A.P.A. Debates Pedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism

NARTH ^ | 28 May 2003 | Linda Ames Nicolosi

[litany_of_lies]

Hey, you're real good when you actual coherent thoughts. Keep it up.

[omega4412]

Your views make perfect sense. Too logical for the shrinks, though.

Should psychiatry go the way of phrenology? I think that in criminal trials the expert testimony of psychiatrists should be given no more weight than the expert testimony of astrologers. Or phrenologists.

[litany_of_lies]

Insert "post" in #41-Oops. Lack of coherence alert.

[Remedy]

And the Wesleyan Quadrilateral

1. The Bible
2. Reason
3. Tradition
4. Experience

[verity]

Few things are "normal" in San Francisco.

[tracer]

The meeting is in San Francisco. The symbolism of flies swarming to a bucket of $#!t is truly breathtaking.....

[sharktrager]

I can understand itjust fine.

You, however, seem unable to communicate your views. Posting links is simply a way of saying you can't express yourself in this case.

[luvtheconstitution]

That they could even ask that opening question speaks volumes. Does anyone else find it frightening that these perverts are setting standards that will affect law?

[irish guard]

>>>>>>Few things are "normal" in San Francisco.<<<<<<

Ah if it were just limited to SF.....I have three sons, all of whom are non gay. It amazes me that according to the media, Hollywood and our public schools, my sons seem to be in the minority. Is everyone a homo, lesbian, transexual or transgender these days?

[Remedy]

You have made 3 posts on this thread and failed to comment on the topic. Will you make a fourth?

[TexanToTheCore]

Well guys, I'm thinking you might want to keep these as abnormal, it might hurt business, y'know. Gotta keep up those revenues up so you can go on these junkets.

Hey! While you're at it, why don't you make bullying abnormal, make make excitability in young men abnormal, and the list is positively breathtaking. Smoking...owning guns...shooting guns too!.....driving SUVs, yes, of course... and let's not leave out that childhood disorder in which the child points his finger at someone and says "bang".

[Remedy]

Does anyone else find it frightening that these perverts are setting standards that will affect law?

From post #18- Center for Arizona Policy dealt with A.P.A. nonsense in Lawrence, et al. v. Texas.

[sharktrager]

You want a comment, although you have had little to contribute to the discussion.

Here you go.

To state that it is impossible to define what is and is not a normal sexual practice is an absurd argument. The purpose of sex being reproduction, normal is clearly defined.

The issue at hand is whether or not activities beyond that purpose are unhealthy, and if so, which ones.

The first key lies in the area of the effects, mental and physical, on the involved parties. Given that it is an accepted standard that there is a need to value human life, we can safely state that any act that, as a part of its normal practice, endangers a life is abnormal.

We have also established that the desire to self mutilate is unhealthy. This activity is designated a symptom of various mental ailments. That would indicate that any activity that would, in normal course, result in any physical damage would be abnormal. This would include many S&M practices.

The pain reflex is designed to prevent or minimize injury by driving the individual away from the object or practice that causes the pain. Any activity that uses pain as a part of its practice is contrary to the nature and purpose of pain. As such, any activity that inflicts pain intentionally is abnormal.

The idea of cross-dressing is bizarre, but not, in and of itself, unhealthy. The nature of gender specific attire is culturally based, and has varied over time. While cross-dressing may be abnormal from a cultural standpoint, there is little to suggest that any desire to deviate from arbitrary cultural norms is inherently unhealthy.

Any transgender practices that do not have a route cause in genetic abnormalities are, in my opinion, abnormal. Biology has defined one as male or female. There is scant evidence that indicates that the majority of the transgendered individuals have anything biologically defined that would cause such an internal belief. The common argument that they "always felt they were in the wrong body" is flawed because most “experts” in the area of behavioral development agree that most significant personality development occurs by the age of 4. The period of development that could be responsible for such confusion coincides with one of little or no retained conscious memory for the individual. Having such "feelings" as early as 6 could easily be the direct result of events and not be truly natural. I believe that this represents a serious flaw in the arguments made by the APA, as their own research would draw other conclusions in to question.

Both of the APA's have a significant issue to address. First, they have developed a belief that judgment is wrong. As such, there is a strong movement to avoid classifying any activity or individuals as unhealthy. As you begin to expand the definition of "normal" and "healthy" one is forced to continue expansion indefinitely. The argument will always be made that "this" behavior is no different from "that" behavior, because both are in violation of biological standards.

Ultimately we must recognize that we have limited understanding of mental development, and it is an insanely difficult area for study, because observation comes after the events that may have caused behaviors. We are forced to rely on memory, and it has been proven that the ability to accurately recall past events is suspect.

As a result, I will base my personal beliefs first on biology and what is known over that which is based solely on theory
.

[Polycarp]

Thanks for posting this, Keep up the good work, Remedy.

Ignore those who would "normalize" this disorder on this Forum. They are fools who refuse to see the direct threat to our civilization posed by this homosexual juggernaut.

[Polycarp]

A) Will the Republicans enlarge their tent to accommodate this group which rightfully belongs to the democrats?

B) Will Horowitz defend the Log Cabin paraphilias?

c)Will social conservatives be shunned and left politically homeless within the GOP in the next 5 years?

D)Obviously, all of the above.

Answer: D

[maryz]

A question that arises is whether psychiatry itself has any social or scientific use at this juncture of history.

Ah -- the question that dare not speak its name!

[B-Chan]

You're so right. The battle between true conservatives and laissez-faire libertarians for the soul of the American Right has begun. Those of you who don't believe me, check out the David Horowitz threads for proof. The libertines hate social conservatism as much or more than they hate economic liberalism.

A good many posters on FR have mistaken narcissistic hedonism and crass libertarianism with true conservatism, when in actuality the two have little in common. In the end, each of us will be forced to decide which worldview we will support. Those who choose to stand behind the humanistic principles of the so-called enlightenment and its egocentric core values of Materialism, Reason, and Freedom will count as libertarians; I myself stand firmly for traditionalist conservatism -- that philosophy that seeks to preserve and promote our common Western, Judeo-Christian culture and its bedrock values of Family, Property, and the Common Weal.

[First Amendment]

Besides, Moser and Kleinplatz add, psychiatry has no baseline, theoretical model of what, in fact, constitutes normal and healthy sexuality to which it could compare people whose sexual interests draw them to children or sadism/masochism

When this statement is considered deeply, it shows that these people are extremely dangerous, extremely evil, extremely sick, and I have to say I would not be sorry if they disappeared off the face of the earth. It shows that people can be 100% insane and still remain "functional".

[First Amendment]

Both of the APA's have a significant issue to address. First, they have developed a belief that judgment is wrong. As such, there is a strong movement to avoid classifying any activity or individuals as unhealthy. As you begin to expand the definition of "normal" and "healthy" one is forced to continue expansion indefinitely. The argument will always be made that "this" behavior is no different from "that" behavior, because both are in violation of biological standards.

As a result, I will base my personal beliefs first on biology and what is known over that which is based solely on theory

When a person attempts to create truth leaving out or avoiding reference to God/Absolute Truth, then by default he is automatically placed in the same camp as the APA. You many not realize it, but you are espousing their line. Either their is Truth with a capital T, or anything goes. Those are the only two alternatives.

[First Amendment]

Either THERE is Truth with a capital T....(proofread better, self)