[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 16 KB, 410x239, OC.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7910294 No.7910294[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

How are LGBT behaviors any different from fetishes that are enforced via operant/classical conditioning? I am not just talking about the sexual attraction aspects of these disorders either, but everything else including the way they form largely uniform social personalities and behavioral traits.

I am not an expert in psychology but I see real problems in the way our understanding of LGBT behaviour has changed in recent decades almost solely based on ideology as opposed to objectivity and reason. Isn't it possible that our emotional approach to such things could actually be hurting these people, especially in the case of transsexuals who by any sensible definition are suffering from extreme delusions?

>> No.7910295

its a systemic effect of many changes, but the most elementary changes being at the household level. this question really does belong in /pol/, because they answer they give you is actually the correct answer, as outplayed as it is

>> No.7910302

>>7910295
Would you care to elaborate on your first sentence?

>> No.7910354

It's been discussed plenty by science. It's a large combination of genetic factors as well as life experiences. Doesn't mean it's a mental disorder. You could define a mental disorder as something harmful to yourself. It's just a personal preference. People who like certain foods can have both a genetic liking, as well as an acquired taste.

>> No.7910361

>>7910354
is this your professional opinion

>> No.7910365

>>7910354
>It's been discussed plenty by science.
Unfortantely when the scientific establishment bows down to the ideological left and treats dissenting opinion and evidence the way it does, an such 'discussion' is tainted and should be freely questioned.
>You could define a mental disorder as something harmful to yourself
If we can agree that reproduction is the single-most important goal of any individual organism, then any behaviour that prevents it from occurring should be considered a disorder. Everything else comes second-place to reproduction.

>> No.7910373

>>7910294
This is exactly why Psychology is not a real science.
If some special interest group lobbied and wanted Physicists to remove the concept of Gravity as a law of nature, we'd tell them to fuck off.
But LGB populations want being gay removed from the DSM as a mental illness? Sure, we can do that!

If it were really a science, it wouldn't be at it's core malleable by politics.

Onwards, I don't think it's a mental illness (but I'm not a professional) and from what I've taken classes on in this area, it's a combo of genetics and life experiences.
The highest history of sexual abuse is in bisexual females with 41% reporting.
And LGBT people are higher than the straight population in all polls.

There's theories on causation, and also on the theory that it led to isolation and thus easier targeting, when they're both probably true to some degree.

From what I've heard, the best approach to these people is like that of a bar or beam under thermal expansion. If you don't restrict it, it won't suffer stress.
Psych now treats homosexuals as no different than normal people in the clinical sense, and it seems to be working.

>> No.7910380

>>7910354
well, in reality, the way to proceede with people who are not comfortable with such thoughts and behaviour has changed drastically

It used to be gays had therapies to change them, no matter if they didn't want. Then it was depending on if you had a problem with it or not. And now, if you have a problem with it they do the opposite, they try to force to people to become fine with it because they see the "not wanting to be gay" as a mental disease.

In my oppinion this is purely politically motivated and obviously the second choice is the best. But it is how it is.

>> No.7910381

>>7910365
Sure, you COULD define a mental disability as anything inhibiting reproduction, but that would be fucking retarded.

>> No.7910385

>>7910381

Why? Care to elaborate? And please without being condescending and name-calling?

>> No.7910397

>>7910373
>Psych now treats homosexuals as no different than normal people in the clinical sense, and it seems to be working.

Not quite, i would argue a lot of histrionics and neurotics hide behind homosexuality. Normal people don't do some of the stuff homosexuals do (specially the affected behaviour), and specially normal people don't find pleasure in pain.

Of course we can argue all night about "those are not the real homosexuals, just a tiny minority", but then when you have sexual education in school they end up teaching about fist-fucking.

Is that mental health?

>> No.7910399

>>7910373
Isn't the genetic link pretty sketchy? Lets not forget as you mention in your opening, we have 'scientists' studying this area who go out with the unscientific goal of finding or falsely making genetic links. Any hard science approach like genetics in regards to this topic must surely be considered tainted.

