At what age is a person aware of their sexuality

[pheo3309]

 

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.

 

 

I've cited many sources, you've just been ignoring them. Re-read my posts and you'll clearly see them. The reason why I ask is because they don't match what thousands of medical professionals all around the world have ascertained; none of which match the views you've been posting. This leads me to believe that you've not once sifted through the credibility of the 'source material' you've been getting these conclusions from. Hence they are unfounded and they're not widely used.

 

And autism spectrum? This is a forum that has a debate sub-forum. It should be common knowledge when you claim something, you have something to back up the fact. If I were to say that the human social structure are based on frogs, I'd have to have proof. If I claimed that there was a cure for cancer, I'd have to have proof. If you can't back up your claims, it's not my fault. The burden of proof fallacy is on you; and I'm still waiting. However I have the feeling that you won't comply due to the nature that there's no scholarly clinical research to back your claims up.

 

And my argument isn't just about the DSM, it's also from vast amounts of organizations and establishments, again re-read my posts. This proves to me that you're not reading the posts in their entirety. Nor are you referencing the DSM, any medical organization that holds any merit in the scientific aspect. There's also no source for your claim that there wasn't any scientific research. There was. If you had in fact researched this, you'd find it plain as day. Burden of proof is again on you. Not me. You've dodged it. If this is your opinion, then it's your opinion. However you're asserting that it's fact when there's no evidence to support such. You'll have to forgive me, but when I call shenanigans, I call them out. It's up to you to take it or leave it, because as of now, I've already left my dialogue with you. Not only is it uncomfortable, but it's highly inappropriate, especially with trying to get me to react to an ad-hom. It's not going to work.

 

So all in all, you've effectively proven nothing still as well as causing more of the thread to go off topic, and have effectively tuned off any sense of further dialogue. Thank you for understanding.

 

Edit: Also, misconstrue? No where was your words twisted. In fact you did so to me in another post and I had to correct you on it. This is further evidence as of why I feel uncomfortable in any further dialogue with you, no offense, but we're not getting anywhere. So I'm being the better party and ending it. Thank you again for understanding.

Edited October 16, 2013 by pheo3309

[Keanumoreira]

Majk: Sir, I'm sorry, but much of what you have said contradicts itself on so many levels. To justify your lack of cited sources because of the contents of this website is the saddest excuse I've heard in debates thus far. And if I might add, if in the context of your opinion, that this is a site only for Morrowind mods, then answer me this: why are you even participating in this debate? If you actually took the time to read Pheo's past posts, you will see that he has referenced multiple scholarly sources to back up his claims, all of which are within the realm of reason. You preach neutrality with homosexuals, and yet here you are, debasing them and regarding their condition as a mental illness. Prejudice is a mental disability of its own. To hate your own kind is inexcusable. Speaking from what I've experienced with you, I'd love to see how you justify that.

 

 

Now, from this chaos, maybe some shred of reason can be recovered: we've reviewed many factors that influence sexuality from a broad spectrum of sorts, ranging from cultural backgrounds, genetics, environmental influences, among other things. This may seem like a strange question to ask, but what about gender? Speaking from an evolutionary standpoint (strictly psychologically), there are somethings that one gender can do better than the other: men are said to have more spatial reasoning than women do, and women obviously tend to be more nurturing. None of this has to do with physical capabilities or intellect (I'm an egalitarian, not a sexist.) So, does gender play a role in how early one is aware of their sexuality?

Edited October 16, 2013 by Keanumoreira

[pheo3309]

Now, from this chaos, maybe some shred of reason can be recovered: we've reviewed many factors that influence sexuality from a broad spectrum of sorts, ranging from cultural backgrounds, genetics, environmental influences, among other things. This may seem like a strange question to ask, but what about gender? Speaking from an evolutionary standpoint (strictly psychologically), there are somethings that one gender can do better than the other: men are said to have more spatial reasoning than women do, and women obviously tend to be more nurturing. None of this has to do with physical capabilities or intellect (I'm an egalitarian, not a sexist.) So, does gender play a role in how early one is aware of their sexuality?

 

There's some research studies that have actually been looking into this. From what I've understood from the case files that I had actually got my hands on, fathers most of the time talk to their children about sex where as mothers talk to their children more from a psychological standpoint when they sometimes have that same talk. I think gender could mitigate certain aspects of sexuality, but I think mothers are more understanding of how their children are progressing more than fathers are. I mean after all, they were in the womb for nine months. That kind of bond is hard to break. While there are bonds like that broken, it's not as much as the ones that aren't. So in my opinion, yes, I think it very well could. Especially in regards with mothers.

