Bradley Bailey4 said:Sorry guys, I was totally MIA from the forum all day yesterday.
First off, I honestly don't get why some of you are acting like what I wrote was weird or sketchy or whatever. Like, seriously, why is it so hard to just take my word for it?
Look, I’m not forcing anyone to read my posts or leave a comment if they don't want to.
And for those of you obsessing over the whole "psychology" thing—and I only used the term because I have zero clue what that woman actually does for a living—she basically just handed out tests, used them as a template to grade us on the fly, and then spit out our scores. I have no idea why she felt the need to comment, though maybe she just assumed the guy had an insane score and thought it was mine since she probably expected the most from me given my field. The whole vibe was chaotic; she crammed us all into one room and we had fifteen minutes to finish, and there wasn't even enough space in there—she was basically sitting right across from me at my own desk. Then she was frantically grading everyone as they finished just to push us out the door, everything was such a rush.
I'm stuck in this loop of overthinking it from two different angles: part of me feels embarrassed because I can only imagine her wondering how someone as educated as me could pull such a low score (not that intelligence is directly tied to education, obviously, but still), and the other part of me is just reeling from the result itself because, like I said, I always considered myself smart and I'm having a hard time processing that I hit such a wall on this test.
Nobody's whining. It’s just impossible for a doctor to actually test IQ... they don't even know how to do it. If you're fine with posting such total nonsense, then I don't know why you expect anyone to take you seriously, believe you, or think you're anything close to intelligent...
I still don't get it. Maybe she actually *is* an MD and just didn't know how to fix a test she shouldn't have even been using in the first place... so that's why the results turned out like that.
Either way, the whole story sounds sketchy as hell to me.
Roger Morgan4 said:But wait, can't a psychologist eventually become a psychotherapist if they just go back for some additional specialized training? It seems like that dream is still within reach for most people. 😁
I always figured people majored in psychology because they expected to do therapy, like that was actually what they were taught at a US university to prepare them for the job.. 🙂
Plus, you don't even have to wait until you're a full-blown psychologist to start training as a therapist. I heard about this one person who's already in their third year of psychotherapy training and hasn't even graduated yet...😍
Amanda Morris3 said:That isn't actually true. I was just chatting with a psychologist about this, and she mentioned that this idea is really just a dogma based on a poor interpretation of outdated Freudian theories. She noted that there isn't a single shred of scientific data suggesting that upbringing has any link to homosexuality.
The roots of homosexuality are primarily tied to the balance of female and male hormones in the mother, DURING the final trimester of fetal development, and no, it has nothing to do with the hormones in a child once they are born, which is why homosexuality CANNOT be "cured" by administering hormones.
(If you give testosterone to a gay man, all you're doing is increasing his libido; you aren't going to "redirect" his sexual or emotional desires toward the opposite sex)
So, parenting doesn't play a role in homosexuality, and giving someone testosterone won't turn a gay man straight—you'll just end up with a guy who's extremely hypersexual.☕
Beyond that, there's a distinction between homosexual vs. homoaffective, and between homosexual behavior versus sexual orientation.
When heterosexual inmates engage in sexual acts together, that's homosexual behavior, not necessarily a homosexual orientation.
In many parts of the world or in the Middle East, active homosexuals aren't even viewed as homosexuals, but rather as heterosexuals; the label is often reserved only for those who are passive.
In epidemiological studies, researchers always ask: HAVE YOU HAD SEXUAL CONTACT WITH MEN, rather than asking if someone is hetero, bi, or gay... because plenty of people sleep with men while still considering themselves straight. That’s why the category MSM or M2M (male-to-male sex) was introduced.
I'm curious, what arguments do homophobes actually use against homoaffectivity? Like, say two guys live together, share a bed, and kiss, but don't actually have sex? What would the homophobes say then? "Ew, they're being too intimate"? (It's funny coming from the same people who probably daydream about their girlfriends being more adventurous behind closed doors haha)
HOMOPHOBES need to realize that for many men, it isn't just about a sexual connection, but a DEEP EMOTIONAL BOND. Honestly, I think some homophobes just lack a sense of connection in their own lives, so they get jealous of people who have stable relationships filled with love and emotion. 😉
I’d cut the "main drivers" part. For example, stress during the first trimester in male fetuses bumps up the odds of homosexuality... plus nicotine hits female fetuses too...
Ryan Wood98 said:Yes, that’s actually what some women from Lori mentioned during a seminar organized by a university counseling center. I suppose some clients might accept something just because a psychologist tells them so, but those numbers seem too small to really influence an entire population. In my opinion, television is probably a more effective medium for shifting public perception than psychologists are.
