behavior by homosexuals themselves in so-called "gay literature," it was possible for O.R. Adams to compile a descriptive list of common behaviors indulged in by male homosexuals. Included are: Oral sex, male-on-male fellatio, with approximately 100% of homosexuals indulging in this form of sexual conduct. Anal ersatz "intercourse," aka 'asshole ramrodding,' as much as 90%. Rimming, licking the anus of another homosexual, sometimes inserting the tongue up the anus, 80%. Fisting, inserting a hand up another homosexual's rectum and then bunching it into a fist which is then moved about, 40%. So-called "golden showers" or "urine sports," consisting of pissing on one another or sometimes drinking another homosexual's urine, 30%. SCAT, also known as "mud rolling," and activity whereby one or more homosexuals defecates on the floor and various homosexuals get their sexual thrills by rolling in shit, nearly 20%. There are still other such activities. Homosexuals are well known as fetishists who may get their jollies by using women's shoes, bestiality (including the one-time popularity of having "fun" by placing a gerbil up one's ass, various forms of male-on-male mutual masturbation, and such things as sado-masochism, including bondage and brutality, by some counts typical of about a third of the homosexual population. But enough has been said for purposes of evidence. The question simply is: Which of these activities are not disgusting? The only answer possible for anyone who is sane is that none of these behaviors is healthy in any way and all are morbid. That is, the sexual behavior of homosexuals is intrinsically disgusting. Does the language used here offend you? My choice of vocabulary is deliberate so that nothing is lost by way of euphemisms or clinical-sounding Latinate medical terminology. This is what homosexuals actually do, put in words that anyone who is a native speaker of American English can understand without any difficulty whatsoever. Word choice also has the objective of making everything memorable, easy to remember, so that there is no mistake at a later time. Which of these behaviors do you defend if you are "pro-gay-rights," if you "see nothing wrong" in homosexuality, or if you think that the whole issue is a question of American Law rather than the substance of the conduct being considered? And, while you are at it, exactly what excuses can you come up with to explain the fact that the "homosexual lifestyle," to call it that, is utterly unsanitary? This applies moreso to male homosexuals who frequent public bathrooms in certain neighborhoods for sex, or who find willing partners in city parks, whose lack of hygiene is legendary, and also includes voluntary high risk behaviors like unprotected sex with other homosexuals known to be infected with HIV. However, something similar can be said for female homosexuals. Focus here is on males, to keep this as simple as possible, but their female counterparts are approximately just as bad. All of the filth that characterizes homosexual behavior ought to raise damning questions about the mental health of this population -and it does. To refer to an essay by Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N., which I have quoted from a number of times in other writings, "Why Isn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences?" the issue of homosexual squalor is very serious. Melonakos is not the only one to have called attention to this problem but her essay is so well conceived that it deserves citing again. In her own words: " I worked as an RN for several years during the eighties and nineties at Stanford University Medical Center, where I saw some of the damage homosexuals do to their bodies with some of their sexual practices. As a result of that eye-opening experience, I much admire the work of NARTH [the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality]." NARTH, of course, is much maligned by the news media because it refuses to agree with much of anything produced by the APA and certainly has no use at all for the self-serving apologias published by homosexuals themselves. At any rate, Melonakos went on to say: "I have long been concerned about the serious medical consequences which result from the gay-affirming attitudes that predominate in the San Francisco Bay Area." As a matter of fact, she knew, personally, several homosexuals who died as young as their mid-forties. And it wasn't just her. One of her colleagues in the medical profession, " the head of the surgery department at Stanford," informed Melonakos about "case histories of homosexuals needing emergency surgery due to "fisting," "playing with toys," (inserting objects into the rectum) and other bizarre behaviors. She then added the comment: "I am certain -in light of my clinical experience, and since doing a considerable amount of studying about it since that time -that homosexuality is neither normal nor benign; rather, it is a lethal behavioral addiction." What must be added is that the medical consequences of homosexual behavior are well documented and known widely in the public health professions -even if, in a time of Political Correctness, nobody dares say much at all about the issue. Regardless, the facts are available to anyone who cares to investigate. Here are some of the diseases that are ubiquitous among male homosexuals, as reported by Melonakos: Classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies; enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species), Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, ["gay bowel disease"], Hepatitis A, B, C, D, and cytomegalovirus; trauma (related to and/or resulting in fecal incontinence, hemorroids, anal fissure, foreign bodies lodged in the rectum, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis , penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Even this list is incomplete; other researchers have noted another dozen illnesses or debilitating conditions. Melonakos also pointed out that the risk of anal cancer is astounding for those engaging in anal intercourse. According to one report, it rises by an incredible 4000%, and doubles again for those who are HIV positive. . Plus there is this question: " Can anyone refute that increased morbidity and mortality is an unavoidable result of male-with-male sex -not to mention the increased rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, suicide and other maladies that so often accompany a homosexual lifestyle? People with this whole cluster of behavior patterns are somehow 'normal'? " . Melonakos concluded with harsh criticism of the APA, an organization that has "escaped accountability for [its] lack of scientific and professional integrity." . Given all these facts, why isn't homosexuality considered to be a mental illness? Why do most people now regard it as acceptable? There are three answers: (1) There has been a relentless and massive campaign by the mass media ever since 1993 -not at all coincidentally the year that William Clinton took office- to normalize homosexuality in the public mind and, simultaneously, to discredit critics as ignorant Neanderthals regardless of their professional competence and general knowledge of the issue, (2) the near total failure of the political Right to do whatever is necessary to discredit homosexual false claims, like at least doing some serious research, because, you see, the Right has put close to 100% of its efforts to thwart the forces of social deconstruction into the anti-abortion effort as if nothing else really mattered, an approach that has been hopelessly ill-advised, and (3) the power of popular culture. On this last question, what should be asked -of just about anyone- is where, exactly, do you get your opinions on the issue of homosexuality? Most people, if they are at all honest, have no choice but to reply with reference to some number of the following sources, and nothing else: * Network news comments in two minute soundbites, * jokes told on late night comedy shows, * the opinions of friends, * the opinions of co-workers, * a few paragraphs from a magazine feature, * remarks made by an actor in a movie, * signs carried by homosexuals during a street demonstration, * a comment by your kid, repeating something he or she heard a teacher say, * part of a speech by a politician, * a TV sitcom in which a homosexual is portrayed in a positive light, * a heartfelt plea by a member of a post-modern church, and * a lawyer arguing that homosexuality is strictly a matter of civil law. Not that such sources are necessarily wrong or evil. We can hardly live in contemporary society unless we take any or all such things as meaningful. However, what can also be said is that NONE of these sources pass even minimum tests of evidence. It should not need elaboration to note that it is not a valid argument to insist, words to the effect, "well, so-and-so in my family is queer and I don't see anything wrong with him or her." Families are notoriously non-objective about family members. As well, few families include anyone (anyone) who has the knowledge required to make a true judgment about someone else's mental health. In families with respect to outsiders it is always "circle the wagons." You might also like to reflect upon a common enough reaction within families: Acceptance of the homosexuality of a brother or sister or son or daughter. About which I have strong opinions, having lived through the effects of a mother who started out, many years before, opposed to homosexuality, then, when one of her daughters announced her homosexuality, that is, one of my sisters, she switched her views dramatically to the extent that everyone else should henceforth also be accepting of homosexuality. Did mother do any research? None at all. Her decision was completely the result of her emotional need to preside over a unified family. Which I regarded at the time as an absurdity, not to mention immoral -in the sense that no-one else's values mattered as long as her homosexual daughter was accommodated. But why should I have accommodated my sister's dysfunctional values and unhealthy lifestyle? Why should anyone? And if it is your mother who makes this kind of horrible mistake, it still is inexcusable. It still is a mistake, it still deserves no respect whatsoever. Long ago I abandoned the notion of the "infallible judgement of the family," no matter who. Family members can make tragic mistakes, they are susceptible to terrible errors of judgement. It is far better to say so than to pretend that the family necessarily is a font of all truth. Sometimes the opposite is the case. What was the best thing to do? I know what Newt Gingrich did at the time his sister announced her homosexuality. Nothing. He made a number of pietistic statements and appealed to 'tradition,' but otherwise was content to sweep everything under the rug. Afterwards