At what age is a person aware of their sexuality

[pheo3309]

Ok, so, we postulate that homosexuality isn't a mental disorder, so by extension, that would indicate that pedophilia, beastiality, etc, aren't mental disorders either. So, why should we not accept the latter, if we are supposed to accept the former? Because it isn't socially acceptable? As has been pointed out, homosexuality is only barely accepted now, if you could even call it that. One could argue that beastiality harms no one, (unless the dog bites you....) so, why should it not be 'accepted' as well? In some societies, pedophilia, by western definitions, isn't a crime, girls are married off at a very young age. And yes, this still happens today, in supposedly 'modern' countries. Of course, in some of those same countries, homosexuality is considered a crime, and is punishable by death.....

 

Well the thing with your other taboo topics is that they usually have some form of mental disorder before hand. For instance those who sexually abuse children, many of them either were abused themselves, grew up with someone that was and quite possibly even participated in the behavior as well. Same goes with zoophilia. While the DSM doesn't state zoopholia as a disorder persay, they both (pedophilia and zoophilia) are listed as other paraphilia disorders.

 

Also, pedophilia has been defined under the the DSM as pedophilic disorder, however it's different than child molesters due to the fact of the behavior actually causing harm on another individual; specifically children under 16 as based by the DSM due to prepubescence.That's a completely different paradigm in of itself. Now I don't find this to be excusing the people who are offenders, however there are root causes and loads of case studies in regards to this based on criminology reports that have been cited all around the world where it's been deemed illegal. So to correct you, it is a disorder, in specific, a psychiatric one. There are treatments for the disorder and generally those who don't abuse children, but find themselves attracted to them and are found (like I said, they won't know until family and friends intervene or the afflicted comes out to them for help as they see things different from how they were raised, a number of factors play in this as well), they generally have a good prognosis in terms of rehabilitation through behavioral therapy. I can respect those individuals more due to the fact they sought help when others didn't. This also suggests the level of the delusion itself. It happened to them or they witnessed it a lot, so it must be normal. So this is where the delusion is, but where does it start? Well, we don't know that either. But the causes are a good indication on how it started. Which child molesters, while they are considered pedophiles too, they are also distinguished separately in the psychiatric scheme. Pedophiles that haven't acted upon it, and child molesters that have acted upon it. All of this can be found in the DSM as well as many many cited sources as well as debate on how to distinguish an offender from someone who hasn't committed any acts themselves. I hope that answers and clarifies some things and by no means am I no expert. The DSM is just an interesting book all together.

 

The reason why homosexuality isn't listed as a disorder, but listed as a paraphilia, as is Heterophilia (heterosexuality) in the DSM. Some paraphilias are disorders, others aren't. It depends with each one, which you would have to refer to the DSM itself and talk to a professional who can ascertain answers for a few of your other questions as it's way too vast of subjects, and myself not being a professional I cannot ascertain the answers with 100% certainty. But the above is a more summarized description of the two according to the DSM. :smile:

 

But the main point to go back on topic is that, really... Kids are maturing much faster in some cases. Some as early as five have reported that they have attractions to either gender or none at all. Sometimes it sticks with them, other times it doesn't, but eventually... At some point and in most cases it becomes hardwired while other cases it's not. Sexuality is a hard thing scientifically to discern, but the APA back in the 70's did state that we did NOT choose our orientation regardless as it's not based on a choice. Rather there are a lot of factors that determine it, stages that the individual goes through. Some going through all stages, while others skip it. It's all due to the factors involved. You can find this in various sources that the APA made the statement to as well as many other psychiatric organizations that have made statements similar. And again, this is talking about homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality. Again, as for the other subjects, you'd have to refer to the DSM for a better summary if needed. :smile:

Edited October 14, 2013 by pheo3309

[MajKrAzAm]

 

The only reason why it was in the DSM at the time was due to the fact that the behavior differed from that of the sociological norm. Or at least what society dictated it to be. There are still many people that do still believe that it's a disorder, however there's proof that suggests otherwise.

