Posted on 10/15/2013 6:01:25 PM PDT by Enza Ferreri
If we think of the gigantic progress made by the "gay liberation" movement in just a few decades or even years, we are astonished.
The idea of homomarriage would have been unthinkable 20-30 years ago when homosexuals themselves were declaring their opposition to this institution, and even 5 years ago it would have been difficult for it to become part of the UK law.
It has required a social re-education programme of vast proportions, a cultural war for general sexual freedom, of which homosexual "liberation" is part.
One method of crucial importance and psychological effectiveness employed by the homosexual movement and by the Left in general, of which proponents of "gay rights" talk openly, has been the use of desensitisation.
This technical term derives from the learning theory, a psychological theory descended from behaviourism.
The technique of systematic desensitisation is popularly and commonly used in behaviour psychotherapy. It consists in exposing the patient to something - an object, situation, person, animal - to which he has a sensitivity considered excessive, abnormal, pathological or harmful, as in the case of a phobia, until it gradually decreases and hopefully disappears.
The point is that desensitisation is useful and advisable if you have, for example, a phobia of cats. If you have a fear of tigers, getting desensitised may be a very bad idea.
Clearly, for people who believe in the existence of "homophobia" - an irrational fear of homosexuals comparable to fears of harmless spiders, the number 13, lifts or mice -, the folks who suffer from it are badly in need of treatment, and desensitisation is the method they've been employing through prolonged exposure to TV, press, celebrity behaviour and public discourse in which homosexuality is presented, in words and images, as "the new norm", or just another lifestyle.
It's natural, animals are homosexuals too, they say. In addition, anything negative said about homosexuality is treated as morally equivalent to discrimination on the basis of race, which these days is a crime worse than murder. This not only reinforces desensitisation to homosexuality but also creates a new sensitisation, a new fear in its place (this time real), that of being considered as a socio-political pariah for thinking - and even feeling - in the wrong way.
Any feeling of aversion or repulsion for homosexual behaviour - even if not extended to homosexual individuals - is to be ferociously repressed and suppressed, by order of the "liberators". If that sentence sounds like a contradiction in terms, it's because it is.
You don't "free" people by making them afraid of you and by imposing on them your views through that fear.
As homosexual celebrity Graham Norton commented in reference to what was happening on the stage during the Eurovision Song Contest held in Malmö in May 2013, "if two girls kissing offends you, you need to grow up". Feelings of offence are not acceptable to the thought police.
To desensitise the public even more, later on two male dancers kissed in the final choreography during the voting process. It's exactly the correct procedure of graduality: first you expose the subject to a milder shock, then to a slighly stronger one.
And any opportunity is good for the cause of "gay liberation", as long as it has a wide audience.
The theory, if we can call it that way, behind this vast programme of brainwashing - vaguely reminiscent of the film A Clockwork Orange, but on a much bigger scale -, which its supporters probably would consider education or rehabilitation, is that only positive feelings towards sexuality are natural.
It probably has a Freudian derivation, since the father of psychoanalysis has had an enormous influence on the way we think and, along with Marx, has been the greatest destroyer of all that is good about Western civilisation.
Sigmund Freud believed that society is a necessary evil, in that the individual's natural urges must be sacrificed for it, which gives rise to neuroses and psychoses.
He inspired the idea that, if we were left to our natural sentiments and impulses, we would only feel attraction for everything that is sexual. Repulsion, shame, disgust only come from society's repressive influence.
But what if it were not like this? What if our natural feelings towards sex were mixed, both of attraction and repulsion?
I'll explore this in more detail in another article, but there are signs that it could be this way. After all, many mammalian species' females go through periods of oestrus or heat, so sexual attraction is limited to those times. In other animals, who don't live in a restrictive society, it's not a sexual free-for-all.
Each species has its normal behaviour, anyway, which may be greatly different from what is the norm in another species, so this is not conclusive. But we can see that in humans too. There is, for example, an innate aversion to sex with kin individuals in humans as well as other animals.
So, sex can provoke natural strong feelings in both directions. Since homosexual activists and their supporters, hard as they tried, have not managed to produce credible theories that homosexuality is "natural" or non-pathological, but on the contrary there are good reasons, which I've examined elsewhere in the articles linked to below, to believe that it is neither, the feelings of aversion to homosexual acts that they try to suppress in us may just be an innate and totally healthy reaction, similar to that towards brother-sister sex. In which case this indoctrination is a harmful manipulation - in addition to an illiberal attack on personal freedom - that we must fight against tooth and nail.
Read previous posts on the condition of homosexuality:
A Critical Assessment of LGBT Claims
Is Homosexuality as Harmless and Healthy as Political Correctness Dictates?