Newt went about his business of writing fiction to the effect, "what if the South had won the Civil War?" It never occurred to Gingrich that there was a far better alternative than running away from the problem. Did Newt make the least effort to become informed about homosexuality? Not according to his sister, Candace. Not that Candace is much by way of an expert on such matters, she seems to be as generally uninformed as most homosexuals, but at least she knows something about the phenomenon. Her brother, she said, is "uninformed" or "misinformed." The story is told in an Associated Press report published in the version I read, in the March 7, 1995 issue of the Arizona Republic newspaper. It is clear from the story, which featured various interview comments by both Newt and his sister, that the (former) House Speaker doesn't even recognize that homosexual psychopathology can be researched. What he acknowledges is that AIDs deserves to be studied, but when the subject is homosexuality at large all he could think to say were remarks about civil rights and law and family privacy. Regardless of what Newt did, or did not do, I know what I did, which was the opposite of Newt's course of non-action. True enough, there were several reasons for taking a research interest in the issue of homosexuality, for example seeing first hand the disgusting public behavior of homosexuals during the time I lived in San Francisco, but among them in an important way was my determination to make it clear to my sister than her choice was not OK, that is was wrong, that it was ridiculously unhealthy, and that she ought to abandon her homosexuality before she threw away her life. Her reaction to everything on the subject that I said was knee-jerk Left-wing in character, that since I oppose homosexuality the reason had to be latent Fascism, which is a sick joke since I am anti-Fascist. But at least I tried, not half heartedly, I made continuing efforts over many years and spent a good deal of time to persuade my errant sister to look at her pathology objectively. To abandon homosexuality as the worst mistake she ever made in her life. All of which fell on deaf ears -except to the extent that she indulged in name calling, the usual Left-wing claptrap about how anyone who objects to sexual perversion necessarily must be an uninformed bigot. Which is hardly the case, of course. It isn't "bigotry" to call a psychopathology a mental illness since that is what it is, and I sure in hell am anything but uninformed. What I did learn during this time was how uninformed my sister is. She is familiar with almost none of the copious literature about the psychology of homosexuality, she has no knowledge of the inner workings of homosexual politics, and she sure in blazes is totally in the dark about any kind of history of homosexuality. To repeat the question about what you should do if a family member becomes homosexual? The best that can be done, do some research, is seldom even considered as an option. Which is understandable for some people, of course, basically those who have never been a college student. They simply don't have the necessary skills, But what about everyone else? What about the millions who have 2 or 3 years of college education or college degrees? Among Asian-Americans, this is to discuss approximately 1/2 of this entire population. Among whites the tally is about one-third. Among blacks it is roughly 20%. Hispanics are least likely to have a college education, mostly because of language difficulties, but even there we find a college education among about 10% of the population. All of these people are perfectly capable of doing some basic research. Yet, to judge from experiences and anecdotal evidence, the number who actually study the subject would seem to be no greater than 1%, if that. Which says that public opinion on homosexuality doesn't mean anything at all. It is worthless, it is based on hearsay, gossip, jokes, private stories, isolated snippets of information from newspapers, TV shows or movies, and that is about it. And according to a study I came across recently, among the least well informed are homosexuals themselves, as evidenced by poor market performance of books written by homosexuals, almost none of which sell any copies, maybe 5000 or 10,000 nationally for those that do the best, and usually far less than that. . And almost no homosexuals (a little above 0%) ever read critical studies about homosexuality. Why, then, should anyone who actually is informed pay any attention at all to public claims about homosexuality? You would be very close to the mark to say that all claims in support of homosexuals are bogus. The exceptions concern special circumstances, for example cases where a mother's pregnancy took place under conditions of trauma, since it is known that extreme stress (which is not related to genetics) can contribute to a homosexual disposition in a child. Regardless, to discuss far in excess of 90% of cases, homosexuals have no valid argument to make, and the actual number may be more like 98% or 99 %. About all of which there is much more to say, but this will need to be enough for now. The point is that the emotion of disgust, even if you are unaware of the science behind the psychology of disgust, is a far better guide to optimal attitudes toward homosexuals than anything short of dedicated research. -- -- 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.
