b3ta.com links
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » links » Link 848777 | Random (Thread)

This is a normal post This needed doing.
Homophobia is largely the creation of 19th century psychologists.
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 12:46, , Reply)
This is a normal post *stares blankly*
*goes out into the sunshine for the rest of the day*
 (I helped save b3ta! Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 12:51, , Reply)
This is a normal post Can you please comment on something that won't lead to you talking a load of bollocks and quoting ridiculous statistics?
Please, honestly.
 (I helped save b3ta! Dawn Of The Bread $$$$ E-THUG 4 LIFE - THAT'S HOW I SCROLL $$$$, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 12:56, , Reply)
This is a normal post
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 13:01, , Reply)
This is a normal post
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=homosexual
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 13:07, , Reply)
This is a normal post That'll be a 'no', then.

(I helped save b3ta! Michael Ellis contributes nothing, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 13:40, , Reply)
This is a normal post Oh you, trying to get the last word.

(I helped save b3ta! Dawn Of The Bread $$$$ E-THUG 4 LIFE - THAT'S HOW I SCROLL $$$$, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 13:52, , Reply)
This is a normal post word.

(I helped save b3ta! Michael Ellis contributes nothing, Tue 28 Aug 2012, 8:53, , Reply)
This is a normal post Pfffftttt!

(I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 15:09, , Reply)
This is a normal post Yeah, she's off though.

(I helped save b3ta! Dawn Of The Bread $$$$ E-THUG 4 LIFE - THAT'S HOW I SCROLL $$$$, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 15:35, , Reply)
This is a normal post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act_1533
“Forasmuch as there is not yet sufficient and condign punishment appointed and limited by the due course of the Laws of this Realm for the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind of beast: It may therefore please the King’s Highness with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and the Commons of this present parliament assembled, that it may be enacted by the authority of the same, that the same offence be from henceforth ajudged Felony and that such an order and form of process therein to be used against the offenders as in cases of felony at the Common law. And that the offenders being herof convict by verdict confession or outlawry shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their good chattels debts lands tenements and hereditaments as felons do according to the Common Laws of this Realme. And that no person offending in any such offence shall be admitted to his Clergy, And that Justices of the Peace shall have power and authority within the limits of their commissions and Jurisdictions to hear and determine the said offence, as they do in the cases of other felonies. This Act to endure till the last day. of the next Parliament.”

Thomas Cromwell, House of Commons
 (speedevil, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 15:10, , Reply)
This is a normal post Good work.
Although I did say "largely" not "completely".

The origin of the word "buggery" is very interesting, too. You should look that up.
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 15:20, , Reply)
This is a normal post Lurkage.
MGT is anything but vague in her findings.
 (I helped save b3ta! Dawn Of The Bread $$$$ E-THUG 4 LIFE - THAT'S HOW I SCROLL $$$$, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 15:26, , Reply)
This is a normal post Yeah, before those pesky 19thC Psychologists came along homosexuals
were welcome everywhere and were never targets of hate, violence or other forms of discrimination or prejudice.

Seriously though, whilst the inclusion of paraphilias in the DSM has many things to answer for the creation of homophobia was not one.
 (Peljammy Watching Godzilla, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 15:25, , Reply)
This is a normal post There wasn't any concept of "homosexuals" as such before then.
There were laws and social taboos against various sexual acts which I won't defend, but it's largely (and I emphasise largely) dodgy Victorian science that shaped the development of homophobia in its modern form.
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 15:33, , Reply)
This is a normal post I'm not sure (and I don't want to put words in your mouth) but are you trying to suggest that because the term homosexuality had yet to be coined and officially defined that there could not be any homophobia?
I might be getting the wrong end of the stick, if so I apologies. But hate for those of differing sexual preference and practise can exist independant of a term and definition for that preference.

What the 19th C Psychologists were complicit in was the formalising of a term for diagnostic purposes, which in turn was an extention of the social norms, conventions and controls already in place. And these controls were used in a manner (intentional or not) that was harmful. They didn't create homosexuality or homophobia though.
 (Peljammy Watching Godzilla, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 15:42, , Reply)
This is a normal post Nail + Head.

(I helped save b3ta! Dawn Of The Bread $$$$ E-THUG 4 LIFE - THAT'S HOW I SCROLL $$$$, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 15:45, , Reply)
This is a normal post People weren't aware of such a thing as "sexual preference" as an intrinsic feature of a person,
there was no concept of "sexuality" as we now understand it. There were just things like anal sex that no-one should do. In fact the wording of the law reflects this, if you take the Buggery Act for instance, "abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind or beast". What is denigrated are the acts themselves*, not same-sex attraction or inclination as such (or even romance; on this line an interesting thing to look up is Adelphopoiesis). The buggery act was repealed by the Offences against the Person Act 1828 only for the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 which "Extended buggery laws to include any kind of sexual activity between males."

