← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · kminta
Thread ID: 4752 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2003-02-02
2003-02-02 20:56 | User Profile
The Erosion Of Heterosexuality
Psychiatry falters, America sleeps
By Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
Homosexuality cannot create a society or keep one going for very long. It operates against the cohesive elements of society. The sexes are driven in opposite directions, and no society can long endure when either the child is neglected or the sexes war with each other. Those who reinforce the disintegrating elements in our society will get no thanks from future generations.
A significant portion of society today holds the belief that homosexuality is a normal form of sexual behavior different from, but equal to, that of heterosexuality. Many religious leaders, public officials, educators, social and mental health agencies--including those at the highest level of government, departments of psychiatry and psychology, and mental health clinics--have been taken in by a wide spread sexual egalitarianism and by accusations of being undemocratic or prejudiced if they do not accept certain assertions that are thrust upon them, as if they were deprived of all intellectual capacity to judge and reason.
This revolutionary change in our sexual mores and customs has been ushered in by a single act of considerable consequence: The removal of homosexuality from the category of aberrancy by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973. It is, furthermore, a fateful consequence of our disregard for established psychoanalytic knowledge of human sexual behavior.
This act was naively perceived by many psychiatrists as the "simple" elimination of a scientific diagnosis in order to correct injustices. In reality, it created injustices for the homosexual and his family, as it belied the truth and prevented the homosexual from seeking and receiving help. At the social, group, and community level, it proved to be the opening phase of a two-phase sexual radicalization; the second phase being the raising of homosexuality to the level of an alternative lifestyle--an acceptable psychosexual institution--alongside heterosexuality as a prevailing norm of behavior.
The motivating force behind this movement was the wish to protect the homosexual against injustices and persecution. This could have been legitimately effected by the demand for equal rights for the homosexual, a demand arising from the humanitarian philosophy so deeply embedded in our humanistic science. Instead, the false step of removing homosexuality from our manual was substituted. This amounted to a full approval of homosexuality and an encouragement to aberrancy by those who should have known better, both in the scientific sense and in the sense of the social consequences of such removal.
To many American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for they can be lost--a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and to the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences.
The devastating clinical fallout from this decision was yet to follow. Those who would prefer to retain homosexuality as a valid diagnosis have been essentially silenced in lectures, meetings, and publications; a silencing that originates both within our association and from other sources as well. Political parties and religious leaders have been utilized to reinforce this silence. The press has been influenced in addition to the electronic media. Television and movies promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and censor movies that might show homosexuality as a disorder. Homosexual sex education has entered our schools and colleges; pro-gay activists--homosexual or otherwise--portray their way of life as normal and as "American as apple pie," while intimidating those with different views.
In essence, this movement has accomplished what every other society, with rare exceptions, would have trembled to tamper with: a revision of the basic code and concept of life and biology, that men and women normally mate with those of the opposite sex and not with each other. This psychiatric nonsense and social recklessness bring with it many individual tragedies, as men and women who no longer appreciate their own appropriate sexual roles create confusion in the very young for generations to come. Gender identity disturbance is bound to increase, and more true homosexual deviations result as parents distort the maleness or femaleness of their infants and children.
Young men and women with relatively minor sexual fears are led with equanimity by some psychiatrists and non-medical counselors into a self despising pattern and lifestyle. Adolescents, nearly all of whom experience some degree of uncertainty as to sexual identity, are discouraged from assuming that one form of gender identity is preferable to another. Those persons who already have a homosexual problem are discouraged from finding their way out of self destructive fantasy, discouraged from learning to accept themselves as male or female.
The forces allied against heterosexuality are formidable and unrelenting. Charges of being "undemocratic," "cruel and inhuman," or "irresponsible, homophobic, and prejudiced," are leveled at those who would question the normality of homosexuality. These accusations are then reinforced by the media and motion pictures, and render the ordinary citizen who disapproves of such practices (as well as faint-hearted members of the psychiatric and psychological professions) mute before their onslaught.
The counteraction for such forces is the knowledge that heterosexuality has self-evident, adaptive value. Man is not only a sexual animal, but a care-bonding, group-bonding, and child-rearing animal. The male-female design is taught to the child from birth and culturally ingrained through the marital order. The male-female design is thus perpetually maintained and it is only overwhelming fear or man's false pride and misdirected individual enterprise that can disturb or divert it.
-- Dr. Charles W. Socarides is a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. He is president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). For more information. see: [url=http://www.narth.com]http://www.narth.com[/url]
2003-02-02 21:06 | User Profile
This is only an observation, but I think the open queers have made the "homosexual lifestyle" lots more unattractive than it was when it was a big dark secret.
The stupid "gay pride" marches in San Francisco are sure to make someone leaning toward homosexuality say "no way" and go find a girlfriend.
My hunch is based in part on the fact that there have been no solid statistics in recent years, which tells me the liberationists have something to hide. In the 60s, when there was no movement, shrinks confidently said the number of male queers was "one in ten" or even "one in six".
