Homo***uality crimes against humanity ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Psychology of Homo***uality
By Paul Cameron, Ph. D.
Though many would like to think otherwise, the very existence of our
society depends upon each individual contributing to the survival and
well-being of all. No one =96 except the old, the sick, the handicapped
=96 has ever been exempt from leading a productive life. In primitive
societies, the good man hunted for the sustenance of the entire tribe
and the good woman bore and reared children to ensure the survival of
their kind.
In modern culture, the roles have changed in superficial ways, but
until recently have remained essentially the same. Good citizens led
productive lives and brought children into the world to replenish the
community with virtue.
Those who did not accept these responsibilities =96 who avoided work or
failed to accept the "sweet yoke" of marriage and parenthood =96 were
considered suspect and even vicious, depending on their capabilities and
the degree to which they flouted the rules of society. Bums and
ne'er-do-wells were but two examples of those who ****rked their duty to
make a positive contribution to the economy of the community. Thieves
and embezzlers were worse because they actively preyed on those who were
honest and diligent. Rakes and homo***uals were ***ually selfish and
irresponsible, not only because they were self-indulgent, but also
because they saw ***uality as divorced from the responsibilities of
parenthood.
Quite apart from Biblical injunctions, homo***uals have been considered
non-productive and hence inimical to the well-being and even the
survival of the community. In addition, they have been regarded as
dangerous, because they preyed on the young and perverted them from
normal, healthy, productive lives. In their selfish preoccupation with
genital pleasure, they sought to rebel against the natural order of
human life itself =96 the mutual responsibility of one for all that
forms the basis of the social contract. Anyone who opts out of that
contract for reasons other than illness or disability is "wrong headed,"
"worthless," "immoral." One need only examine the world's great heroic
tales =96 from the Iliad to the Aeneid to the Gospels to see the virtue
of men and women ****trayed in terms of their willingness to be
productive and unselfish, as opposed to self-centered and destructive.
Now that many in our society have cast aside these ancient norms, we see
the old warnings coming true. Homo***uals are now more than
non-productive "***ual bums." They are recruiting others, forming
communities, beginning to mock and undermine the old pieties of loyalty
to family, country, and God. They have redefined "good" and "evil" and
view with contempt the idea that honest work and *** within marriage are
communal acts necessary for human survival.
Traditional social-psychiatric theory argues that productive people will
enjoy life, feel good about themselves, earn the respect of friends and
co-workers, and feel connected with their families and society. The
non-productive will also have personalities shaped by their character
and experience, namely, their worthless or counterproductive activities
and life choices. They are expected to feel dissatisfied with life and
themselves, be stung from social scorn, and seek excessive distraction
(through amusements, risk-taking, drugs, ***).
The rebellious are expected to have "adjustment problems" because they
don't follow society's prescription. They will feel angry at and at odds
with their family and society, even while blaming them for their
problems. Rebels, such as thieves and gays, will tend to "feel
comfortable" only in the company of their kind. Though they may get
satisfactions within their subcultures, their lifestyles preclude full
participation in things that "really count" psychologically (e.g.,
parenthood, social honor). In reaction, traditional theory holds that
rebels will mock those who are productive, even as they envy and resent
them.
Besides gays' preoccupation with ***, traditionalist psychiatrists have
catalogued a higher incidence of personality characteristics suggesting
psychological disturbance and an inability to interact successfully with
others. Dr. Edmond Bergler, (1) who treated over a thousand homo***uals,
concluded that gays tended to: provoke attacks against themselves and
then count these "attacks" as injustices they had suffered
display defensive malice toward others,
exhibit a flippant attitude in order to cover underlying depression and
guilt,
=09display extreme narcissism and superciliousness,
refuse to acknowledge accepted standards in non-***ual matters, on the
assumption that the right to cut moral corners is due homo***uals as
compensation for their "suffering," and
"be generally unreliable, also of a more or less psychopathic nature.
Dr. Irving Bieber, (2) who performed one of the largest and most
intensive psychiatric studies of homo***uals, characterized gays as
"angry, bitter people with low feelings of responsibility." And Dr.
Charles Socarides has emphasized the similarity of the
obsessive-compulsive nature of homo***ual *** acts to a drug "fix." (3)
As opposed to the traditional view, modern egalitarianism emphasizes the
equivalent worth of everyone irrespective of their willingness to be
productive (after all, we share a 'common humanity'). This ideology sees
no 'linkage' between economic and ***ual productivity and psychological
well-being: those who choose to live on welfare are "just as good" and
have the same mix of personality characteristics as those who choose to
work. The married are ***ually and psychiatrically indistinguishable
from those "living together." And homo***uals are psychiatrically and
socially indistinguishable from hetero***uals.
