Bisexuality / Homosexuality and Radical Feminism - Connection ?

[LemonAndLime]

**Clothing fads and fashion, social network fads, hairstyle fads, disco, hip-hop, rap, etc. - those are *hardly ***the same as experimenting with homosexual sex. It takes a LOT of indoctrination from society and the media to make somebody go *THAT *far in the name of fads . . .

Really?

What about the need to belong? What about attention-seeking? Those can drive someone to “become” gay and then be “cured/grow out of it” later on in life. I’ve seen it happen personally.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In 1935 Sigmund Freud wrote this to the mother of a homosexual:

“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 …”

Freud erred in identifying Plato as a homosexual, because in his Laws he recommends strict censure of homosexuals for their shameful acts.

Plato, Laws [636c] “And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”

But Freud was also vocal about his atheism, like so many in his profession today. It is therefore no surprise that so many psychologists have signed on to Freud’s view and that they are spreading his foolish notions throughout the world.

 

[meltzerboy]

In 1935 Sigmund Freud wrote this to the mother of a homosexual:

“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 …”

Freud erred in identifying Plato as a homosexual, because in his Laws he recommends strict censure of homosexuals for their shameful acts.

Plato, Laws [636c] “And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”

But Freud was also vocal about his atheism, like so many in his profession today. It is therefore no surprise that so many psychologists have signed on to Freud’s view and that they are spreading his foolish notions throughout the world.

The trend for many years now among most psychologists who do research on the topic is definitely NOT in the direction of Freud’s views about homosexuality, or anything else for that matter. Most psychologists today are into the biological origins of homosexuality. In my opinion, they’ve gone somewhat too far in that direction, with not enough attention to the environmental influences, which need not be only according to a Freudian psychodynamic perspective.

 

[elvisman]

Are you being serious?

The Suffragettes were of the radical sort! They are perhaps not radical by our standards now, but they were scandelous, embarassing troublemakers and radicals when judged by the society in which they lived!

Some starved themselves and were force fed. One of the Pankhursts threw herself in front of the King’s horse and killed herself. Another Pankhurst referred to God as “she”.

If that’s not radical, what is?

The Suffragettes were extremely tame by today’s standards and although their ideas seemed radical - even for the time - they were not.

They wanted equal treatment, the right to vote, the right to be treated as humans and not property. They wanted Prohibition because of the actions of some abusive men.

This is HARDLY what today’s radical feminist agenda is about. Heavily influenced by a lesbian, man-hating ideal, Abortion is at the forefront. The right to kill children and the indoctrination of the homosexual agenda has become the cause célèbre of the feminist movement of today.

Open your eyes - or better yet - open a newspaper, then open your eyes.

 

[elvisman]

Really?

What about the need to belong? What about attention-seeking? Those can drive someone to “become” gay and then be “cured/grow out of it” later on in life. I’ve seen it happen personally.

I was responding you your statement:
"Of course some people follow fads - but does that prove that everyone is just following fashion?"

The fact is that many people are experimenting with homosexual behavior out of pure fashion and fad because of societal conditioning. There are also those who were conditioned in their formative years who may not have been homosexual at all.

 

[LemonAndLime]

**I was responding you your **statement:
"Of course some people follow fads - but does that prove that everyone is just following fashion?"

The fact is that many people are experimenting with homosexual behavior out of pure fashion and fad because of societal conditioning. There are also those who were conditioned in their formative years who may not have been homosexual at all.

So we agree then. Why are you arguing with me?

I think some people are in for fashion yes but soon grow out of it, and then there are those who truly cannot help what they are.

 

[LemonAndLime]

**The Suffragettes were extremely **tame by today’s standards and although their ideas seemed radical - even for the time - they were not.

They wanted equal treatment, the right to vote, the right to be treated as humans and not property. They wanted Prohibition because of the actions of some abusive men.

This is HARDLY what today’s radical feminist agenda is about. Heavily influenced by a lesbian, man-hating ideal, Abortion is at the forefront. The right to kill children and the indoctrination of the homosexual agenda has become the cause célèbre of the feminist movement of today.

Open your eyes - or better yet - open a newspaper, then open your eyes.

But they were perceived to be as radical and as scandalous as the so-called “feminists” of today, that’s a fact any novice historian knows well.

