Freud's view, and yours...on homosexuality.

Remove all ads!

Each person's life is, according to dr. Sigmund Freud, divided into a couple of periods. The first one is the oral period, a period in which you are but a baby and take delight in feeding and the like. The second one is the anal period where you take delight in the rewards your parents give you when you learn how to control your poo . The third period is a period in which you discover your sex. I emphasize YOUR sexuality, because you can be satisfied with playing withyourself alone. The fourth period is the latent period. In it you have many interests. THE FINAL PERIOD IS CALLED THE GENITAL PERIOD, IN WHICH YOUR SEXUALITY CAN BE SATISFIED ONLY BY ANOTHER PERSON.


The topic regards homosexuality. Why?
Here goes.........
Freud says that homosexuality is an illness, nothing more than a malfunction, a very simple case of a deformed personality. And he claims that homosexuality is the result of a problem an individual encountered during the first couple of periods-before the GENITAL period.


So, the question stands. ARE GAY PEOPLE sick, or just different?

 

Well interesting you should say this.
IMHO i think Freud is wrong about the influences in Childhood, i do not think there are any particular trends common to all homosexual's early years.

However the question of wether or not homosexuality is an illness or not is often seen as making out Gays and Lesbians to be inferior, this is not the case, just as any man or woman who is disabled, they are not inferior, but their condition is NOT natural.

The fact is that the penis was made to release sperm into the woman & to funnel out urine, nothing else. Studies of nature have proven that the sole drive, indeed the very reason for the existence of every animal, plant and even bacteria is to reproduce.
Our capacity to eat, sleep, drink communicate etc, in my opinion, was all developed in order for a human to grow up strong, dominate other species and reproduce, nothing more.


Therefore, accepting that the function of the human race is to reproduce, it would be reasonable to assume that any inability to be attracted to the opposite sex, or any homosexual person is infact a genetic malfunction.

Is Homosexuality a sickness? Yes
Is Homosexuality Wrong? Hell no!

 

I read a book called Genome once. Very informative. Described a gene for homosexuality.

 

I agree.

I agree there too. It seems that homosexuality always and everywhere existed. And I bet, that it usually affected a certain percentage of the population. Making it a random play of genes.

 

If sex is only about reproduction then I agree that homosexuality is some kind of disease.
However sex for us humans is not only aimed at reproduction, if an hetero couple has sex but no children, it wouldn't be natural (because not aimed at reproduction) and could qualify as a disease as well.
I don't think straight people having sport-sex is a disease, so neither is it for gay people.

There's a gene for homosexuality?

 

oxymore, i see your point but don't agree.

You see if a couple decides not to have an baby, then that is their desicion, and that IS very much affected by popular culture and upbringing. So that can be explained.
And it is obviously true that both gay and hetro couples have sex juts for fun. But on a more base level you must see that a hetro couple has the OPTION to reproduce. They are doing the right things in order to reproduce just stopping themselves. thus it is a natural process yet with a mental curbing chain.

However for a gay couple the attraction IS ONLY to the same sex, reproduction is impossible thus it is unnatural

You see it is not a homosexuals desire to pleasure themselves with members of the same sex that constitutes a malfunction.
It is their INABILITY to have sex with members of the opposite sex and inability to produce that makes them so.

 

Well I'm certainly glad no-one has yet brought up the casual comment of anyone having something against gays being gays themselves and afraid to admit it. I've laughed so many times to that shallow thinking that I've nary a laugh left in me.

To put my opinion on the stake, though, I'd say that I've nothing against homosexual people as it is. But, out of experience I can say that I'm all but relaxed when a homosexual person shows that kind of interest in me. Being the ever-philosophical/psychological person that I am, I've honestly tried to make up thoughts in my mind where I saw homosexual sex as something intriguing. But never succeeded. I think it's repulsive. And because of that I view homosexual people repulsive in the sexual essence of it all as well. But as a person I really don't believe there's anything that wrong with them, quite much on the contrary.

So I would go with the opinion stated above as well. Homosexuality is not natural, it is not right, and certainly could be called a disorder or a disease. But as we know, sexuality doesn't have much effect on person in any other respects. You have your 30-yearold geeks who're still virgins because the opposite sex shows no interest in them. You have your 30-yearold geeks who are virgin because they are not interested in the opposite sex at all. And you have your 30-yearold lady's men who put their seeds into from tens to hundreds of different women within a time of little more than a decade (or in the case of older men, two). Yet in working life, among other people, and in their hobbies, these 3 different types are exactly the same.

