Her "ism" comes from a bad place. Please, I need your help

[forcegx7]

Her ism coming from a bad place
Message: I become friends with this girl and grew to care about her VERY much and VERY deeply. When I first met her, she claimed to be biual. I never really gave it much thought. I even used to joke about it to her, which I now regret. Then as I got to know her well, she shared with me every thing that went on in her life, which to sum up is as follows:

(1. ) A passive father, who never really reinforced his discipline with much love and affection, and didn't really protect her when she really needed it. Whenever she would do something wrong, he would tell her "it's wrong, don't do it" and race off to his job. Believe it or not, her father was probably the most loving person in her life.

(2.) She had a verbally abusive stepfather...controlling and sometimes physically abusive

(3.) She had 2 ual experiences when in her early teens with 2 different guys who were in their mid to late 20s.
She still acts apathetic to the fact that this was statutory rape and a form of ual abuse because at the time, she liked these 2 guys. She has yet to come to grips with this.

(4.) Had an overly religious mother who demonized and treated her like a piece of crap for every mistake she made. Since the divorce between her parents, her mother was entirely neglectful and abusive towards her almost on a daily basis.

(5.) She has a sister that really never had her back on anything

(6.) When she was 13-14, she had a girl around her age always ually pursuing her

(7.) When she was 10-11 years old, her parents became divorced, and she wasn't shielded from the ugliness of it
(She has stated that 11 is the age when she started feeling an attraction towards other girls)

(8.) When she was 16, she had her first full out ual experience that progressed to 5-6 times with a very sociopathic girl who was just using her for .

(9.) When she was 18-19, she moved to the Tampa Florida area. She was curious to explore the clubbing scene, especially the and clubbing scene, and did. At that point and surrounding herself in that crowd mostly, within months she became (probably influenced by the other s and s) a full on "" stating that "guys are okay, but she can't ever fathom dating a guy anymore, and just doesn't feel any emotional or physical connection to them."

(10.) Who she feels most attracted to has become ualized into what she feels is "who she is" or her "identity" rather than it being based on the concept of having and showing character on a day to day basis. And also like many of them, it is becoming a political identity for her...going to parades, wearing rainbow bracelets, and making stating that "Alfred Kinsey is a hero and did great things for the ." :\

She asked me my opinion about her newly found "ism," and when i told her that I believe it's a conditioned response to all the above, and stated that it's a defense and coping mechanism coming from a bad place, she cut me off from our friendship. people need to realize that informed opposition doesn't always equal hate speech.

Anyway, I feel like there's nothing I can do to help her...

Doe anybody have any insight, feedback, advice, suggestions you can give me?

I really appreciate it, and look forward to your reply soon!

Thanks in advance for your help!

[forcegx7]

Anyone? Anyone?

[smackie9]

Being horribly treated growing up doesn't turn you . You are born . For some, it takes years to acknowledge and accept their ual orientation. If you cared for her as much as you say you do, you would be supporting her, for she has finally found acceptance in herself, and now can live a happy life.

[forcegx7]

Being horribly treated growing up doesn't turn you . You are born . For some, it takes years to acknowledge and accept their ual orientation. If you cared for her as much as you say you do, you would be supporting her, for she has finally found acceptance in herself, and now can live a happy life.

Uh, it does, but it's not the only factor. Also, nobody is born . The " gene" theory is only a result of a small handful of studies that suggest (not conclude) that there MAY BE a biological component. Such studies have never been replicated. Also, the APA took homouality off of their list of mental disorders due to caving into militant political activist pressure and not on any scientific evidence. As a matter of fact, they were on the verge of discovering that homouality can be successfully treated in many ways just like alcoholism is treated (AA/12 step programs/Cognitive behavioral therapy), but political activists have essentially robbed themselves and other s seeking help from getting it now. It is just as abusive and damaging to completely affirm homoual behavior as it is to completely condemn it , so both sides of the coin are misguided, again, thanks to politics.

I've heard many people in my life so far discuss their upbringing, I've heard "ual identity" discussions in college, and read and researched numerous articles presented from both sides.