* anal sex with anyone, including men with women.
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 15:52, , Reply)
This is a normal post Please, guide us, Oh Holy One.
I can see where Pissy was coming from with his religious replies to your posts now.
 (I helped save b3ta! Dawn Of The Bread $$$$ E-THUG 4 LIFE - THAT'S HOW I SCROLL $$$$, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 15:58, , Reply)
This is a normal post I don't know where this comes from,
I'm only trying to point out that the usual "the Church is homophobic, the Church has always been homophobic" line is a massive over-simplification to say the least.
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 16:03, , Reply)
This is a normal post
I don't have anything against you, you just seem to instigate 'conversations' for no other reason than to prove to yourself you are right.
 (I helped save b3ta! Dawn Of The Bread $$$$ E-THUG 4 LIFE - THAT'S HOW I SCROLL $$$$, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 16:07, , Reply)
This is a normal post sometimes I prove the opposite.
believe it or not.
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 16:25, , Reply)
This is a normal post You sometimes prove you are wrong?
I don't know why i'm not surprised to hear this.
 (I helped save b3ta! Dawn Of The Bread $$$$ E-THUG 4 LIFE - THAT'S HOW I SCROLL $$$$, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 16:29, , Reply)
This is a normal post Part of the reason I have these arguments is to find that out.
You can often get better counter-arguments from other people than you can by solitary research, especially since you can't help but be guided by confirmation bias to a certain extent.
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 16:34, , Reply)
This is a normal post It is, and one you'd probably argue lacks accuracy. Likewise stating 19th C Psychologists were largely responsible for homophobia is a gross and inaccurate over simplication.

(Peljammy Watching Godzilla, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 16:08, , Reply)
This is a normal post It's not that inaccurate,
19th century science has had far more influence on modern culture than you might think, it's because of 19th century "nutritionist" Dr Kellogg gave us eating cereal for breakfast for instance. It's also when circumcision became popularised in the US.

They categorised homosexuality as such (as opposed to sexual excesses and lust) as a mental disorder, in a way that society and the Church previously never did, and we're still dealing with the repercussions of that. It's even an argument that conservatives drag up - "science classed it as a disorder," they go on, "and it was reclassified because of political lobbying". What is touted as "science" can have an enormous impact.
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 16:24, , Reply)
This is a normal post I do think modern science has had a huge impact. I'm not going to deny that.
And that classification was horrible*.

But that classification didn't create homophobia, nor would I argue did it contribute greatly to homophobia. That homophobia was already present and enshrined within society.

That's why I would argue it is an inaccurate and sweeping statement**

When we're taking about reprecussions (and I guess blame) it might be better to consider why such homophobia was already present.


*The next DSM is also going to have a horrible change in the classication of paraphilia's.

**Especially when you take into account, and this is my pet peeve, that the area of Psychology that deals with supposed abnormality, clinical cases and atypical behaviour is actually only a small fraction of the discipline.
 (Peljammy Watching Godzilla, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 16:49, , Reply)
This is a normal post I don't think it "created" it,
so much as steered it in the direction it took. I suppose I should have said "modern homophobia".

So what's up with the new DSM? :(
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 17:08, , Reply)
This is a normal post Yeah with the creation I was refering to your original statement which I think we'd sort of moved on from anyway!
In the current and soon to be old verison of the DSM things like fetishes were classified and diagnosed as a paraphilia if they caused discomfort and/or dysfunction. Usually to a fairly high level.

In the new verison simply having the urge could lead to the diagnosis of a paraphilia. So the simple urge or fantasy about a body part or object could under the proposed criteria changes lead to diagnosis of what is essentially considered a mental disorder. Bad times.
 (Peljammy Watching Godzilla, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 17:27, , Reply)
This is a normal post hmm, what's prompted that change, then?

(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 17:32, , Reply)
This is a normal post Apparently not evidence.
There's a raft of papers and critiques out there slating the changes and the editors involved. Some of the data they seems to be working from for the changes is questionable.

There seems, in my view anyway, to be a general call for the removal of paraphilia's from the DSM. I had a fantastic article on it, I think it's at work and behind a paywall so it's not much use, but if I can find it I'll stick a link up. The authors make a much better case than I do, Clinical Psychology isn't my bag.

EDIT: Might be Wakefield (2011) for the current changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-V and Moser & Klienplatz (2005) for the changes to the DSM-IV-TR.
 (Peljammy Watching Godzilla, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 17:45, , Reply)
This is a normal post on googling it seems to be a bit political.

