Preventing idiots preventing “homosexuality.”
I found a book at the local library that I thought would be a hoot to read. And it is! It’s a knee slapper of astounding proportions. I got all the way up to page 25 before I had to put it down; my sides hurt from laughing so much, honestly. Fortunately I had also taken out a biography on Joseph Schumpeter, the economist who explained capitalism after he did his research, not before. But this man, Joseph Nicolosi “Ph.D” [as in Piled High and Deep] is more a comedian than a savant, he’s certainly not brilliant. Oh the first few pages are all about his lifelong quest to “prevent” homosexuality – something which exists in all societies all over the world, throughout history (you don’t get to quote 2,000 year old books against it if it isn’t a historical reality, do you?) at the exact same percentage. If anything shows “naturalness” it is consistency of occurrence, of incidence. By this man’s ill-reckoning it must be true that the number can go up and down. Here, let’s join the man who pretends to know so much at …
Page 16 –
“Although biological factors do (his italics in the original, I’ve reversed it,) have a predisposing effect in some children, Dr. Reker believes change is possible because family and social influences appear to have the most powerful influence in the development of homosexuality” Ah ha! So it is biological! Well, no, it’s not, for he adds on the same page, separated by a few sentences:
“The most important message we can offer is that there is not such thing as a ‘gay child’ or a ‘gay teen’” – And I ask, then, if there are “biological factors,” A) what are they? He doesn’t say. And B) how can there not be a “gay child” when he admits to the biological nature of it? And C) How can he simply discount every single gay man’s recollection that he was gay from the time of puberty?
In this introduction he talks about “gender identify confusion” as if this is “homosexuality” –
He laments that “homosexuality” was removed from the DSM – and yet, he forgets to mention that the DSM immediately added “gender identity disorder” – so what’s his problem? He’s got what he wants, a disorder, and still he complains. Meanwhile, no gay man is gender confused, we know we are men, who like men.
“Gender nonconformity” – what is this? Boys who are unathletic? And the fat kids? Or the kid with one arm? Or the autistic? Are they not “unathletic”? Are they then all gender nonconforming? This man is football obsessed perhaps. He also seems to be wholly unaware that for centuries boys and girls were dressed alike and treated alike until they were six or seven years old – and yet there was neither gender confusion or some huge number of gay folks.
He complains about the words “gay” v. “homosexual.” And what of “sissy” and “fairy” and “queer” and “faggot” – eh, doc? All words far older than the “scientific” one he prefers for the “SEX” in the middle of it. Meanwhile, “gay” was in use for centuries: Elizabeth I of England said “send Lord Darnley, that gay and fairy man to my cousin Mary (queen of Scots) so that naught might come of the marriage.” Alas, the Lord and Queen had a son: James I of England. When he came to the throne in 1603 it was widely quipped “We had King Elizabeth, now we shall have Queen James.” James was not amused. He immediately set to work on a new Bible because he was the new head of the Church of England. Yep, King James Bible, inspired by and somewhat compiled by a gay man. As was noted in mid-reign: “Your minsters spiritual and temporal do recommend you visit your wife at least once a month.” Ah, history.
He advises some poor mother who he claims called him, that “There’s still time to help him feel more comfortable with his maleness.” Alas, poor doctor, gay men are extremely comfortable with our maleness – but no matter how many times we tell you so, you tell us this can’t be so. Why listen to us, eh? We’re pyschos, as you aver, and proclaim we shall not be listened to whatsoever, for we got ourselves an agenda! Yeah, mostly not to have to listen to mush like this.
“We are all designed to be Heterosexual.” He states this as simple fact; instinct perhaps, but he doesn’t quite say that. And yet, somehow, with “biological factors” playing a part, gay men simply overcome this predetermined naturalness, this design, this instinct? My, what powerful brains we have! Why and how do we do this? He doesn’t say, yet. I doubt he can, no one else can, why would he be able to? I always like the Archbishop of the Armed Forces’ reason: “It’s largely unexplained.” Yes, well, clarity is paramount in that statement.
