Community > Posts By > AngelFireDream
Topic:
hi folks
|
|
Hello and welcome!
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Homosexuality
|
|
Hmm. It seems context should be relevant here. Also maturity and one's sense of self confidence. If a gay male approached a straight one, he may not know exactly and could only be testing the water. No reason to attack him or become enraged. All you need to do is take it as a compliment and politely let him know that you aren't interested. Then if he were to persist for some reason, I could see you becoming much more upset. Women also become frightened by men who cant take no for an answer. I understand that. That would not mean you are homophobic. It means you are straight and the guy has been warned. Getting more upset is one thing. Threatening to shoot someone is another. No I didnt mean to imply killing someone. But how many times do you have to warn an overly aggressive male in a bar? Same situation isn't it? I have never had to become aggressive with an overly assertive male in a bar. I have found other, safer, and more civilized means to deal with crossing of boundaries and/or the threats of same. So can others. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Homosexuality
Edited by
AngelFireDream
on
Fri 05/22/09 07:42 AM
|
|
I would think getting hostile with another man flirting with you; not touching you, flirting with you - especially if it is subtle - is a pretty good sign that one is homophobic. i'm not a homophobe.i've had gay/bi relatives (a few who have passed away and i do miss them)but they need to know their boundaries. so oh now it has to be PHYSICAL before you can give off warnings like that? i guess if someone breaks into your house,you better not call the cops until they shoot you or stab you,right?if they haven't touched you than there's no reason for you or your KIDS to worry,huh? What I meant was, it is not okay to punch someone out or harm them simply for looking at you too long, smiling at you, or complimenting you in an appropriate manner. If a male would accept certain flirtatious behavior from a female without physically harming the female, wouldn't it stand to reason that it might be the male's issue if they couldn't tolerate, accept, or even welcome it from a male? what STRAIGHT male is going WELCOME sexual advances from another male?if he does than he's no longer straight. hell a woman can punch a guy out for doing those things and it's ok but a straight guy can't do that to a gay guy for those same reasons without him being a "homophobe"? It is NOT okay for a woman to strike a man or harm them for smiling, looking, or grossly inappropriately flirting with them where I live. They would be arrested, same as a man. I agree with you about boundaries. It is generally using common sense to say that people should NOT be touching (in any way, shape, or form) anyone they do not know (and even then!) without consent. Some males who welcome advances from other males consider themselves primarily straight, or heteroflexible. That's a whole other topic. But, general consensus in the GLBT community is that individuals should have the freedom to identify with whatever "label" they feel most comfortable with. That's why it is soooo important not to assume anything anymore these days when someone tells you they are straight, Gay, Lesbian, or bi. Find out from them exactly what it means to them. Some people have been rudely surprised. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Homosexuality
Edited by
AngelFireDream
on
Fri 05/22/09 07:32 AM
|
|
The DSM ruled OUT homosexuality as a perversion or mental illness YEARS ago.
Homosexuality and DSM-IV
Q. Do you have any information on how homosexuality was eliminated from the DSM-IV vs DSM-III? Is there an established revision procedure whereby disorders are either included or excluded in new editions? If so, is there a way to determine whether that procedure was followed in the revision work that excluded homosexuality in the current fourth edition? A. The issue of whether homosexuality is a disease has been one of the more controversial matters that has faced the framers of the various DSMs over the last few decades. The very first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I) classified homosexuality as a sexual deviation, as did DSM-II in 1968. However, in December of 1973, the DSM-II was modified by the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), who voted to eliminate the general category of homosexuality, and replace it with sexual orientation disturbance. As Dr. Jon Meyer notes (see Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, 4th ed., eds. Kaplan & Sadock), "...this change reflected the point of view that homosexuality was to be considered a mental disorder only if it was subjectively disturbing to the individual. The decision of the APA Board...took place in the context of new sociological data, biological inferences, and de-emphasis of psychoanalytic observations. It also took place in an atmosphere of confrontation. Beginning in 1970, various gay activist groups demonstrated....at APA meetings. At issue was the conceptualization of homosexuality as an illness..." The DSM-III committee and subcommittee charged with drafting the new manual (1976-78) settled on the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality, which, according to Meyer, "...represented a compromise between those individuals whose clinical experience, interpretation of the data, and, perhaps, biases, led them to the conviction that homosexuality was a normal variant of sexual expression..." By the time DSM-III-R (revised version of DSM-III) came out in 1987, the tide had shifted again. The category of ego-dystonic homosexuality was eliminated. As DSM-III-R itself stated, "...the diagnosis...has rarely been used clinically, and there have been only a few articles in the scientific literature that use the concept..." However, one could use the category of sexual disorder not otherwise specified to include cases that previously would have been called ego-dystonic homosexuality. Our present DSM-IV does not include homosexuality per se as a disorder, but still permits the diagnosis of "Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified" for someone with "...persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation". For details on how the DSM-IV committees made their decisions, I suggest you get hold of a copy of the actual manual, and read the detailed description on p. xx in the introduction. I think it's fair to say that DSM-IV was more reliant on empirical data, and less on political considerations, than were some earlier DSMs. You may also want to see the article by Bayer & Spitzer in which edited correspondence by the DSM-III framers is presented on the issue of homosexuality (J Hist Behav Sci 18:32, 1982). http://www.healthieryou.com/mhexpert/exp1052101c.html |
|
|
|
Topic:
Homosexuality
|
|
I would think getting hostile with another man flirting with you; not touching you, flirting with you - especially if it is subtle - is a pretty good sign that one is homophobic. i'm not a homophobe.i've had gay/bi relatives (a few who have passed away and i do miss them)but they need to know their boundaries. so oh now it has to be PHYSICAL before you can give off warnings like that? i guess if someone breaks into your house,you better not call the cops until they shoot you or stab you,right?if they haven't touched you than there's no reason for you or your KIDS to worry,huh? What I meant was, it is not okay to punch someone out or harm them simply for looking at you too long, smiling at you, or complimenting you in an appropriate manner. If a male would accept certain flirtatious behavior from a female without physically harming the female, wouldn't it stand to reason that it might be the male's issue if they couldn't tolerate, accept, or even welcome it from a male? |
|
|
|
ALoe
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Homosexuality
|
|
I would think getting hostile with another man flirting with you; not touching you, flirting with you - especially if it is subtle - is a pretty good sign that one is homophobic.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Homosexuality
|
|
make your mind up, stop being greedy That's a common misconception or bias. Not all individuals who are bi are poly. Not all bi people date people of both sexes often, if at all. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Homosexuality
|
|
It is what it is - it seems that today being gay or bi is like getting a tattoo was a few years ago. Remember once upon a time everyone thought a mullet was cool too There is no comparison between fades and being gay! I bet he is talking more about the fad these days to be "heteroflexible" or bi. I'm supportive of the GLBT communities. If it is truly you - that's great. Fads? Meh. Not so much support from me for those. |
|
|
|
prey
|
|
|
|
ERstwhile
|
|
|
|
loose and limber
|
|
|
|
dusk
|
|
|
|
fogged
|
|
|
|
coaster
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Just to say Hi
|
|
Hello Oracle.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
new
|
|
Hi....stay a while!
|
|
|
|
Topic:
newbie here
|
|
Hello and welcome!
|
|
|
|
dodged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|