September 16, 2015
Everything in this world comes from nonexistent to existent in different mechanism in which reproduction is one given factor as there are other methods of bringing to existent to this world. There are also things that are considered as bizarre or nightmare and they are treated as sole product of people’s own imagination and thinking and are considered as illusion and illusified things which do not exist in this objective plane of existence.
Quite interestingly, there are certain things that are assumed as lie or deceptions but at later times they happen to be truthful and real things as there are things that are treated as truthful and something to be trusted but they occur to be found as false and deceiving and they happen to exist in the recycle bin at last. This is one of the interesting features of life in this world since such mystery of reversalism do exist in history as there are voracious empires and thinking systems are found trash and garbage in due course of time namely the history and decline of Roman empire as good example; there are also thinking and way of life that are seen as tricks and hoaxes but at later times are found to be governing the entire world at large.
This is quite alarming to see one feature of our living world in which our world is heading to different direction than being predictable and speculated due to the fact that it is peoples morality and thinking are going by the way peoples’ emotions, behaviors and actions dictate than what the claimed books of holy writings tell. People are driven by force hard to tell but what actually can be seen and objectively out. Hence, this world is forced to accept and legitimize those thinking which it use to curse for centuries and ages as legitimate and practical way of life. Why? How could this happen?
Unlike leaders of morality teachings and counsels, this world is heading towards by its own in its own way since there are certain things that go by their own and do happen and visit our lives without our own consent and choices since they happen as they should due to the fact that they have been translated and supported by those people who like due to reasons that existing ways of life and thinking systems are not accommodating and welcoming to accept different thinking and new ways of life within their own domain and thus people go and deviate from such ways of life and formulate their own recipe of life in due course of time.
The first and foremost reasons is failures of existing thinking and way of life to accommodate all people thinking and freedom of choices in life in which such people are not satisfied with existing and governing thinking and ways of life and such dissatisfaction and discontentment make them think to have their own new and different lifestyle even if it is cursed and is not appreciated by the existing ways of life but such people keep going and keep on thinking and practicing what they feel like thinking even if the whole world resist them. By its own good time the thinking and way of life they derive will be something and is considered as legitimate way of life even if it was considered as madness and abnormality and cursed and blamed at its earliest stage.
The second reason is the desire to have one’s own freedom in thinking and application of way of life. This is like do not tell me which way to go, what to think, how to think and who are you to tell me on how to behave and the like, which is most peoples thinking and attitude they develop in life. When people are especially matured age, it is their own experience in life that tell them on what to think and how to behave than other people. When such people are told by other people on how to think, what to think, or not, they revolt against the system and the world and they create their own island and territory in their own way which eventually be at later times considered as useful and essential perspective and way of life to the world at large after passing stigmatization and harassment in its own and process of life.
While such theater of life is going on in dramatic way, one wonders as to where this world is heading by taking one experience of this world in such regard in which there was cursed way of life in past, and at later times was considered as mental difficult and illness. But later on, it was removed from the list of mental illness and then considered as legitimate way of life. What is interesting in here is that if there are people who reflect their hatred to such way of life and to its adherents, such given hatred was considered as saintly and health character and thinking since it was cursed, but as it is legitimatized later on, such hatred in character and thinking towards such given life style is treated as mental difficulty and illness.
One is wondering to stay few times on sharing on the mystery of such reversal in the shift of thinking and way of life—human sexuality—such world is functioning and operating on. This is also one of the characteristics and features of life in this world.
Sigmund Freud’s basic theory of human sexuality was different. He believed all human beings were innately bisexual, and that they become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of their experiences with parents and others. This view is supported by the field of human physiology in which everyone at an embryonic stage has two sexes and late on, nature sort out one to take one of the sexes as getting born to this objective world, sa male or female.
Freud agreed that a homosexual orientation should not be viewed as a form of pathology. In a now-famous letter to an American mother in 1935, Freud wrote: “Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too….