(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 18:12, , Reply)
This is a normal post Yeah :(
It will get very messy.
 (Peljammy Watching Godzilla, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 18:17, , Reply)
This is a normal post Existence in law and existence in society are potentially two different things.
Sexuality or preference doesn’t have to be legislated against for it to suddenly exist. Extending the argument to the ridiculous conclusion how do you even get the ball rolling on legislating against a concept that supposedly is yet to exist? For such laws to be passed there has to be the motivation for them to be created, which requires an understanding a priori.

That’s kind of moot anyway. First of all as you’ve said those laws don’t specific homosexuality of sexual preference until the 19th C. But just because they are not mentioned doesn’t mean that no concept or understanding existed separate to the laws. As I said law and society are potentially different, but usually interacting, entities.

To stress again as I’m waffling, just because those laws do not indicate intrinsic sexual preference doesn’t mean that there was a lack of recognition in society as a whole for such preferences, or a lack of homophobia.

Also, we’re being terribly ethnocentric here. Homosexuality and sexual preference is fairly clearly recognised in many cultures, B.C and A.D.
 (Peljammy Watching Godzilla, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 16:06, , Reply)
This is a normal post Good point but I think the new scientific treatment made it more concrete,
the taboo against anal sex as far as I can tell goes back to two cultural sources, on the one hand the pre-Christian pagan, Nordic culture and the Hebraic culture imported by Christianity. On the Nordic side look up "Ragr", to violate someone else was seen as a supremely manly thing to do but to be violated the ultimate shame. Christianity kind of turned the tables and made the aggressor into the villain.

Indian culture is the most interesting on this matter.
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 16:18, , Reply)
This is a normal post The diagnostic criteria and treatment was arguably very harmful, that's true. But I don't think it was a direct legitimisation of homophobia...
It was used more in the either/or sense. Someone caught in a compromising position could be threatened with the law, but then they could also be offered the 'but if you get treatment instead...' option. Prison or treatment option. And option really isn't the right word. Especially when the treatment was aversion therapy and/or chemical castration.

In other words the homophobia already existed, was usually part of the social norms and was again usually enacted in law in some format. The homophobia was there but the diagnosis and treatment simply, and shamefully, added another string to a homophobic society's bow. I don't think that constitutes the creation of homophobia, or the legitimising it. It was already there and just inflitrated another area. The shame for Psychology comes from not standing up to it as a discipline.

Don't get me wrong, Psychology has made some massive mistakes and I say that as a Psychologist, but it is very hard to find an instance where it is something that has developed from the discipline or the people within it. Usually it was a result of the more malleable elements and members mirroring the society they were within. And that to a large extent was and is inevitable. As much as I hate the term 'Social Sciences' Psychology does sit within it, which means it examines, studies, tests and hypothesises about human behaviour and social constructs in one way or another.

TL;DR - Not our fault Guv'.
 (Peljammy Watching Godzilla, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 16:39, , Reply)
This is a normal post Every science made some big mistakes in the 19th century, if it's any consolation.
Victorian society was on the whole very prudish, but surely psychology had a hand in the development of the idea of homosexuality as "a thing that some people are" rather than as a hedonistic excess that some people get up to. And as I write this it occurs to me that they were right about that at least; but psychology at the time was also, as a branch of medicine, concerned with making people "normal" and society wasn't ready to accept the normality of men being sexually attracted to other men, until Kinsey et al.
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 16:51, , Reply)
This is a normal post It might be a case of arguing for a distinction between prudish and suppressed.
With suppressed indicating it was present. Definitately some Victorian jazz mag equivalents with decidedly homosexual content. So present within a subculture and suppressed in the mainstream.

I think you can make the case for Psychology developing the concept of homosexuality but I think that development was limited in comparison with what already existed. Might be one of those agree to disagree areas. Though obviously I strenuously disagree with the original statement re: homophobia ;)
 (Peljammy Watching Godzilla, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 17:24, , Reply)
This is a normal post Homophobia?
Really?

Is that a typo for homosexuality? If that is what you mean, then you seem simply to be parrotting Foucault's claim about homosexuality's having been invented in 1870. Homophobia didn't enter the language until the mid-to-late 20th century, though - which sits oddly with your claim if it's not a typo (and I'm more inclined to trust the SOED than you, to be perfectly honest).

But even if you did have Foucault's claim in mind, and even if we understand it as he meant it to be understood - that is, that homosexuality became a subject of study of a particular sort, rather than just another sub-species of sexual transgression - it's not really clear why it's relevant here...
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 17:00, , Reply)
This is a normal post it's not a typo,
see the debate above. My point isn't about inventing the term "homophobia" but rather laying much of the groundwork for the modern social phenomena now called such.
 (I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 17:06, , Reply)