The decision by the APA to remove homosexuality as a personality disorder was motivated by political factors. Medical research had no impact on it's decision. From our distance we know it was part of an ongoing pressure campaign and resistance eventually failed. You see this sort of change with generational turnover: people don't change their minds so much as they die and are replaced with people who do not share their views. It hit psychology fairly early, despite the abundance of evidence that most homosexuals have serious personality disorders.

 

Sexuality in any degree isn't a disorder. But then the same could be said about the other taboo subjects you had mentioned, however with the other taboo subjects, you have to remember that those cases are people who DO have some form of mental disorder already.

There are secondary pathologies that tend to accompany male homosexual behavior, including hedonism, narcissism, sociopathy, warped views of women, drug use, mental illness, carriers of venereal disease, and a subversive antipathy toward normally socialized people and institutions. Gay marriage, contrary to many claims, is more about prohibiting anti-homosexuality in the public sphere than it is about helping gays form stable families.

 

The question is; why should it matter that it's not a mental disorder?

They attach erotic feelings to the wrong sex.

 

It's an indication of seriously defective wiring, the same as with transsexuals, fetishists, or narcissists. It doesn't matter whether you think it impedes your quality of life (which seems to be meaningless in today's day). The reason mental illness is shamed despite our awareness of clinical approaches to it, is that deviant behavior--having erotic feelings for the same sex, wanting to chop your penis off, being self-obsessed--is recognized as symptomatic of more serious problems that get in the way of an orderly, stable society (we really don't know exactly what causes homosexuality, but we do know it correlates with other problems such as hedonism, self-absorption, compulsion toward deviant paraphilia, and so on). This is why it is important to research homosexuality and re-evaluate it as a disorder. (Note: I don't attach any stigma to mental disorders so I don't see homosexuality as necessarily bad in itself).

Edited October 15, 2013 by MajKrAzAm

[MajKrAzAm]

But back to topic: People like to put labels on things Pheo, at least in my experience. Homosexuality and Bisexuality are often called "unnatural". That's both true and false, true, because for obvious reasons, one can't reproduce directly. False, because it is natural in respect to what one can observe in nature. Homosexuality is widespread and accepted in other species. Therefore, some people argue that society is "animalistic" for this reason. Makes me laugh, because we are animals, no matter how sophisticated we pretend to be. People who are simply ignorant of society's diversity might argue the contrary. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, so why society complains about it, I will never understand.

Animal homosexuality is always a sign of something going wrong. It tends to be an expression of pathology or extreme environmental disruption.

 

Humans have evolved like most of the animal kingdom into two complementary sexes, and so have our emotional lives. That means that healthy romantic relationships depend on that complementary balance. Homophilia therefore proceeds from the starting point of ignorance of this basic fact of life, it fails to comprehend the significance of social norms and tradition that marginalize homosexuality to protect communal cohesion. Modern people fail to grasp the damage that one homosexual could inflict upon a tribe of hunter-gatherers.

 

Historically, the optimal strategy for humans has been to stigmatize abberant social behavior that works against community stability (gay men, in addition to having predatory sexual habits, are famously hedonistic, historic carriers of venereal disease. That is probably why homosexuals have been viewed with disgust for thousands of years, with the notable exception of civilizations approaching collapse.

Edited October 16, 2013 by MajKrAzAm

[pheo3309]

 

 

The only reason why it was in the DSM at the time was due to the fact that the behavior differed from that of the sociological norm. Or at least what society dictated it to be. There are still many people that do still believe that it's a disorder, however there's proof that suggests otherwise.

The decision by the APA to remove homosexuality as a personality disorder was motivated by political factors. Medical research had no impact on it's decision. From our distance we know it was part of an ongoing pressure campaign and resistance eventually failed. You see this sort of change with generational turnover: people don't change their minds so much as they die and are replaced with people who do not share their views. It hit psychology fairly early, despite the abundance of evidence that most homosexuals have serious personality disorders.