Egalitarian social-psychiatric theory holds that if society would compel
its members to accept everyone "for what they choose to do or be,"
everybody (including homo***uals) would come to feel good about
themselves. In this 'brotherhood of humankind,' the job of creating
adequate material wealth and rearing a sufficiency of well-socialized
children would flow 'naturally' out of the general spirit of
cooperation, decency, and acceptance that would prevail.
The Psychological Question
Are homo***uals troubled today because society unreasonably
discriminates against them or are they more frequently pathological and
distressed due to a psychology shaped by their choices and experience?
Several lines of evidence suggest that the personality problems of gays
are not a consequence of societal rejection, but 'part and parcel' of
living the homo***ual life. Furthermore, discrimination against those
with homo***ual inclinations, like discrimination against the
able-bodied who refuse to work, is both necessary for the greater good
of society and the individual himself. In fact, such discrimination is
an attempt to prevent persons tempted by homo***uality from suffering
the pathologies it induces.
The Reverse Socialization of Homo***uality
Becoming a homo***ual involves a tremendous amount of reverse
socialization. Almost every child is taught to avoid feces. Potty
training explicitly teaches one to regard feces as 'dirty,' disgusting,
and unhealthy. Yet most homo***uals eventually learn to immerse
themselves in feces. Past surveys suggest the following typical
sequential development of gay activity. The median age for gays when
their genitals are first manipulated by another male is 13. In about two
more years the anus is first used for *** rather than biological relief;
and in another year or two the anus is licked for '***ual fun.'
By age 21 most gays "have come a long way." They have learned to seek
and enjoy activities that would have sickened them as children. Some go
on to "bigger thrills" like sadomasochism, fisting (where the fist is
placed up the rectum), or eating feces or drinking urine. (4,5,6,7)
Medically speaking, it doesn't matter whether you pursue such activity
for "fun" or ingest waste because your salad wasn't washed =96 exposure
to feces is unhealthy. Psychologically, to undo the hygienic training of
childhood in pursuit of adult ***ual pleasure literally "turns all the
rules upside down."
Given the biologically and psychologically unhealthful nature of such
activity, it is not surprising that the younger a person "locks into" a
gay identity, the more disturbed he is apt to be. Remafedi performed two
studies of "gay youth." A 1987 study (8) of 29 such youngsters led him
to conclude that the "very experience of acquiring a homo***ual or
bi***ual identity at an early age places the individual at risk for
dysfunction. This conclusion is strongly sup****ted by the data." His
1991 study (9) of 137 gay and bi***ual youth aged 14 to 21 reinforced
his previous finding: "For each year's delay in bi***ual or homo***ual
self-labeling, the odds of a suicide attempt diminished by 80%. These
findings sup****t a previously observed, inverse relation****p between
psychosocial problems and the age of acquiring a homo***ual identity."
Social Disruption
Over the past 50 years, 5 studies have compared substantial numbers of
homo***uals and hetero***uals =96 all generated results suggesting
greater social disruption by gays. In the Kinsey survey, general prison
inmates (excluding those incarcerated for ***ual offenses) were over 4
times more apt to have extensive homo***ual experience than his control
group. (11) Saghir & Robins (12) compared 146 gays with 78 hetero***uals
and re****ted less stability (more lovers, more job-changing) and more
criminality among homo***uals. Bell & Weinberg (5) contrasted 979 gays
with 477 hetero***uals and found more instability (psychiatric, marital)
and more criminality among gays. Cameron & Ross (13) questionnaired
2,251 randomly-obtained respondents and re****ted that hetero***uals
evidenced more social cohesion (numbers and kinds of intimate
relation****ps), less self-destructive behavior (smoking, drug use,
suicide attempts), and less endangerment of others (via driving habits,
deliberate killing).
The largest comparison of gays and straights on a wide range of topics
and based on a random sample involved 4,340 adults in 5 U.S.
metropolitan areas. (6) Comparing those of both ***es who claimed to be
bi***ual or homo***ual versus those of both ***es who claimed to be
exclusively hetero***ual:
Homo***uality was linked to lowered health
=96=09homo***uals were about twice as apt to re****t having had a
***ually transmitted disease (STD); and over twice as apt to have had at
least 2 STDs;
=96=09homo***uals were about 5 times more apt to have tried to
deliberately infect another with an STD;
=96=09homo***uals were about a third more apt to re****t a traffic
ticket or traffic accident in the past 5 years;
=96=09homo***uals were 3 times as likely to have attempted suicide, 4
times more apt to have attempted to kill someone, and about twice as
likely to have been involved in a physical fight in the past year;
=96=09homo***uals were about 5 times more apt to have engaged in
torture-related *** (sadomasochism, bondage); and
=96=09homo***uals were about 4 times more likely to re****t having been
raped.