Of the countless people describing how they first realized they were or , ALL involved ual experiences, which people normally would categorize as abusive and/or severely damaging if they were in the context of a heteroual ual experience.

2 of Many Examples:

1.) A journalist wrote, "I discovered my true uality through an experience that was at first felt shameful, but then liberating, which occurred in a public men's room when I was eight years old."

2.) A girl I used to know, well she mistakenly feels that one of the main reasons she is a is because of her level of difficulty in getting over a girl who used her for multiple times in an extremely sociopathic manner. This stance could of possibly been reinforced by her and peers, which is a method of indoctrination.

And the argument that s and have difficulties of any kind being based solely on prejudice and social stigma is also misguided belief and grossly over-exaggerated.

The GLBT community have several activist groups that are one of the most powerful special interest groups in the U.S. Their success in passing special (over and above that of the average common man) "" rights legislation and influencing the media through fear of political correctness is unprecedented. Their opponents are silenced by cries of "homophobia," and their cause has been taken up as a major plank in the media. Their political power goes way beyond what would be expected of a minority that makes up about 2-5 percent of the population.

There has been many studies in societies where they and their laws are completely and entirely accepting of s and s such as San Fran, many European countries such as Holland, and New Zealand, Brazil, and they still found that s and s have 4 times more psychological disorders than the average heteroual based on the higher levels of drama, dysfunction, sociopathy, ual promiscuity and aggressiveness that most often occur in their relationships. Every single or relationship that had the best chance at surviving is when they eventually give into the heteroual model, which should tell you something about our true nature. But because one or both are essentially role playing or fabricating a gender role that one or both don't intrinsically have, their relationships are about survival rather than success measure by fulfillment. Homouality is a political movement for this very reason too...not only progressively adapting a heteroual model, but also adapting it as a political identity is an attempt at fulfillment in the lifestyle.

They will always scream cries of oppression and discrimination, even when there isn't any, because it is not unusual for a person with a deficient concept of the self to symbolize the internal disorder through projection of the self onto the environment. The boundaries of the self expand, in a sense, marching over the usual demarcation between self and the outside world, and end up treating the immediate external environment as if it were the ego itself.

All human behaviors (whether consciously or subsconsciously), are ultimately chosen.

There are essentially 5 Factors that influence the development of any human behavioral pattern, all of which he have the power and free will to alter, change, proceed with, or deny. They are as follows:

(1.) Intrauterine (prenatal) effects, such as hormonal milieu (environment)
(2.) Extrauterine (postnatal) physical effects, such as trauma, viruses
(3.) Extrauterine Symbolic effects, such as familial interactions, education
(4.) Extrauterine Experience, such as the reinforcing effect of repetition of behaviors
(5.) Choice

Now can somebody who's hasn't fallen into the trap of confirmation bias and the ad hominem arguments of this related political agenda, and be as so kind as to provide me with advice. I really would appreciate it! :)

[smackie9]

I think what most you have heard is people were trying identify what was already there but got it all mixed and compounded in with their negative experiences.

So you can poke your political and demographic data at this all you want.


Abuse doesn't make you .

We are so off topic. I thought you wanted answers as to why your friend decided to come out of the closet. HMMMMM let me guess. You just wanted to get up on your soapbox to prove your theories. Well go back to your uni because you are not going to get conformation here.

[forcegx7]

^ that's an ad hominem fallacy, and you were the one to derail this topic by making those two statements: "you're born that way" and "abuse doesn't make you ," which doesn't get any more political than that.

[forcegx7]

In America of late, truth has become subject to terrible political pressure. The question isn't just homouality, but rather, freedom from all ual desire and expression. This has been an issue for civilization for thousands of years.

I think many people have a sense, especially in America, that too many barriers have come down. We now have so little of setting healthy non-ual boundaries, that we're really completely at sea. We're awash in the tide of behaviors which are all being labeled "okay," because nobody really has a sense, any more, as to what's right and what's wrong. In Joseph Campbell's words, "Follow your bliss." This has led us into a growing barbarism.