 

Sexuality in any degree isn't a disorder. But then the same could be said about the other taboo subjects you had mentioned, however with the other taboo subjects, you have to remember that those cases are people who DO have some form of mental disorder already.

There are secondary pathologies that tend to accompany male homosexual behavior, including hedonism, narcissism, sociopathy, warped views of women, drug use, mental illness, carriers of venereal disease, and a subversive antipathy toward normally socialized people and institutions. Gay marriage, contrary to many claims, is more about prohibiting anti-homosexuality in the public sphere than it is about helping gays form stable families.

 

The question is; why should it matter that it's not a mental disorder?

 

They attach erotic feelings to the wrong sex.

 

It's an indication of seriously defective wiring, the same as with transsexuals, fetishists, or narcissists. It doesn't matter whether you think it impedes your quality of life (which seems to be meaningless in today's day). The reason mental illness is shamed despite our awareness of clinical approaches to it, is that deviant behavior--having erotic feelings for the same sex, wanting to chop your penis off, being self-obsessed--is recognized as symptomatic of more serious problems that get in the way of an orderly, stable society (we really don't know exactly what causes homosexuality, but we do know it correlates with other problems such as hedonism, self-absorption, compulsion toward deviant paraphilia, and so on). This is why it is important to research homosexuality and re-evaluate it as a disorder. (Note: I don't attach any stigma to mental disorders so I don't see homosexuality as necessarily bad in itself).

 

No offense, but this seems to be a re-occurring argument of yours that I've seen in many posts, without scholarly sources. For instance mine were cited from, but not limited to the APA, DSM, various other psychological and psychiatric establishments in the US and ascertain everything stated above as it's summarized by them. While there is a political factor in it, it is your opinion that we are 'defective'. You're not the first individual I've said this to, and you certainly won't be the last, but until you find scholarly sources that have the backing of many psychiatric, psychological, and mental health establishments, I'm going to have to base this on just your own perspective. You are attaching stigmas (unintentional or not) by associating the fact that homosexuals are malfunctioned, when there's nothing of the sort to suggest other wise. We perform just the same as you do. We just have a different sexual preference than you do. To claim to ascertain much of what the APA, DSM, and other things state the equivocal opposite of what you're saying is to suggest that your claim is fact. No offense, I'll take my chances of seeing what the APA, DSM, and other organizations that have written scholarly sources as opposed to anything else. However you're entitled to your opinion. But I'm sorry to say, they have the backing to the point where it's more credible than yours.

 

Edit: Just to clarify where to find such scholarly sources; I suggest starting with scholarly sources that the APA has written before and after the 70's, showing what they seen in both sides before as it was called a disorder and after. You'll see that there was much more than just 'political hype' and 'sensitivity' behind it. I'm going to go on the assumption you've never been introduced into the mental health studies, so to help you out, I'd start there, as well as study the many versions of the DSM, and work your way up. There are also other anthropological resources that you can refer to as well. I'm sure colleges in your area will have a professor in psychiatry that could help you find such sources.

Edited October 15, 2013 by pheo3309

[MajKrAzAm]

 

Also, pedophilia has been defined under the the DSM as pedophilic disorder, however it's different than child molesters due to the fact of the behavior actually causing harm on another individual; specifically children under 16 as based by the DSM due to prepubescence.

 

 

The trouble with using harm as a basis for defining mental disorder is that it is symptom based and is not tied to any idea of normal development or function. Unlike physical deviance, such as albinism, mental deviance and its deleterious effects can be disguised. If you took the concept to its natural extension, sociopathy could not be defined as a mental disorder because the sociopath doesn't mind it and in most of his interactions there isn't obvious harm to others. You have the same problems with narcissism or sociopathy. Yet we know, despite the absence of outward harm, that these are mental illnesses, because we can observe the personality deficits, the retarded emotional life, etc.

 

Naturally you can argue that eventually these lead to harm, but then you have a problem with homosexuality, particularly in the context of mass urban society where homosexual male behavior is responsible for so much venereal disease spreading. Here we have a very clear case of harm exacerbated by sexual deviance, but I guess that's not good enough.

