pink_trike

If I'm trying to "prove" anything, it's that those three terms are inadequate and archaic...even delusional. They only serve an attempt by some people to squash all humans into 3 predefined narrow static categories based solely on behavior. As a convenience in the thread, I referred to myself as "homosexual" since the OP used that antiquated term to frame his points. I was quickly informed that no, I couldn't be a "homosexual" because I had in the past engaged in intercourse with women, therefore I was actually a "bisexual". As if anyone could possibly make that determination for me...and never mind that sizable chunks of both hetero and homo identified people have had and do have sex outside of their "identity". Being a gay man who has and may again have sex with women violates the psychic order of those who find comfort in pegging people into one of those three narrow boxes - but I'll be the one who defines myself. I'm not alone in this view. In the psycho/social services sector, the term MSM is now used in safer sex outreach in order to connect with a huge population of men who identify and primarily function as hetero but that engage in sex with men in varying degrees of frequency. These men don't identify as bisexual or gay. Should we try to stuff these people into one of those three boxes according to archaic and rigid definitions that are based on sexual behavior? Or should we understand that affectional/sexual identity is more complex than purely sexual behavior? --- And, my point in general in the thread has been that if there is mental illness to be found related to whether someone reproduces or not, a more likely candidate for that diagnosis might be those who reproduce in a narcissistic vacuum with no clear understanding of why they do so, and with no regard for the ecological cost of that selfish, mindless act. There are 6.5 billion people on the planet currently, and the human population is projected to increase to 9.5 billion in the next 40ish years - at a time when the extinction rate of plants and living beings is 1000 times greater than the last major extinction event that took place 65 million years ago, and the resources of the world, including water, are becoming scarce. And yet, human reproduction is institutionalized and culturally enforced, and those who decline to reproduce are stigmatized, ridiculed, and even claimed to be mentally ill. Gregory Bateson said: "The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between the way nature works and the way people think". I could make a pretty good case that poppin' babies to the point of threatening death to the ecosystem and all it's living beings (including humans) is an estrangement and alienation from the natural world that qualifies as a mental dysfunction bordering on psychosis.

This impermanent universe and it's patterns and processes, in the space within which countless universes appear and disappear, is simply the result of interdependent cause and effect.

The gods are anthropomorphic depictions of planets, stars, and constellations. The antics of the gods are astronomical patterns, processes, and random events. The Christian book of mythology known as "The Bible" is a poorly constructed rewritten version of significantly older Egyptian anthropomorphized, mythologized astronomy texts...often nearly word for word. The cross, the crucifixion, Mary and Jesus, Christ, fish, the five loaves, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Son (sun) of God...all are representations of celestial bodies or mechanics. Our ancestors "brought the heavens down to Earth" by associating the celestial bodies and mechanics with earthly signifiers. They built complex astronomy into their architecture. They ritualized the patterns of the heavens in everyday life. They used what we call "mythology" in order to pack complex information into dramas that could easily be stored and remembered in the greatest number of biological hard drives, thus preserving this critically important information from generation to generation for thousands of years. This enormous and enormously complex and sophisticated body of advanced astronomy knowledge that was preserved for thousands of years with the same retold, re-costumed, relocated characters and events didn't become "religion" until the second half of the middle ages when everything got dark and the important context of the "myths" was lost.

