At what age is a person aware of their sexuality

[pheo3309]

 

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.

 

 

This I can agree with due to the response I gave (as I couldn't gather that you were comparing it to the fallacy itself). However, one thing to add;

 

With false cause fallacies, there's probability for SOME of them to be somewhat true. I wouldn't say all of them are committing the fallacy (as for instance I stated 'may' in my initial post from citing the DSM, APA, etc). I won't deny the possibilities, however in my research based in the fieldwork, mine isn't based on conspiracy theories rather the research that has been done before I even started. I was going to school for a variety of different subjects including psychology, different subjects of anthropology ranging from culture, religion, to even a small course to start up the credits for Forensic Anthropology. Many of these courses dealt with human sociology, psychology, and certain physiological and psychological changes they might undergo through a certain basic human experience. The point of bringing that up, is that I won't deny the possibilities that there are cases, but there just isn't any way to ascertain a full 100% scientifically verified fact on what makes up human sexuality. Not at this point in time. Possible later in the future, but we still haven't figured out basic human experiences that keep happening. Until we understand those, we'll never understand the complexity of human sexuality and it's psychological perspective if it's the case (as there's way too many theories for causes to count). We shouldn't be finding the cause. Rather instead, helping people come to terms with the psychological adjustment of something they didn't very well didn't choose; which is again cited from many psychiatric and psychological establishments and organizations since the mid-late 70's. So either way, even the people who have a negative outlook on it have a point, but a largely mischaracterized, generalized one. Which some have quite the laundry list for disdain.

 

I also didn't mean to sound like I was snapping either, nor was I thinking that you were accusing myself, rather that the term is used far too often for something that doesn't need one. Now a reason, while I find figuring out the reason why someone is the way they are, it's a trivial thing. Which is why I don't understand why we need to figure out the reason. It's almost as bad as finding motive when there very well may be little to no motive at all.

 

 

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.

 

I whole-heartedly agree with this as well. It's why comparison of mental illness with sexuality really isn't an answer for the original topic. What IS however is the psychological changes we adhere to later in life. Some people remain the same sexuality. Others change their preferences due to experiences based on psychological changes they see in their lifetime. The one thing that is for sure is that heterophilia, homophilia, and bisexuality are three very diverse sexualities. They're typical (but not basic) experiences that are culturally and scientifically verified universal ones depending on what sociological views that are around them. Which a lot of prejudice stems from the societies that lie within various cultures, which I do agree. Those views are subjective, non-cited, and generally biased for reasons unknown.

 

But to the original topic, or at least an attempt to...

 

You mention sexual activity. This is a great example of what I was talking about earlier with maturity. For instance I'm more enticed by a library book than sexual activity in general. When others in my middle and high school were dating and sexually experimenting, I was reading books like "The Separate Reality" by Carlos Castaneda. There would be times when I didn't leave the library well until it was almost 9:30 pm (and they closed at 7:30 pm). They trusted me that much. Plus, I was the only one that put books back where they should have been. I can count on one hand how many 'boyfriends' I've dated. None of which understood my insatiable hunger for knowledge in regards to Anthropology and psychology. In fact, many times that's what ended it. I wasn't sexually active to their standards. Now I did care about them. I didn't forget them or put them off. Rather I just didn't have sexual urges like other people do.

 

Then you have people who are even older than someone else and they irresponsibly appease their sexual urges without any thought to consequence. A lot of cases even practice unsafely. This goes for heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality as well as a few others. So the question is tricky for me due to the fact as I just see age as a number. Life doesn't give you wisdom innately through how many years you've lived. Rather it's how much you've learned from your experiences that defines maturity and therefore can be aware of things well before others who may not be aware of such things until later on down the road.

Edited October 15, 2013 by pheo3309

[Hardwaremaster]

I also didn't mean to sound like I was snapping either, nor was I thinking that you were accusing myself, rather that the term is used far too often for something that doesn't need one. Now a reason, while I find figuring out the reason why someone is the way they are, it's a trivial thing. Which is why I don't understand why we need to figure out the reason. It's almost as bad as finding motive when there very well may be little to no motive at all.

 

Hmmmm. To be honest this isn't something I have actually given much thought to, but now that you happened to mention it, I suppose its because people want to know strictly from a scientific perspective, sex without reproduction doesn't have much of a point. So I guess they want to know why Homosexuals in general are attracted to the same gender in regards to evolution. However now that I come to think of it you have a point, I find myself wondering why people care about this anyway, especially if its none of their personal business and doesn't effect them in anyway.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Hardwaremaster

[pheo3309]

 

I also didn't mean to sound like I was snapping either, nor was I thinking that you were accusing myself, rather that the term is used far too often for something that doesn't need one. Now a reason, while I find figuring out the reason why someone is the way they are, it's a trivial thing. Which is why I don't understand why we need to figure out the reason. It's almost as bad as finding motive when there very well may be little to no motive at all.