I think the rest of your post basically supports the idea of conditioning being the cause of the 'fetish' as it were. Sexual abuse by a manipulative adult and often parent, would perhaps serve as the strongest possible reinforcement.

>If you don't restrict it, it won't suffer stress.
This starts from the assumption that stress is bad. When you have a bad situation, especially a psychological one, sometimes the best way out isn't the easiest.

>> No.7910411

>>7910385
So is being bi a mental illness also? But wait. If a man had to choose between a straight woman and a bi woman plus another bi woman, who would he choose?
Same with women and men. Straight or bi members of the opposite sex like homos of the opposite.

So if a gay guy were to choose a female partner, he'd probably have his pick.

Just like height being evolutionarily advantageous, being 7'1 is probably not helpful. But it's an advantage that went too far.
Which will bounce back just like everything else does in evolution with his children.

>> No.7910414

>>7910411
Would you chose a bowl of rice or two cakes?

Which is better for you, which is more fun?

>> No.7910416

>>7910380
>And now, if you have a problem with it they do the opposite, they try to force to people to become fine with it because they see the "not wanting to be gay" as a mental disease.
This is a really important point, and not simply in a clinical context. Society as a whole has changed (prompted by the same ideology) to a point where even the slightest behaviour, even in a small child, which is perceived as being indicative of homosexuality, etc.. is strongly reinforced by many of the important people around that child/person.

>> No.7910420

>>7910397
This went from science to homophobia.

Go to /d/ for me, will you? Plenty of Sadistic/Masochistic straight people. Plenty of those /d/eviants.
Like pegging. Do you think those people are closet homos then? This post could have made sense, but you fucked it up, and now it's too far gone to respect even slightly.

Nobody else respond to this nigger please.

>> No.7910422

>>7910414
I guess the guy that chooses cake has a mental illness.

>> No.7910424

>>7910411
We're not really having a conversation about Bisexuals here even tho I did include them in the OP, mostly because its easier to right LGBT then anything else now.

>> No.7910426

>>7910416
Yes the "denial" thingy has become so pervasive that its the new form of sin you know? Everyone is guilty of not following every single desire that crosses their mind

The worse thing that can happen to you according to the normal Joe is missing out on "being yourself", aka, having any sort of self-control is a horrible thing to do

>> No.7910427

>>7910416
This is truth.

>>7910414
"Better" is defined in terms of reproduction.
Two women are better, you get to impregnate both.
Two cakes are better, more KCals and more fat, sugar, salt- the things we all crave.
Are you retarded also?

>> No.7910435

>>7910427
>obesity is not a mental illness but homosexuality is

Fuck off

>> No.7910441

>>7910420
>like pegging. Do you think those people are closet homos then?

It would seem to be the more startling to me that you question this. Why would you NOT think someone who enjoys simulating homosexual sex acts is "closeted" homosexual. I would say that as soon as that person gains pleasure from such an activity, they are already homosexual, not "in the closet".

>> No.7910449

>>7910420
Heh, wheres the homophobia man? What of all that i said is invalidated by heterosexual people also having mental illnesses?

Maybe because i recognize homosexual people are statistically more hypersexual than heterosexuals?

Aren't them who base their identities around their sexual preference? Who have turned identitary problems into a "where-do-you-put-your-dick-in" problem?

How's that for an obsession?

Fuck off man, i don't have a problem with them, but don't want to sell me they are like a regular joe, because they aren't, they are like deranged heterosexuals, there's way more people who isn't out there fuckng strangers every night with their fist than those who are.

Also, pegging is gay, nigga.

>> No.7910451
File: 165 KB, 303x311, Only_10_Int.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7910451

>>7910441
Credibility = gone

>> No.7910453

>>7910435
Neither are.
you fuck off

>>>7910420
>>like pegging. Do you think those people are closet homos then?

It's called physiology? If it feels good people will do it. Getting blown by a man is considered gay as well.
But it's still more head then you'll ever get.

I'm abandoning this thread, too far gone to save. Bye niggers.

>> No.7910454

>>7910422
It may be tastier, but its still bad for you. Under your ideas we should all be high on heroin all day every day.

>> No.7910456

>>7910451

What? Why? Could you please explain your reasoning?