Consenting Adults, Homosexuality, Incest, Polygamy, Bestiality: Defining Acceptable Sexuality
Photo Gay Pride Amsterdam 2008 by FaceMePLS (Creative Commons CC BY 2.0).
True, but not politically correct! You can’t say that!
I’ve just said it.
YES!
Repeat...Rinse,... Repeat...
Anal sex. What’s not to like? /sarc
Blue chicken theory
Paint a chicken blue and put it with a bunch of white chickens. Seeing that it’s different and potentially harmful of the flock, they “take care of the problem”.
We are not animals, but deep in the back of our hind brain, instinct tells us that is a deviation from the norm and dangerous to the species.
Repulsion? or Revulsion.
*** many mammalian species’ females go through periods of oestrus or heat, so sexual attraction is limited to those times. ***
I’ve worked with farm animals and this is true. A female in heat will produce a scent that excites the males. When not in heat they ignore each other. A bull or stallion will occasionally sniff the pee of a female to see if she is coming into heat.
What scent can a male produce to make other males excited for him? It appears humans are excited by SIGHT and not estrus.
Disgusting too.
Revulsion. = Homo-misia.
Same for Islamo-misia.
I think he meant “revulsion” and not “repulsion.”
I believe that we all are responsible for our fates, but...
The lesbian scenes from “Monster” made med sick.
Tried watching “Orange is the New Black” (since Breaking Bad was ending) and I couldn’t get past the first episode. (And I liked that 70’s show - Donna, you were in love Eric, not a Lesbo) but I just found the lesbian sex to be repulsive.
Guess my point of posting here is - I’m libertarian - I think everyone has to face their Maker and make their own peace, but I find lesbian sex to be repulsive.
“Repulsion” and “revulsion” are synonyms, they mean the same.
It is also very unhealthy.
The wife and the husband were interviewed and she had a look of almost casual resignation on her face. He appeared in full drag.
They also interviewed their two oldest children. They loved their father, but they did not like or understand his "condition." They appeared to have an innocent yet knowledgable revulsion. They instinctively knew that their father was messed up, but they were absolutely powerless to help him.
I personally think it was quite selfish of him to subject his children and his wife to his problem in full bore drag.
Disgust is not “hate”.
Refusing to endorse deviant behavior, is not hate.
Behavior at odds with the natural use of the human bodily functions is deviant.
The idea that anything that society suppresses by its mores, rules and laws is “evil” or somehow inappropriate or undesirable is plainly ludicrous.
Are laws that suppress the urge of killing undesirable?
Are laws that suppress the urge to steal inappropriate?
Are mores that frown upon liars evil?
Are laws against speeding suppressive?
Are laws that suppress the urge of raping regressive?
And on and on - there are myriads more of such examples.
They will argue that those particular “urges” hurt others, but that homosexual marriage doesn’t hurt anyone.
Well once upon a time society used to frown upon out of wedlock pregnancies. Then because “it didn’t hurt anyone”, being a single mother was not only accepted, but like the gays that get married today, it became a badge of honor, an object of respect even, a heroic act.
But nobody was hurt, right? Only society, which means you and me, through higher crime rates, endless welfare programs, millions of angry and maladjusted kids, etc... and I bet most single mothers live a life of regrets. Nobody got hurt!
So in hindsight, perhaps society’s rules against single motherhood may have been the right thing after all.
So now we come to gay marriage, and we have to ask the same question. From what were those societal rules that frowned upon homosexuality protecting us? My guess is that the victims will be pretty much the same - society as a whole through a further degradation of families - which has been the most important social unit in any civilization.
And I imagine the kids brought up with a “male mother” or a “female father” will be in dire need of Freud’s profession (psychoanalysis). Maybe that was Freud’s goal all along - a way to drum up business. For if you think a bit of sexual repression can cause neurosis on a few people, unrestricted sexual freedom will be an incredible boon for shrinks and social workers. Unfortunately society (you and me) will be picking up the tab both in dollars and human suffering.
All this reminds me of a great poem from R. Kipling...
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm
If we are not at the last stanza yet, we’re getting awfully close.
Bump....
Sigmund Freud believed that society is a necessary evil, in that the individual's natural urges must be sacrificed for it, which gives rise to neuroses and psychoses.
He inspired the idea that, if we were left to our natural sentiments and impulses, we would only feel attraction for everything that is sexual. Repulsion, shame, disgust only come from society's repressive influence.
This interpretation of Freud is so bizarre it's even beyond wrong.
It's like saying apples aren't sweet because the housing market is shifting from wood framing to slab walls.
In other words, WTF?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.