Well... if you are working in therapy or studying parapsychological phenomena, maybe. But if you were into bodybuilding or full-contact combat sports... perhaps you might actually manage to escape. 🤷
It gets even more pathetic when you hear how they told my favorite professor she was wrong after she explained how things actually work... and then tried to gaslight her into thinking this approach is "effective." It's sad...
Listen... if you're messing with therapy and pseudo-psychology, fine. But if you're into bodybuilding or full-contact fighting... maybe you'd actually stand a chance. 🤷
😂🤣 but both groups pass out after getting hit in the head, so... 🙂
Gary Patel said:Look, I'm gay, but honestly? I’m not a fan of the parades—I think they just end up fueling more prejudice against us. It makes people recoil even more than they already do. Let's be real: walking down a street in most of America, holding hands and kissing, isn't exactly something that's widely accepted yet. I’ve always been a proponent of legal reform and educational seminars—you know, showing folks that we are just regular, everyday people—but the political climate here is just... well, it's tough. You see politicians in Congress using slurs to describe us, which really shows their level of respect—or lack thereof. They make these sweeping statements about how "the universe is heterosexual" and how society expects everyone to conform to that norm. It's exhausting. agent, if you’re actually being serious right now, then you’ve got things a bit twisted—because if you genuinely view yourself as disordered, then you're creating your own problem; otherwise, medical science doesn't classify us as sick or mentally ill.
What kind of seminars are we talking about here? Presenting them as "normal"? I don't see how that actually does anything... honestly, that kind of old-school education is pretty pointless...
I sat through one seminar once where they told us, "As psychologists, you have to tell people homosexuality is normal, and then they'll just accept it." What an absurd joke. Logic doesn't work when prejudice hits the emotional side of things—it blocks everything. Besides, those techniques don't even stick long-term...
And at the end of the day... when I think about the group that jumped me on the street yesterday while I was walking home from the grocery store (around 7 PM)... I think the only thing that would teach them a lesson is having laws as strict as they have in China...
Betty Allen15 said:Look, I’ve got some years on me now, though mentally? Not so much. I’ll be the first to admit I recognize people are different, and honestly, I'm against persecuting anyone just for being themselves. If my kid turned out to be gay, it would be a massive adjustment for me, I won't lie—but at the end of the day, I’d love them just the same.
But I have to ask—and this is directed mostly at the gay community, since they’re the ones living it: Why is it that during Pride parades, participants feel the need to dress so provocatively and act in total opposition to any sense of public decency? I mean, seriously. You see these images of men half-naked, wearing enough makeup to rival a Vegas showgirl, using all sorts of sex toys, and making out—well, let's call it "aggressive smooching"—in ways that frankly just turn people off. It’s never going to help them win over the neighbors if they behave like that. I'll be blunt: seeing those parades makes my skin crawl, and I think any straight couple acting that way would get the exact same reaction from the public. Wouldn't it be more effective—more "normal," I guess—to fight for rights with a bit of dignity? Just show the world that love is love through simple gestures, like holding hands, instead of putting on this perverse little show for everyone else? And then, predictably, you get into those heated debates about whether people like that should even be allowed to adopt children.
The community really needs to police its own approach to activism. If they don't start demanding respect through more dignified means, they’re always going to find themselves surrounded by people who just want nothing to do with them.
Only the people actually marching in that parade can answer that. You can't lump everyone together.
When David Reimer was just 7 months old, a routine circumcision went horribly wrong and destroyed his penis. Instead of fixing the physical issue, Dr. Money, a psychologist, suggested raising him as a girl instead.
The parents went along with it and tried, but he never wanted to be a girl. He wrote while standing up, played boy games, and hated dresses. Once he hit puberty, everything fell apart and he finally came clean. He eventually returned to his birth sex and found happiness with a family...
Punishing Money is an interesting idea... (he actually passed away recently). In 100 years, people like us will probably be debating today's medicine and arguing that doctors like this should face criminal charges. Back then, nobody knew anything about this topic; they couldn't have predicted how it would all end. It’s a revolutionary case that opened up endless new insights, even if that wasn't the intention...
Now, the fact that Money refused to admit he failed and essentially terrorized the kid is a different story. You can look at it as pure ego, or maybe just a desperate attempt to make his theory work...
David Reimer took his own life in May 2004, though apparently there were other factors involved besides just what happened to him...
And honestly? This case isn't even about sexual orientation—it's about gender. It proves that gender is hardwired into the brain from birth, not something you learn.
People have tried forever to prove that idea—you know, the whole "no father, dominant mother" nonsense—but it’s NEVER been proven. There isn't even a shred of evidence to back up that garbage...
Look, facts are one thing, but there's a massive moderator variable between what someone actually thinks and how they say it: the sheer intensity behind the opinion...