Linking the feminist movement with lesbianism is perhaps a little misguided. Can’t someone be a feminist without being a lesbian man-hater? I suppose they must if they expect to be treated the same as a man!

The Suffragettes were not the only feminist movement. There was a group of women who believed that their methods were extreme, dangerous, and detrimental - they believed quiet and dignified campaigning was the answer. Fact is though, the Suffragettes got results.

The current feminist movement is perhaps a little misguided. But they are just as scandalous today as they were then, whether you agree with them or not.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Ice cream woman and another ice cream woman? Angry, you’ve been watching one too many of “those” movies lately!

Not really.

Those kind of movies are expensive, and trying to get stuff like that for free on the internet leads to a hard drive full of viruses

On a more serious note, I was trying to be outrageous to call attention to just how absurd that kind of thinking is. I think my comment could fall under the category of parody or satire.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Whoa. Just a teeny tiny bit inaccurate.

Lust is not desire; it’s disordered desire, directed strictly to personal, inordinate pleasure apart from the mutuality in which desire should be activated. So it’s disordered in level and in orientation. (Demanding self-fulfiling pleasure without consent of the spouse would be an example of lust; it would be using the spouse. Demanding inordinate amounts of satisfaction, without recognition and respect for a spouse’s less intense needs for satisfaction, would be another example.)

Also, homosexuals are not “targets.”

Wikipedia is not a good source for most things. But it is a good way to gain an understanding of the Common Knowledge definition of many basic terms (such as lust).

Here is the definition of Lust on Wiki:

Lust is an emotional force that is directly associated with the thinking or fantasizing about one’s desire, usually in a sexual way.

And here is the definition of Lust from Dictionary.com:

1.intense sexual desire or appetite.
2.uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3.a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually followed by for ): a lust for power.
4.ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.
5.Obsolete .
a.pleasure or delight.
b.desire; inclination; wish.

–verb (used without object)
6.to have intense sexual desire.
7.to have a yearning or desire; have a strong or excessive craving (often followed by for or after ).

Relevant Source: dictionary.reference.com/browse/lust

The idea that sexual desire is not automatically Lust is a relatively new one. Despite the Catholic Church’s claims that it always taught about Lust this way.

During the Golden Age of Hollywood when films were regulated by the Hays Code, all but the most chaste signs of affection between a man and woman were considered lustful, and therefore forbidden. Click here artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html to read the actual text of the Code.

I bring it up because the Hays Code was created by a Protestant, but while American Catholics generally supported it. In practice they thought it was if anything, too lenient (source:answers.com/topic/will-h-hays).

What I am basically trying to say, is that traditionally (small t) the Christian churches have considered all sexual desire a sin, and have done their best to influence society based on that viewpoint.

As for homosexuals, of course their targets.

There are still many countries where homosexuality is a crime punishable by death, and here in the U.S. we have hate groups like the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**Ahhh . . . broad and unfounded **assumptions.
The last refuge of the truly desperate nay-sayer . . .

When doctors with an obvious agenda, whose credentials and competence have been called into question by the largest and most prestigious organizations in their field, say something controversial that seems to serve their agenda, people have a right (perhaps even a duty) to be suspicious.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Because you may have not explored the possibility that your sexual proclivities are the result of conditioning.

**This is what I *don’t ***understand by the nay-sayers. If somebody is having problems or questioning their sexuality and want to seek help from reparative therapy - HOW is this *your *business?

Homosexuality occurs among animals.

This makes the idea that homosexuality is unnatural or a choice seem dubious at best.

And it is my business because I have friends who are gay, and promoting the idea that they are mentally ill and in need of being cured, without anything but the most solid of evidence, seems callous and cruel at best.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That’s why I posted the remark from Jessie Gilliam, project manager for a Washington-based gay and lesbian support group. Yes, even homosexuals themselves are admitting this phenomenon. Here is some more on the subject:
US girls embrace gay passion fashion

**Boy - I guess you told *ME ***. . .

According to the very article you cite, most of the girls are acting/claiming to be bisexual (not lesbian) because its seen as popular and as a way of getting male attention.

While the idea that masses of womankind are converting to lesbianism may bring hope to lonely lesbians and energize offended conservatives, that does not appear to be happening.

