Why Isn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequence

[French Affair]

By Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N.

I worked as an RN for several years during the eighties and nineties at Stanford University Medical Center, where I saw some of the damage homosexuals do to their bodies with some of their sexual practices. As a result of that eye-opening experience, I much admire the work of NARTH in the research and treatment of homosexuality.

I have long been concerned about the serious medical consequences which result from the gay-affirming attitudes that predominate in the San Francisco Bay Area. For example, I knew personally a prominent dermatologist, a dentist, an engineer, and a hairdresser that died in their mid-forties of infectious diseases related to their homosexual behavior patterns. I know of many others that have died young as a result of living a gay lifestyle.

The co-author of my own medical reference book, Saunders Pocket Reference for Nurses,[i] was the head of the surgery department at Stanford. She related case histories of homosexuals needing emergency surgery due to "fisting," "playing with toys," (inserting objects into the rectum) and other bizarre acts. I am certain--in light of my clinical experience, and since doing considerable amount of studying about it since that time--that homosexuality is neither normal nor benign; rather, it is a lethal behavioral addiction as Dr. Jeffrey Satinover outlines in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth.[ii]

As far as I know, there is no other group of people in the United States that dies of infectious diseases in their mid-forties except practicing homosexuals. This, to me, is tragic, when we know that homosexuality can be prevented, in many cases, or substantially healed in adulthood when there is sufficient motivation and help.

I now live in Delaware and work in conjunction with the Delaware Family Foundation to inform the public about homosexual issues. We are debating gay activists who want to add "sexual discrimination" to our anti-discrimination code. In trying to make the case that homosexuality is not healthy and should not be encouraged, we come up against the fact that neither the American Psychiatric Association, nor the American Psychological Association recognize it as a disorder. Our opponents say we are using "scare tactics."

Dr. Satinover brilliantly laid out in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth the solid, irrefutable evidence that there are lethal consequences of engaging in the defining features of male homosexuality--that is, promiscuity and anal intercourse.

Can anyone refute that increased morbidity and mortality is an unavoidable result of male-with-male sex--not to mention the increased rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, suicide and other maladies that so often accompany a homosexual lifestyle?[v] People with this whole cluster of behavior patterns are somehow "normal"?

My primary question is: why isn't homosexuality considered a disorder on the basis of its medical consequences alone? Dr. Satinover and others have made a solid case for why homosexuality parallels alcoholism as an unhealthy addiction. It should have a parallel diagnosis.


the homosexuals who shove their evil lifestyle in our childrens faces are actually putting their lives at risk by tempting them into a lifestyle which will most likely eventually kill them - the homosexualisation of America will kill our future generations. when will patriotic Americans put a stop to this?

[SelfControl]

Largely untrue or subjectivity presented as fact. The bit I'll pick on for now is the claim that "when we know that homosexuality can be prevented, in many cases, or substantially healed in adulthood when there is sufficient motivation and help." What is being described is the supression of one's instinctive sexual urges, which is seen in psychology as one of the most damaging things a person can do. For a medical practitioner to recommend this is quite disturbing.

As for the rest of it, promiscuity and anal intercourse are fairly prevalent in heterosexuals as well, and many homosexuals do not indulge in either. Are they then exempt from your loathing? I somehow doubt this.

If you plan to offer any intelligent defense of your thread, feel free to use the post function to respond on the forum.

[Snowdancer]

I'll take on your comment "not to mention the increased rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, suicide and other maladies that so often accompany a homosexual lifestyle"

Where the heck are you getting your data? Of the GLBT folks I've known I have to say that there is no higher rate of substance abuse than any other group. I also have known 5 people in my years who have done themselves in purposely. All were heterosexual. I have heard of GLBT people committing suicide but it was because they couldn't take the harassment from small minded fools any more.

OK, I can't pass this by either. You say "As far as I know, there is no other group of people in the United States that dies of infectious diseases in their mid-forties except practicing homosexuals." How about cancer, hypertension, infertility, preterm delivery, stillbirth, low birth weight, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), lower bone density, nuclear cataracts of the lens of the eye, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Coronary heart disease and stroke, Periodontitis, Peptic ulcers, higher rates of upper and lower respiratory tract infections, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma? Not all of these are infectious, at least themselves but let infectious things in more easily. All of these are caused by tobacco use though. Nationally, smoking results in more than 5.6 million years of potential life lost each year. An estimated, 22.5% of all adults (46 million people) smoke cigarettes in the United States. That's a pretty big number, French Affair.

Again I think you need to do your homework better. Better yet. How about you quit bothering us with dismiss-able blather that you regurgitate from some hate mongering talking head.

[gertie]

french affair... what fills your heart and spirit with such hate?

[peacefuljeffrey]

I don't think it's hate so much as it is misguided self-righteousness masquerading as altruistic concern. It's probably born of some religious fundamentalist beliefs.

I am heterosexual. But I understand that if homosexuality were considered "the norm," there's no way I'd be able to -- or willing to -- be "cured" of my heterosexuality. I also have a foot fetish that I would not wish to be "cured" of.

The assertion that homosexual sex is necessarily, axiomatically dangerous is a specious claim. Nothing about the actual mechanics of homosexual sex is specifically, intrinsically dangerous. YES, promiscuity coupled with unprotected sex is dangerous. But that is not exclusive to homosexuality. What French Affair should be opposed to is promiscuity, not specifically homosexuality, since homosexuality does not have a lock, by any means, on dangerous or risky sexual behavior or "lifestyles." There are heteros who die of autoerotic asphyxiation, for example. Heteros also die of diseases caught from unprotected intercourse.

If you could prove that this was just about the actual sex that gays have, French, that'd be one thing. But so far there is nothing in what you say that points exclusively to them. Yes, there may be fact in observations of death rates due to certain causes, but again, that is behaviorally caused, not caused by the mechanics of gay sex.

-Jeffrey

[SelfControl]

A lot of the argument is founded on no understanding of homosexual behaviour. Citing examples of "fisting," "playing with toys," (inserting objects into the rectum) and other bizarre acts." proves it. These activities are a) not exclusive to homosexuals at all, and b) not an especially common practise among homosexuals. Moreover, "inserting objects into the rectum" is often less damaging to the anus than vaginal penetration is to the vagina. Sex causes damage.

The Christian faith invests a hell of a lot of money in telling Africans that condoms contains microscopic holes which allow AIDS to flow through it, and that rather than use contraception they should just be abstainent. If you wanted proof that the Church causes death on a massive scale through its unwillingness to understand human, then there it is.

[Synaptic Ether]

one could say the same thing about psychedelics if all you see is medical consequences and 'mishaps' of uneducated users

[neckienoo]

Anyone that has unprotected sexual contact with multiple partners leaves themselves open for a sexually transmitted disease. Homosexuality is not a disorder. Why isn't being a closed minded witch considered a disorder....?

[SelfControl]

Because liberals are obligated to respect other people's viewpoints, whereas republicans are not.

[meishka]

leave the men alone!! when are you gonna attack the women?! is it because men aren't afraid of their rectums? are you so afraid that you're too afraid to wipe your on ass in fear of possible penetration? now dig up that article of lesbians or are you into them and wouldn't dream of that

[meishka]

but i have to say he is persistant. he tries really hard. but it'll never change anyone

[Taylor]

he tries hard.... and fails... silly little rabbit. go home.

[LogsOnSticks]

Kudos to you for supporting your arguement and opinions with facts.

However, these facts are VERY poorly constructed.

You know, there are worst conditions and actions to deal with right now.
Instead of wasting your time on trying to miraculously convert our lifestyle that causes no intended harm to others, take a look at the rest of the world.

Every form of sex has its risks, but these are risks we are willing to take in order to maintain and fulfill a happy life for ourselves.

[Epiphany]

Freud had a great theory on, "Confusion of gender identity", during the phallic stage.

[SelfControl]

This is what his religion does.

http://www.chick.com/tractimages69301/Page23/enIslam.gif

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp

Do you really think you can talk to him logically?

[LogsOnSticks]

Of course you can't bring logic to some Christians, because they support most of their facts from the Bible, refusing to consider any other options...

But, not all Christians are like that, either.
I'm sure not, and that little questionaire thing is not the basis of our religion.

I consider Christianity to be categorized into two types of Christians:

1) There's the Bible thumpers, interpreting everything in their life from the Bible and the Church.

2) And then, there are those who approach Christianity spiritually, personally developing their relationship with God one on one, which I personally find to be the most enlightening.

This could actually apply to almost any religion, though...

[Sera Michele]

My mother in law is a lesbian, and a christian. She believes in god, and goes to church. The bible-thumpers are the christian opinions you are going to hear the most, because those people are the loudest.

Anyway, I think that the biggest (and only) disorder around homosexuality is homophobia. We should figure out how to treat that.

[soulrebel51]

I worked as an RN for several years during the eighties and nineties at Stanford University Medical Center, where I saw some of the damage homosexuals do to their bodies with some of their sexual practices.
Did you also happen to notice all the teenage pregnancies and all the mothers who die while giving birth (obviously having nothing to do with homosexuality)?

I have long been concerned about the serious medical consequences which result from the gay-affirming attitudes that predominate in the San Francisco Bay Area. For example, I knew personally a prominent dermatologist, a dentist, an engineer, and a hairdresser that died in their mid-forties of infectious diseases related to their homosexual behavior patterns. I know of many others that have died young as a result of living a gay lifestyle.
I know a couple people who are sick from infectious diseases that were caused by heterosexual fornication.

The co-author of my own medical reference book, Saunders Pocket Reference for Nurses,[i] was the head of the surgery department at Stanford. She related case histories of homosexuals needing emergency surgery due to "fisting," "playing with toys," (inserting objects into the rectum) and other bizarre acts.
lmao... I have found "toys" in my friend's mom's bedroom (obviously she's not gay, she's a mom and married).

As far as I know, there is no other group of people in the United States that dies of infectious diseases in their mid-forties except practicing homosexuals.
Bullshit. Everyone can become infected by an std of some sort by having any kind of sex, heterosexual or homosexual, and die from it.

I now live in Delaware and work in conjunction with the Delaware Family Foundation to inform the public about homosexual issues. We are debating gay activists who want to add "sexual discrimination" to our anti-discrimination code.
How is it not discrimination? You refuse to accept them because they are different. This is no different than what the blacks went through no less than 40 years ago. Not 50 years ago it was illegal for blacks to marry whites... sound familiar?