“A furious egalitarianism … compelled psychiatric experts to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves.” Yah, you say we’re crazy, you can’t prove it except by saying you’re not gay and you never will be, and you mention a biological factor, then discount anything we might say. Cute. We tell you we’re happy, fine, and very male, and you tell us we think like and want to be women. And that anything we say other than what you believe is a nefarious agenda. Why believe us when you got your theory, eh?
“But on the inside, these men had, as boys, been highly ambivalent about their own gender” – where does he get this from? I was never ambivalent about my gender whatsoever. I have spoken to thousands of gay men – almost certainly more than this man has – and none of us were ever ambivalent about our gender whatsoever. He’s perhaps confusing us with “transgendered” people or hermaphrodites. Well, I had told gay groups: Don’t let the transgendered in our club, it’ll lead to mush like “gay men are gender confused.” And look, see, I was right.
Ah, he says we have a “sensitive inborn temperament” (not natural, no doubt, but from some planet that even NASA hasn’t found yet) and we are “unathletic, somewhat passive, lonely (except for female friends,) [why do heteros think we’re “lonely”? Ah, we don’t have a women! They are lonely without one, so we must be, and that’s the only thing I can figure out,] unaggressive and uninterested in rough-and-tumble play.” Where did that come from, all these alleged traits of the future “homosexual”? Ah, a “social environment that did not meet this child’s specific needs.” And the “specific need” is? Yep, we’re naturally gay, and thus we don’t quite fit. Oh well. And yes, well, a bunch of brothers too, and all are athletically, aggressively roughing and tumbling away – and one brother is not, Now why is that? He doesn’t say. Could it be, doc, for biological factors? No doubt it could very well be. We’re born gay, obviously, and then something else happens, too. Maybe. He’s as sure as the archbishop is.
The prehomo boy is reacting to the “challenge of identifying with his dad and the masculinity he represents.” The “prehomosexual” boy is “rejecting his emerging malesness and thus developing a defensive position to it.” And what does he do, this prehomo? Why, “later he will fall in love [fall in love? Why, doc, you and yours are sure we have an “obsession” and we’re “lonely” and it’s all an “act” – how could we fall in love with anything?] with what he has lost by seeking out someone who seems to possess what is missing within himself.” So he seeks out other gay guys with the same problem? Well, I do declare – if the boy is really thinking like a girl, and the other boy is thinking like a girl – aren’t the two boys just playing lesbian? And how can this person we fall in love with, or persons, if you wish, have what “seems” like we’re missing? And if anyone was going to teach us to be heterosexual I would think it would be a woman, not a guy. Has the man never heard of “fag hags”? They are constantly trying to get in our pants to teach us the joys of hetero-sex.
Meanwhile, my own older brother, being somewhat disconcerted with my gayness did insist on taking me to a peep show on 42nd Street in NYC, I kid you not. Oh, I went; inquiring mind and all that. Then, once there in front of the seedy place where I was to be shown the mysteries of the vagina, my brother and his friend wouldn’t go in! So I spoke to the door-lady and explained the situation. She giggled with me and let me in for free. I went to a booth, looked at the um, vagina on display on a rotating platform where from behind little windows (the peep in peep show, I guess,) men were doing what came, um, naturally. Lonely fellows, I suppose. Utterly uninterested, and bored out of my mind, I left after, oh, 5 minutes, thanked the madam for allowing me free passage and said, “Well, off to the Ninth Circle, gay bar extraordinaire!” “Oh, I love that place,” she said. My brother and his friend would not visit the gay bar either. Boy, talk about unfair! I willing went to a seedy dump of lonely hetero loners, and they wouldn’t deign to visit a vibrant place filled with sociable friendly folks. Sad, no? Oh well.