Now we are now looking at a generation of young people who are exposed to a sometimes explicit, and sometimes implicit set of values that says that homouality is perfectly okay--it's just a complement to heterouality. What kind of world do we live in where we now have parents. educators, and professionals buying into the false notion that a way to find oneself is through means of ual activity and/or experimentation. Hormones raging makes it challenging, but Yes, it ultimately comes down to choice when it comes to human social behavior. That time in ones life is probably the most important stage in a person's psychosocial development. All the more reason to learn how to make meaningful connections with people in non-ual ways.
Finding "who you are" has nothing to do with who or what one feels attracted to or thinks they feel attracted. How about the notion of showing or having CHARACTER. I realize the concept of character may be an outdated concept, but just because something is outdated, doesn't mean it's wrong.

The implication of such a set of values to an impressionable, possibly confused and certainly exploring youngster, is that there is no reason whatsoever not to go out and try it and see whether it fits. It's simply that a door has been opened and a certain number of people will walk through that door, and thereby expose themselves to terrible risks at an age where they are not really capable emotionally and mentally of making intelligent judgments about the risks.

In the news, now, we're hearing so many overblown claims of a genetic foundation for homouality. The whole subject of behavioral genetics is complex. It does not lend itself to sound bites at all.

The real genetic question is--what is it in the background of people who become homoual that opens that door for them, whereas the door is essentially closed for other people?

In a nutshell, every behavioral trait in human nature has a genetic component. For example, basketball playing is clearly genetic. If you were to perform on basketball players the kinds of studies that have been done on homouality, you would find an unequivocal genetic association--very powerful, probably much stronger than there is with homouality. But if you ask yourself what that's about--it's clear that it's NOT that there is a gene for basketball playing...

The reason there's a genetic association is that there's an intermediate trait, which allows people who carry these traits to become basketball players in greater numbers than those who do not have those traits--namely, height, athleticism, and so on. So it's not surprising that there is a growing number of studies that show a genetic association to homouality. But that is a far cry from saying that homouality is genetic in the way that eye color, being left-handed, or black skinned is genetic.

Of course, there is a political implication to the misuse of the idea that there is a heritable component to homouality--that is, the false notion that if it is "genetic," then it must be unchangeable. But I think the most important point that one can make about homouality is that it is significantly changeable.

As a matter of fact, there is an extremely interesting statistic in the more detailed version of the new in America survey (The Social Organization of uality), which showed that 2.8% of the men in their sample were essentially homoual. But a much larger percentage had been homoual at some point in their lives previously. Somewhere between 10% and 16% had apparently gone through a homoual phase. By activist standards they would be people who would have a supposed--and supposedly fixed--" identity," yet by the time they were adults and were sampled in the survey, they had given homouality up. In fact, the largest proportion by far had given it up, and many have given it up even without any therapy or religious influence.

There are also case reports in the psychiatric literature of single individuals as well as groups of individuals who in a variety of settings actually do spontaneously leave a homoual identity.

The debate over homouality has been profoundly affected by the current culture of complaint. Many, many areas of political life, social life, and scientific life today are being profoundly influenced by the various competing claims and cross-claims to victim hood.

A recent article in a psychiatric publication informed us that 30% of all 20-year-old homoual men will be HIV- positive or dead by the age of thirty. You would think that the objective, ethical medical approach would be: let's use anything that works to try to take these people out of their posture of risk. If it means getting them to wear s, fine. If it means getting them to give up anal , fine. If it means getting them to give up homouality, fine. But that last intervention is the one intervention that is absolutely taboo.

There is no doubt that a cold, statistical analysis of this epidemic would lead you to the conclusion that this attitude of political correctness is killing a substantial portion of those people. I think there is an element of extreme denial, in the psychological sense, of what -related illnesses really mean.

The normalization of homouality was a classic example where the American Psychiatric Association knuckled under to a "victim" group's pressure tactics. In that instance, no substantive data was presented either to "prove" that homouality is an illness, or to "prove" that it is not.

Actually, many of the diagnoses that exist in psychiatry are labeled as illnesses for reasons that have nothing to do with medicine. Instead, psychiatric diagnoses are very subject to intellectual fads that come and go.