Can anyone refute that increased morbidity and mortality is an unavoidable result of male-with-male sex--not to mention the increased rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, suicide and other maladies that so often accompany a homosexual lifestyle?[v]
I know quite a few people round these parts who are straight (homophobic at that), that suffer from all the things you just mentioned. And I, and it seems like everyone else here, has heard nothing of these studies.

My primary question is: why isn't homosexuality considered a disorder on the basis of its medical consequences alone?
Why not go after all types of unprotected sex?

the homosexuals who shove their evil lifestyle in our childrens faces are actually putting their lives at risk by tempting them into a lifestyle which will most likely eventually kill them - the homosexualisation of America will kill our future generations. when will patriotic Americans put a stop to this?
I can name two gay tv shows on tv. After 10, I can't name anymore straight tv shows. Homosexuality being rubbed in our faces? Bullshit.
And no one is forced into being homosexual, it's a person's choice to do what they want. Ever hear the phrase "live and let live"? You should try it.

[gertie]

i agree with soulrebel51. its nice when people are willing to stand up against those without common sense.

[MSman]

No response. That is something.

[MSman]

Oh yes and I certainly a #2 on the christain category. I have to say these Southern Baptists (and i know them well, 3/4 of MS is composed of them) say that u r gonna burn if u dont do it. But they sometimes take the Bible to litterally. If that were the case 99.9999% of America would be going to hell.

[MattInVegas]

Homosexuality is on;y WRONG in todays current Christian beliefs. If Jesus Christ walked this earth today? He would be very sad about the SHIT that get's carried out in HIS name. I, myself, am not Christian. I'll make that clear right up front. Neither, am I gay, bi or anything except hetero.
But1 In every version of what Cristians call the "HOLY" Bible, Jesus gave up his very own life WILLINGLY, that god might FORGIVE mankind in it's discretions.
By Definition, Jesus Christ, loves ALL of us, no matter what!!!!!!
LOVE is Gods gift to us all. Be it man for man, man for woman, or woman for woman.
Love is LOVE. And it is Gods gift. So. HOW can it be wrong? Even the U.S. Government can't win THAT war!

[SelfControl]

"Amor vincent omnia", Chaucer.

[gertie]

huh?

"Amor vincent omnia", Chaucer.

[SelfControl]

Amor vincent omnia: Love conquers all. That was in the 14th century, and we still don't get it.

[LogsOnSticks]

Oooh, I love Latin...

So true, SelfControl.

As for Christians, thats what Christians need to understand...Sometimes the most simplistic statements have the biggest value in meaning...
If Catholicism spent more time on following the "Golden Rule," rather than interpreting the Bible at high literal standards, there wouldn't be so many problems today...

[MSman]

catholics rnt the real threats to gays, baptists and church of christ ( but then again Church of Christs believe u go to hell if u dance) are.

[Mollyredmore]

I Agree with the man who wrote this thread PREACH THE truth Anal sex cannot be healthy butgoaheadanddowhateva

[YankNBurn]

Well my few times I ever crossed paths with anyone no heterosexual was of no difference than that of anyone period.


I did loose a long time childhood friend over the issue. He used to make fun of "gays" and such and so did I when I was a junior high school moran who really never even saw a "gay" person, just made stupid opinions about ppl. Well anyway he was a year ahead of me and he went to college, then moved far away. He never kep in contact with me, it was odd. Years later I saw his little brother who was 3 years younger than I and he told me his brother anounced a few years back he was gay. Knew he was gay since he was a young child ect ect. He wanted nothing to do with his old firends since he thought we would not understand. I was bummed since he was the one who wrote all this anti gay shit in all my year books and crap, he never gave me the chance to either accept him or reject him and he based his opinions of our stupid childish bs when we were like in 5th thru 8th grade.

I am glad to say that I have 2 very happily gay friends and one sad to say lesbian friend who is so damn hot! I tell her all the time if she ever thinks she just wants to do something different I am there, her reply "keep dreaming" Saddest thing is I wish my old friend would have the chance to know just how much I dont care what he chooses for a mate, just a friend. I dearly miss that friendship.

So as far as that really negative garb that started this thread, to bad what your demented twisted imaginary limited case facts may be, people do as they please and want. I love girls, would love to have 100 around me at all times. Is it healthy, I doubt it (I'd die of a heart attack but with a smile) but I have the right if I can find volunteers!:D

BE GAY! BE STRAIGHT! BE HAPPY!:p

[The Sandreckoner]

By Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N.

I worked as an RN for several years during the eighties and nineties at Stanford University Medical Center, where I saw some of the damage homosexuals do to their bodies with some of their sexual practices. As a result of that eye-opening experience, I much admire the work of NARTH in the research and treatment of homosexuality.

I have long been concerned about the serious medical consequences which result from the gay-affirming attitudes that predominate in the San Francisco Bay Area. For example, I knew personally a prominent dermatologist, a dentist, an engineer, and a hairdresser that died in their mid-forties of infectious diseases related to their homosexual behavior patterns. I know of many others that have died young as a result of living a gay lifestyle.

The co-author of my own medical reference book, Saunders Pocket Reference for Nurses,[i] was the head of the surgery department at Stanford. She related case histories of homosexuals needing emergency surgery due to "fisting," "playing with toys," (inserting objects into the rectum) and other bizarre acts. I am certain--in light of my clinical experience, and since doing considerable amount of studying about it since that time--that homosexuality is neither normal nor benign; rather, it is a lethal behavioral addiction as Dr. Jeffrey Satinover outlines in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth.[ii]

As far as I know, there is no other group of people in the United States that dies of infectious diseases in their mid-forties except practicing homosexuals. This, to me, is tragic, when we know that homosexuality can be prevented, in many cases, or substantially healed in adulthood when there is sufficient motivation and help.

I now live in Delaware and work in conjunction with the Delaware Family Foundation to inform the public about homosexual issues. We are debating gay activists who want to add "sexual discrimination" to our anti-discrimination code. In trying to make the case that homosexuality is not healthy and should not be encouraged, we come up against the fact that neither the American Psychiatric Association, nor the American Psychological Association recognize it as a disorder. Our opponents say we are using "scare tactics."

Dr. Satinover brilliantly laid out in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth the solid, irrefutable evidence that there are lethal consequences of engaging in the defining features of male homosexuality--that is, promiscuity and anal intercourse.

Can anyone refute that increased morbidity and mortality is an unavoidable result of male-with-male sex--not to mention the increased rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, suicide and other maladies that so often accompany a homosexual lifestyle?[v] People with this whole cluster of behavior patterns are somehow "normal"?

My primary question is: why isn't homosexuality considered a disorder on the basis of its medical consequences alone? Dr. Satinover and others have made a solid case for why homosexuality parallels alcoholism as an unhealthy addiction. It should have a parallel diagnosis.


the homosexuals who shove their evil lifestyle in our childrens faces are actually putting their lives at risk by tempting them into a lifestyle which will most likely eventually kill them - the homosexualisation of America will kill our future generations. when will patriotic Americans put a stop to this?
I'm new to this forum -- is it okay to tell other posters to go play a nice game of hide and go fuck yourself around here?

[darrellkitchen]

I really don't think your gonna be getting any response from Frenchy. This is one of those posts that pop in, stir the nest, then pop out to see how many hornets actually come out and fly around. Granted he/she will be around to read it and delight in the conflict and discord, either as the original poster, or as some other pseudonym ... but ...

Darrell

[WalrusKeeper]

"the defining features of male homosexuality--that is, promiscuity and anal intercourse."

Tehe. Yes. See the fatal error in that argument?

[klein]

If you were a gay guy you would never had post that text.
Shame on you for writing something you havn't experienced yourself (and never will do either).

And shame on me for even bother to reply to this post.

[Snowdancer]

I'm new to this forum -- is it okay to tell other posters to go play a nice game of hide and go fuck yourself around here?

French affair is just a pathetic coward. I've told the dork off a few times but zi still keeps bringing up more blather in a new message that zi has cut & pasted from some hate mongering source or another. Like has been said we rarely if ever hear from the looser after the original post.

Poor pathetic little being doesn't even have enough knowledge of hir own to carry on a dialog after the original message using incorrect information taken from someplace else.

May peace someday come upon hir. It must be hell to be filled with so much hate & can't express it in your own words.

[peyote_coyote]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

French: Please do us all a favour and get cancer. Why would you post this on a hippie forum? Most people here do drugs, like me. :D But I'm a responsible user. I'm gay, dude mostly everything you said was fucking bullshit and is biased... Please just leave this forum. We are about peace, not hating differant cultural groups like pot smokers and fags like me. Your a disease, geeze.... FuckoffANDdie! :P Thanks.

I hope you realize the truth someday.

[YEMolly]

French, How is it possible that you're intelligent enough to be an R.N., yet you seem to lack true knowledge and understanding of the subject you're referring to. Your entire post was hateful and f'king ridiculous...really. Homosexuality is preventable??? You can be healed from it? Just where are you finding these "facts?" I am bi-sexual so don't fully understand what it's like to be gay, but I have dozens of gay friends, and I would like for you to try and "treat" their "disorder." Where did you get your information? Americans for a Gay-Free America? I also noticed that you based your argument almost solely on anal sex. Where do lesbians fit into this? Perhaps next time your little study should include information from more than a bunch of ultra-conservative people who refuse to believe that people are actually born gay. By not researching what and how you should have and by being totally biased, your arguement lacks validity and most certainly isn't sound. You're just perpetuating hate.
Would you eat your young if they were gay, French? You have some serious soul searching to do.

[Snowdancer]

The post starts with a byline, @ least Zi gave credit to the author if the fairy tale. It says, "By Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N."
I am really starting to believe that French Affair is incapable of forming thoughts of hir own. I'm not going to wade through the the blather in past posts by this being but as I remember every one is just regurgitating homophobic venom that is party line of the hate mongers unless it is just plain cut & pasted from some of their propaganda.

Poor pitiful French Affair. We should all burn some sage to cleanse hir spirit.

[The Sandreckoner]

French: Please do us all a favour and get cancer.ROTFLMFAO!!!!