Imo, there aren't any adequate definitions for these terms that can be generally applied to all humans in all situations. At best, they are subjective loose terms that point at non-concrete generalities - a semantic convenience. They are also overly simplistic, archaic, culture-bound, and extremely narrow reductionistic terms that create and impose artificial and arbitrary divisions, and cause more confusion than clarity. They attempt to isolate and reduce sexual behavior (surgically removed from desire/affection/love) down to a simple three sizes fits all formula, while ignoring the complex mix of biological, psychological, political, religious, and cultural factors that shape sexual behavior. But, that's not how life works. The trend in the psycho/social services sector over the last couple of decades has been one of moving away from understanding these terms as static categories of behavior, viewing them instead as subjectively defined self-identification - with the recognition that there is no static definition for these terms. And, the trend in modern culture is increasingly the abandonment of these three narrow reductionistic identities in favor of not using any identity that is built on the rigidly narrow foundation of only sexual behavior. Given that affectional/sexual orientation is fluid, meaning that it can change in relationship to many factors during the course of one's life (culture, circumstance, hormones, developmental stage of life, love, age, etc...), perhaps it's time for us to all stop trying to peg people into a narrow range of predefined static categories for life, based on a very narrow slice of the human experience...sexual behavior. My identification as "gay" (which I rarely use anymore) doesn't mean that I have had sex only with men, or that i can only function sexually with men. It means that I identify culturally and politically as gay. It means that my affectional/emotional/biological urges are spontaneously, instinctively directed toward men. It means that I'm genetically inclined this way to a degree that is unique to me at this particular developmental stage of life. Having had sex with women doesn't change this, nor would having sex with women in the future - in these cases, I was and would be a gay man having sex with women.

No, I'm describing myself...a 1000% gay man. My sexual/affectional orientation is gay (and my "gayness" isn't limited to just sexual/affectional expression - my orientation is my perceptual window to the entire world). Just because I've had sex with women doesn't mean that I'm bisexual. Behavior isn't necessarily a reflection of orientation. My orientation is gay, but heterosexual behavior is an option available to me...in the same way that someone might have a right handed orientation, but using the left hand is an option.

Behavior isn't the definition of orientation. Just because something is _considered_ to be abnormal by society or certain people within society doesn't mean that it is _necessarily_ abnormal. Left handedness is an example of this. Children are sexual beings...modern society doesn't deal with this fact very well and tends to deny it and pathologize it. A healthy society recognizes this fact of nature and skillfully manages this reality. There is nothing innately "heterosexual" about reproduction. My orientation is homosexual. I've had intercourse with women. It could have resulted in conception. My orientation remains homosexual. homo sperm + hetero egg = homo/hetero breeding = reproduction. ...or, since I've also had intercourse with lesbian women... homo + homo = homo/homo breeding = reproduction. A distinction needs to be made between breeding and orientation. Homos have the ability and frequently the inclination to breed, and do so quite regularly. The behavior of cross gender intercourse doesn't negate orientation. I'll have a homo orientation no matter how many people of the other gender I have intercourse with, no matter if it results in reproduction. Homo orientation is much deeper than just behavior.

I'm always amused by people who assume that aliens would just love us. How narcissistic is that? They might scope us out and decide that we're savage and dangerous, and then clear us off Earth like getting rid of of an infestation of termites. Or make dried jerky out of us.

Not only that, but homosexuals reproduce quite frequently. Prior to gay people abandoning the closet, there were just as many gay people as there are today - and just like everyone else at that time, most of them married and had kids. This is still happening all over the world. And, modern technology now enables gay people to pop their own babies without hetero intercourse.

When I was 6 years old I very clearly experienced sexual/emotional desire for men and boys. I had no exposure to sexuality of any kind prior to this awareness. I wanted to be naked with and touch other boys and men, as much as I wanted to hug and kiss with them for emotional satisfaction. I also preferred the company of men and boys, having no interest in women and girls at any level of experience other than friend. I was very clear that I was different from some other boys and from dominant expectations, and knew instinctively that I needed to be very careful who I revealed this to. I was also left-handed (though i was eventually trained to ambidextrous), have a counterclockwise hair whorl, longer than average fingers, tighter thumbnail density, large than average penis girth and length, and above average IQ...all of which are found more commonly in gay men. And I have never experienced sexual desire for a woman. It is as obvious as the nose on my face that I was born gay, and I've never had even a moment of doubt that this is the case. Most gay people have been saying the same thing for decades, but oddly, our experience of our own development is rejected as biased. The idea that gay people choose their orientation or arrive at it via a mental dysfunction is absurd and tells us more about those who believe such a thing than it does about gay people. And the idea that participating in reproduction determines whether one is mentally healthy or ill is delusional. The real question about homosexuality is: Why do a small group of het folks experience the need to pathologize or demonize gay people, rather than see homosexuality as a natural variation that likely benefits the human organism in ways that go unnoticed in the majority rule paradigm - a sloppy view that illogically suggest that since most people appear to be hetero (in a culture that institutionalizes and enforces heterosexuality!) therefore gay people must be an aberration...the same paradigm that has in the past pathologized (as mental deficiency or illness) other differences such as race, gender, physical ability, left handed, head shape and size, etc... This childlike attempt at logic would get a "fail" from any teacher of logic, yet it goes unchallenged among those who prefer not to look at the familial, cultural, and intrapersonal psychic factors that shape their sloppy biased thought patterns in an attempt to reject and project their own insecurities related to differences.