Now that it's legal, everyone knows the number is far smaller. One in a thousand? Gay is garbage and the "lifestyle" attracts nobody.
2003-02-02 21:42 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@Feb 2 2003, 21:06 ** This is only an observation, but I think the open queers have made the "homosexual lifestyle" lots more unattractive than it was when it was a big dark secret.
**
I believe in that same observation. What is also important is that the homosexual "leaders" always say they are no different than your neighbor next door. If that is the case, then how come what we see all around us with regards to homosexuality is glorification of the stereotypes they tell us underestimate them ("Queer As Folk", "flamer" types, rainbow flags, leathermen, etc.)??
2003-02-03 00:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@Feb 2 2003, 15:06 ** My hunch is based in part on the fact that there have been no solid statistics in recent years, which tells me the liberationists have something to hide. In the 60s, when there was no movement, shrinks confidently said the number of male queers was "one in ten" or even "one in six".
Now that it's legal, everyone knows the number is far smaller. One in a thousand? Gay is garbage and the "lifestyle" attracts nobody. **
Man, I couldn't disagree more. 16% of men were secretly gay in the 1960s? No freaking way. I don't buy that any more than 3-5% of the male population was ever gay - overtly or not.
I would argue that the more mainstream it becomes, the more prevalent it becomes. The fruit who was leaning in 1960 crosses the border in 2000. After all, Will & Grace are just so funny, cute and cuddly that homosexuality must be harmless, huh?
Of course, the movie "Philadelphia" should serve as the appopriate example. Tom Hank's lesions, fevers and a nose about to fall off are accuracies that gays need to think about.
-Jay
2003-02-03 02:04 | User Profile
Hey, you got something against faggot fudgepacking? Huh? That sounds like hate to me.
Moderator -- when ya gonna stop the hate on this BB? Boy, OD is sure gettin' full o' intolerance....guess I'm gonna hafta go over to Stormfront, where they respect the noble butt-pirates...
2003-02-03 03:10 | User Profile
Sadly, this guy (Charles W. Socarides, M.D.) is masquerading as a psychiatrist, while speaking from his religious beliefs....
**Those who would prefer to retain homosexuality as a valid diagnosis have been essentially silenced in lectures, meetings, and publications; a silencing that originates both within our association and from other sources as well. ** A "valid diagnosis" means it's an illness. If it WERE an illness, would it have survived throughout humanity from the birth of humanity? If it is NOT an illness, but merely a genetic trick, (and is there not some science lending some weight to that theory too?), then keeping it as a "diagnosis" is on the basis of something OTHER than science! There may be a "Constitution-attachment disorder" added to the APA manual soon too... (And THAT you do choose! :lol: ) After all, THAT "abberancy" being silenced by "association and other sources" too!
**a revision of the basic code and concept of life and biology, that men and women normally mate with those of the opposite sex and not with each other. This psychiatric nonsense and social recklessness bring with it many individual tragedies, as men and women who no longer appreciate their own appropriate sexual roles create confusion in the very young for generations to come. Gender identity disturbance is bound to increase, and more true homosexual deviations result as parents distort the maleness or femaleness of their infants and children. ** But hasn't science shown that homosexual parents DON'T create more homosexual kids than hetero parents? They create more tolerant kids, but their kids' "choice" of sexual attractants isn't 'set' by what their parents like!
Adolescents, nearly all of whom experience some degree of uncertainty as to sexual identity, are discouraged from assuming that one form of gender identity is preferable to another. Those persons who already have a homosexual problem are discouraged from finding their way out of self destructive fantasy, discouraged from learning to accept themselves as male or female. This certainly doesn't seem to be the case in schools -- where calling a kid a "homo" is still a very useful insult. They KNOW it's a bad "form of gender identity" to "choose." Nor the military, where calling a soldier a homo is a very useful insult. I would like to see some studies on whether "nearly all" adolescents have uncertainty as to sexual identity -- how many of you-all were uncertain as a teen whether you were gay or straight?! I sure never had questions, nor did my sisters, nor my friends, nor, pretty much, anyone I have known. Accepting homosexuals, and even strongly supporting 'civil rights' for them, is a matter of tolerance, not a desire to BE one!! (I think it's.. icky... but I don't MIND that folks are gay. And I don't think it's right that they can lose clearances or housing or jobs...)
Oh, and I don't know any homosexuals who don't "accept" themselves as male or female... People who don't accept themselves as the sex they are are called transsexuals, and it takes surgery to fix them...
**The counteraction for such forces is the knowledge that heterosexuality has self-evident, adaptive value. Man is not only a sexual animal, but a care-bonding, group-bonding, and child-rearing animal. The male-female design is taught to the child from birth and culturally ingrained through the marital order. The male-female design is thus perpetually maintained and it is only overwhelming fear or man's false pride and misdirected individual enterprise that can disturb or divert it. ** SOME men are "care-bonding, group-bonding, and child-rearing animals," some aren't! Does he really think that ONLY married couples raise straight kids?! "...taught to the child from birth and culturally ingrained through the marital order." He thinks kids are gay if they're NOT raised by a married couple? Bad news for divorced parents -- all those kids gonna turn gay?!
