Don't Ask....Don't Tell. Good Policy?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Experimentation and orientation are contrastingly distinct.

Freud claims that most boys entertain same-sex curiosity at the youngest stages of life. This isn't because of orientation, though. It's sexual curiosity.

Please don't misrepresent Freud.

Contemporary psychology could be said to have begun with Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920),

1 Oral stage of development
2 Anal stage
3 Phallic stage
4 latency stage
5 genital stage.

In the young male, the Oedipus conflict stems from his natural love for his mother, a love which becomes sexual as his libidal energy transfers from the anal region to his genitals.
Freud goes further to mention fixations.

Auto-eroticism is a condition that pre-exists the formation of the ego; elsewhere Freud refers to the "polymorphous perversity" of the infant.

Freud mentions in passing the import of such notions as 1) the erotogenic zones, 2) auto-eroticism, 3) sado- masochism, 4) the inherent bisexuality of children, and so on.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Sounds like you went to some Evangelical school for Social Sciences (or at least a class). I don't think your opinion even remotely resembled the mainstream social science field. It's a conglomeration of Google Searches gone mad.

No matter how you attempt to read into Freud's motives, his work on early childhood development is still used and widely popular (even if some of the particulars are discarded, the ideas as a whole inspired countless social scientists after him). Also the Id, Ego, Super Ego, though there are obvious parallels to psyche, soma, pneuma -- are quite insightful. And like it or not, Freudian language and influence, even in 2010 is by far, the most influential of social scientists ever.

He is the big brand name for people outside the behavioral sciences.

Truthfully a lot of his stuff has been avoided for many years.
III:

94) Freud offers the reader a discussion of hermaphroditism in mythology--he sees it as a worthy expression of divine perfection.


99) Psychogenesis of homosexuality: (conditions for the onset of homosexuality) [very stereotypical to people of today]

Males with intense erotic attachments to their mothers during the first periods of infancy and afterwards are forgotten;
the attachment evoked by too much tenderness of from the mother and further reinforced by the small part played by the father at this time in a child's development;
Mothers of gay men "were frequently masculine women, women with traits of character, who were able to push their father [the child's] out of his proper place." [see footnote #2]
All persons are polymorphously perverse in childhood--i.e., we are all inherently bisexual.
The child then represses his love of mother;
He then identifies with her--puts himself in her place.
The male child then "takes his own person as a model in whose likeness he chooses the new objects of his love." Therefore, the male child becomes homosexual by slipping back into a form of auto-eroticism. That is, he finds the object of his love along the path of narcissism. Freud thus claims that homosexuals as observable as being excited by women. Yet, as a result of a fear of being unfaithful to the mother, the male transfer (100) their sexual excitement immediately to men. From the above considerations Freud seems to come to the conclusion that Leonardo was, indeed, a homosexual.
About smiles and how oral eroticism is related to homosexuality. Freud also brings in further discussion of the vulture phantasy.


110) Freud suggests that the smile depicted in the Mona Lisa painting may have awakened a infantile trance memory Leonardo had of his mother.

http://www.magma.ca/~mfonda/freud11.html

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I can attest to seeing both., I have encountered homosexuals that were very belligerent. It has nothing to do with being straight or gay

On a personal level I have known several that, over the course of time, came to church.

But here is why I asked my earlier question...everyone of them had confessed to being attracted to some women as well as to men.

For one I asked about that and his answer was "flesh is flesh"..

One man I knew experienced "events" in the military with other guys but to this day repudiates those actions.

I haven't, although I'm sure there are belligerent everyones. Maybe our approach is different? Just wondering.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I haven't, although I'm sure there are belligerent everyones. Maybe our approach is different? Just wondering.

There are belligerent everyones. As I said, has nothing to do with being gay or straight

[Sabby]

DADT is good policy because it retains a requirement of discretion of behavior and maintains (even if it's only a perception) a right to privacy.
That right to privacy is shredded if straights are required to co-mingle, bunk, shower, etc, al with gays.
Example of a violation of a right to privacy is a straight having to shower with a known gay. Of COURSE gays would not have a problem with that, r u kidding?! I said it once and will say it again, the military will have to create barracks and showers for straight men, women and one for gays, but even THAT won't work, because if you offer gays their own barracks or showers it is disparity of treatment, because army regs don't allow guys to shack up with their girlfriends (or vica verca) in the barracks. Eliminating DADT will require the military to be even more politically correct than it was with the Ft Hood shooter. DADT is the best policy we could come up with given the nature of the military environment.
At least with the DADT policy gays can serve, albeit discretely.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

There are belligerent everyones. As I said, has nothing to do with being gay or straight

True. I just wanted to say that, those who have entered the forum of the gay lifestyle, from my experience, have been very polite, considerate, and kind.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by notofworks

True. I just wanted to say that, those who have entered the forum of the gay lifestyle, from my experience, have been very polite, considerate, and kind.

Most have been in my experience

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Sounds like you went to some Evangelical school for Social Sciences (or at least a class). I don't think your opinion even remotely resembled the mainstream social science field. It's a conglomeration of Google Searches gone mad.

No matter how you attempt to read into Freud's motives, his work on early childhood development is still used and widely popular (even if some of the particulars are discarded, the ideas as a whole inspired countless social scientists after him). Also the Id, Ego, Super Ego, though there are obvious parallels to psyche, soma, pneuma -- are quite insightful. And like it or not, Freudian language and influence, even in 2010 is by far, the most influential of social scientists ever.

Freud really didn't do true experiments. How do you do "free association exercises" scientifically? Neither did anna,.
He was a regular cocaine user and shared it with friends.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Sabby

DADT is good policy because it retains a requirement of discretion of behavior and maintains (even if it's only a perception) a right to privacy.

Right to privacy? On the contrary -- it seems to be a demand against being able to be public. Interesting how you can see that as a right.


That right to privacy is shredded if straights are required to co-mingle, bunk, shower, etc, al with gays.

Who said they'd be forced to co-mingle? That has been my concern as well, but obviously, things would change.


Example of a violation of a right to privacy is a straight having to shower with a known gay. Of COURSE gays would not have a problem with that, r u kidding?! I said it once and will say it again, the military will have to create barracks and showers for straight men, women and one for gays, Or maybe just private showers for everyone? You raise an interesting point though.

but even THAT won't work, because if you offer gays their own barracks or showers it is disparity of treatment, because army regs don't allow guys to shack up with their girlfriends (or vica verca) in the barracks. Eliminating DADT will require the military to be even more politically correct than it was with the Ft Hood shooter. DADT is the best policy we could come up with given the nature of the military environment.
At least with the DADT policy gays can serve, albeit discretely.

You make a couple interesting points.

[Praxeas]

Nobody commented, but one reason for repealing the DADT rule is that some people, even straight, can use the excuse of being gay to be discharged from Military service in a war zone