>> No.7910467

>>7910454
Not sure who you think is me, but I was criticizing the dude who said anything preventing reproduction is a mental illness. Eating non-nutritional food would fall under that. You can eat cake as long as your not obese.

Obesity is a mental illness though. It's physical harm.

>> No.7910470

>>7910467
The question is obviously an all or nothing choice between healthy and tasty food, going for the tasty ends up killing you and deforming your body. In this case its the soul, or mind if you have autism. Of course fucking two bi-woman at the same time would be better than fucking one woman, but not being able to reproduce and experience such a natural relationship with one woman would be ultimately worse than having bi-sexual chicks all over your dick.

>> No.7910475

pseudo-intellect containment thread

>> No.7910476

>>7910380
>It used to be gays had therapies to change them, no matter if they didn't want. Then it was depending on if you had a problem with it or not. And now, if you have a problem with it they do the opposite, they try to force to people to become fine with it because they see the "not wanting to be gay" as a mental disease.

I'd be in favor of the middle if the therapies worked, but did they?

>> No.7910479

>>7910456
It's not simulating homosexual acts. It's just a sexual act that feels good on both straight and gay men. That's like saying lesbians who use dildos are actually hetero.

>> No.7910482

>>7910476
Yes, they did.

Unless you are a LGBT activist and keep convinced that all those dudes and women who say they are happily married now, are in the closet, their life is very sad, they are controlled by the church, they are not even real, etc., etc.

In the end its a case of "why don't they want to be like me!! REEEEEEEEEE"

>> No.7910487

>>7910479
++++

>> No.7910496

>>7910479

>just a sexual act
>just

So you're denying that pegging simulates penis penetration? Why?

And what is NOT heterosexual about a woman who penetrates herself with a simulated penis? That is unambiguously a heterosexual sex act. The penis is a male sexual organ, not a female. Gaining pleasure from a male sex organ is an innately heterosexual sex act. Why do you think that is arguable?

>that feels good

If a woman rubs her clitoris it isn't necessarily a heterosexual sex act because it only* can give her pleasure, it doesn't necessarily impregnate or simulate the process of impregnating her. It doesn't require a male sex organ or a simulation of one. Dildos are a simulation of a male sex organ, even if they don't lead to pregnancy.

>> No.7910500

Let me add something, i don't think thoughts or actions are symptoms when we talk about psychology.

You could wear dresses because you feel like a woman, or you could wear them because you have psychosis.

Its all very case-specific, and a story by a patient that sounds like everyone elses, could actually be him using that story as a cover for the real problem.

For example, there's such a thing as Thought-OCD, in which people get invaded by thoughts of murdering their family. They are not closeted murderers, they just have an obsessive fear of losing control and hurting someone.

Some people suffer the same disease but with dicks and homo sex.

Turning an OCD sufferer who fears homos into a homo is legit torture, you are breaking down what you regard as "defenses" and is actually his personality, and you are letting the illness take 100% control of his life.

These people are normally the ones who then turn toward self-harming sex acts.

>> No.7910505

>>7910500
>there's such a thing as Thought-OCD

All compulsions stem from irrational or intrusive thoughts that cause the sufferer fear and anxiety, which leads to their compulsive behavior.

>> No.7910508

>>7910500
OP here, would be great if people could constructively add to this post. It is very interesting to me.

>> No.7910517

>>7910496
>So you're denying that pegging simulates penis penetration? Why?
Holy shit you argue like a faggot lol.

>> No.7910523

>>7910517

not an argument.

>> No.7910531

>someone isn't an expert in something but thinks he knows better than people who are
>attributes something he doesn't understand to "ideological motivations" rather than taking time to understand it
Sweet, a /pol/ thread

>> No.7910535

>>7910531
>undermining credibility of opponent through vague unsubstantiated attacks on intelligence rather than refuting points with evidence

You were saying?

>> No.7910536

>>7910505
Sometimes the compulsive behaviour is thinking itself

>> No.7910541

>>7910536

That is true.