2003-02-03 04:11 | User Profile
Of course, the movie "Philadelphia" should serve as the appopriate example. Tom Hank's lesions, fevers and a nose about to fall off are accuracies that gays need to think about.
Is that what happened to Michael Jackson? :D
Avalanche, pedophilia has also been silently removed from the APA's list of mental illnesses as of late. Apparently, if you have a lot of energy, don't pay attention in school, and argue a lot, you have a disorder and need to be medicated. But if your sex drive is so warped that you sexually desire children and members of your own sex, you're AOK and just exercising some personality. Perhaps you can explain this to me.
Masters and Johnson (famed 60s sexologists) determined that homosexuality was caused almost entirely by environment, with a small genetic component that could best be described as susceptibility. There's been very little credible research before or since saying that homosexuality is not something you choose, either. Thus the large percentage of homos with sexual abuse in their backgrounds, and the large number of people suddenly "discovering" their homosexuality since the mid-60s.
2003-02-03 04:32 | User Profile
Homosexuality and the white birth rate:
While a certain amount of homosexuality is perhaps biologically determined and inevitable, it is clear that the media and anti-Christian groups have been attempting to glamorize the homosexual lifestyle. Just as Rome fell, so too will the white race, seems to be the idea.
While there are respectable homosexuals out there, there are also many who seek to expand their numbers and to claim ever larger swaths of Western culture as gay territory. A big problem lies in our lack of understand of congenetical influences: we assume that if homosexuality has a congenetical component, this must work like an on-off switch--so no homosexuals are responsible for their choices. This is pure hogwash. Some may not be able to have healthy hetereosexual relations, but there is little doubt that right now there a plenty of cute white boys getting sodomized who could have had meaningful, child-full relations with women if they had not entered the homosexual lifestyle. And of course it is white who are particular targeted by promoters of homosexuality, because white are invariably the majority in nations that such individuals blanket with their gay ideologies.
2003-02-03 04:36 | User Profile
Originally posted by jay@Feb 3 2003, 00:25 ** 16% of men were secretly gay in the 1960s? No freaking way. I don't buy that any more than 3-5% of the male population was ever gay - overtly or not.
**
Enough people believed the numbers in the 60s to change the laws!
Here's where they came from --
Kinsey made the famous 10% guess right after WW II.
Around 1966 a popular writer named Jess Stern wrote an "investigative" book about queers called Every Sixth Man which booted the figure from 1 in 10 to one in 6. Nobody has a clue where Jess got his numbers from, but his book was a huge seller and you can still find copies at yard sales now and then.
This is where the fiction arose that "millions" of people were being repressed because of the sex laws.
For my money, it was probably the most successful example of propaganda/mass brainwashing in history.
2003-02-03 04:49 | User Profile
Stern? Oh, red flag, red flag!! I might have known...
2003-02-03 05:11 | User Profile
Sadly, this guy (Charles W. Socarides, M.D.) is masquerading as a psychiatrist, while speaking from his religious beliefs....
How the heck do you know what his religious beliefs are? This reminds me of the rote ritual condemnation by the professional pseudoscientific thought police of all those SCIENTISTS brazen enough to point out the logical inconsistencies and unsubstantiated assumptions that buttress the official neo-Darwinian dogma. These hapless fellows are invariably maligned as being wild eyed Christian fundamentalists. I've read more than a few of the works of these iconoclasts and upon perusing their published biographies found that in every case, far from being Christians, fundamentalist or otherwise, they were in every case either agnostics or atheists.
They create more tolerant kids...
Tolerant of what? Having someone ram a frisky gerbil or a ponderous fist up their sphincters?
And I don't think it's right that they can lose clearances or housing or jobs...)
Why not? The jobs they lose tend not to be those of the bon vivant proprietor of an ultrachic antique store variety. The jobs they lose DO tend to cluster under the category of dictator over a captive audience of defenseless impressionable under aged children. Couple this with the documented double digit ratio of the per capita faggot pedophile rate vs. that of their non-sausage smoking counterparts and the judiciousness of not allowing the perverts unfettered access to our ruddy faced cherubim becomes apparent. I'm willing to go out on a limb here and hazard a guess that you don't have any children, never intended to have any children, but feel perfectly justified dictating to other people how they ought to raise THEIR children.
PS When was the last time you heard about some Roman Catholic priest molesting a young GIRL? The Church of Rome's 'pedophile' problem is really a TOLERATION of faggots problem. If I were the Popemeister, I'd keep an eye on those muffbanditresses in the nunneries. I certainly wouldn't want YOUNG catholic girls to achieve a dubious parity with the 'tolerant' but hemorrhoid prone alter boys.