 

[LemonAndLime]

When doctors with an obvious agenda, whose credentials and competence have been called into question by the largest and most prestigious organizations in their field, say something controversial that seems to serve their agenda, people have a right (perhaps even a duty) to be suspicious.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Yeah, why should we believe them? Why should we respect them whatsoever? Surely they are “plants” by the Roman Catholic Church. Surely these people who have suffered so much were merely coached to say what they said, or are being hypocritcal, deceitful. We should have no reason to honor their courage in coming out with their testimony, confronting themselves, and sharing that excruciating journey of self universally with complete strangers. There’s a Christian response.

Or their simply faking it to fit in.

There are still plenty of places where homosexuals (especially male homosexuals) are not welcome.

The President of Iran infamously said that there are no gays in Iran (relevant link:afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hATGOzv6YSmgeMY1zdYbdpyrG2cw). But the more likely explanation for the apparent absence of gays in Iran is that they are afraid to show themselves (because they would most likely be killed if they did).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You misplaced the reference of my remarks, L&L. They weren’t addressed to you. They were addressed to the reality that homosexuals who “come out” are revered & praised, whereas previously homosexuals were despised and discredited. That is what I was referring to as politics.

I fixed that paragraph for you

 

[LemonAndLime]

Or their simply faking it to fit in.

There are still plenty of places where homosexuals (especially male homosexuals) are not welcome.

The President of Iran infamously said that there are no gays in Iran (relevant link:afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hATGOzv6YSmgeMY1zdYbdpyrG2cw). But the more likely explanation for the apparent absence of gays in Iran is that they are afraid to show themselves (because they would most likely be killed if they did).

The same goes for elvis’ assertions that homosexuality “is on the rise”. I personally think that the statistics have jumped (if they have) not because of an increase, but because people are more likely to declare homosexuality/bisexuality in this culture - where it is acceptable in most areas, and more likely to be personally acceptable.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Elizabeth,

I don’t know if this will interest you.

chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p134.htm

It may help to explain why so many Christians (including Catholics) have been influenced in forming their sexual values by a so-called helping profession that is largely atheist/agnostic. How can Christians form a cogent view of bi-sexuality/homosexuality and radical feminism when they are being counseled by the very people who oppose the Christian perspective on most things moral?

What is the alternative then?

A psychiatric profession that is overtly Christian (or outright Catholic) perhaps?

But then how could non-Christians trust it?

Moreover your source is ridiculously biased.

According to the website’s own About Us section the group was founded by the Church of Scientology and exists to combat psychiatry. Here is a link to the page: cchr.org/about-us/what-is-cchr.html

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That is why radical feminism is front and center in supporting gay marriage. the goal is to destroy the ‘slavery’ of family.

The truly radical feminists believe that we men are irredeemable and our influence (and very presence) must be limited whenever possible. Its in many ways just a reverse of traditional misogyny.

Of course that’s just in the West.

In places like Saudi Arabia and Iran radical feminists are fighting for things such as giving a woman’s legal testimony (assuming that women can even testify) the same weight as a man’s in legal proceedings, as well as basics (by Western standards) like equal access to education, medical care, and food.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Charlemagne II, I just read that link you gave. It quotes a G.Brock Chisholm, a Canadian psychiatrist and co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health as saying -

Not having heard of this fellow before, I Googled him. First up came this page, which would curl your hair! And more right here.

Don’t anyone, ever again, dare to quote me any psycho babble statistics.

An yes.

Because one bad psychiatrist, especially if he was a leader among psychiatrists, proves that psychiatry itself is bad

Would it be fair to judge Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular by that standard?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Real feminism, at its core, what it started out as back in the sufferage days, was true equality.

I consider myself a feminist. I used to be an anti-feminist, as I thought that feminism was about domination and killing the unborn. But real feminism is equality.

Why the heck shouldn’t I get teh same pay for the same job a man does?

I dont’ want to laud over men, I want the same rights as a man. I want the unborn to have the same rights as men.

Quoting from the Bible about men dominating over women is assinine, else we better gather up our sacks of rocks and go stone some strumpets.

Of course, end of the day I find it rather sad and hyporcitical that so many women in the west whinge and moan about getting a few dollars less than a man for teh same job but right now in some dodgey country women are being raped and enslaved by their husbands and having acid thrown on them by jealous inlaws, or stoned for carrying their rapists baby - beign accused of adultery no less! Those women are in need of some feminism.

You have a real point.

I think the explanation for it, is that Western women are about as self centered as Western men. So issues like that don’t get the attention they deserve in the West.