>> No.7910544
File: 254 KB, 546x700, why havent you left yet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7910544

>>7910535
>m-muh ad hominems
>concern trolling and pretending to be asking this question in good faith
confirmed for /pol/

your thread is retarded and not worth responding seriously to. It's like those "what would would happen if a sun made of ice collided with a sun made of lava" threads

>> No.7910549

>>7910531
You clearly have yet to learn about the history of Queer Theory, the Constructive approach to truth and subjectivty, the role of riot feminism in today's academia, and the Guerilla Media of the 70s in South America

Once you do, if you still think there's no politics involved into all this discussion, we can talk again, but until yet you are just a self-righteous fool

>> No.7910553

>>7910549
>he admits that this thread is more politics than science
right, off you go to >>>/pol/ where you belong

>> No.7910555

>>7910553
What i said is that what he regards as "the accepted version" is coming out of a foul mouth who persecutes anyone who dares raise doubts to it


Stop being a shitty troll

>> No.7910558

>>7910553
>>7910544
>>7910531
Is it conceivable that you are actually hurting your cause rather then helping it by taking such an approach to dissenting opinions?

Furthermore, is it possible that people like yourself who are over represented in research into such topics are ruining the scientific credibility of your findings which are undoubtedly ideological?

>> No.7910562
File: 78 KB, 1306x354, the new furfags.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7910562

>>7910555
>'political correctness' is actually persecution!!!
kek you guys are a parody of yourselves at this point

>> No.7910567
File: 314 KB, 1200x1000, cuckcuckcuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7910567

>>7910558
i'm straight faggot, i just hate /pol/ trash littering up my favourite board

>> No.7910568

I think of it along the lines of depression. If someone is depressed, do you seek to help them cope with their depression and eventually learn to overcome it, or do you make them more depressed because they are that way inclined?

The way the West deals with homosexuals is basically the latter strategy. We enable and encourage their behaviour instead of trying to treat it. Homosexuality is objectively a mental disorder and we should be treating these people instead of pretending they are perfectly healthy when rates of suicide, depression, and antisocial behaviour says otherwise.

>> No.7910572

>>7910562
nah, your behaviour is persecution, you come here and start looking for a flamewar with everyone who disagrees with you based on nothing but the sanctity of non-bigottednes and the virginity of /pol/lacks...or maybe you are a /pol/lack looking to convince people by making the other side look stupid?

in any way is a retarded approach, we were discussing just fine until you came along with your bullshit, go away

>> No.7910580

>>7910572
Go back to /pol/, this thread has nothing to do with science and not a single shred of evidence has been posted in it. The only thing that has been posted are the half-baked opinions of reactionaries.

Opinions aren't science and this thread doesn't belong on this board.
>>>/pol/

>> No.7910592

>>7910580
bla bla bla muh political protest
go away, no one was having any problem before you came in

>> No.7910595

>>7910592
Go back to >>>/pol/ first you massive cock-juggling dick inhaler.

>> No.7910597

>>7910595
what exactly do you want proof on? why don't you ask it instead of keyboard fighting?

>> No.7910601

>>7910595
Problem is for you (assuming you ARE genuine), its very hard to tell if you are genuine or not. What you are doing is exactly what makes normal people think "I really don't want to be associated with this emotional train wreck, someone who can't even cope with the mere discussion of different opinions". You isolate people who technically agree with you, cause free thinking people to shift to the other side and entrench the opinions of those you despise. Just calm down and have a constructive discussion (remembering that legitimate criticism CAN be constructive).

>> No.7910602

>>7910597
The thread is nearly 99% opinions and unfalsifiable conjecture.

This has nothing to do with science and more rightly belongs on >>>/pol/

Back you go!

>> No.7910607

>>7910601
>>7910601
What does this thread have to do with science or math? Nothing, exactly, now fuck right off to >>>/pol/

You can have all your constructive discussions there.

>> No.7910608

>>7910602
It is a discussion about psychology. If you deride this discussion you essentially deride the field of psychology, which actually agrees with unstable people like yourself.

>> No.7910611

>>7910602
>>7910607

You still don't point out what posts you are refering too.

As a matter of fact you took so long to post this that i even think you looked for at least 1 example but couldn't find it.