 

Hmmmm. To be honest this isn't something I have actually given much thought to, but now that you happened to mention it, I suppose its because people want to know strictly from a scientific perspective, sex without reproduction doesn't have much of a point. So I guess they want to know why Homosexuals in general are attracted to the same gender in regards to evolution. However now that I come to think of it you have a point, I find myself wondering why people care about this anyway, especially if its none of their personal business and doesn't effect them in anyway.

 

 

 

Indeed. Mostly I think it's to get rid of the stigmas that are being placed on homosexuality in hopes that it would be easier to talk to kids who are struggling with it, but that's one of the only reasons I've really thought about. One thing is for certain, it's draining when people look down on people for being gay. It's also equally as draining when gay people look down on other gay people for their interests being over their sexual activities. However to me it's not as bothersome as it was to some of my colleagues when I was taking the courses. Only reason why I'm not in them now is the economic crisis along with I'm confused on where I would be advancing as other things now has been taking my interest.

[HeyYou]

 

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.

 

~snip~

Not completely true. have a look at child marriage in a host of middle eastern countries. Are you going to try and convince me that they were all mentally unstable before they decided to marry a child?

[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.

 

~snip~

Not completely true. have a look at child marriage in a host of middle eastern countries. Are you going to try and convince me that they were all mentally unstable before they decided to marry a child?

 

 

As I said, it's a very taboo subject, you also have to remember that pedophilia isn't culturally universal. However these people also are not preying on the child, usually the child is sold into marriage. There's a different paradigm that happens. While I find it equally repugnant, that is the sociological standard norm. In India, more than one third of marriages are child arranged marriages. These arranged marriages all around these countries can be forced for a many of reasons. However, it's hard to determine either way as no case studies have been performed on their mental health. I can't say they are, you cannot say they aren't. The only thing we can both say, is that their cultural standards are much different than ours. Homosexuality is even a crime in most Middle Eastern, third world countries. People who have a different cultural belief are sometimes even breaking the law in some cases. Comparing their cultural norm to ours is rather complicated because of the separate paradigms that follow each culture.

 

As I said, I find it equally repugnant, however the child is usually forced by the parent, rather than the person who does the marrying.

 

Edit: Grammatical errors. I need more coffee after my naps.

Edited October 15, 2013 by pheo3309

[MajKrAzAm]

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.

There is plenty to suggest so. You are being dishonest if you claim that homosexuals are just the same as heterosexuals. It is well established that homosexuality brings with it undeniable secondary comorbidities ranging from schizophrenia, depression and anxiety disorders, narcissism and personality disorders, low impulse control, substance abuse etc.

 

That homosexuality tends to be attached to other pathologies makes me suspect that it acts as a kind of "marker" disorder, the surface sign of deeper problems, like a neurotic tic or severe phobia. Further as I said above, when we look at homosexuality in animals we see that it also tends to be an expression of pathology or extreme environmental turmoil.

 

I think you can point to additional factors that indict homosexuality as abnormal on the level of sociopathy or pedophilia. Physical development--gay face, finger length, brain morphology--is just clearly abnormal. For strictly eugenic reasons it is appropriate to study it as an abnormality and come up with forms of treatment, or if need be to change the environment that is producing it.

 

I am content calling homosexuality a mental disorder in the general sense--human beings like most animals are designed for heterosexuality, mentally and physically, so homosexuality is not just abnormal (it affects a very small subset of people) but it pushes homosexuals away from the fulfilment of functions normal to both individuals and society as a whole.

[pheo3309]

 

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.

There is plenty to suggest so. You are being dishonest if you claim that homosexuals are just the same as heterosexuals. It is well established that homosexuality brings with it undeniable secondary comorbidities ranging from schizophrenia, depression and anxiety disorders, narcissism and personality disorders, low impulse control, substance abuse etc.

 

That homosexuality tends to be attached to other pathologies makes me suspect that it acts as a kind of "marker" disorder, the surface sign of deeper problems, like a neurotic tic or severe phobia. Further as I said above, when we look at homosexuality in animals we see that it also tends to be an expression of pathology or extreme environmental turmoil.