The reason the APA talks about disorders--rather than illnesses--is precisely because there are very, very few mental illnesses where underlying pathophysiology is even suspected. In most cases, if you are going to use the term illness, you would have to use it as a metaphor. They are possibly spiritual illnesses, or they are ways of life that are consensually undesirable. But they don't necessarily reflect some underlying disorder in the hardware that backs up the mind.

And so the whole question of what constitutes psychiatric illness is already so weak that it opened the door for activists to come in and make a change in the nomenclature without even having to appeal to rigorous scientific standards. Had they done so, there simply would have been no data one way or another.

The underlying problem is clearly that we've lost our moorings in terms of what life is all about. We don't know what's good and what's bad. People simply have lost the ability now to stand up and say this is good, this is bad, this is what I believe in.

We've now entered into a stage in our civilization of absolute nihilism, where the opinion leaders--the people who should be the moral exemplars--are simply espousing a philosophy of absolute nihilism. That's simply what it amounts to. The language is very fancy--deconstructionism, relativism, determinism, etc.--but what it all boils down to is that there is nothing outside of the cogitations in one's own skull. It seems to me that anybody with even a passing familiarity with history should see that that kind of an attitude leads nowhere but to destruction.

What happened is this: when we began exploring the mind as an object of scientific scrutiny, independent of the spirit--which is a very new idea--we inevitably reduced it to the consequences of mechanism. What that means, then, is that man is nothing but a machine. A very complicated machine--so complicated that we won't be able to put all the pieces together--but in the end we're merely a gigantic collection of molecules bumping around in a stochastic universe.

In adopting the methods of science to understand the human psyche, psychology and psychiatry have inadvertently put forth a philosophy of life that says the psyche is really illusion. Our personalities are illusion; everything can be seen through, reduced, turned into something prior... and human person-hood ultimately disappears. Of course, our link to the spiritual then becomes ever more distant.

I don't suppose that one can actually break through the armor of nihilism using intellect. I don't think it can be argued--you have a debate and just go around and around. I think, and here I'm speaking as a psychiatrist, really--I think an individual like that can only give up those kinds of intellectual constructions when he is so deeply touched personally--possibly so deeply wounded personally--that he sees that that philosophy of life offers no succor whatsoever, and so he's forced to throw himself into dependency onto others. What has happened with some people, is that they must throw themselves onto dependency on God as well. That, then, gets around this hyper-intellectual egotism. The gift of grace, then, comes through suffering and its healing...

[forcegx7]

I think what we need in this country is a very frank, very wide-open debate, free of political correctness, about fundamental values. And I think that if the stifling effects of political correctness could be eliminated, what would happen is that many people who are possibly not terribly articulate, but have a very firm and accurate moral compass--it's just that they don't have the articulation skills of the "chattering classes"--they too would begin to be heard, and I believe that the intellectuals would follow.

Intellectuals, I've come to believe, are definitely creatures of fashion, and much less leaders than they are followers.

In some ways I think the psychiatric establishment was right--homouality is not a disease the way that, say, pneumonia or cancer or schizophrenia are diseases. Homouality makes a certain kind of sense as an understandable adaptation to some types of life circumstances. If you grow up in a Cosa Nostra family, it makes sense to be a sociopath. By the same token, it's profoundly confusing to label the sociopathic responses, of, say, war orphans as "disordered" when a war orphan must become a sociopath in order to survive; if he fails to, he may die. So, under the circumstances of war, which response is "healthier"--that is to say, "adaptive"?

Homouality, too, is a method of adapting to adverse circumstances. But like sociopathy, it exacts a cost in terms of constrictions in relationships.

There are many psychological "illnesses" which cannot be adequately or convincingly explained using the medical model of psychiatry. Being homoual is not like having a tumor. We should throw out the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and start carefully rethinking all of these so-called illnesses. Right now, the DSM is mostly a collection of problems labeled illnesses because they are simply consensually undesirable within our present culture. But at base, they are really issues of values, philosophy, and character.

