Gay people deserve the exact same rights as any other citizen in this country. But let’s be real: expecting everyone to suddenly embrace them or champion their cause just because of some "awareness" campaign is pure fantasy. At the end of the day, people are entitled to their own views, opinions, and even their prejudices.
Don't bother writing an essay for your opening post. Most people just scroll past a wall of text anyway. Just hit the main points, throw in a few arguments, and maybe a quote if it fits.
Classic Tarantino. It’s a bloody masterpiece, but still. Apocalypse Now. Unforgiven. Classic noir vibes. Just another day in the life of a killer. Classic. Just another story about a man trying to outrun a system that was designed to crush him. The Shining. Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!
It’s interesting—the DSM-IV doesn't actually include clinical criteria for nymphomania or satyriasis, even though they're still hanging around in the ICD-10.
A lot of people argue whether nymphomania should even be considered a disorder, especially since the public tends to slap that label on anyone who's just sexually active or expressive. But honestly, most of those behaviors don't even meet the actual diagnostic criteria for a sexual disorder, even under the older ICD-10 standards.
We aren't talking about some new version or a remake here; this is straight-up a franchise sequel.
Honestly, it was a pleasant surprise. I love it when a director decides to "slap" the audience a couple of times, basically saying, "Oh, you thought you were in for an action flick or a gritty police thriller? Think again. Here’s my version of pure chaos." 😁
Just to add to what’s already been said, it feels like every other American movie is just some disaster flick. Honestly, given how oversaturated everything is right now, maybe we should just stop making so many of them.
I see people aren't sweating the comedy aspect, but labeling it "Black comedy" seems to be where the real issue lies. Is it an implication that Black actors just can't handle serious roles? 👎
Sure, if you’ve got the expertise, you could try designing your own house from scratch. But most people aren't going to risk that; they'll leave it to the pros who spent years in school and actually know what they're doing.
We're talking about a legitimate issue here, not some minor finger injury.
Playing doctor with medication is dangerous; please get a professional medical opinion first.
The way you described this sounds like some form of dementia. Only a specialist can diagnose what's actually going on, figure out the right treatment, and give you some practical advice on how to handle caring for your grandmother...
steeltiger2 said:It’s honestly such a relief to know I’m not the only one who’s actually considered seeing a therapist...😁 Of course, I wouldn't go telling just anyone about that.
Maybe if I were more self-assured—if I were just a slightly different breed of person (I tend to overanalyze things that people with actual luck don't even give a second thought to)—I wouldn't be feeling this completely unhinged.
For me, the thing that keeps me up at night is that invisible kind of betrayal—the idea that he might be crushing on someone else while he's sitting right there next to me. And then we don't even break up; I just sit there feeling humiliated because I had no clue. There is nothing worse than being in a relationship that lacks any real, living passion. It strips away your dignity as a woman, and to me, that's the absolute worst part. It’s just as soul-crushing to exist while feeling spiritually dead, drifting without any ideals to hold onto. The thing is, I know for a fact that in every serious relationship he’s had before me, there were other women he was interested in. Is it even possible that what he says is true? That those stories were different and what he has with me is something entirely unique? If that isn't the case, then losing him would be a tragedy. I don't just need someone to occupy a space in a relationship or a marriage—that's not enough. If I lost the real thing, I'd be losing the most precious thing I own, and even if I found the strength to forgive, I'd still be left empty-handed.😢
Jealousy is actually a decent problem to bring to psychotherapy. Therapists usually struggle more with the heavy-duty mental disorders; jealousy, unless it's intense enough to completely wreck your entire life, isn't really in that category.
Knowing where you're being tickled generally kills the reaction. They say it’s impossible to tickle yourself, though I guess there are always outliers who can...
Michelle Garcia5 said:We've got idiots on the right, and now here's one from the left... big fascists and big communists... honestly, I wish I could just force some common sense into all your heads. Neither side actually matters anyway.
The ideologies might vary slightly, but the underlying mindset is exactly the same...
lonegardener said:You forgot to mention what "doesn't classify" actually looked like in practice back in '74: 58% of APA members voted to strip it from the DSM. That means 42% were still against it. Have those remaining 42% suddenly gained wisdom or stumbled upon groundbreaking new scientific data over the last 35 years? I highly doubt it. Personally, I suspect this isn't about science, xexexe—it's more about politics and ideology.
True enough. 🤷 Essentially, any rational person realizes there is no logical reason to fight against gay lobbies (the whole "live and let live" principle). The only ones standing in their way are the intensely religious types—people whose faith dictates how they behave within a multicultural society (something many liberal-minded believers refuse to do). Everyone else, even if they disagree, simply lacks the will or the desire to draw unnecessary attention to themselves and risk their careers. Except, of course, for the less bright minds, like Gruden. 😬 (And people like him... there are plenty, mostly found in the religiously charged halls of NARTH)
I think you're referring to the American Psychiatric Association back in '74—they were the ones making the call, not the psychoanalytic group. Both use the acronym APA, which gets confusing. Honestly, though, it’s not that deep. Defining a single psychological disorder isn't exactly a purely scientific process, and deciding whether homosexuality should even be classified as a disorder wasn't strictly based on science either.
lonegardener said:You forgot to mention what "doesn't classify" actually looked like in practice back in '74: 58% of APA members voted to strip it from the DSM. That means 42% were still against it. Have those remaining 42% suddenly gained wisdom or stumbled upon groundbreaking new scientific data over the last 35 years? I highly doubt it. Personally, I suspect this isn't about science, xexexe—it's more about politics and ideology.
