Replies

I used to work on a journal called Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity and there was a certain subset of people in the psychiatric world who wanted nothing to do with such a journal, believing for purely political/cultural reasons that addiction to sex is impossible or not worth discussing. Such people were working to push an agenda and had no interest in helping people who desperately need it.

Funny you should say this. Tonight at work I was reading the article by Socrades (?) about sexual politics, and I jotted down a question next to one of the paragraphs--- maybe y'all can answer it. The question is: Why do psychologists, psychiatrists, people in the media, politicians, etc. who have NO ulterior motives (say, because they and their families/friends are all straight) or bias FOR homosex take the position that homosexuality is NOT an aberrant condition? Is it because they really, really believe it's perfectly normal?

If they actually believe that it IS abnormal (even tho' they don't admit it), what do they have to gain by pretending that it's normal and OK?

If they actually believe that it IS abnormal (even tho' they don't admit it), what do they have to gain by pretending that it's normal and OK?

Many of them suffer from deviancies of their own, whether sexual or otherwise. They like the idea that someone else out there behaves more pathologically than they do. They figure if the more pathological person can be "accepted" then they are shoe-ins. Thus, this "acceptance" is more about selfish motives than about any actual care for the afflictions of the individual with same-sex attraction.

This thought process is one of the reasons, in my opinion, many homosexual types are so willing to accept pedophiles and incestuous relationships. It allows them to say, "see, we're not so bad. If society accepts incest and pedophilia, they've got to accept us too."