How can we "prove" to the psychiatric establishment that homouality is psychologically unhealthy? When we tried to defend the idea that homouality is a disorder as evidenced by the higher associated suicide rate, activists said that the suicide was not due to the inherently dissatisfying nature of the condition--it was due to the stresses of homophobia. When we point to the high level of promiscuity, they said we were using a narrow, "heteroist" and outdated definition of promiscuity. s could be emotionally faithful to one partner, they argued, while being ually active with many partners.

And you can't get around those arguments unless you're actually willing to say that promiscuity is an inferior way of life. You need to be able to say that some certain standard is better.

If we can't settle on a shared higher vision, then it's amazing what we must be prepared to accept. For example, there is actually a growing body of literature in ological journals arguing that the psychological and emotional benefits of promiscuity more than outweigh the risks to life from AIDS. Medical profession is also starting to find higher risk and rates of bacterial vaginosis, HPV, cervical issues, and herpes among s in comparison to heteroual women. There are also higher risk of HIV in biual and women, because in comparison to heteroual women, they have had more ual encounters with biual and men.

So that is the fundamental flaw of psychology--it is meaningless without the backdrop of a framework of values. And we must stick with the medical facts in order to help people.

There I believe homouality--like narcissism, obesity, and/or alcoholism--is best viewed as a spiritual illness.

Now psychology as a discipline must step up to the table and accept responsibility for the extent to which it has been propagating an amoral ethos.

[forcegx7]

Also, guys and girls that succeeded in their treatment to come back to their heterouality, marry and move on . They don''t want their faces on Youtube like the others who have failed at their treatment, because they're constantly being threatened. They protect their families. I know one. And I hate to break it to you...there are a thousands more.

If you try to quit cigarette smoking, but you're not committed, not even God can help you. If you no longer smoke, you're no longer a smoker. Homouality is not who you are, but what you do. And some of us do practice free will and assume our actions and take that personal responsibility not blaming our defeats on other people.

Any state of mind, no matter how deeply rooted, is subject to change based on the strength of the desire to do so.

[smackie9]

You asked for an opinion and you got it. I have many family members and none of them were ever brought up in abusive homes nor were they in anyway had mental disorders or had any kind of addictions. And yes I can name 3 of them whom didn't come out for years for fear of persecution from their family and their peers. We had to tell my brother -in law that it was ok and we loved him no matter what. We knew he was , he was so afraid to admit it. My cousin denied it for years, married a man, had a child but she just couldn't pull it off. She divorced, her husband was devastated, and now she's living happily with her partner. Every person in my family is well educated and are financially successful. I certainly would never expect them to turn heteroual. I love them just the way they are.

I had a feeling that you are one of those brainwashing bible thumping self righteous US southerners. All this so called reprogramming back to being heteroual is just another way for the religious radicals the drive down on those they don't approve of with gobs of guilt. people have a right to live rich happy lives without you jack a s ses waving your self righteous view on everyone.

I'm a proud citizen of Canada where couples can live, marry the same as heteroual couples. I'm all for equality. So you can stick that good book up that fat a s s of yours. You ain't convincing me about none of this b u l l s h i t. Don't bother coming up here to visit God's country...you ain't welcome here. It wouldn't surprise me if you wore a white sheet too.

[smackie9]

Michael Moore vs Westboro Baptist Church



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_fAYl4Th4&feature=related

Micheal Moore you rawk!

[forcegx7]

^ You still result to ad hominem fallacy arguments and then even throw flat out insults. Contrary to what you think, I'm a Centrist who leans to the left on most issues. I hate FOX news, and I haven't been to church for several years. I believe in GOD, but I disagree with condemnation and religious indoctrination as much as complete affirmation of homouality and political indoctrination of the and agenda...and are just equally as damaging and not helpful. But I don';t turn a blind eye, and realize occur due to families and societies internal fear that they in some way can be responsible for their child's same attraction and/or gender identity confusion.