No, really, I don't know when the last time I laughed that hard at something on the internet was -- I am sooooo using that phrase in online discussions, if you don't mind. Love y'er name too, PC!

[YEMolly]

That shit is funny!


<<Quote: Originally Posted by peyote_coyote
French: Please do us all a favour and get cancer.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!

No, really, I don't know when the last time I laughed that hard at something on the internet was -- I am sooooo using that phrase in online discussions, if you don't mind. Love y'er name too, PC!>>>

[peyote_coyote]

That shit is funny!


<<Quote: Originally Posted by peyote_coyote
French: Please do us all a favour and get cancer.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!

No, really, I don't know when the last time I laughed that hard at something on the internet was -- I am sooooo using that phrase in online discussions, if you don't mind. Love y'er name too, PC!>>>
Wow man!! lol Thanks! Fuck yeah you can use it. Share everythin' man!! :P

These forums fucking rule!!

DUDE!! I'm like....so stoned... o.o

Far out man:p
Expand your mind!!!

[SkeeterVT]

[QUOTE=French Affair]By Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N.

I worked as an RN for several years during the eighties and nineties at Stanford University Medical Center, where I saw some of the damage homosexuals do to their bodies with some of their sexual practices. As a result of that eye-opening experience, I much admire the work of NARTH in the research and treatment of homosexuality.


I'm sorry, but I cannot allow your post to go unchallenged. As a nurse, you of all people should know that the health-damaging prectices are not limited to homosexuals by any measure -- indeed, as far as disease is concerned, is much more widespread among heterosexuals.

The organization whose work you cite and admire, NARTH, has a clear anti-homosexual agenda. One of its principal spokespersons, Dr. Paul Cameron, has long been discredited for extremely biased research into male homosexual practices -- which he describes in such graphic detail that he was ultimately "outed" in 1999 as a closeted, self-hating homosexual himself by a gay newspaper in Boston.

Moreover, NARTH has been exposed as having extensive ties to the anti-gay Christian Right, particularly so-called "ex-gay" ministries whose work to convert gay men to heterosexuality is nothing less than brainwashing and mind control -- the very same techniques employed by a number of religious cults.

This bias is made all the more apparent by NARTH's total lack of research and commentary into female homosexuality. Gay men are the exclusive focus. That, in my opinion, is revealing of a far more widespread disorder: Homophobia, which, contrary to popular beilef, is an irrational fear, particularly among heterosexual men, that they may have homoerotic feelings themselves. At the very least, these men all too often express a clear insecurity about their masculinity.

Homophobia has proven deleterious effects on those men who are most afflicted with it. Chief among them: Paranoia and violent behavior.

I strongly suggest that you investigate THIS, rather than homosexuality itself. It is homophobia that is the REAL disorder.

-- Skeeter

[Quetzalcoatl]

I agree there are subjective, political and moral implications in the R.N's comments.
However,
There is some objective evidence for her suggestion Homosexuality is not properly called 'natural' or 'Normal' - in that, under typical scenario's it will naturally lead to unhealthy or 'damaging' consequences.

Maybe putting it this way:

Any average healthy male and female adults (of normal intelligence) can have sexual intercourse repeatedly and over a lifetime and experience nothing but good consequences for their health and genitals.

Two average healthy males repeatedly having sexual intercourse are going to, as a matter of course, eventually end up with 'Gay Bowel Syndrome', and eventually, urinary tract infections (from fecal matter and colon acids being pushed into their penis openings).

Now some people are going to mention condoms, but this is where we step off the 'natural' definition, since chemical manufacturing labs dont exist in nature.
KY anal Lubricants dont exist in nature either.

Even with these things.. tearing open of the rectums lining is still likely.

Yes, tears occur on the vagina and male penis during 'heterosexual' intercourse too, but here again - nature seems designed to cope and compensate. .. and even strengthen in this case.

The Rectal lining does not seem to have a natural coping mechanism.

What people choose to do outside the 'natural intercourse' is another level of this discussion and there are definatley many many heterosexual couples doing damage to themselves (anal intercourse, large objects, man-made metal pins stabbed through their genitals to 'look cool')

Fair warning, if you think turning the argument to a 'comparison' of bad sexual practices of Heterosexuals 'VS' Homosexuals......

There is a LOT of concern among PRO-Homosexual orgs about the very high percentage of 'Negative' sexual practices among their ranks

I wish I could find some links but many studies showing that while just a small percentage of Heterosexual couples (or one of the two) will routinely engage in 'anonymous' sex with other partners - Homosexuals have a very high percentage of 'anonymous' sex.. and on more occasions.

So making 'side by side' comparisons is not necessarily making a good argument for Homosexuality as a 'Healthy' choice.

[SelfControl]

A lot of "negative" homosexual practises are caused by the homosexual culture. You can't really compare it to heterosexual practise, because there isn't the sexualised culture of promiscuity.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: a lot of heterosexuals would probably indulge in these practises if they were as able and encouraged to as homos.

There are many paradigms in place which have, over generations, conditioned heterosexuals not to be as exploratory as homosexuals have been. If you look at the Sixties, when society was more permissive, many more heterosexuals indulge in anonymous sex, because it was more acceptable and easier to orchestrate.

(Apologies if I just stated and restated the bleedin' obvious there, it's late where I am)

So while I'm not denying that there are probably more incidences of "negative" sex acts among homos, I would argue that the cultures are not comparable. Because homosexuality was not socially acceptable for so long, its culture and etiquettes - with a history measurable in decades rather than millenia - can not be expected to be as sophisticated as heterosexual culture. It is only when open homosexuality is more widely integrated into society that one can compare them.

Does that make any sense? What I'm trying to say is that homos have kind of learned to be sluts as a result of not being allowed to have relationships; that the "negative" aspects are not linked to the people so much as the permissive "quickfix" culture of the gay scene, which is itself a biproduct of heterosexual society's rejection of homosexuals.

Man I sound self-righteous :D

[Quetzalcoatl]

Its sounds like the common turnabout on any of the critisisms made about the Homosexual lifestyle.

The problem is - it doesnt fly (imo).

Although I dont think 'Heterosexuals' really care what Homosexuals do or dont do ..
If anything - the 'disapproving' heterorsexuals would rather see Gays stay in private 1-one-1 personal relationships.

And really.. most of the people we would describe as moderately 'anti-Gay' would probably say they dont care what 'they do, as long as they keep it to themselves'.

This is certainly not encouraging promiscuity??

For that matter.. a repressed lifestyle like homosexuality would be more likely to see less promiscuity when there was no way to identify (easily) another homosexual.
if two should meet - they would be best to stick together since being 'out' was not an obvious thing.

Nope sorry.. I do not believe that the high promiscuity rate is because heterosexuals are causing the homosexuals to act that way.

If anything the opposite.

[SelfControl]

No, what I'm saying is that the culture originally developed because homosexuals were considered unacceptable. I'm talking way back in the 1930s. It developed because people were often married or living in the closet, and just meeting for sex. Back then, homosexuality was considered a disorder, a disease. So people felt a great deal more shame about it than they do now. Many saw their sexuality as an unwelcome addiction, so they'd sate it as quickly and anonymously as possible and get it over with.

I'm not saying it's still this way. I'm saying that's how the culture of the scene evolved. Most of the individuals involved do want to settle down, and many do. but the gay scene does not really permit such things, simply because of the way it originated and continues to be. I'm sure you can accept, it takes a lot longer for an entire sub-culture to change its habits than for one person. Most people are too weak to kick against it.

So yes, homosexual relationships are much more widely accepted now, and to tell the truth, the level of promiscuity probably has come down since those days. It's just a slow process of integration that will change these habits, not just one moment where it's declared "Homos are normal, now they can fucking well act like it."

I don't expect you to understand, I didn't really explain it very well, and I'm boring myself writing this.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I remember a few years back .. Homosexual organisations were confronted with complaints from society about the outrageous amount of 'Cruising' going on in public parks.
There was a park in my neighbourhood which, after dusk, became what amounted to a massive homosexual orgy palace.

Almost every populated city has a 'rest stop' on a highway experiencing the very same problem.

Further to that, many people were complaining about the 'Strolls'.
Whole blocks (again, found in any major city) where male prostitutes are hanging around picking up customers.

Now get this!

The various Gay Lobby orgs shot back with a fierce rhetorical 'action defense' in which they accused straight heterosexual men of being the real problem!?

"Its most married heterosexual men who are cruising for young males, or looking for anonymous 'glory hole' sex in those parks"

WTF?

Finally a popular and respected 'Gay comedian' stepped in with a comment:
"Hey.. guess what.. if you are going to parks at 12midnight because you really want cock... then YOU ARE GAY... its called being GAY"

But the point is - Many Homosexuality advocates will need to let their cause 'stand or fall' on its own merits.
It should be able to, if its worthwhile.

If it always has to be compared or rhetorically turned about against whats 'wrong with heterosexuals too' - then it demonstrates a weak cause in the first place.
IMO

[SkeeterVT]

>[QUOTE=Quetzalcoatl]I agree there are subjective, political and moral implications in the R.N's comments.
However,
There is some objective evidence for her suggestion Homosexuality is not properly called 'natural' or 'Normal' - in that, under typical scenario's it will naturally lead to unhealthy or 'damaging' consequences.

Maybe putting it this way:

>Any average healthy male and female adults (of normal intelligence) can have sexual intercourse repeatedly and over a lifetime and experience nothing but good consequences for their health and genitals.

That is true, provided that they maintain good hygiene habits. If they don't
-- and they're not monogamous -- they run the risk of gonorrhea, chamydia and herpes.

>Two average healthy males repeatedly having sexual intercourse are going to, as a matter of course, eventually end up with 'Gay Bowel Syndrome', and eventually, urinary tract infections (from fecal matter and colon acids being pushed into their penis openings).

That is patently false if they're a monogamous gay couple that maintains good hygiene habits.

There is little doubt that anal intercourse without a condom is dangerous from the standpoint of disease transmission. But to suggest that only gay men engage in anal intercourse is ludicrous. To suggest that all gay men engage in it is equally ludicrous. I'm in the 20th year of my relationship with my boyfriend and we never engage in anal intercourse. In fact, fellatio -- oral intercourse -- is far more popular among gay and bi men than anal (and fellatio is the one sexual practice that straight men absolutely refuse to perform).