[pheo3309]

 

 

Also, pedophilia has been defined under the the DSM as pedophilic disorder, however it's different than child molesters due to the fact of the behavior actually causing harm on another individual; specifically children under 16 as based by the DSM due to prepubescence.

 

 

The trouble with using harm as a basis for defining mental disorder is that it is symptom based and is not tied to any idea of normal development or function. Unlike physical deviance, such as albinism, mental deviance and its deleterious effects can be disguised. If you took the concept to its natural extension, sociopathy could not be defined as a mental disorder because the sociopath doesn't mind it and in most of his interactions there isn't obvious harm to others. You have the same problems with narcissism or sociopathy. Yet we know, despite the absence of outward harm, that these are mental illnesses, because we can observe the personality deficits, the retarded emotional life, etc.

 

Naturally you can argue that eventually these lead to harm, but then you have a problem with homosexuality, particularly in the context of mass urban society where homosexual male behavior is responsible for so much venereal disease spreading. Here we have a very clear case of harm exacerbated by sexual deviance, but I guess that's not good enough.

 

 

 

There are many cases (which it outnumbers statistically of homosexual child sex offenders) of heterosexuals who are guilty of child molestation, which kind of make this point moot. I refer to my earlier post. If you have issue with those, you'll have to take that up with the APA, various other psychiatric and psychological organizations and establishments that contributed to the DSM. There's no scholarly sources based on your assertions, which if you wish to continue this, I'd rather feel more comfortable in a thread dedicated to the discussion rather than this one. I hope you understand this as it's highly inappropriate to generalize all homosexuals being involved with child molestation. I get your opinion, but there's nothing scholarly backing your opinion, nor do I agree with it as well as many others wouldn't as well.

 

Edit: And not all homosexuals carry narcissism or sociopathic behavior as they can also be contributed to heterosexuals as well. This again is further stigmatizing and generalizing without looking at other cases. This is a very common mind projection fallacy and no offense, one that I won't entertain.

Edited October 15, 2013 by pheo3309

[Hardwaremaster]

Well the thing with your other taboo topics is that they usually have some form of mental disorder before hand. For instance those who sexually abuse children, many of them either were abused themselves, grew up with someone that was and quite possibly even participated in the behavior as well.

 

Well, people could also say this is how Homosexual Behavior actually works as well, children experience something then try to do the exact same thing. However here is the technicality, what is acceptable and what is not is based on predilection, meaning you will not to convince someone differently when they have already settled on the response.

 

I suppose this is why it has always been a debate, and probably will be, until science can accurately state what is the real cause. Which has been in dispute for hundreds, if not thousands of years, so for now any excuse will work. :wink:

Edited October 15, 2013 by Hardwaremaster

[pheo3309]

 

Well the thing with your other taboo topics is that they usually have some form of mental disorder before hand. For instance those who sexually abuse children, many of them either were abused themselves, grew up with someone that was and quite possibly even participated in the behavior as well.

 

Well, people could also say this is how Homosexual Behavior actually works as well, children experience something then try to do the exact same thing. However here is the technicality, what is acceptable and what is not is based on predilection, meaning you will not to convince someone differently when they have already settled on the response.

 

I suppose this is why it has always been a debate, and probably will be, until science can accurately state what is the cause. Which has been in dispute for hundreds, if not thousands of years, so for now any excuse will work. :wink:

 

 

However you have to also remember that there isn't any clinical scholarly research that suggests that they had a mental disorder to begin with. If there are people claiming that there is, I'd personally like to see it as this wasn't in any psychology class I took (and there was a LOT of talk and research about sexuality in my class). This is widely reported by the APA. If they have a mental disorder, it doesn't trigger them to be 'gay'. For instance my case. As I've stated, I've a clean bill of mental health. Nothing found in my childhood, nothing found when I came out, and nothing now. Not to mention if that was part of the requirements to deem it a 'disorder', then the same has to apply to heterosexuality. Not to mention if there is a mental illness DUE from cause of sexual abuse, while trauma does factor in, generally speaking, homosexuality isn't a mental illness. There are many steps involving sexuality and the coming to terms of. Just because one person could have been sexually abused as a child doesn't mean that all gays were. To think such is to generalize all gays as sexual abuse victims. Am I? No. What does that generalization do? Cast unneeded, unfounded, and unjustified blame. Just pointing out the logic behind this argument you used.