Homo***uality was associated with criminality
=96=09homo***uals were about twice as likely to have been arrested for
a non-***ual crime and about 8 times more apt to have been arrested for
a ***ual crime;
=96=09homo***uals were about twice as apt to have been convicted of a
***ual crime and about twice as likely to have been jailed for a crime;
=96=09homo***uals were about three times more likely to admit to
having made an obscene phone call; and
=96=09homo***uals were about 50% more apt to claim that they had
recently shoplifted, cheated on their income tax, or not been caught for
a crime.
Homo***uality resulted in weaker human bonds
=96=09only about half as many homo***uals had gotten married and, if
married, were much less apt to have children;
=96=09homo***uals averaged less than a year of ***ual fidelity within
either their longest homo***ual or hetero***ual relation****p
(hetero***uals averaged between 5 to 10 years of fidelity); and
=96=09if married, homo***uals were about 3 times more likely to cheat
on their spouse.
These results echo the largest comparative study of straight and gay
couples, which re****ted that the average length of time together
averaged about 3 years for gay and lesbian couples vs 10 years for
married hetero***uals. (14) Additionally, "cheating" was inevitable:
"all [gay] couples with a relation****p lasting more than five years have
incor****ated some provision for outside ***ual activity." (15)
Im****tance of Social Cohesion
While reverse socialization explains a significant ****tion of the
pathologies exhibited by homo***uals, their comparative lack of social
cohesion is im****tant also. A national survey of 5,182 adults (6)
analyzed the gender, age, and kinds of people nominated as being
intimately related to the respondent. Compared to hetero***uals,
homo***uals exhibited less "relational connectedness" to those of the
opposite *** or in different generations. 70% of the intimates re****ted
by homo***uals were their *** as compared to 47% for hetero***uals (see
Figure). And while 35% of hetero***uals' intimates were more than 20
years older or younger than the respondent, only half as many of the
homo***uals' intimates were.
Homo***uals more narrowly focused their affections and interests on
those of their own age and ***; they tended to be, like adolescents,
peer oriented. Fully 38% of the intimates of hetero***uals were
intergenerational blood relatives (e.g., parents, grandparents,
children, grandchildren, etc.). Only 17% of homo***uals' intimates fell
in the same categories. By contrast, 47% of homo***uals' intimates were
unrelated friends or neighbors, compared to only 27% of hetero***uals'
intimates.
People have to learn to care for and care about those who are different
than themselves. Homo***uals fail to display the kind of connectedness
between ***es, generations, and social cl***** that leads to social
harmony. If we are too focused on "people like us," we help to divide
society into competing groups instead of a fabric of interwoven and
connected interests.
Does Societal Acceptance Make a Difference?
=95=09Fecal exposure: In the 1940s, Kinsey (4) re****ted that about
two-thirds of gays had engaged in anal/penile contact, and 59% of gays
and 18% of lesbians had participated in oral/anal activity (where the
tongue is put in the anus). San Francisco decriminalized and then
accepted homo***uality. When the Kinsey Institute did a survey5 there in
1970, 96% of gays admitted to anal/penile contact, and 89% of the gays
and 25% of the lesbians to oral/anal activity. Lifting the restraints
upon homo***ual activity appears to have increased the exposure to
biological danger among those with homo***ual desires.
=95=09Promiscuity: In the 1940s, 7% of gays and 63% of lesbians said
that they had never had a 'one night stand,' while 42% of the gays and
7% of the lesbians said that "over half of their partners had been 'one
night stands' (see Figure below). By 1970 only 1% of gays and 38% of
lesbians said that they had never had a 'one night stand,' and 70% of
gays and 29% of lesbians re****ted that they had had *** only once with
over half of their partners!
Acceptance did not necessarily make homo***uals' lives better: 35% of
gays (v. 11% of hetero***ual men) and 37% of lesbians (v. 24% of
hetero***ual women) had either seriously considered or attempted
suicide. Of homo***uals who had attempted suicide, the most frequent
reason =96 which acounted for 47% of all attempts =96 was disagreements
with a lover. (5) Further, although these "liberated gays re****ted many
more lifetime ***ual partners than the homo***uals interviewed in the
1940s (a median of 250+ compared to a median of 20), twice as many
homo***uals as hetero***uals (15.6% v. 8.4%) re****ted having "often"
felt "very lonely" in the past month. (5)
|