Among those who DO engage in anal intercourse (and contrary to popular belief, heterosexuals are just as likely to engage in it as gay men), bad hygiene habits will undo any beneficial effects of condoms. If you don't thoroughly wash your genital and rectal areas both before AND after sex, you WILL run a heightened risk of negative health consequences, regardless of whether you're straight, gay or bi.

I've known this for over 20 years. Many of the first wave of gay men who contracted and died from AIDS in the late '70s and early '80s maintained horrible hygiene habits. Many were under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

In fact, the correlation of HIV transmission and drug abuse is even stronger now than it was 20 years ago. The majority of new U.S. HIV cases since 1995 -- regardless of sexual orientation -- have a history of drug abuse, which is immunosuppressive in its own right. Heroin and methamphetmines ("speed") are the most widely abused drugs among HIV-positives today.

The Los Angeles Times today (Wednesday, January 19) has a front-page article on a new report finding a direct correlation between the use of "speed" and HIV transmission among gay men. Meth users -- "Speed freaks" as they were known back in the '70s -- were much more likely to engage in unsafe sex while under the influence.

Practicing safer sex is not enough. Good hygiene and avoiding substance abuse is absolutely vital to maintaining a healthy sex life -- especially if you're not monogamous, regardless of your sexual orientation.

-- Skeeter

[Quetzalcoatl]

But you have changed the premise Skeeter...

In the scenario of a man and a woman - the 'rule' is good health as a consequence of typical sexual intercourse.

In the scenario of two men - the 'rule' is eventual rectum tears, GBD (Gay Bowel Disease) and Penis infections due to feces entering the Urethra.

Now thats fine to turnabout and show exceptions or discuss 'well ya but ..."

Its just discussing this topics original 'concept' which wonders if homosexual sex can be called 'disorderly' or 'natural'.

If you end up qualifying homosexual sex as including, enemas, plastic coatings on the genitals and specially forumulated lab-lubricants.. ..then it becomes a big problem describing it as 'normal' or 'natural'.

I strongly disagree with some of your presentation on homosexual relationships not including penis-anus sexual intercourse.
I suggest it is 'common' to homosexual relationships.

I strongly agree that outrageous drug abuse had a lot to do with the speed in which AIDS blew through the homosexual circles.
Low immune systems and torn rectal tissues combined with some homosexual 'groups' counting average 'partners' per year at 60 (!!) was absolute prime pickings for the AIDS virus.

Recently, (and you may have heard of this) there is a very serious concern about the new young Homosexuals who have discovered the combination of Erectile Dysfuntion pills like Viagra, Cialus AND Meth or 'Speed'.

This has resulted in '48 hour' 'fuck parties' in which there is no let up in the intercourse and very very low immune systems.
Combine that with the fact these young Gays are being told AIDS is not a 'Gay Disease' and Anal sex is not a 'Homosexual thing' and that what they are doing is 'normal' anyway.

Maybe the biggest danger - justifying whats typical in homosexual sex by comparing up against the kinkiest or 'alternate' things that some heterosexual couples might do.

[jesikhaviolet]

but this wouldn't just be gays now would it? i'm sure straight people suffer equally from sexual acts

[Quetzalcoatl]

but this wouldn't just be gays now would it? i'm sure straight people suffer equally from sexual acts
Why are you asking this question?

Why do you need to keep pointing at 'straight' people?

Is it because you do not want to talk about the expected consequences of homosexual intercourse (penis/anal)?

Dont worry about what someone else is not doing right or wrong and lets see if this RN's suggestion that homosexual sex is a 'disorder'.

I mean really.. if the 'best' anyone can come up with is to say "Ya.. well staight couples do dangerous or unnatural things" - well then it seems to me you are wanting to agree homosexual intercourse is dangerous?

I have seen the 'Oral Only' defense being used too.
Now it is probably true that many homosexuals practice 'oral only' - but dont think this is a great 'out' for the 'disorder' argument.

The male erection and the male mouth do not seem to be made for one another. Oral Sex (an unfortunate mis-use of the word Oral btw) can be inherintely dangerous for one simple reason - the human mouth contains an astonishing amount of bacteria and germs.

But here you come to another possible problem - if you have a relationship where there is no intercourse, and the couple is either masterbating each other using their hands and mouths - is that comparable to heterosexual sexual relationships?

[Patch]

Note: the italicized words are my responses.



Why are you asking this question?

Why do you need to keep pointing at 'straight' people?
why do you keep pointing at gay people...and quoting inconsistantly?

Is it because you do not want to talk about the expected consequences of homosexual intercourse (penis/anal)?
none of these practices are exclusively homosexual!

Dont worry about what someone else is not doing right or wrong and lets see if this RN's suggestion that homosexual sex is a 'disorder'.

I mean really.. if the 'best' anyone can come up with is to say "Ya.. well staight couples do dangerous or unnatural things" - well then it seems to me you are wanting to agree homosexual intercourse is dangerous?
if you call what a select group of homosexuals do dangerous and unnatural then all those heterosexual groups that engage in similar activities are in similar risk.

I have seen the 'Oral Only' defense being used too.
Now it is probably true that many homosexuals practice 'oral only' - but dont think this is a great 'out' for the 'disorder' argument.

The male erection and the male mouth do not seem to be made for one another. Oral Sex (an unfortunate mis-use of the word Oral btw)
what are you talking about? oral...meaning mouth...how is that unfortunate...and a man's mouth is no different than a woman's...so either they both take dick or they don't.
can be inherintely dangerous for one simple reason - the human mouth contains an astonishing amount of bacteria and germs.
many of these bacteria are either living symbiotically in the mouth or they hold diseases that won't last in the evironment of the genitals, the acidity is far greater down there than in the mouth.

But here you come to another possible problem - if you have a relationship where there is no intercourse, and the couple is either masterbating each other using their hands and mouths - is that comparable to heterosexual sexual relationships?
it's all comparable to heterosexual relationships.i'm sorry but i've been reading what you've said and it is really just non-scientific hogwash...you are tageting the subcultures of the homosexual community and generalizing across a vast spectrum of practices. Anal sex, when performed properly with protection and discretion can be safe...sex is a risk in itself...homos and heteros are subject to all risks equally in relation to their practices.

[BlackGuardXIII]

I wish all the well-meaning folk who want to 'cure' gays of their 'disorder' would grab a fuckin' brain. My conclusion as to your present one is that it is fubar.

And while on the subject of organs, grab a heart too, cuz my diagnosis is that you are heartless, despite your good intentions.
.
Is skiing a disorder? How about mountain climbing? Car racing? I could go on ad nauseam listing dangerous pursuits that kill young adults every day. You say gay sex is abnormal, okay fine whatever. Is it normal to be in a metal box moving 60 mph over lifeless ribbons of asphalt? Normal is a taste.
These gay people ARE normal. Perfectly normal. Persecuted, insulted, discriminated against, irrationally hated and feared by much of straight society, yes. But abnormal, no. Suffering from a medical 'disorder', no. Victims of bigotry, prejudice, violence, and discrimination, yes. But I just know that this post will be like pissing on a forest fire. They won't change a bit. Probably dig their heels in and rationalize as to why their hurtful, hateful bigotry is righteous, and not just an epidemic of ignorant, meanspirited bullying.(my bet)
I have heard every argument for discrimination against gay couples, at least a dozen times.So you know what? I challenge any anti gay folk to stump me on a legit reason for your bigotry?
I have heard them all......................and they are alll lame.

[Quetzalcoatl]

i'm sorry but i've been reading what you've said and it is really just non-scientific hogwash...you are tageting the subcultures of the homosexual community and generalizing across a vast spectrum of practices. Anal sex, when performed properly with protection and discretion can be safe...sex is a risk in itself...homos and heteros are subject to all risks equally in relation to their practices.
It is not 'non-scientific hogwash'.
Without the use of man-made chemicals and plastics, anal intercourse will (as a rule) result in fecal infections for the 'giver' and Gay Bowel Disease for the 'Receiver'.
Anal Fissures (Torn open Rectal lining) will also results.
Another logical conclusion will be the loss of Sphincter control in which the 'Receivers' will lose more and more control of their bowel movements.
Eventually Feces will 'drop out'
[IF the practice was to continue on long enough]

Once again - you changed the conversation by modifying Anal Sex to include lubricants, latex products and enemas.
You also said 'Performed Properly'.

Why are we trying to keep this on the premise of two healthy adults (of reasonable intellegence) WITHOUT man-made devices, chemicals or special training techniques?

Because we are demonstrating that Penis-Vagina intercourse can do without any of those things and as a 'rule' result in not only increased health - but the creation of new people.

Penis-Anus intercourse is (as a rule) destined to produce pain, suffering and damage IF continued on without Aids, chemicals, special training and devices not 'found naturally'.

As a rule - Gay Anal intercourse leads to what we call 'Disorder'.

This is why the Nurse is suggesting its a 'Disorder'.

Words are used for a reason.. just because the word 'Disorder' doesnt sound 'Good' and you think some Gay people are 'Nice' - doesnt mean you describe something disorderly differently.

[SkeeterVT]

But you have changed the premise Skeeter...

In the scenario of a man and a woman - the 'rule' is good health as a consequence of typical sexual intercourse.

In the scenario of two men - the 'rule' is eventual rectum tears, GBD (Gay Bowel Disease) and Penis infections due to feces entering the Urethra.

Now thats fine to turnabout and show exceptions or discuss 'well ya but ..."

Its just discussing this topics original 'concept' which wonders if homosexual sex can be called 'disorderly' or 'natural'.

If you end up qualifying homosexual sex as including, enemas, plastic coatings on the genitals and specially forumulated lab-lubricants.. ..then it becomes a big problem describing it as 'normal' or 'natural'.

I strongly disagree with some of your presentation on homosexual relationships not including penis-anus sexual intercourse.
I suggest it is 'common' to homosexual relationships.

I strongly agree that outrageous drug abuse had a lot to do with the speed in which AIDS blew through the homosexual circles.
Low immune systems and torn rectal tissues combined with some homosexual 'groups' counting average 'partners' per year at 60 (!!) was absolute prime pickings for the AIDS virus.