I don't see what the difference relative to reproducing and "what is natural" is between a geek who never gets laid in his/her life (though this is more a male problem, as is known, females always get laid (forgive me for the harsh words there ) for the hornyness of their opposite sex), or a gay who basically does the same thing but in a different way. So in that respect, gays are completely normal people save for their strange and unnatural sexuality.

What a novel. Conclusion: Yes, homosexuality is sick. No, it's not anyone else's business. And no, sexuality alone has no effect on ones social and material life (which is what the modern life, afterall, is all about).

 

My brother is gay. So what?

 

I think I have to disagree. Homosexuality is no sickness and possibly(!) no genetic failure. Newer research shows that it is most probably caused by a low level of testosteron in the mothers body(in the case of boys). Unfortunatly, I have no net sources about this. But I think it rather is one of nature's quirks than a real sickness. So, it is natural.
Hey, even animals show homosexual tendencies. Take the bonobo chimpanses in west africa. They are solving fights with homo- and heterosexual intercourse.

[ May 18, 2003, 01:02: Message edited by: Fabius Maximus ]

 

Neither. They are not different from anybody else. They are just like anybody else, but they might feel attracted to the same sex, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It is their own choice and we all have to right to make choices like that. If a guy wants to love and marry another guy, I'm not going to judge him by that. And I thought that we lived in a society nowadays that homosexuality is accepted.

About the whole gene issue. I doubt there is a gene for homosexuality. If it is in their genes, it would be passed on to their children, but since two men or two women can't have children, the gay population will seize to exist eventually. However, it could be a mutation in a underpressed gene (I don't know the English word for it, I mean the opposite of a dominant gene) and it could become dominant in the children of the people who carry that underpressed gene, but that would probably mean that in one family there are more gays than in another.

My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with being gay and it is not a sickness. A sickness it something you don't want and something that you want to be cured from, I doubt that gay people want to be cured from their gay-ness. I am not gay, but I know some people that are, it is their choice, they can do what they want, it doesn't matter to me and it shouldn't matter to anyone else. It is their life, they can do whatever makes them feel happy.

 

Among psychologists Dr. Freud sometimes is mockingly called "Penis Freud". They stress the questionability of some of his later work and suggest he might have tried out some of the then-popular drugs such as opium, morphine or cocaine to expand his horizon and imagination. Not all he wrote was ... err ... strictly scientific. Despite that he gave important impulses.

When someone finds out his nervous tick is deeply founded in a long forgotten, faded childhood experience - and feels better after that - great (a prejudice ridden, totally unfounded cliché) As long as his approach can help people that's ok with me, no matter how well founded the approach is. Eventually science is there to help people. I, however, would seriously hesitate to consider his theses as "science". As with all dogmas there are believers - and believe can move mountains - and cure.

As for the reasons and characterisation of homosexuality I wouldn't too much trust in Freud's idea. But who knows: On the other hand, his theory of sublimierung* is totally right - my g/f is away till the weekend and I'm creatively working like a maniac

* = sublimation in english

 

Ooops, I have to clear out my Gene statement:

Some Biology chief propably is going to correct me here. It is not a gene, I mean. Human reproduction works through permutation. Permutation works with a random factor. So, I guess homosexuality is a product of that random permutation. Homosexuality therefore, if that theory is correct, should affect a certain and stable percentage of people.

"Social impact" or "degeneration of family life" has no impact at all, following my view.

I am just guessing a number, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 %, whatever percentage, of all human beings therefore are homosexual. It's one of the unavoidable consequences of mother natures decision, to reproduce with permutation.

(If that's even English)

So, homosexuality is in this kind a "sickness" at it is not good for "reproduction". But it does not has a "specific gene". Just permutation. Mother Nature wanted it this way and there is nothing wrong with it. If they want to merry, let them merry. If they want to adopt children, let them adopt children. They are no better or worse than others.

 

If homosexuality is like Yago says, then what about bisexual people? Those who are attracted to both sexes, not just the opposite or their own. Where do THEY fall on this equation?

And no, homosexuality is not a disease, nor is it wrong or anything negative. It's just different than majority of the poulace.

 

According to the theory I follow, they'd be just another variation, as a result of permutation. Nothing wrong with them either.

 

They are sick, since there has obviously gone something wrong somewhere around the "Bee and Flower" -part of their brain. Still, if they wish to live this way; why to stop them? If they want to register their relationship, fine, no problem. But when they want to get a CHURCH wedding like completely normal pair... Now that would make me run to the barricades, waving "NO frigging way" -flags.