Edited October 16, 2013 by pheo3309

[kvnchrist]

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.

 

No this is dedicated to Bethesda and this particular forum is dedicated to debates, which is what we are in now.

 

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

 

Your arguments are opinions backed up by assumption which is why you've been asked continually to show any form of professional documentation to support your theories. Personally I've only seen an intense form of negativity in everything you've put forth which doesn't bode well for your objectivity. this again reenforces the desire for those reading you to see case studies that will legitimize your stance on these issues.

 

You are the one claiming such lifestyles are unnatural and it is on you to legitimize your claims.

 

The Dsm is set forth by the American Psychiatric Association and is a comprehensive reference to all mental illnesses recognized by established professionals and should very well be able to verify or invalidate your claims, which is why it has been brought up so often.

 

I have no hate for homosexuals. It is the dishonest anti-scientific taxonomic 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.

 

I have seen nothing scientific about anything you've said and taxonomic re-branding indeed.

Taxonomy (general), the practice and science (study) of classification of things or concepts, including the principles that underlie such classification

Such branding as you call it is updated by professionals in the appropriate fields when new and more accurate information is revealed.

[Keanumoreira]

I'm going to respectfully decline from this debate. Pheo, I commend you for your debating style, and Kvn, thank you for hosting a fascinating topic, even if it has met its challenges.

 

 

I wish all of you the best.

[kvnchrist]

Well, I'm pretty much think that this has been talked out. The original topic is far away from the ending discussion and I think that ending discussion have been resolved long before the last posts were placed. I'm going to step out of this myself. Thank you.

[pheo3309]

Same here as well. Some points are good for research upon, I'm glad I got to read those. I hope I was able to answer some things for others who were having questions, but I think this dialogue has been resolved enough to get a general idea on what are determining factors. I hope I helped you in some things Kvn. :)

[rizon72]

I have no idea what happened for 8 pages but I'll answer the question with my opinion, not science fact.

I think kids become sexually aware at different ages depending on a lot of factors. A 'research' project can say age 12 (or whatever) but there will be some do become aware earlier and some later.

[MajKrAzAm]

I've cited many sources, you've just been ignoring them. Re-read my posts and you'll clearly see them.

 

If you actually took the time to read Pheo's past posts, you will see that he has referenced multiple scholarly sources to back up his claims, all of which are within the realm of reason.

 

There are zero citations in his posts. Zero.

 

You are the one claiming such lifestyles are unnatural and it is on you to legitimize your claims.

 

I have never claimed it to be unnatural. There is a big difference between labelling something as "unnatural" and "pathological" or even "deviant".

 

Such branding as you call it is updated by professionals in the appropriate fields when new and more accurate information is revealed.

 

So what "new and accurate" information was there in 1973 that determined homosexuality was no longer pathological, justifying it's exclusion from the DSM?

 

If you read through the APA's writings on homosexuality, the presuppositional bias going into psychological research on homosexuality is obvious. There's a mistaken assumption here that declaring something a pathology is some sort of objective, non-political scientific process, instead of being based on morally-normative assumptions about correct or proper functioning or behaviour.

 

For example, there used to be a Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder in the DSM-3, but it was removed from the DSM-4 because women’s groups felt it unfairly pathologized women. This doesn’t mean that these behaviors ceased to exist; it’s just that the APA terminated a specific cognitive-behavioral phenomenon and hid it in Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified due to political pressure.

 

Another example is the APA’s failure to officially acknowledge Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Hostile Aggressive Parenting (HAP). These behaviors have been documented. Individuals who have been the target of these pathological and malicious behaviors know full well how real they are. Yet, the APA wouldn’t touch it, because it would assign pathology to a sizable minority of women.

 

B-b-but there's lots of research indicating homosexuality to perfectly normal, so why don't you cite your sources you VAPID XTIAN BIGOT!!!

 

[kvnchrist]

VAPID ****** BIGOT, indeed!

 

Well with that interesting incite on what motivated this flood of unsubstantiated claims by and obvious Theist with a chip on his shoulder. I would ask the mods to please close and lock this thread before all this grandiose garbage turns into a real religious rant.