Recently, (and you may have heard of this) there is a very serious concern about the new young Homosexuals who have discovered the combination of Erectile Dysfuntion pills like Viagra, Cialus AND Meth or 'Speed'.

This has resulted in '48 hour' 'fuck parties' in which there is no let up in the intercourse and very very low immune systems.
Combine that with the fact these young Gays are being told AIDS is not a 'Gay Disease' and Anal sex is not a 'Homosexual thing' and that what they are doing is 'normal' anyway.

Maybe the biggest danger - justifying whats typical in homosexual sex by comparing up against the kinkiest or 'alternate' things that some heterosexual couples might do.
I am not going to get into an argument with you over the differences over heterosexuality and homosexuality. Your arguments are leading me to strongly suspect that you have a personal problem with homosexuality and I refuse to get into long-winded, point-counterpoint arguments with homophobes. It's a waste of time and bandwidth and I've got better uses for my on-line time.

-- Skeeter

[Quetzalcoatl]

Well Im glad niether of us want to get into an argument over this.

My arguments cant possibly be leading you to believe i have a 'personal problem' with homosexuality - unless you hope to avoid the subject by turning this into an Ad Homonym attack.

Even if I did have a personal problem with homosexual intercourse (and im not even sure what you mean by that) - it would not change the facts.

You may have a strong personal attraction to homosexual intercourse - that wont make the case for 'natural' or 'disorder' any better or worse will it?

[peacefuljeffrey]

Because liberals are obligated to respect other people's viewpoints, whereas republicans are not.
That is so far from true as to be laughable.

I have seen nothing but supercilious condescension from liberals of late. They act like they have a lock on the right way to think, be, speak, vote... you name it. The arrogance is unbounded.

-Jeffrey

[PhotoGra1]

As a rule - Gay Anal intercourse leads to what we call 'Disorder'.

This is why the Nurse is suggesting its a 'Disorder'.

Words are used for a reason.. just because the word 'Disorder' doesnt sound 'Good' and you think some Gay people are 'Nice' - doesnt mean you describe something disorderly differently.

I agree, sorta...

Words ARE used for a reason. Unfortunately, the words you chose are a little misleading. Anal sex is an activity, it is something you do. "Gay" is a word used to identify a sexual orientation (identity). An activity does not have a sexual orientation, people do. Anal sex, itself, is not gay or straight. Anal sex can cause the problems you described, if one is not responsible. This is true of both hetero- and homosexuals performing anal sex. Any resulting problems are not a disorder linked to sexuality, but one linked to activity.

Heterosexuals carry and transmit far more sexually transmitted diseases and sustain more injuries, according to any data I have seen.

[PhotoGra1]

Its sounds like the common turnabout on any of the critisisms made about the Homosexual lifestyle.

The problem is - it doesnt fly (imo).

Although I dont think 'Heterosexuals' really care what Homosexuals do or dont do ..
If anything - the 'disapproving' heterorsexuals would rather see Gays stay in private 1-one-1 personal relationships.

And really.. most of the people we would describe as moderately 'anti-Gay' would probably say they dont care what 'they do, as long as they keep it to themselves'.

This is certainly not encouraging promiscuity??

For that matter.. a repressed lifestyle like homosexuality would be more likely to see less promiscuity when there was no way to identify (easily) another homosexual.
if two should meet - they would be best to stick together since being 'out' was not an obvious thing.

Nope sorry.. I do not believe that the high promiscuity rate is because heterosexuals are causing the homosexuals to act that way.

If anything the opposite.

A repressed lifestyle most certainly does promote anonymous sex and "negative" sexual practices, and promiscuity. Homosexuals are trained by society that it is not okay for them to love someone of the same sex. They cannot marry or in many places cohabitate without fear of persecution. They often have to act straight to keep their jobs, apartments, etc. The whole idea of "its ok if they keep it to themselves" encourages secrecy, which, IMO, is the number one contributor to "negative" sexual practices. They cannot live their life open, it must be in secret, which often requires anonymity.

[PhotoGra1]

Why are you asking this question?

Why do you need to keep pointing at 'straight' people?

Is it because you do not want to talk about the expected consequences of homosexual intercourse (penis/anal)?

Dont worry about what someone else is not doing right or wrong and lets see if this RN's suggestion that homosexual sex is a 'disorder'.

I mean really.. if the 'best' anyone can come up with is to say "Ya.. well staight couples do dangerous or unnatural things" - well then it seems to me you are wanting to agree homosexual intercourse is dangerous?

I have seen the 'Oral Only' defense being used too.
Now it is probably true that many homosexuals practice 'oral only' - but dont think this is a great 'out' for the 'disorder' argument.

The male erection and the male mouth do not seem to be made for one another. Oral Sex (an unfortunate mis-use of the word Oral btw) can be inherintely dangerous for one simple reason - the human mouth contains an astonishing amount of bacteria and germs.

But here you come to another possible problem - if you have a relationship where there is no intercourse, and the couple is either masterbating each other using their hands and mouths - is that comparable to heterosexual sexual relationships?

The question posed by the nurse is "Why isn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequence"

What everyone is pointing out to you, that heterosexuals have the same risk, does not disprove their argument. It points out the similarities between the two, rather than ignoring any danger with one while focusing on the dangers of another. Can homosexual sex be dangerous? YES! No argument. Does that make it a "disorder"? If it does, heterosexuality must be a disorder as well. It meets the same criteria being used.

Anal sex, when practiced responsibly, is not at all as dangerous as it is being made out to be. The assumption that any homosexual couple practicing anal sex WILL develop "gay bowel disease" is absurd.

Again, can it be dangerous? YES! But it doesn't have to be...

The nurses argument has a major flaw that no one has pointed out. Activity that causes medical consequences ARE NOT disorders! If they were, eating hamburgers, smoking, and poping zits would all be classified as disorders. Homosexuality does not indicate any organic disfunction of brain or body, so it is not a disorder...

To recap: Activity Is Not A Disorder.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Yes, activity can lead to disorder.

Behavior can be Disorderly Behavior.

The question we are looking at - Given typical circumstances and without artificial or 'man-made' interventions - will homosexual intercourse lead to disorder.

The evidence strongly says - Yes.

This is not true for Heterosexual intercourse (with the same standards).

.....

Please do not bother writing more examples of other things which, given typical circumstances and lack of intervention lead to disorder.

To put it bluntly - Two wrongs (or 1000 wrongs) dont cancel out another wrong ok.

.................

As for some of your other assertions and opinions like:
"Homosexuality does not indicate any organic disfunction of brain or body, so it is not a disorder"

Note: Behavior can and often is described as a 'Disorder'.
Having said that:

Homosexuality DOES by its very nature indicate (no, demonstrate) what is called a 'Dysfuntion'.
The Anus is not designed or useful to receive Sperm and Semen.
Yet,
The Homosexual man might insist he wants and desires that.

This indicates (demonstrates) the anus is being used for a different funtion that it is designed for (organic if you will).

So, this leads many in the medical community to term this a 'Biological Dysfuntion' - since their bodies are not functioning right, or fully, or to purposes which work against their functions.

....

But to get back to the original premise - Given enough time, homosexual intercourse will result in increasing disorder.
Given enough time heterosexual intercourse will result in maintained health and children.

now, you can simply say "No it wont" (while continuing to include man-made devices, chemicals and special techniques as part of it)
Ok great.

I suppose you could settle it for once and for all.
without use of man-made chemicals, latexs and enemas...

- Have a man of average size masterbate into your anus until he climaxes.
- Do this at a rate typical to the average married couple - lets say every other day.
- Do this for 20 years.

Then let me know how orderly things go for you.

........

For those terrified that Im 'Anti-Homosexual' - dont be.
And dont think you must change the facts of life to 'protect homosexuals from bashing'.

In fact, I can think of other things that are 'disorders'.
Smoking is a disorder.

Its unnatural and will eventually lead to disorder.

Guess what.. I still smoke.

Am I a 'bad person' - No.

Should I get very upset and say "Oh YA! Well smoking MAY be risky but its not ALWAYS leading to death.. and NON-SMOKERS can do bad things too you know!"

No.

Start by being honest about 'what it is'.

How many lives would be saved if we simply told the truth?

What if we stopped telling young homosexuals that, no matter what anyone says or whatever evidence you see - ANAL SEX IS NORMAL and HEALTHY!
Its Equal to Heterosexual sex dammit!
Its just the same!

What if we said instead "Hey... your body is not meant to do that, naturally, so before you get off on that - use some chemicals, latexs and special techniques.. and then only do it a FEW times - not all the time!"

What if we told them "Ya.. its a kinky sex perversion.. so go for it with that in mind!"

Instead, you have a group of meth/viagra induced young men convinced they should 'ram away' without having to worry about anything.. after all, its perfectly natural to do that"

So before you start giving me crap about being a 'Homophobe' because I am willing to side with plain medical facts of life - ask yourself who is REALLY hurting Gay People?

[PhotoGra1]

The definition of disorder, as I understand it and use it, is a: condition in which there is a disturbance of normal functioning.

I think semantics has caused a problem here.

For instance, there is no disorder present simply by being a smoker or by smoking. Smoking, however, does lead to lung disorders.

Using the same logic, I am asserting that homosexuality, or funky-butt-love, which is really the issue, is not a disorder. Persons can engage in anal intercourse with completely normal functioning of their mental and physical being. I agree that this CAN lead to disorders, I disagree that it is in itself a disorder.

No need to apologize or explain yourself with regard to homophobia. This is a debate...your opinions have been completely valid, and non-cofrontational. If someone were to be offended by your posts, it is obviously THEIR problem.

What would having a guy masturbate into my anus do?

I would prefer they "sink the ship," so to speak...

(and for the record, I do not have any bowel disorder, and don't know of anyone personally with "gay" bowel disorder. I have only heard anecdotal reports of a friend of a friend of a friend, and I work in healthcare!!!)

[PhotoGra1]

post duplicated...

[Quetzalcoatl]

I respect your opinion Photogra.. .. and I do get what your saying.