Later psychoanalysts did not follow this view, however. Sandor Rado (1940, 1949) rejected Freud’s assumption of inherent bisexuality, arguing instead that heterosexuality is natural and that homosexuality is a “reparative” attempt to achieve sexual pleasure when normal heterosexual outlet proves too threatening. Other analysts later argued that homosexuality resulted from pathological family relationships during the oedipal period (around 4-5 years of age) and claimed that they observed these patterns in their homosexual patients (Bieber et al., 1962). Charles Socarides (1968) speculated that the etiology of homosexuality was pre-oedipal and, therefore, even more pathological than had been supposed by earlier analysis.
Other social science researchers also argued against the prevailing negative view of homosexuality. In a review of published scientific studies and archival data, Ford and Beach (1951) found that homosexual behavior was widespread among various nonhuman species and in a large number of human societies. They reported that homosexual behavior of some sort was considered normal and socially acceptable for at least some individuals in 64% of the 76 societies in their sample; in the remaining societies, adult homosexual activity was reported to be totally absent, rare, or carried on only in secrecy. Whether this proportion applies to all human societies cannot be known because a non-probability sample was used. However, the findings of Ford and Beach demonstrate that homosexual behavior occurs in many societies and is not always condemned.
Although dispassionate scientific research on whether homosexuality should be viewed as an illness was largely absent from the fields of psychiatry, psychology, and medicine during the first half of the twentieth century, some researchers remained unconvinced that all homosexual individuals were mentally ill or socially misfit. Berube (1990) reported the results of previously unpublished studies conducted by military physicians and researchers during World War II. These studies challenged the equation of homosexuality with psychopathology, as well as the stereotype that homosexual recruits could not be good soldiers.
A common conclusion in their wartime studies was that, in the words of Maj. Carl H. Jonas, who studied fifty-three white and seven black men at Camp Haan, California, “overt homosexuality occurs in a heterogeneous group of individuals.” Dr. Clements Fry, director of the Yale University student clinic, and Edna Rostow, a social worker, who together studied the service records of 183 servicemen, discovered that there was no evidence to support the common belief that “homosexuality is uniformly correlated with specific personality traits” and concluded that generalizations about the homosexual personality “are not yet reliable.”
…. Sometimes to their amazement, [researchers] described what they called the “well-adjusted homosexuals” who, in [William] Menninger’s words, “concealed their homosexuality effectively and, at the same time, made creditable records for themselves in the service.” Some researchers spoke in glowing terms of these men. “The homosexuals observed in the service,” noted Navy doctors Greenspan and Campbell, “have been key men in responsible positions whose loss [by discharge] was acutely felt in their respective departments.” They were “conscientious, reliable, well-integrated and abounding in emotional feeling and sincerity.” In general, “the homosexual leads a useful productive life, conforming with all dictates of the community, except its sexual requirements” and was “neither a burden nor a detriment to society.” Fry and Rostow reported that, based on evidence in service records, homosexuals were no better or worse than other soldiers and that many “performed well in various military jobs” including combat (Berube, 1990, pp. 170-171, footnotes omitted).
Today, a large body of published empirical research clearly refutes the notion that homosexuality per se is indicative of or correlated with psychopathology. One of the first and most famous published studies in this area was conducted by psychologist Evelyn Hooker.
Hooker’s (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation.
This method addressed an important source of bias that had vitiated so many previous studies of homosexuality. In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that “Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality”.
Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s. In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association’s membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board’s decision was ratified.
Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM’s third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.
This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual’s dysphoria. They argued that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality could be treated as well by other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma.
Homophobic attitudes may say a lot about the person who holds them, new research suggests. A new study of university students in Italy revealed that people who have strongly negative views of gay people also have higher levels of psychoticism and inappropriate coping mechanisms than those who are accepting of homosexuality. This doesn’t mean that homophobic people are psychotic; rather, psychoticism is a personality trait marked by hostility, anger and aggression toward others. But the study does suggest that people who cling to homophobic views have some psychological issues, said lead researcher Emmanuele Jannini, an endocrinologist and medical sexologist at the University of Rome Tor Vergata.
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.
Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual. Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify. Forms of homophobia toward identifiable LGBT social groups have similar yet specific names: lesbophobia – the intersection of homophobia and sexism directed against lesbians, biphobia – towards bisexuality and bisexual people, and transphobia, which targets trans-sexualism, transsexual and transgender people, and gender variance or gender role nonconformity.