Thanks for the clarification. Imo, psychiatry is dangerous and borders on the criminal.

I was just putting out questions that the OP might benefit from thinking about before arriving at such a peculiarly narrow conclusion. Behavior is choice. Desire isn't choice. As someone with a Master's in Clinical Psychology, a Master's in Counseling Psychology, and a couple of decades of psychotherapy private practice...I find your idea that psychology is "quackdom" amusing. I wish I could hear you say that to all the countless clients that recovered psychological/emotional stability and found contentment and happiness. And to all the countless clients that gave up self destructive tendencies. And to those who discovered a will to live after wanting to die. And to those who gave up compulsive behaviors. And those that let go of self-loathing. And those that were finally able to forgive those who had violated them in ways that no one should have to experience. I'd like to hear you say that to all of the people who recovered from hurt, anxiety, psychological pain, alienating defenses. They would set you straight quickly.

Some questions for you to consider: You seem to be saying that if humans don't reproduce if they are physically able to then they are mentally ill. If we follow that logic stream, then you seem to be saying that mentally healthy humans are slaves to our neurobiological programming. Or do we have the ability to consciously reflect and make informed decisions regarding our reproductive behavior? Are hets who decline to reproduce for ethical (or any) reason mentally ill? Are celibate nuns and monks mentally ill because they don't reproduce? Are people who don't begin reproducing immediately upon reaching puberty mentally ill? Are people who use birth control mentally ill? Are hets who are impotent (inability) or asexual (in terms of sexual desire) mentally ill? Is it possible to determine whether homosexuality is mentally ill or healthy in a culture that institutionalizes and enforces heterosexuality for reasons that have nothing to do with reproductivity? Given that sexual orientation falls on a spectrum between exclusively homo and exclusively hetero with every degree of orientation in between...does that mean that only exclusively hetero people are mentally healthy ( a very small group, statistically - when looking at desire rather than behavior). Are homosexual people who function as hetero and reproduce mentally healthy? Are hetero people who function as homo in the absence of the other gender mentally ill? Are bisexual people mentally ill? Are functional heteros that experience homo desire but not behavior mentally healthy or ill? Is there a difference between desire and behavior? Does sexual orientation in the human species ebb and flow between peaks of hetero and homo over long periods of time, influenced by factors similar to those that produce breeding seasons and cyclical peaks and valleys of reproduction in mammals? Are heteros who mindlessly reproduce in the face of resource shortages and overpopulation mentally ill? Is the pathologization or demonization of homo desire and/or behavior mentally ill? Is sexual desire a mental function? Is sexual desire a physical function? Is homosexuality also a physical illness? Or just a mental illness? Is engaging in heterosexual reproduction without sexual desire a mental illness? Is physical desire a basis upon which to determine mental health? Is a man who loves another man and experiences sexual desire mentally ill? Is a woman who loves another women and experiences sexual desire mentally ill? Is a hetero woman who loves a man but experiences no sexual desire mentally ill? Is a hetero man that rapes a women causing reproduction to occur mentally healthy? How deeply have you researched the history of homosexual desire and behavior in the human species? How much do you know about older cultures (all over the globe) that viewed homosexuality as a "sacred" manifestation? Are you aware that many high functioning cultures institutionalized homosexuality? Or that some ritualized it into their highest spiritual beliefs? Have you given thought to how homosexuality might be necessary, even essential, to the survival of the human species? What are we to make of thumbprint density, increased counterclockwise hair whorls, longer average finger length, larger average penis length and girth, and higher average IQ among homo men? What are the social, legal, and psychological ramifications of pathologizing millions of people's love and desire? Have you examined what familial, cultural, and intrapsychic factors might have influenced you to think that it is "reasonable" to view homosexuality as a mental illness? These questions are just a tiny tip of the iceberg. Lots of questions to think about before you start pathologizing real people.