I think I 'ranted myself out' for now lol ;)

[Quetzalcoatl]

(errr.. though i dont know what 'sink the ship' is.. and i probably should not know lol ;)

[dangermoose]

this thread is gay :D


now that the obligitory gay comment is out of the way, allow me to say french affair isnt really canadian, he's only pretend canadian.
i would also liek to point out women fist aswell, and hetro sexual men also enjoy the pleasures of anal play.
all arguements presented in the original post are easily dismissable and moot.

french affair, might i remind you, your mother was a hampster, and your father smelt of elderberries.

[astralgoldfish]

I'm not agreeing with French affairs deeply prejudiced post, but I have considered the idea that maybe gayness could be a psycological "disorder" picked up through childhood.
A way of dealing with not matching up to the expectations of your gender, maybe not associating with the parent the same sex as you, I got some pretty dirty gay stuff going on in my head, this isn't a homophobic rant, but I have seriously thought about whether or not this could be a subconcious reaction to my never having measured up to society's ingrained image of what men are supposed to be. Its easier to deal with that if you're mind moves the goalposts for you. Or the fact that until recently, I couldn't visualise being manly enough to attract or satisfy a hetro women. Plus my dad's an idiot I don't want to know. If I had to choose one of my parents to emulate, it would have to be my mother, doesn't father-son stuff give developing kids their idea of what their gender are supposed to be like as adults, what if you prefer the opposite example? Surely that'll really affect you. I don't think being gay is entirely inate in anyone, but I'm not sure

People shouldn't have to consider society's gender expectations, but we do. Especially when growing up, it affects you. Other gay teens I know found growing up feeling different has left them a little damaged. To be an iffeminate straight guy, is not to live up to what straight women (mostly) find sexually attractive. If you are gay, you have no real pressure to be macho (although it's still attractive). You've already opted out of being the manly man society says you should be. Isn't it less painful to be more acceptably different? (e.g. ifemminate and gay)

I'm not saying anyone chooses to be gay to fit in (lol), but I think during childhood you're subconcious may be influenced by feelings of not being what you're supposed to, and that may affect your fantasys and therefore your orientation.

I've recently had my first hetro experience, and though I'm enjoying it immensly, I'm more insecure with her than any of my male lovers because
1-men are easier to please
2-more gay men are attracted to non-macho guys than straight women. (on a purely physical level)
So I feel less attractive to her, and all women basically.(physically)
I'm loving my newfound straight relationship (esp. cos she knows everything about my gay history, and isn't bothered) but I feel more pressure with her to be manly, have a big dick, etc. to keep her satisfied. I'm working on it, but I know she (and many, many straight women) Want a dominating force of strength and power, it's a vibe thing. Women do want (again physically)the manly wild stallion with a huge dick. If you are the receptive one of a gay couple it is far less important. Did my mind choose to go with what I could be good at?

Not adult thinking, I know (personality IS far more important, society's expectations are stupid, the macho man that men are supposed to live up to is usually a jerk,etc.)
But it's childish thinking that rules so much of you're development, being as you're always young when you develop who you are. I'm pretty happy to be me now (whatever that turns out to be) but I wasn't always.

I'm not saying people shouldn't do what they want (god knows I do) but maybe people should think why they feel the way they do? Is gay natural, or is it something that happens to people, for different reasons, as they grow up?

[PhotoGra1]

Leading phyciatric, psychological, and medical organizations state homosexuality is not a disorer.

AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION á "The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone "reparative therapy" relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed ... the APA opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation. á "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation. It is not described in the scientific literature, nor is it mentioned in the APA's latest comprehensive Task Force Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders (1989). á "Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so."

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION á "Even though homosexual orientation is not a mental illness and there is no scientific reason to attempt conversion of lesbians or gays to heterosexual orientation, some individuals may seek to change their sexual orientation or that of another individual (for example, parents seeking therapy for their child). Some therapists who undertake this kind of therapy report that they have changed their clients' sexual orientation (from homosexual to heterosexual) in treatment. Close scrutiny of their reports indicates several factors that cast doubt: Many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective on sexual orientation, rather than from mental health researchers; the treatments and their outcomes are poorly documented; and the length of time that clients are followed up on after treatment is too short. á "In 1990, the American Psychological Association stated that scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy works and that it can do more harm than good. Changing one's sexual orientation is not simply a matter of changing one's sexual behavior. It would require altering one's emotional, romantic and sexual feelings and restructuring one's self-concept and social identity.

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION á "Most of the emotional disturbance experienced by gay men and lesbians around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes but rather is due more to a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment. For this reason, aversion therapy (a behavioral or medical intervention which pairs unwanted behavior, in this case, homosexual behavior, with unpleasant sensations or aversive consequences) is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians. Through psychotherapy, gay men and lesbians can become comfortable with their sexual orientation and understand the societal response to it.Ó

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS á "The psychosocial problems of gay and lesbian adolescents are primarily the result of societal stigma, hostility, hatred and isolation. The gravity of these stresses is underscored by current data that document that gay youths account for up to 30 percent of all completed adolescent suicides. Approximately 30 percent of a surveyed group of gay and bisexual males have attempted suicide at least once. Adolescents struggling with issues of sexual preference should be reassured that they will gradually form their own identity and that there is no need for premature labeling of one's sexual orientation."

[PhotoGra1]

What Is Sexual Orientation?

Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior). Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only). Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and selfconcept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.

What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?

Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention. The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

[PhotoGra1]

Here are "THE FACTS" about bum sex, according to Sue Johansen, Canadian sex educator and host of "Talk Sex":

At the lower end of the bowel, there are two distinct circular bands of muscles, sphincters, one is located about an 1 ?" above the other. These clamp down tight to prevent the passage of feces or gas. The mucous membrane lining of the rectum is not as heavy as the lining of the vagina, so it can tear quite easily and it does not heal as quickly as the vagina. Because feces, loaded with bacteria, are passing by, any tear is vulnerable to infection.

The vigorous thrusting that may occur during anal intercourse can tear the mucous membrane. This can develop into an anal abscess that can become infected - more about that in a moment. Also, if your partner has any of the sexually transmitted diseases (STD's), then you could get infected through the tear. So we are talking about gonorrhea (treatable); venereal warts (treatable if external, difficult if up in the rectum); syphilis (treatable); herpes (treatment, no cure); yeast infection (treatable); and HIV and AIDS (treatment but no cure.) You do not want any of these STD's.

Preferably, you're in a long-term, committed relationship, infection free, and practising SAFER SEX.

But wait, there's more bad news. A tear up in the rectum can become infected and gradually extend down to past the sphincter, outside the body. It's called a "fissure", and means, if you had diarrhea, you have no control. Puts a whole new meaning to the expression "dribbling shits".

Or, a small tear can gradually extend out through the wall of the bowel and form a channel across, through and into a nearby organ. That's called a "fistula", and it would allow feces to flow from the rectum into the vagina and out.

Repairing tears, fissures and fistulas is delicate surgery and recovery can be long and painful.

Some doctors will tell you that hemorrhoids (piles) could result from vigorous anal sex, and although I have no medical research, I have heard people say that the rectum "gets sloppy", stretched. I am dubious - if this was true, why doesn't it get sloppy with regular bowel movements? With no definitive research, you do the math.

The best prevention is "don't go there". But if you do decide to try it, you and your partner must talk about it beforehand and agree on these points:

1. Your partner must be very, very gentle, absolutely no forced penetration and no vigorous thrusting.
2. You must use lots and lots of good lubrication, (not saliva).
3. Your partner must use a condomÉall the time, every time.
4. Your partner must respect "stop". If you say ouch, or it hurts, or No or quitÉ they must stop immediately.
5. It must be understood, if you do not want to have anal sex again, there will be no pressure, no threats and no pleading. NO means NO.
6. Use a well-lubricated condom without spermicide, either on the sex toy or his penis. Spermicide can irritate the rectum.
7. Never shift from anal sex back to vaginal sex without changing condoms. Feces can end up in the vagina and cause infections.

There are some who really enjoy giving and receiving anal pleasure; some females feel that they have their best orgasms ever; some females oblige simply because their partner really enjoys anal sex; and for other females, it is just gross, embarrassing or disgusting.

For men who have sex with men, it can be very satisfying sex.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Regarding the Concessions wrought out by the AMA.

It seems to me they 'had' to find a way to make homosexual behavior 'Not an Illness'.

When I read their carefully (oh so carefully) written 'statement' I swear I can see the Lawyers for 'Gay Rights' groups standing over them.. investigating and reworking the wording over and over.

It reads like that to me.

[PhotoGra1]

In Response To "Gay Bowel Disease"

This is not a syndrome that has anything to do with "stretching the anus" or anything of that sort. The following comes from the UK association, GPNotebook:

Gay Bowel Syndrome

This is an obsolete, and potentially offensive term, used to refer to a collection of sexually-transmitted enteric infections in HIV infected homosexuals (1, 2).


The infective organisms included in this "syndrome" included Shigella, Giardia, Campylobacter-like organisms, Entamoeba, Chlamydia, gonorrhoea and syphilis.


Reference:
Gazzard, B. (1993), Aids and the gastrointestinal tract. Medicine International; 21:2: 44-46.
J Homosex. 1997;34(2):1-35.

Gay Bowel syndrome is caused by bacteria, not sexual behaivor.
Anyone can contract these bacteria...obviously, and HIV positive patient is more succeptable.

[PhotoGra1]

Regarding the Concessions wrought out by the AMA.

It seems to me they 'had' to find a way to make homosexual behavior 'Not an Illness'.

When I read their carefully (oh so carefully) written 'statement' I swear I can see the Lawyers for 'Gay Rights' groups standing over them.. investigating and reworking the wording over and over.

It reads like that to me.

This would really be silly, since sexuality is not legally protected in 38 of 50 states. I don't buy into the conspiracy theory...the AMA has little to gain or loose with any statement they make regarding homosexuality, other than their credibility, which I would think would cause them to write as accurate of a statement as possible to summarize their conclusions.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Oh yes they do.

The AMA was the world leader in creating the very concept of 'A Homosexual', since they promoted this very word and paradigm to its present popularity.
Somewhere around the late 1970's (early 80's in some areas) there was a 'movement' among 'Gay Activist' groups to have the AMA STOP Calling them mentally ill.

This included near violent (certainly furious) protest outside AMA locales, in front of camera's and numerous 'activist' articles and 'action' plans.
This include the threats of many a lawsuit.