And I never stated that s and s are going to hell or are immoral. Informed opposition to homouality doesn't equal that or mean that I'm against their rights. As a matter of fact, if I witness a person being beaten up for being , I would risk my life to save that person. You have been indoctrinated into a political agenda based on again ad hominem fallacies and confirmation bias. And you blinded let Michael Moore form your opinions for you, don't you. It's funny that you use that video to prove your point. When Michael Moore hypocritically in this most recent movies reaches out to religious leaders and bishops to speak out against Capitalism in the name of GOD. At least I have enough wherewithal and a mind of my own to be able to pick out biases and sound bites and call them out on it.

Homouality is an issue that has often been mishandled by therapists due to misinformation on the topic. Although not supported by the research, many therapists believe (thanks to political agenda fueled by confirmation bias and ad hominem fallacy arguments) that homouality is solely biological in nature, and therefore unchangeable. Yet despite ongoing efforts, researchers have not discovered a biological basis for same- attractions.

In fact, many researchers hypothesize that a homoual orientation stems from a combination of biological and environmental factors. For example, when asked if homouality was rooted solely in biology, gene researcher, Dean Hamer, replied, "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in ual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors" (Anastasia, 1995, p. 43). In addition, brain researcher Simon LeVay has acknowledged that multiple factors may contribute to a homoual orientation (LeVay, 1996).

What, then, are the causes of homoual attractions? These feelings typically stem from a combination of temperamental factors and environmental factors that occur in a child's life. According to Whitehead and Whitehead (1999), "Human behavior is determined by both nature and nurture. Without genes, you can't act in the environment at all. But without the environment, your genes have nothing on which to act" (p. 10). One way of understanding this combination might be expressed in the following equation:

Genes + Brain Wiring + Prenatal Hormonal Environment = Temperament
Parents + Peers + Experiences = Environment
Temperament + Environment = Homoual Orientation

While environmental factors may include experiences of ual abuse, neglect, or other traumatic events, a common contributor to same- attractions is a disruption in the development of gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person's view of his or her own gender; that is, his or her sense of masculinity or femininity. Gender identity is formed through the relationships that a child has with the same- parent and same- peers.

The process of gender identification begins approximately between age two and a half and four. For boys, it is during this phase that they begin to move from their primary attachment with the mother to seeking out a deeper attachment with the father. For males, the relationship between a boy and his father is the initial source of developing a secure gender identity. It is through the father-son relationship that a boy discovers what he needs to know about being male, including who he is as a boy, how boys walk, how they talk, how they act, and so forth. As the father spends time with the son, shows interest in the son, and gives the son affirmation, reassurance, and affection, the father imparts to the son a sense of masculinity. The boy begins to develop a sense of his own gender by understanding himself in relation to his father.

When the child reaches the age of five, he begins to face another task, that is, to begin to attach to same- peers. At this age, he starts school and begins to look to the other boys to answer the same questions that his dad has been answering. He looks to the other boys to discover how they walk, how they talk, how they play, and how he measures up in relation to them. He seeks to be included, accepted, and acknowledged. Through the relationships he forms with other boys, he continues to gain a sense of masculinity, discovering more about others boys and therefore more about himself as a boy.

During the early years of elementary school, children are not usually very interested in playing with members of the opposite . They desire to spend time with members of the same . This is a very necessary stage of development, because a person cannot be interested in the opposite or in others, until he or she first understands himself or herself.

Eventually, after many years of bonding with members of the same , the boy enters puberty. At this time he begins to turn his attention to the opposite . He becomes curious about the gender, which is different from his own, the female gender. With the simultaneous emergence of puberty, this curiosity becomes a ual interest and a desire for romantic connection with the opposite .

Conversely, for the child who will develop a homoual orientation, this process does not happen and experiences a series of interruptions. So, what happens in the development of gender identity that would lead a child to have same- attractions? Typically, for this child, there is something that prevents him from attaching to the father. Either he doesn't have a father or a father figure, or he doesn't have a father or enough father figure roles who he perceives as safe and/or welcoming. Of course, there are many children who grow up without fathers, and yet do not develop a homoual orientation. In addition, there are many children who have loving parent, yet still become homoually oriented. This is due to the fact that there are various factors that contribute to a homoual orientation. Human development is very complex and includes events, as well as perceptions about the events.