Hamlet's Mill (first published by Gambit, Boston, 1969) by Giorgio de Santillana (a professor of the history of science at MIT) and Hertha von Dechend (a scientist at Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität) is a nonfiction work of history and comparative mythology, particularly the subfield of archaeoastronomy. Its essential premise is that much mythology and ancient literature has been badly misinterpreted and that they generally relate to a sort of monomyth conveying significant scientific and specifically astronomical ideas and knowledge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet's_Mill http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/hamlets_mill/hamletmill.htm

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=260762&postcount=55

Not helpful. I asked for the science. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThanks, guys. I doubted the convenient perfection of such a number.

Can anyone tell me how close to reality this bit of information is: --- The distance between the Earth and Moon is 108 times the diameter of the Moon The distance between the Earth and Sun is 108 times the diameter of the Sun The diameter of the Sun is 108 times the diameter of the Earth --- Appreciate your help...

People of both genders (male and female) and sexual orientations (homo/het) fall all over the masculine/feminine spectrum.How does your theory account for very masculine, male-identified gay men, and very feminine, female-identified lesbians? (These types account for at least 50% of all gay people). Or masculine-appearing straight women and effeminate or passive straight men who account for a large number of the het population?

LOL...And you call Moyers a nut-job. :D :D

speaking of government run like a business, and corruption...here's Bill Moyers: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0406-29.htm

"Unlike the more well-known fuel biodiesel, which is produced by chemically modifying vegetable oil in an expensive and time-consuming process, The Big Green Bus runs on unmodified vegetable oil, tossed out by the gallon every day at greasy spoons and fast food restaurants all over the country. To use the oil, the students added a second fuel tank to hold the vegetable oil. The bus starts on normal diesel fuel and uses the heat from the engine to warm the vegetable oil, lowering its viscosity and allowing it to flow through the engine." Read the article: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~vox/0405/0502/bus.html

There are hundreds of thousands of variations of this type of spam online. This one is directing traffic to a dating site (he is an affiliate and gets paid for signups or per click-thru) and to paypal, asking for donations. This is old news. It is spam. I'm new around here and don't want to get anyone in trouble. I'm just pointing out that this is an obvious commercial post.

I began my foundational meditation training in the vipassana style. This page gives an intro and basic instructions: http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/index.html Much of my early training took place here: http://www.spiritrock.com/display.asp?catid=2&pageid=106 I now practice in the Tibetan Tantric style, which is a more complex, working with various mind states and mental energies. Most traditional meditation schools of thought emphasis breath awareness (not breath control) in the beginning stages of meditation practice, then later, object meditation (holding one's awareness on a focus object for extended periods while observing the mind, but not participating in the mind's thought patterns). Once these two foundational techniques have been mastered, the practitioner is prepared for more advanced training in observing and calming the patterns of mind, which will ultimately lead to complete stillness of mind (no thought, only extended uninterrupted awareness).

this is spam.

I very strongly disagree based on my own experiences with LSD. It is an understatement to say that LSD opens windows of consciousness that are not available to ordinary mind. The exact opposite is true for most people. The LSD experience actually embraces the human mind, its beauties and horrors, in intimate ways that no other experience can. For me, the only thing that has come close is the focused trained practice of observing the mind (meditation) for extended periods on a regular basis over a period of many years. It takes much longer, but eventually it opens different (and just as profound) windows of consciousness as LSD does. I recommend it over LSD. In fact, I no longer recommend LSD at all...the physical toll just isn't worth it.