The next year - the AMA suddenly discovered they had been wrong for the last 50 years and actually.. it was NOT a mental illness unless the client himself was personally experiencing problems!

Must have been some amazing research.
They also found they agree with the handful of psychiatrists who, until then, were considered 'rogue' doctors for not treating homosexuality as an illness.

About 5 years go by.. and the Gay Activists found out the AMA was 'getting around' things by treating people only when they 'agreed' that homosexual behavior was personally negative to them.

NOPE!

Suddenly (coincidently at the same time as more lawsuits) the AMA 'discovered', presumably through some new research and studies - Anyone wanting help to end homosexual behavior is sick alright... they need to be cured of their desire to deny being homosexuals.

Its not a conspiracy theory - it is what happened.

[PhotoGra1]

Oh yes they do.

The AMA was the world leader in creating the very concept of 'A Homosexual', since they promoted this very word and paradigm to its present popularity.
Somewhere around the late 1970's (early 80's in some areas) there was a 'movement' among 'Gay Activist' groups to have the AMA STOP Calling them mentally ill.

This included near violent (certainly furious) protest outside AMA locales, in front of camera's and numerous 'activist' articles and 'action' plans.
This include the threats of many a lawsuit.


I can't find any information on protests outside of the AMA. I have read a lot about the protests in 1973 outside of the American Psychiatric Association, and again in 1975, outside of the American Psychology Association. Both protests I read about encouraged the two groups to review existing evidence that showed that previous research on homosexuals was done exclusively on mental health patients. The new research, which is still supported, showed that not all homosexuals were in need of mental health services, and the studies needed to include a representative sample of homosexuals.

http://www.apa.org/pi/reslgbc.html

In December 1973, the American Psychiatric Association's Board of Trustees deleted homosexuality from its official nomenclature of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSMII). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. For a mental condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it should either regularly cause emotional distress or regularly be associated with clinically significant impairment of social functioning. These experts found that homosexuality does not meet these criteria.

http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose~1.cfm

[Quetzalcoatl]

I do believe you are right about 1973.
(The 'final blow' coming in the early 80s?)

Yes exactly PhotoGra.

The majority of AMA members were asked to agree with the Psychiatrist who took the 'non illness' position.

The following edition of the 'Book' saw the AMA agreed they would no longer believe Homosexual behavior (itself) regularly caused emotional distress or impaired social functioning.
Therefore.. they would no longer define it as an illness.

Pedophiles Action Groups have dared to try the same things (Nambla being one of them) but they do not have the numbers or social acceptance at all.

Wierder yet.. some Schizophrenics once protested outside my local Mental Health facility.
They were very outraged because they were born this way, were comfortable with it and HOW DARE Psychiatrists label them as "Ill'.

Serious.. this actually happened and the local news gave it 5 minutes or airtime LOL!

Wild stuff

[SkeeterVT]

Hey, everybody, do yourselves a favor and stop arguing with Quetzalcoatl. His stubborn, bullheaded insistence that anal intercourse among gay men "leads to disorder" while at the same time DENIES with equal bullheaded insistence that the same type of intercourse among heterosexuals "does not" should make it obvious to everyone on this forum that he has an anti-gay bias.

Anal intercourse PERIOD isn't healthy in the long run for anyone. But only a homophobe would argue that it's unhealthy ONLY among gay and bisexual men.

I took a vow to not waste bandwidth arguing with homophobes. As far as I'm concerned, they're just as brainwashed as racists. It's futile to argue with brainwashed people.

-- Skeeter

[Quetzalcoatl]

Skeeter:

Why are you deliberately misrepresenting my opinions and posts?

So you can easily 'reject' the fake argument you attributed to me and (you hope) trick others into disregarding my points.

I have NEVER made any such argument that Anal sex is any better or worse when done to a man or a woman.
No such implication, insinuation or slight hint of that from me.

You are either being deliberately dishonest - or you are (for some stupid reason) assuming 'Heterosexual Intercourse' is Anal Intercourse.

Either way.. stop being such a dorkus.

[PhotoGra1]

I took a vow to not waste bandwidth arguing with homophobes. As far as I'm concerned, they're just as brainwashed as racists. It's futile to argue with brainwashed people.

-- Skeeter
I think Quetzalcoatl has made some intelligent points, but that is beside the point...

I disagree with your stance quoted above. I think it stops progress...

It is not easy to debate/discuss with people who disagree with you, but that is what makes it a debate/discussion. It is an exchange of ideas. It is not easy to advocate, it is much easier to sit back and allow the status quo to continue, but this is how real change happens, informing and educating individuals. No policy or law can influence peoples attitutes more effictively than conversation.

[Quetzalcoatl]

And I agree with your philosophy of freedom of thought and speech Photogra.

and yes.. that is not dependant on whether I agree or disagree.

To put it in perspective - someone might come here insisting that Homosexuals are more 'evolved' than 'Breeders'.
All of us might find that offensive, stupid and even useless.
However..
Let them speak!

Its ok.. Im not some fragile little faberge egg, who is going to feel 'brainwashing' start happening if a .. shudder.. bad idea is spoken in public!!

Neither are you.

Its 'Official' nowadays, on College Campuses, in Uni's, in Public Schools, 'Sexperts', Popular Talk Shows, The Media outlets, films and so on:
People just happen to be born Gay.
This is perfectly natural, normal and is simply a parrallel to Heterosexuality.
The ONLY thing problematic among homosexuals is when they deny or refuse to embrace and celebrate their Orientation.

This is what is to be thought and said. period.

ANY other view is to be characterised as a mental disorder (homophobia) and that person should keep quiet and seek help.

Well guess what - I would at least like to question these presumptions.

In fact... if we didnt have the right to discuss 'unpopular' ideas - there would have never been any new research done to arrive at THESE conclusions right?

So disagree, tell me Im crazy... refuse to reply if you wish.. but dont censor 'scary' ideas, just because you 'dont like' them.

[SkeeterVT]

Skeeter:

Why are you deliberately misrepresenting my opinions and posts?

So you can easily 'reject' the fake argument you attributed to me and (you hope) trick others into disregarding my points.

I have NEVER made any such argument that Anal sex is any better or worse when done to a man or a woman.
No such implication, insinuation or slight hint of that from me.

You are either being deliberately dishonest - or you are (for some stupid reason) assuming 'Heterosexual Intercourse' is Anal Intercourse.

Either way.. stop being such a dorkus.
You have the audacity to deny making the following statement:

"Yes, activity can lead to disorder. Behavior can be Disorderly Behavior.
The question we are looking at - Given typical circumstances and without artificial or 'man-made' interventions - will homosexual intercourse lead to disorder. The evidence strongly says - Yes. This is not true for Heterosexual intercourse (with the same standards)."

I repeat for emphasis: "Will homosexual intercourse lead to disorder? The evidence strongly suggests - Yes. This is not true for heterosexual intercourse (with the same standards)."

I interpret "with the same standards" as referring specifically to anal intercourse, since penile-vaginal intercourse is anatomically impossible between gay and bisexual men.

If that highlighted statement made by you doesn't imply that anal sex is worse when performed between men than perfoemed between a man and a woman, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.

-- Skeeter

[Quetzalcoatl]

Wow.

I honestly never would have thought some readers would need to be reminded that 'Heterosexual intercourse' means Penis-Vagina intercourse.

I assumed and you know what happens when you assume.. I make an ASS our of U and ME.
(No Pun intended hah)

For the record - When I say 'Heterosexual intercourse' I am indeed refering to 'Penis Vagina' intercourse.
(Since anal sex would not be exclusive to heterosexual couples anyways)
When I say 'Homosexual intercourse' Im indeed refereing to Penis-Anus' intercourse.
(Since Men dont have Vagina's)

From now on I will try and be more specific for you Skeeter (even though Im pretty sure you were the only one who was confused about that)

[SkeeterVT]

P.S.: And then there is THIS statement made by you, Quetzacoatl:

". . . [I] have seen the 'Oral Only' defense being used too.
Now it is probably true that many homosexuals practice 'oral only' - but dont think this is a great 'out' for the 'disorder' argument.

"The male erection and the male mouth do not seem to be made for one another. Oral Sex (an unfortunate mis-use of the word Oral btw) can be inherintely dangerous for one simple reason - the human mouth contains an astonishing amount of bacteria and germs."

So what does that say to heterosexuals and lesbians who engage in oral sex? You rather conveniently failed to mention the fact that oral sex is THE most popular form of sexual activity, regardless of people's sexual orientation. And do you really expect me to believe that YOU don't engage in oral sex yourself?

Why did you single out "the male erection and the male mouth" as not being made for one another and not mention "the male erection and the female mouth" in the same context?

Why do you repeatedly single out male-to-male sex as beiing negative, but not male-to-female sex -- or for that matter, female-to-female sex?

You can call into question the health effects gay sex all you want, but as long as you keep zeroing in on male-to male-sex, while continuining to either downplay or deny health risks associated with similar sex practices between men and women (and ignore lesbian sex altogether), you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that your comments are not motivated by a personal discomfort with male-to-male sex.

And by the way, just for the record, I'm bisexual, so don't even try to "turn the tables" and accuse me of having a personal discomfort with male-to-female sex.

[astralgoldfish]

Skeeter-If "male penis" and "male mouth" are used in the context of a discussion of potential homosexual disorders then it is not prejudiced, as gay women are obviously blow-job free.

The use of "oral sex is dangerous"..."human mouth is full of bacteria" also generalises the previous statement to include everyone. If you look carefully at what you are quoting at Quetzacoatl you will see that it really contains nothing offensive. Don't be so quick to your guns.


