As you read the following example you can use your gut reaction to test your own use of analytical thinking vs blind association with social trends to guide your beliefs. Do you find yourself stressed, distancing yourself from this argument therefore this presenter of the argument, or are you willing to consider all sides of an issue?
- 1952 – the American Psychiatric Association published its first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-1), the definitive criteria for diagnosing behaviors as psychiatric illnesses. At that time it classifed “homosexuality” as a “sociopathic personality disturbance.”
- 1968 the second edition (DSM-2) reclassified homosexuality as a “sexual deviation.”
- 1973 – DSM-III created a new category called “Ego Dystonic Homosexuality” as a political compromise to social activists.
- 1987 – DSM-IV completely removed homosexuality.
So in just 35 years the psychiatric community changed from pronouncing adult homosexuality to be a sociopathic condition to being a normal variant of sexual behavior. But we’re not settled on psychiatric “facts” yet.
- 2000 – the revised DSM-IV (TR) included children for the first time in homosexuality with a diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder in Children. As a disorder this was considered a illness to be treated by changing the patient’s thinking, behavior and emotions.
- 2013 – the DSM-5 removed the GIDC diagnosis and replaced it with Gender Dysphoria. The difference is that dysphoria = unhappiness to be resolved by social support of the individual’s sense of self.
- “There is some controversy around the inclusion of gender dysphoria within the diagnostic manuals, as it may inadvertently pathologize gender variance through its inclusion in this manual.
- Minority stress is seen systemically through the chronic violence toward transgender and gender nonconforming individuals, high rates of homelessness, underemployment, and poor medical care for these individuals.
- the dysphoria is not the result of the individual’s gender identity itself.
While stated as a factual relationship of cause (discrimination) and effect (severe depression), the association of mental and social problems with society’s disapproval of this behavior is statistically a simple correlation. We find one occurring with the other. There is no proof that disapproval is the major reason for mental and social problems, simply a guess that that is the case. There is bias by the social scientists’ failure to engage in scientifically conducted research on other possible causes in a controlled study. For example, availability of the internet is known to have caused a surge in sex additions and grooming of children by pedophiles.
In my professional experience I’ve seen the horrifically destructive effects of pedophilia. I’ve advocated for greater awareness of sex trafficking of teens and young adults who get lured into then trapped in a degrading lifestyle, often for life. I’ve treated patients with PTSD who have reached the point of suicidality because they can’t live with the sexual behaviors they’ve experienced. So I was appalled when I became aware of a case where parents, counsellor and school principal immediately and without question backed a preteen’s unusual behavior as a healthy choice.
He had distanced himself further and further from family and society, spending all his free time shut up in his room on his computer. When he announced out of the blue that he wanted to maintain his physically blossoming male sexuality but publicly cross-dress as a female by hair style and clothing and be allowed female public bathroom use and summer camp cabin assignment, his parents and counselor enthusiastically encouraged him to pursue this lifestyle without any investigation of his reasons. Not one adult in his life checked his online activity to see if he had been exploited by a pedophile. His mother publicized his trend-setting behavior in a local paper, promoting her blog on social trends in the process. Anyone else see a connection here? His summer camp supported his request to be housed in a female cabin without considering the wishes of the female occupants or their parents. The principal at his high school welcomed him as proof of the school’s avant guarde status in the community.
What thirteen year old knows what he wants to be when he grows up? And how many adults cringe when they look back on their yearbook photos? This is not a bad hairstyle. This is life-changing with a tumultuous future.
Please understand, I am not homophobic. I abhor abuse of any kind, including societies’ abuse of GLBT. I know how much my GLBT clients, friends, and colleagues suffer and I do whatever I can to ease their suffering by embracing them as individuals and supporting growth and development and recovery from trauma. And I know that targeting just one aspect of trauma ignores the totality of the GLBT experience as much as treating domestic violence with just an antidepressant.
If we are objective on this issue, we see that a massive social paradigm shift on sexuality has come about by accepting a minority social activists group’s self-benefiting demands after a couple of decades while rejecting millennia’s-long social leaders’ prohibitions with the interests of larger society in mind.
If we consider this situation objectively, we can see how LGBT advocates, having achieved political change from the extreme of suppressing to moderate acceptance are abruptly and rather inexplicably achieving the polar extreme of encouraging.
On what basis do we trust that this new sexual paradigm will result in a positive outcome for our children’s, and our society’s, future? Remember, there is only an association between severe depression and social disapproved of certain socio-sexual behaviors. What if it is these behaviors that cause not only individual depression, but a ripple effect in disrupting families and society, and it is ancient knowledge of well established principles underlying the millennia’s-long prohibition of these behaviors within a culture?
–National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy director,
Paul Ettelbrick (Kurtz, 2003)
The gay community has long walked a thin public-relations line, presenting their relationships as equivalent to those of heterosexual married couples. But many gay activists portray a very different cultural ethic. Michelangelo Signorile describes the campaign “to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely–to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…”
Sociological and psychological studies conducted according to standard research methodology report notable findings that:
- “Sexual promiscuity is one of the most striking, distinguishing features of gay life in America” (p. 45).
- “Almost half of the white homosexual males…said that they had had at least 500 different sexual partners during the course of their homosexual careers,”
- 28 percent of homosexual males had had sexual encounters with one thousand or more partners
- 79 percent said more than half of their sex partners were strangers.
- Only 1 percent of the sexually active men had had fewer than five lifetime partners.
- “Little credence can be given to the supposition that homosexual men’s ‘promiscuity’ has been overestimated”
- “an average several dozen partners a year”
- The homosexual pick-up system is the product of a search for efficiency and economy in attaining the maximization of numbers of partners and orgasms and the minimization of waste of time and risk of one’s advances being rejected at places known for a particular clientele and immediate consummation.
- Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to “absorb” masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners].
- the most successful homophile “marriages” are those where there is an agreement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.
- In the gay world the only real criterion of value is physical attractiveness.
- Aging is also viewed particularly negatively in the homosexual culture,
- The young homosexual will find that his homosexual brothers usually only care for him as a sexual object. when they have satisfied their sexual interest in him, they will likely forget about his existence and his own personal needs….
- In a study undertaken to disprove the reputation that gay male relationships do not last… the researchers, a homosexual couple with a strong vested interest, were unable to find a single male couple that was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years.
- Heterosexual couples lived with some expectation that their relationships were to last “until death do us part,” whereas gay couples wondered if their relationships could survive.
- sexual activity outside the relationship often raises issues of trust, self-esteem, and dependency.
- “the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel, yet in reality, there remains a contradictory “ intense longing for relationships with stability, sexual continuity, intimacy, love and affection”- but only one couple in her study had been able to maintain a monogamous relationship for ten years.
The desire for sexual fidelity in relationships and the benefits of such a commitment are universal. In the long history of man, infidelity has never been associated with maturity. Even in cultures where it is relatively common, it is no more than discreetly tolerated.
McWhirter and Mattison believe that gays must redefine “fidelity” to mean not sexual faithfulness, but simply “emotional dependability.”
How can a relationship without sexual fidelity remain emotionally faithful? Fidelity as such is only an abstraction, divorced from the body. The agreement to have outside affairs precludes any possibility of genuine trust and intimacy.
A Clinical Understanding Of Gay Infidelity
Gay relationships are typically burdened with each man’s same-sex defensive detachment, and their need to compensate for that same-sex detachment. Therefore the relationship will often take the form of an unrealistic idealization of the other person as an “image.” In pursuing the other man as a representation the masculine introject that he himself lacks, many gay men either develop a self-denigrating dependency on the partner, or they become disillusioned because they discover “he has the same deficit I have.”
As he did in relationship with his father, the homosexual man fails to fully and accurately perceive the other man. His same-sex ambivalence and defensive detachment mitigate against trust and intimacy. When he becomes disillusioned, he will often continually set his hopes on the possibility of yet another, more satisfying partner.
In seeking out and sexualizing relationships with other males, the homosexual is attempting to integrate a lost part of himself. Because this attraction emerges out of a deficit, he is not completely free to love. He often perceives other men in terms of what they can do to fulfill his deficit. Thus, a giving of the self may seem like more of a diminishment than a self-enhancement.
A man who is depressed may gain a temporary sense of mastery through anonymous sex because of its excitement, intensity, even danger – followed by sexual release and an immediate reduction of tension. Later he is likely to feel disgusted, remorseful, and out of control. He feels regretful, regains control and feels all right again. But when there is nothing to “feed” that healthy state, it will be a matter of time until he gets depressed, feels powerless and out of touch with himself, and seeks anonymous sex again as a short-term solution to getting back in touch and feeling in control.
Often a homosexual client will report seeking anonymous sex following an incident in which he felt ignored or slighted by another male. Feeling shamed and victimized, he acts out sexually as a way of reasserting himself and getting something back he feels was taken from him. Once again, he feels guilty and has to repent or make amends. Many gay men become addicted not just to the sexual release, but to the entire compulsive, life-dominating cycle– if not through overt behavior, then through preoccupation and fantasy.
In these repetitive, compulsive, and impersonal sexual behaviors, we see a focused engagement with the object–with a desire for an intense relationship, but at the same time, a resistance toward genuine intimacy. Hoffman (1968) describes the “sex fetishization” found in gay life (p. 168), and Gottlieb (1977) points out the strong element of sexual fantasy that has become institutionalized in gay culture. Masters and Johnson (1979) also found that those fantasies tend to be more violent than those of heterosexuals.
The Problem Of Sexual Sameness
In homosexual sex, the “body parts don’t fit.” Therefore sex must be “individually enjoyed rather than mutually experienced” (p. 214) by a technique of “my turn – your turn” (p.214) and “you do me, I do you.” (Masters and Johnson, 1979). Where orgasmic episodes are experienced separately, considerable discussion is required for their negotiation.
Sexual sameness also diminishes long term interest and creates the need for greater variety, including other partners (Masters and Johnson 1979).
These similarities between two men provide one possible explanation for gay promiscuity. Women are “wired” for nurturance and child-rearing, and a stable primary relationship is necessary for their protection and the protection of their children. Thus a woman introduces a restraining influence into the relationship that two men will never experience.
Indeed, gay-activist social commentator Andrew Sullivan has found that as a gay man matures, his relationships will likely split between those men he is friends with, and those he has sex with, but that the two groups will not likely overlap.
This “new order” approach advocated by gay activists is part of a general cynicism toward mainstream values and the… Judeo-Christian influence in society. His work in the social-science literature reveals a deep hopelessness about the possibility of enduring relationships, either homosexual or heterosexual…
Although homosexuals do lack cultural supports, such as the freedom in every culture to marry a same-sex partner, I believe this is not the cause of gay promiscuity. I believe the central cause of gay promiscuity is to be found in the inherent sexual and emotional incompatability between two males. Men were designed for women, and when some factor—psychological, biological, or a combination of both—interferes with that wired-in design, the freedom to marry a partner of the same sex cannot change the fact that “something’s not working.”
For additional data, see “Romantic Relationship Difficulties,” (pages 70-71), “Interpersonal Relationships,” (page 80-81) and “Promiscuity as a New Social Norm,” (pages 81- 83), in the Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 1, 2009, published by NARTH, www.narth.com.