Psychology is this way mate

>> No.7910613
File: 61 KB, 685x474, dnJBOxM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7910613

>>7910608
Psychology isn't a science.

Now stop concern trolling and fuck right off to your containment board faggot.

>>>/pol/

>> No.7910618

>>7910354
Homophobia causes homosexuality to be a mental disorder.

If homosexuals are harmed by homophobia, then homosexuality is a mental disorder. Homosexuals are harmed by homophobia. Therefore homosexuality is a mental disorder.

>> No.7910628

>>7910618
>>7910613

You are so fucking retarded that i can see the katana from here

>> No.7910630

>>7910628
not the same person bud

Go back to >>>/pol/ you fucking faggot

>> No.7910651

>>7910630
Yes you are, i can smell your doritos from here

Quote 1 post you'd like proof about

>> No.7910662

>>7910651
>>>/pol/

go there FAGGOT

>> No.7910670

>>7910496
>>7910441
>simulating homosexual sex acts
Gee, I guess I'm actually straight then, since ramming dudes in the ass is "simulating vaginal intercourse."

SJWism, postmodernism, the tolerance mafia and the regressive left are all pretty damaging to science and we actually discuss them fairly often if you would give us a chance before assuming we're some kind of arm of their paramilitary underground, but holy FUCK you argue like a parody of yourself.

>> No.7910704

>>7910568
That happens because of persecution and religion teaching them that it is wrong, and the ostracisation, rather than the truth which is that this world has no meaning and any meaning attached to this existence is just as imaginary as the rituals and laws we've also created.

>> No.7910808

>>7910662
oh no! he called me a gay!!!

quote 1 post which you need proof for

>> No.7910814

>>7910704
>the truth which is that this world has no meaning and any meaning attached to this existence is just as imaginary as the rituals and laws we've also created.

You have no proof for this, its as bullshit and as politically manipulated as Jesus miracles

>> No.7911183

>>7910670
>>7910544

What is wrong with asking what the cause of homosexual behavior is? It's not an absurd proposition to suggest there might be some conditioning involved considering the amount of reported sexual abuse by bisexual and homosexuals. We are really just asking questions and you're assuming far more evil intentions than can be supported by the content of what I am actually saying or asking. Why is this topic off-limits? When have I been belligerent? I'm really just trying to make sense of these issues.

How is anal sex a simulation of vaginal intercourse? Sodomy is primarily a homosexual behavior.

Why are these definitions confusing to you? If a man puts his penis in another man's anus, that's a homosexual sex act. If a woman puts a model of a penis in her vagina, that's a heterosexual sex act. If a woman rubs her clitoris it is neither, depending on what she is thinking about in her fantasies.

Why are you being hostile? I'm trying my best to be explicit and logical with my thinking, and you're just mocking me, without any revision or correction of my errors. It's not compassionate, and it doesn't make your argument stronger.

>> No.7911197

>>7910427
>homosexuality is a disorder
>but obesity and type-2 diabetes are not
>Americans

>> No.7911209

>>7911197
>Disorder
>MEDICINE
>disrupt the healthy or normal functioning of

If you were breeding pigs, would you consider the pigs that couldn't reproduce healthy or unhealthy? Wouldn't you agree that the healthiest pigs were the one that had the largest yield?

If you're assuming I have a certain tone to my voice while reading this you're doing yourself a disservice. I'm not trying to get anyone upset.

Also, I'm not implying that obesity and type-2 diabetes are not disorders. It's really a superficial/pedantic point to mention that we use different words for similar problems.

>> No.7911295

I've gotten to know two homosexuals intimately. It's a freaking mental disorder. I agree with Frueds model of narcissism in regards to the homosexual in comparison to the sexual desires of the heterosexual.

>> No.7911553

>>7910294
>fetishes that are enforced
wat

>> No.7911685

>>7910294
Every marginalized group in one way makes an assertive image, to look proud and be safe in groups. Whilst it is a far stride to compare these two groups, take the black panthers, LGBT behaviors most likely evolved simply to identify one another, resulting in both protection groups and just a common sense of identity