Perceptions are very important. Perceptions are more powerful than what actually happens, because perceptions become that person's reality. Perceptions are influenced by temperament. For example, a child with a more sensitive temperament might perceive rejection, even when rejection is not intended. Temperament is the biological contributor; however, temperament alone is not enough to create a homoual orientation. The temperament type must be met with the negative or destructive environmental factors in order to produce same- attractions. Typically (but not always), the child who will later develop same- attractions is naturally sensitive, observant, intelligent, and is sometimes more artistic than athletic. This child often tends to personalize and internalize experiences and observations, which explains the cries of oppression from society being grossly overstated or claimed even when it's not happening.

So, if a child perceives that his father does not want a relationship with him, that child might try a few times to connect with his father, but will eventually retract in self-protection. This is called defensive detachment. Upon sensing rejection, the boy chooses to reject the father in return. He detaches from the father and even what the father represents, which is masculinity. Typically at this point, he will stay connected to the mother and will instead soak in femininity. Usually he is also surrounded by other female figures, such as, a sister, an aunt, or a grandmother. So at a time when he is craving masculine input and seeking to understand himself in terms of his male identity, he instead receives feminine input and begins to develop a sense of the feminine.

By the time this child enters school, he often has a difficult time relating with other boys. Either he is just more comfortable with the girls, who are more familiar to him, or he is intimidated by the boys. Often this child sees himself as different from the other boys. So he may hold back from bonding with them. If he has developed any feminine mannerisms, he might also be rejected by the other boys and quite possibly even ridiculed. He is craving acceptance from the other boys and continues to need this acceptance, though the need goes unmet. The boy watches the other boys from afar, he longs to be noticed by them, and included by them, yet he remains with the girls, further gaining a sense of the feminine while deeply craving the masculine.

[forcegx7]

This child typically spends his elementary school years learning about femininity while craving to understand masculinity. Specifically, he desires to understand himself in terms of his own masculine identity. Yet, he does not assimilate with the same- parent or same- peers, so he does not acquire a masculine identity. He associates with the feminine, which is his primary source of input. He does not develop a secure gender identity. So by the time this child reaches puberty, the craving for male input has grown and intensified. At this time in his life he is not curious about or interested in the opposite . He already knows all about the opposite -- they are quite familiar to him. What he is craving to know about is his own gender. He still deeply longs to know about boys. He longs to experience connections with males. This emotional need, the need for same- love, which has gone unmet, now begins to take on a ual form. His unsatisfied cravings for male love become romantic cravings with the emergence of puberty.

To this child, it feels very natural that he longs for male love. In fact, he typically thinks that he was born that way, having craved male love for as long as he can remember. Indeed, he has craved this love most of his life. However, initially it was not a ual craving. Instead, it was an emotional craving, a legitimate need for non-ual love, an emotional need that has become ualized. Hormones raging makes it challenging, but it ultimately comes down to choice when it comes to human social behavior. That time in ones life is probably the most important stage in a person's psychosocial development. All the more reason to learn how to make meaningful connections with people in non-ual ways.

For some women who end up with same- attractions, the development is similar if not almost the same to the male development previously described above. But the female development of homouality is even a bit more complex than that. As with the male development, there are a number of factors that can contribute. Also, negative perceptions regarding femininity may lead to an internal detachment from their own femininity. For example, if a girl watches her father abuse or cheats on her mother, the girl might conclude subconsciously that to be feminine is to be weak. This is especially more impact on a girl who is in the preadolescent to adolescent stages of her life. At an early age she might make or at the very least start to make an unconscious decision to detach from her female identity. She may detach or start to detach from her own gender in an effort to protect herself from the perceived harmful effects of being female.

ual abuse and neglect are other factors that can contribute to a homoual orientation. In these cases, men are seen as unsafe, and ism becomes an unconscious way of protecting against further hurt from a male. For some there might be a disconnection from the mother, and ism becomes a search for motherly love. For others, it may be a combination of both, and same- attractions may not initially be present, but may later develop as a result of entering into a non-ual friendship which becomes emotionally dependent. An emotionally dependent relationship is one in which two people seek to have their needs met by one another. It is a relationship in which healthy boundaries are not in place. The absence of appropriate emotional boundaries can then lead to a violation of physical boundaries. Then at that point more ualization occurs. This occurrence is referred to as extrauterine experience, or reinforcing effect of repetition of ual activity towards making one feel as though it's a main part of their identity.