True enough. 🤷 Essentially, any rational person realizes there is no logical reason to fight against gay lobbies (the whole "live and let live" principle). The only ones standing in their way are the intensely religious types—people whose faith dictates how they behave within a multicultural society (something many liberal-minded believers refuse to do). Everyone else, even if they disagree, simply lacks the will or the desire to draw unnecessary attention to themselves and risk their careers. Except, of course, for the less bright minds, like Gruden. 😬 (And people like him... there are plenty, mostly found in the religiously charged halls of NARTH)
Look, you have to remember that defining a disorder via the DSM comes down to specific criteria—something we've already touched on. Those standards aren't universal truths, and the DSM itself gets dragged constantly, but they are the benchmarks the medical community uses to decide what counts as a disorder. By those rules, homosexuality simply isn't categorized as one. It’s actually pretty telling when Spitzer, one of the top experts behind the DSM, noted: "A major reason certain diagnoses haven't been removed from the DSM is that doing so would be a public relations catastrophe for psychiatry." That says a lot.
Carol Thompson said:The idea that change is possible comes from, say, professors and veteran clinical psychology experts over at Zillow. I mean, sure, maybe they were all lying when they taught their students... But if I have to choose between trusting an experienced specialist or some anonymous person on an internet forum, I think my answer is pretty obvious... ☕
Science and the profession don't actually hold a unified stance saying it's impossible. The truth is there are several conflicting viewpoints out there. And most of those disagreements are really just happening between the mainstream LGBTQ+ lobby and psychoanalysts... but at that point, we're talking about politics, power dynamics, and so on. It’s honestly sad to see how many of you here are just pushing your own personal agendas. It feels like this whole thread has devolved into a fight for political correctness and rights rather than offering any sincere, unbiased help to slyraven9.
What you're forgetting is that this disorder isn't diagnosed in just anyone who decides they don't want to be gay or wants to change. 😉
I never said this disorder was being diagnosed in just anybody. Nor does the category of "unspecified sexual disorder" apply exclusively to homosexual orientation; it can apply to any orientation whatsoever. That's exactly why I suggested slyraven9 should go see a professional to figure out what's actually going on with him... And finally, even if that is indeed the disorder in question, changing one's orientation might only be one potential solution. As Drew Morgan pointed out, another option could simply be changing one's mindset and emotional outlook. That's all from me.
That might have been true fifty years ago, but today the American Psychoanalytic Association doesn't view homosexuality as a disorder. They even include openly gay individuals in their training programs and support the fight for civil rights, including marriage equality.
placidranger said:👍 There are actually programs out there—take Montessori, for example. I believe there's a Montessori preschool somewhere in Chicago, but since all kids are basically funneled into the public school system by law (if I recall correctly), there isn't much in the way of alternative education once they move past the preschool years here in America.
I know a few families who use private elementary schools, and some who go the Waldorf route too. Pretty sure public school isn't mandatory by law...
Some people go through identity crises, so I assume there are cases where orientation shifts over a lifetime, though you could argue they were never "truly" gay to begin with, whatever that implies.
The scientific consensus is pretty much that once a sexual orientation is established, it doesn't change. There have been attempts by certain hardline religious groups to force that change, but the results were disastrous—mostly just leaving people more traumatized.
It’s interesting how 90% of the people pushing the idea that orientation can be altered are backed by some kind of religious faction.
People change as they get older, their perspectives shift, and their personal top 20 lists follow suit. There’s no reason why Quentin Tarantino's favorites wouldn't look different now than they did a decade ago. If nothing else, it's because a whole lot of great cinema has been released in those ten years... 🙂
Calling this taste mediocre is a bit of a stretch. It's a flawed concept to assume everyone's taste needs to evolve in a specific way just to be considered a "true cinephile." Some people might jump from Robocop to Sense and Sensibility, while others go straight from Sense and Sensibility to Kingdom of Heaven. The real question is how much anyone actually moves the needle—and in what direction.
...But looking at that initial list, there are some genuinely great (and serious) movies in there. So what if he threw in a couple of action flicks? It's still QT we're talking about. And we're talking about very serious action movies at that.
I liked "The Breakfast Club"; that scene with the sparkling water was pretty cool. Still, the movie feels heavily inspired by the Columbine High School massacre, so it isn't exactly a totally original concept, if you know what I mean..
hiddenhound3 said:That is precisely where the difficulty lies; reaching him is nearly impossible. He will express fear and then simply shut down, refusing to utter another word.
As far as I am aware, there was only one visit, as the parents lost interest in pursuing further sessions. That particular specialist merely suggested that this was likely the result of some form of stress. It might truly be beneficial to seek out a different professional.
In general, the little one is quite a delicate child, and they were seeing a doctor at least once a month. There are constant colds and fevers, even if nothing is particularly serious.
I cannot say for certain; perhaps he experienced some level of stress during those temperature checks... I really have no idea.
Not all experts—including psychologists—are on the same level when it comes to knowledge, skill, or even the actual drive to tackle a specific issue. One single appointment isn't enough for a problem like this, especially since it sounds like he didn't even try; he just threw out "stress" as an excuse. If it’s psychological and the kid says he's scared, of course stress is involved. You don't need four years of college plus an internship to figure that much out. It's best to find someone else, maybe even a psychotherapist, as long as they have experience working with kids. Dealing with this could involve things like relaxation techniques alongside mild laxatives (coordinated with a pediatrician), while building enough trust so the kid feels safe talking about his fears. That takes more than one session. Obviously, you should leave it to a specialist who knows how to handle children rather than trying to wing it.