 

And it's not an 'excuse'. I'm going to have to point this out as I don't have to excuse my orientation because there's nothing wrong with me or anyone else who's LGBT. None of the aforementioned by people who have a negative standpoint on the issue don't have the scholarly source or clinical scholarly research to say it's wrong. The only reason they can say it's wrong is because of how they 'feel' about the sexuality in question. Nothing based by or from the APA and the other vast amount of resources that have credible information. Which is exactly where I'm coming from.

[Hardwaremaster]

However you have to also remember that there isn't any clinical scholarly research that suggests that they had a mental disorder to begin with. If there are people claiming that there is, I'd personally like to see it as this wasn't in any psychology class I took (and there was a LOT of talk and research about sexuality in my class). This is widely reported by the APA. If they have a mental disorder, it doesn't trigger them to be 'gay'. For instance my case. As I've stated, I've a clean bill of mental health. Nothing found in my childhood, nothing found when I came out, and nothing now. Not to mention if that was part of the requirements to deem it a 'disorder', then the same has to apply to heterosexuality. Not to mention if there is a mental illness DUE from cause of sexual abuse, while trauma does factor in, generally speaking, homosexuality isn't a mental illness. There are many steps involving sexuality and the coming to terms of. Just because one person could have been sexually abused as a child doesn't mean that all gays were. To think such is to generalize all gays as sexual abuse victims. Am I? No. What does that generalization do? Cast unneeded, unfounded, and unjustified blame. Just pointing out the logic behind this argument you used.

 

And it's not an 'excuse'. I'm going to have to point this out as I don't have to excuse my orientation because there's nothing wrong with me or anyone else who's LGBT. None of the aforementioned by people who have a negative standpoint on the issue don't have the scholarly source or clinical scholarly research to say it's wrong. The only reason they can say it's wrong is because of how they 'feel' about the sexuality in question. Nothing based by or from the APA and the other vast amount of resources that have credible information. Which is exactly where I'm coming from.

 

I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm merely trying to point out that all arguments in this thread, are basically: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Which would have been acceptable, had there not been confusion about the topic in question, which has been going on for a long time. Therefore your post, in a manner expounded on my original point back a few pages, that it only really matters how people feel about it; not how much scientific information there is, which many people either don't know about or refuse to read, because of their personal opinions or feelings on the matter.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Hardwaremaster

[Keanumoreira]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. "Homosexuality is a form of deficiency." I've heard this so many times in my life, but the response is always the same: how is it a deficiency, and what makes it so? Because a heterosexual deems it to be true? The spreading of syphilis, HIV, AIDS, all blamed on homosexuals, which is ironic, because they aren't the only ones who spread it. Those people aren't called "homosexuals"; they're called "irresponsible", and it includes all the people who fall under that category, regardless of sexual preference. It's also a stereotype, and like so many stereotypes, it simply isn't accurate. Also, the difference between a sociopath and a homosexual should be pretty straightforward (no pun intended.) I don't think that a normal homosexual would act in such a way. It saddens me that people believe that we and homosexuals are so different, when we really aren't. I know some homosexuals, including one fine man who has presented himself honorably within this debate (and you know who you are), that have proven themselves to be the opposite of "deficient." What is deficient is putting that label on a man, woman, or child, simply because they aren't straight. That's called prejudice, and I'm sorry to say it, but there's nothing factual about anything that falls under that category, except for the fact that its subjective.

 

 

Edit: Hardwire, this isn't directed at you.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Keanumoreira