For any of these reasons listed above, and in combination with other factors, same- attractions may develop. To the one who has these feelings, they are very real and very strong. There are many people who find themselves attracted to members of the same . Research studies have revealed that change of ual orientation does take place. It is not a quick or easy process, but as with any other therapeutic issue, varying degrees of change are achievable.

The inaccurate concept that homouality is solely biological is extremely misleading. Many therapists tell their clients that homouality is biological and therefore unchangeable. These therapists encourage their clients to embrace a identity. In doing so, therapists negate clients' rights to self-determination. Clients have the right to choose their own goals for therapy and should be allowed to pursue the path they desire. Clients should not be discouraged from pursuing change when change is what they seek. In order for clients to have the options made available to them, it is vital that therapists as well as clients become better educated on this issue.

I respect any person's right to make his/her own decisions, and they should not be judged for it. However, we must keep in mind that there are many guys and girls that succeeded whether in their treatment and more often than than we think on their own, to come back to their heterouality, marry and move on with much more happy and fulfilling lives. They don''t want their faces on You Tube (like the others who have failed at their treatment), because they're constantly being threatened and they protect their families from the corrupt and activist groups. Activists groups like "Truth Wins Out," "GLAAD," and the " and Task Force" who have been reported to turn their backs on and discredit other s and s that suffer from STDs or AIDs and try to tell their story to the public.

And you can even put it this way... if you try to quit cigarette smoking, but you're not committed, not even God can help you. If you no longer smoke, you're no longer a smoker. Homouality is not who you are, but what you do. And some of us do practice free will, assume our actions, and take that personal responsibility for them by not blaming our defeats on other people. Any state of mind, no matter how deeply rooted, is subject to change based on the strength of the desire to do so.

[forcegx7]

Oh and yes, I'm still seeking advice to my initial question about my friend, not political opinions. So as soon as somebody else comes along and is able to give me that advice without political opinions, then I won't respond with mine.

[forcegx7]

Now onto the "right" to marry...
Marriage isn't a "right" for anybody. It's a choice and a privilege.
People choose to marry for better for worse, whether it increases their cost of living or not. People ultimately choose to have children. Marriage is a religious and/or social construct, of which the government and religious indoctrination got their greasy paws on. Take away all the tax and legal breaks and write offs away from everybody who gets married and has children, because we choose to do it. Then see how many people argue for their "right" to marry.

If it's only about love...then live together, be loyal and committed to each other, and invite all your friends and have a ceremony/party celebrating your commitment to each other. Anybody can do this! So the "right to marry" debate is really about tax benefits and legal benefits rather than about love and commitment. If it's about love and not the tax breaks/money, then that's what people would be satisfied with doing.

Otherwise, they are just hypocrites that never use logic or reason, but only go on irrational emotion, and who always think of everything in absolutes or in a "one size fits all" category.

And as far as the conservatives, they are also hypocrites, for buying into the stupidity that marriage is a right by arguing against others "right" to marry, all the while taking full advantage of all the legal and tax breaks they get.

If I ever become married and have children, it's because her and I ultimately choose to. We shouldn't be rewarded tax breaks for that...nobody should.

Marriage isn't a right for anybody, not even for heterouals. It's the celebration of love and commitment that 2 people both mutually choose to have and feel for one another.

What it comes down to is an issue of personal responsibility. Nobody has the guts to take responsibility for their own selves anymore. Society is becoming either posers or people who fear posers. I guess that's what happens when people demasculate or masculate each other too much, or when people start believing their identity is mostly to solely correlated to who or what they feel attracted to rather than their self-worth having to do with actually having good character.