 

I wouldnt say that homosexuality is 'normal', but then again what is? In my eyes it is no different to prefer men if you are a man than to prefer redheaded chicks over blondes.

However, when it comes to church I dont think they should be allowed to marry there. Firstly I can not see why any gay couple would want to be married in the church. The bible clearly states that laying with a person of the same gender is a deadly sin and the perpertrators should be stoned to death. If you believe in the bible you have to believe in that to and thus you can not be a christian and gay at the same time. For the same reason should the church not allow them to marry there. They may not be allowed to kill gay people as they should according to their believes if they are true believers and not fiddlers that pick the parts they like and discards the rest due to the fact that they live in a society mostly ruled by reason and not superstition but the church can have no justification to sanction a marriage based on something that is a deadly sin.

 

Ragusa. Perhaps you can fill me in? When I was studying sociology at university the lecturer explained that Freud used 2 and a half subjects to devise all his "theories" and thus would be laughed at these days for lack of evidence. His subjects were, himself, his wife and his young daughter, thus 2 and a half.

What do you know about this? Is it correct?

 

"My life is a story of the self-realization of the unconscious. Everything in the unconcious seeks outward manisfestation and the personality too desires to evolve out of its own unconscious conditions and to experience itself as a whole. I cannot employ the language of science to trace this process of growth in myself, for I cannot experience myself as a scientific problem." -- _Memories, Dreams, Reflections_ - C.G. Jung

The brilliance of Jung's thinking is in the idea that our lives are shaped by narrative stories. Some are collective, others are individual. He believed that myth was more important than science in expressing the "variety of individual life."

Although I have not read anything specific on sexual preference in Jung's work (at least that I can remember, although I'm sure he has written on the subject). I think that Jung would say that science is too general to understand the complexities of such choices as sexual preference and that latent forces in the unconscious could better explain such choices, which are highly subjective and individual.

Sexual preference is not an area that I have found of interest. If anyone has read a more complete viewpoint of Jung on the subject I would be interested to hear. I think that he understood more about human psychology than anyone before him, or since. But I think that my statement above represents his view near the end of his career.

 

The problem, wheras a lot Freuds points are still valid today, like the Freudian slip (thanks for the translation), others are void. That's because medicine knowledge has advanced, especially in the field of neurology. Schizophrenia is today seen as a neurological malfuntion (permutation, mother nature wanted it this way, but I guess, it can even be herited), so "psychological" reasons for schizophrenia are void.

Ahm, no, the bible does not state that clearly. Orthodox, I no nothing about. Catholics say, the reason of marriage is making children. Gay-marriage can not. Catholics have a valid point. Protestants (the shiites who have split from the catholic church) have no valid point. Because one of the reasons of the shism was, that they define marriage in another way. Now, I don't say, there are no protestant groups who do not say that, but their point is not strong. A new shism in the protestant churches about bible-interpretation is unavoidable. (Yes, we discuss that theme in our country too).

That's the shism. No protestant side can truly win versus the other. Argumetation stalemate. Shism is unavoidable.

http://www.geocities.com/austintegrity/chicago.htm

 

Another point that i wish to raise to help support my point of Homosexuality being a malfunction somewhere.
People's reactions to homosexuality, especially men is characteristic of how one would react to a threat to someones home.

Homophobia has been around for centuries, and as the amount of gay people increase (or at least the ones that have the courage and self confidence to anounce it) the line between homophobes and supportive viewpoints just becomes even more defined.

I am ashamed to say that i go to a school where people are shunned, even by teachers for being homosexual. And yes as we have all heard before, people do this because they are 'scared'. Scared of people who are 'different'.

But we are also subjected to this natural fear over disabled and sick people. (sorry i am rambleing a bit, please try and keep up.lol) Sure it could be said this fear continues on to black and asian communities, but i find that to be more of a territorial claim rather than an instinctal 'fear'.

So i have established, hopefully, that theres a fear over homosexuality from certain members of the community. The reaction of the mind, the repulsion it creates twards certain things is part of a natural defense system, thus if something is percieved to be wrong it is feared.
thus naturally, homosexuality is wrong.
It is not simply a choice like wether you like blondes or not, it is a choice more like 'wether you want to carry on the human race or not' and unsurprisingly many people find this frightening.


And finally let me just say that i personally have nothing against homosexuals, so stop the herioc pro gay speeches.