Ah, he quotes Charles Socriades – a Ph.D. Himself. How learned! Yet, astoundingly, this man who is sure that weak and absent fathers cause gay sons – get ready — has a gay son himself. I mean, really – son Richard Socriades is a “militant” and “radical” “homosexual” in the political fray. Didn’t old man Charlie ever learn yet that his own son is gay? Well, so much for his “credentials” in preventing a gay son, eh? He’s a failure of enormous proportions. His own theory must be mush, yet he holds to it – the term is “invincible ignorance.” Or, if he’s correct, he should, and this author should, at least let the reader know that the man pushing this theory, and is being quoted as an expert, is a failure. Who the hell wants a failed expert?
Ah, at the “root of almost[my underline] every case of homosexuality” (– yes, well, and the others?) “is some distortion of the fundamental concept of gender.” I dare say, I never heard one gay man that thought he was a women, that’s for sure. I never did think so, never played with dolls, never did make up – I never had any of these circumstances that supposedly leads to gayness. Neither has some oh, 99% of my gay friends. Was it the Christmastides when me and my brothers helped mom make Gingerbread Houses? Is that what did it, what with cooking be all feminine and such. And I had as close a relationship to my father as any boy could have with a man who worked two jobs. So did my two brothers, both amply heterosexual. Not only that, I was a member of a gymnastics and sports organization since I was 5 years old until oh, late teens, and I was a Boy Scout with ample male father figures hanging around, and my own grandfather involved to boot. Oh, sure, I’m not athletic – maybe it’s the eyeglasses and natural born essentially myopic blindness that caused that bit.
Ah, it’s all a “revolt against reality and a rebellion against the limits built into our created human natures.” So why does this unathletic passive boy exist in the first place, and admittedly with a biological foundation? He doesn’t even venture a guess, this “genius” on the hustings. And “revolt” and “rebellion” – what on earth? We do no such thing. As this man himself says – there’s “biological factors” that DO! Make a difference. He’s clear on that. But now he discounts his own statement? Hmm.
“While learning language (he and she, his and hers)” – egad, learn Spanish, “Su” is for both. Many languages not only don’t make a difference between His and Hers – but in Spanish the word for penis is a feminine noun! No wonder there’s only 100,000,000 Mexicans, they’re all gay. Right? Due to language learning? Yeesh. Meanwhile, gay men are so adept with English gender based pronouns that we can use He, She, His and Hers interchangeably as a mechanism for protection when we’re asked by these sorts of people “do you have a special friend?” And we know precisely why we are “gender bending.” To keep our jobs, and keep from getting beaten up.
Amazingly he says this: the boy “must separate from the mother and grow in his differentness from his primary love object if he is ever to a heterosexual man.” hahaha! So you got to teach heterosexuality which is the alleged instinct to procreate? Youse got’s to be kidding, no? No wonder heteros are nervous about us, it’s a learned behavior. Don’t worry folks, we’re naturally gay, so you must naturally be maybe gay or straight, depending on your dad. Yeesh. And what is with this man and creating new words that show up as “misspelled” on my computer, this is like the 4th or 5th one already. Differentness? You can’t even look it up.
He talks of the ratios of gay men to lesbians, and after all the much research he touts, he says “we do not really know for sure.” – You don’t even know how many of the thing you claim to be expert on? Really? My Lord, what a lousy expert.
He recommends the father taking the boy into the shower – and show dad’s penis to the boy! Yes, he does. Not once, but several times – not just him, he quotes others! He and they are friggin’ pederasts for heaven’s sake. To learn about the male body? For dad to show us his penis? Yes, that’s what he recommends – show penises to a gay guy to make him straight. Weird, yes? I find it rather filthy and unhealthy myself, and I’m rather glad my father did not do so, I might have been psychologically stunted. Well, too, if there’s one thing gay men are expert at it is the male body, and its penis.
This creep then says the “penis” is the “one unmistakeable difference between male and female.” Oh, really? What of the beard? What of the woman’s breasts? The Adam’s Apple? Male patterned baldness. Women’s higher voices? Why, isn’t the vagina the one “unmistakeable difference” of concern to the heterosexual male? – Egad, he’s a chauvinist. And his solution to helping the “gender confused boy,” he alleges, is for the dad to take the kid into the shower and show him his penis? How will that conceivably help the boy figure out what a woman is? Yikes, stupid.