 

I think you can point to additional factors that indict homosexuality as abnormal on the level of sociopathy or pedophilia. Physical development--gay face, finger length, brain morphology--is just clearly abnormal. For strictly eugenic reasons it is appropriate to study it as an abnormality and come up with forms of treatment, or if need be to change the environment that is producing it.

 

I am content calling homosexuality a mental disorder in the general sense--human beings like most animals are designed for heterosexuality, mentally and physically, so homosexuality is not just abnormal (it affects a very small subset of people) but it pushes homosexuals away from the fulfilment of functions normal to both individuals and society as a whole.

 

 

So you admit here that you have no scholarly sources.

 

1) You've contradicted yourself in several posts in this thread. This leads me to believe that you're not on the same page with yourself.

2) You're asserting another fallacy in which is a mind projection fallacy.

3) You've no backing on your claim, yet continue to assert such.

 

All of the things you've claimed are seen in heterosexuality as well, to assert that only one sexuality has those things is not only, again, a laundry list of disdain, but unfounded. There's not any scholarly sources from your end to back it up, so why continue to argue when you know it's not the truth and a mischaracterization of such? That you should answer to yourself. Because I'm simply not going to entertain you in such banter. Back it up please. If not, then I cannot and will not take you seriously any longer.

[kvnchrist]

I think hate and the conscious effort to legitimize it is a mental disorder far worse than any form of sexual satisfaction. It has lead to more violence than any other emotion that man kind has ever witnessed. Sorry that I don't have any scientific studies to verify that but sense some of us seem to be speaking only from opinions, I thought I might add mine to the discussion.

[pheo3309]

I think hate and the conscious effort to legitimize it is a mental disorder far worse than any form of sexual satisfaction. It has lead to more violence than any other emotion that man kind has ever witnessed. Sorry that I don't have any scientific studies to verify that but sense some of us seem to be speaking only from opinions, I thought I might add mine to the discussion.

 

Especially from a cultural aspect. Not to mention that many who try to legitimize it has a problem with getting a proper backing by many mental health organizations and establishments that don't have a biased view and are considered scholarly facilities. This is why the other person's argument is failing to even stand up in the regard of the DSM; he refuses to see the similarities of various paraphilias. Rather he is fixated on one for some negative reason or another and focuses his time solely on that because it's something that he simply cannot bring himself to terms with; that we are all alike. The sad part is, I accept that him and I are alike, despite his repugnant views. However unlike him, I'm also very tolerant of differences. However applying similar perspectives in society, you can't reason with some of them. It's why I cannot take people who give this argument (which has been used over and over and over again) seriously.

[MajKrAzAm]

So you admit here that you have no scholarly sources.

 

1) You've contradicted yourself in several posts in this thread. This leads me to believe that you're not on the same page with yourself.

2) You're asserting another fallacy in which is a mind projection fallacy.

3) You've no backing on your claim, yet continue to assert such.

 

All of the things you've claimed are seen in heterosexuality as well, to assert that only one sexuality has those things is not only, again, a laundry list of disdain, but unfounded. There's not any scholarly sources from your end to back it up, so why continue to argue when you know it's not the truth and a mischaracterization of such? That you should answer to yourself. Because I'm simply not going to entertain you in such banter. Back it up please. If not, then I cannot and will not take you seriously any longer.

 

 

Whereabouts are you on the autism spectrum? This is a forum dedicated to Morrowind mods and you expect me to cite scholarly articles, when you have not done so yourself.

 

You have not engaged any of my arguments (you attempted one but you so misconstrued my argument that I had no choice but to politely ignore it).

 

In 3 separate posts you’ve whined at length about citing sources. I ignored this hoping that you would realise how unreasonable you sound. You have not supported any of your arguments except for some vague reference to a community college class.

 

Your point has pretty much been: it's not in the DSM ergo so it's not a mental illness! You are unaware that the whole concept of deviant behaviour was defined out of existence by activists. Scientific research played no role. There was never a eureka moment where medical research firmly established homosexuality as a normal human behaviour. This has led to the situation that we are in today, where the remarkable growth of an identify group as a political force stopped any serious research into homosexuality. The activists aren't interested in gathering additional knowledge, theirs is a purely ideological quest to purge discussions and make themselves feel good. It's totally anti-intellectual, anti-science.

 

@kvnchrist: Hate plays no role in my argument . I have no hate for homosexuals. It is the dishonest anti-scientific taxanomic re-branding of homosexuality as a behavior that is within the normal human spectrum, when it so clearly is not, (it's plainly a dysfunctional transference of erotic interest to the wrong sex, among other things) which is what I disagree with.

Edited October 16, 2013 by MajKrAzAm