I'm not agreeing with French affairs deeply prejudiced post, but I have considered the idea that maybe gayness could be a psycological "disorder" picked up through childhood.
A way of dealing with not matching up to the expectations of your gender, maybe not associating with the parent the same sex as you, I got some pretty dirty gay stuff going on in my head, this isn't a homophobic rant, but I have seriously thought about whether or not this could be a subconcious reaction to my never having measured up to society's ingrained image of what men are supposed to be. Its easier to deal with that if you're mind moves the goalposts for you. Or the fact that until recently, I couldn't visualise being manly enough to attract or satisfy a hetro women. Plus my dad's an idiot I don't want to know. If I had to choose one of my parents to emulate, it would have to be my mother, doesn't father-son stuff give developing kids their idea of what their gender are supposed to be like as adults, what if you prefer the opposite example? Surely that'll really affect you. I don't think being gay is entirely inate in anyone, but I'm not sure

People shouldn't have to consider society's gender expectations, but we do. Especially when growing up, it affects you. Other gay teens I know found growing up feeling different has left them a little damaged. To be an iffeminate straight guy, is not to live up to what straight women (mostly) find sexually attractive. If you are gay, you have no real pressure to be macho (although it's still attractive). You've already opted out of being the manly man society says you should be. Isn't it less painful to be more acceptably different? (e.g. ifemminate and gay)

I'm not saying anyone chooses to be gay to fit in (lol), but I think during childhood you're subconcious may be influenced by feelings of not being what you're supposed to, and that may affect your fantasys and therefore your orientation.

I've recently had my first hetro experience, and though I'm enjoying it immensly, I'm more insecure with her than any of my male lovers because
1-men are easier to please
2-more gay men are attracted to non-macho guys than straight women. (on a purely physical level)
So I feel less attractive to her, and all women basically.(physically)
I'm loving my newfound straight relationship (esp. cos she knows everything about my gay history, and isn't bothered) but I feel more pressure with her to be manly, have a big dick, etc. to keep her satisfied. I'm working on it, but I know she (and many, many straight women) Want a dominating force of strength and power, it's a vibe thing. Women do want (again physically)the manly wild stallion with a huge dick. If you are the receptive one of a gay couple it is far less important. Did my mind choose to go with what I could be good at?

Not adult thinking, I know (personality IS far more important, society's expectations are stupid, the macho man that men are supposed to live up to is usually a jerk,etc.)
But it's childish thinking that rules so much of you're development, being as you're always young when you develop who you are. I'm pretty happy to be me now (whatever that turns out to be) but I wasn't always.

I'm not saying people shouldn't do what they want (god knows I do) but maybe people should think why they feel the way they do? Is gay natural, or is it something that happens to people, for different reasons, as they grow up?
Photogra-thank you for the information you provided from various psycological associations about their opinions on the subject. However, in my opinion, all psycologists are to be treated with deep suspicion, because of the "treatment" administered by them in mental institutions. What do they know?
Stay away from them at all costs unless you are dangerous to yourself or others.

I posted the original post in hope of getting a more personal response from anyone who might recognise (or not)anything I said in themselves. I want to know what YOU think. I don't care about the APA or any of them.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Personal Pet Peeve of mine -
'Oral'

Oral referes to speaking and hearing.

'Phonesex' would be 'Oral Sex'.

Somewhere along the line we lost our grip on the english language.

Personally that offends me far more than anything in this whole Homosexuality debate.

[PhotoGra1]

, all psycologists are to be treated with deep suspicion, because of the "treatment" administered by them in mental institutions. What do they know?

I would agree that mental health services are still evolving, but I feel I should point out that the overwhelming majority of services performed in mental institutions are by psychiatrist, who are much more interested in treating the biology of mental disorder, rather than the psychology of it (at least that is my understanding, psychiatrist = MD, psychologist = PhD)

[Quetzalcoatl]

I hope nobody thinks I am 'For' the traditional idea that there is a 'mental illness' called 'Homosexuality'.

Personally.. i do not give too much value to Psychiatry (or psychology).
Yes.. there are many things on which i strongly agree with them .. even admire, but these guys are running something far far more 'luck and flaw' than most people would like to believe.

Shit.. just 4 years ago they had everyone convinced that social anxiety and depression were simple 'Chemical imbalances' and could be fixed by adding more Paxil to the brain.

Now they are all giving up on that and basically admitting that Paxil, Prozac etc are .. well ya.. they are just drugs that make you feel 'good' or 'numbed'.

The whole 'chemical imbalance' things was just sorta a ..ummm.. well it made us feel good about taking drugs.

Heck. they dont even know why electro-shock works.. they just kinda know it makes people numb and stunned for a while.

Anyway.. they do good work for sure.. but i dont take anything they say as if it were 'Science Fact'.
Not at all.

[SkeeterVT]

Skeeter-If "male penis" and "male mouth" are used in the context of a discussion of potential homosexual disorders then it is not prejudiced, as gay women are obviously blow-job free.

The use of "oral sex is dangerous"..."human mouth is full of bacteria" also generalises the previous statement to include everyone. If you look carefully at what you are quoting at Quetzacoatl you will see that it really contains nothing offensive. Don't be so quick to your guns.

With all due respect, Astralgoldfish, I have dealt with commentaries made by Quetzacoatl and many others regarding the negative effects of homosexual practices for far longer than you've been alive. I have witnessed and grieved for the loss of dozens of gay men who were close friends of mine in the 20-plus years since AIDS reared its deadly swath.
I am more than fully aware of the necessity of taking measures to protect myself and my companions from the sexual transmission of disease; I have been living with genital herpes for almost 25 years.


Having said all this, I am fed up with those who spread the notion that homosexual pracitices "lead to disorder." For underlying that notion is a firm belief by those who promulgate it that homosexuality itself is a "disorder." I categorically reject that latter notion as a lie. It is a lie that is firmly rooted in a prejudice against homosexuality -- particularly male homosexuality, as you rarely, if ever, read similar commentaries about lesbian sexuality.

I submit from three decades of personal observation that the deliberate use of data -- whether, scientific, legal or religious -- to "illustrate" the notion that homosexual practices "lead to disorder" is motivated primarily by bias against homosexuality and are all-too-often used to justify such bias, particularly when those who make such pronouncements either fail or refuse to acknowledge that certain sexual practices negatively affect homosexuals and heterosexuals equally.

This whole notion of homosexuality being a "disorder" is an insult to me as a person who has engaged in -- and enjoyed -- erotic intimacy with other men (including a French-Canadian man with whom I have been deeply in love for nearly 20 years), as well as erotic intimacy with women.

It is as every bit as insulting to me as the equally biased notion that intimate relationships between people of different racial and/or ethnicities is harmful (A notion to which I take extreme umbrage, as my parents were an intrerracial couple, as are my Quebecois partner and I).

So if it appears that I have "a chip on my shoulder," you now know why. I made a decision when I turned 50 that I will not hesitate to challenge these notions whenever and wherever they arise. Such notions that are based on prejudice MUST be challenged, lest we repeat the mistake of not challenging even more odious prejudices that are a cancer on humanity's soul.

-- Skeeter

[Quetzalcoatl]

For starters - Let homosexual intercourse stand or fall on its own.

If you have to point to lesbians and deflect a "what about them huh" diversion then your position is already in trouble.

The RN was trying to establish how and why we call call something 'disorderly' and another 'Order'.
I thought the RN made some weak arguments
but
There is a good argument made for 'disorder' when we see a certain action that, as its logical conclusion, will lead to disorder. (tears, fissures, lack of bowel control, infections, etc)

Dont get 'Mad'
Dont bother worrying about whether 'Ask Sue Johansen' or 'Dr.Smith' or Quetzalcoatl are 'Homophobes'.
Whether they are or are not wont change the facts of life or what 'is'.

Hey.. I loved my Coach for 10 years and good on you for loving this guy for 20 years. That is a good thing in this world but unfortunately for your counter-argument, it simply does NOT mitigate anal sex leading to disorder (or not).

Fact: Lesbians are not endowed with a penis (or a prostrate for that matter) so they do not have anything to do with this particular point in the discussion.

How you figure what somebody else is 'not' doing has anything to do with this is beyond all reason.

"I have witnessed and grieved for the loss of dozens of gay men who were close friends of mine in the 20-plus years since AIDS reared its deadly swath."

Yes, and so have their parents, sisters and brothers and in-laws.
Its sad.

However,, that does not for or against the order vs disorder argument.

What are you supposing to say - that something 'bad' happened to people who were homosexuals so 'therefore' we should not say anything about 'badness' to them??

[astralgoldfish]

For the purposes of any discussion about this subject Quez, I'd use "anal" not "homosexual~" intercourse, lots of straight people do this. Plus, don't exclude lesbians from anal sex, they lack penises not imaginations. They have as much to do with this discussion as anyone.

[SkeeterVT]

I'm posting the following news item without comment, leaving it up to you to ponder my earlier post tying "French Affair" to the anti-gay Chrsitian Right.

--Skeeter

* * *

'Ex-gay' therapist cited for ethics breaches

By Tom Musbach,
PlanetOut News

Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 / 06:19 PM

Richard Cohen, an influential figure in the "ex-gay" movement, has been permanently expelled from the American Counseling Association (ACA) because of ethics violations, according to an ACA document.

Cohen, billed as an "expert in sexual reorientation therapy," is the board president of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) and author of "Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality." He claims that he was not gay; he had "same-sex attraction disorder" and has since been healed.

The ACA announcement was obtained by Wayne Besen, author of "Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth," and posted on his Web site on Tuesday.

The ACA said Cohen was expelled for violations of six ethical codes and that he "has not elected to appeal the decision taken by the ACA Ethics Committee." Details about the violations were not specified, but they corresponded to ACA codes of conduct toward clients, such as avoiding dual relationships or fostering dependent counseling ties.

The case was closed on May 28, 2002, according to Larry Freeman, the ACA's manager of ethics and professional standards.

"It is no surprise that Richard Cohen violated the ACA ethics, because reparative therapy itself lacks integrity and attempts to meet their agenda's need, not the needs of clients," said Joe Kort, psychotherapist and author of "10 Smart Things Gay Men Can Do to Improve Their Lives."

"Of particular note is that Cohen's violations are self-serving, as he is accused of violating standard ethics of protecting his client from dual relationships, marketing purposes and testimonials," Kort added.

Considered a success story for the "ex-gay" movement, Cohen is an adviser to conservative radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger, and he has advocated his therapeutic theories on "The O'Reilly Factor," "20/20" and other shows.

One man who considered himself "ex-gay" for 17 years said Cohen's book, "Coming Out Straight," ultimately discouraged him from keeping up the struggle to change his orientation. Rick from Fredonia, N.Y., (who asked that his last name be withheld), said Cohen relies on a common reparative therapy theory: A child who doesn't form a healthy bond with his or her same-sex parent develops an "unhealthy"