Then he quotes some other silly man: “As psychoanalyst Richard Green has noted, the effeminate boy (whom he bluntly calls the “sissy boy”) [yes, modern science indeed, with a word from the 1200s.] views his own penis as an alien, mysterious object.” Now I got to know, how did he arrive at this conclusion? Why, he had to just make it up, yes? Did he really go and ask a wide range of sissy boys if they thought their dicks were aliens and mysterious? I can see him now, going house to house, or perhaps school to school, and inquiring as to whether he can ask the sissy boys if they think this. Perhaps that’s what that Penn State guy was doing, you know, research. “Hey, sissy boy, do you think your penis is alien?” But seriously, it’s a sad day when allegedly trained professionals who claim to be experts on a subject can say something so amazingly stupid.
“If he does not succeed in ‘owning’ his own penis, he will grow into an adult who will find continuing fascination in the penises of other men.” This is hysterical! I mean, I just giggle. No, laugh uproariously! I do. Sir, we gay men are quite sure we own our penises, I assure you. We do not find ours or any other man’s penises mysterious, either. And we are not “fascinated” by someone’s penis, but perhaps are fascinated by their intellect, or athletic prowess, or their personality, or their deep blue eyes and naturally curly hair – we see the totality first, sir – then the penis only when the pants may or may not come down. Do hetero men really just think about vagina’s when they’re “fascinated” by a woman? That would be news to all the poets of the world. Though, to hear some women, that’s about it. Which is sad to. Sorry gals, talk to this psychologist about hetero male fascinations, perhaps he’s got a better answer than I do.
“…such a boy will be obviously effeminate, [ye old biological factor, which is “not natural” eh?] but more often, he – like most prehomosexual boys [to make this statement one must be studying thousands of “prehomos,” yes? How else could this be known? Yet, there isn’t a chart or number in the entire book of the numbers he’s studied. Seems to be about a dozen examples at most] is what we call ‘gender-nonconforming’” – and then, to top it off, and where I must stop for the moment, for a line by line analysis of this garbage is just too time consuming, yet so utterly, um, fascinating. Here, let me let him finish his mush for the day:
“…with no close male buddies at that developmental stage when other boys are breaking away from close friendship with little girls, (about six to eleven) in order to develop a secure masculine identity.” – why, I never have seen such mush! I’m no father, but it is a truism that little boys run away from little girls! They say “ew,” and “yech” and throw earthworms down the poor girls’ backs. In fact, little boys almost exclusively play with other little boys – and stay away from little girls – has this man never seen a wedding video of the 6 – 10 year old ring boy having a hissy fit when the flower girl goes to kiss him in the church? He’s got to watch more “America’s Funniest Videos,” truly. And it is precisely when they hit “six to eleven” that they all of sudden “normal” boy discover the opposite sex! How can a allegedly trained psychologist get it so backwards? Meanwhile, gay boys, fascinated with boys from the get go, just can’t seem to find a vagina to monologue with. Frankly, it is of no interest. We don’t hate it, we’re not fearful of it, we don’t despise it, or have any negative feelings about it whatsoever – it’s just something that is of no interest. Nor is what it is attached to.
Ah, finally, the old not-good dad trick: “Such a boy also has a poor or distant relationship with his father” Ah, so it is dad’s fault! – First, why blame us then? Go talk to my father. I’m the victim here, yes? But still, if this were true, even remotely, then there would be no teenage pregnancy problem and young male violence in America today. Why, fully 50% of the boys in this nation are growing up without a father in the household. The hetero men screw with abandon and then, well, abandon their own progeny. If this statement were remotely true they’d all be gay from a very “distant relationship” indeed, and they would not be the violent nut jobs they are, but rather, um, sissified.
And that’s all I can handle for the day. Back to the real world.
- Posted in: Uncategorized