strangedesire
Posts: 360
Joined: 12/23/2008 Status: offline
|
I found this OP so confusing that I had to break it into tiny pieces to process it. OP, I'm not even arguing with you for the most part, just trying to figure out what you're saying. quote:
vast tracts of psychiatric papers and reports on the subject of sexual perversions I'm not certain what "papers" and "reports" refer to. Credible psychiatrists are going to be publishing in either peer-reviewed journals or books. So are these case studies? Peer-reviewed theoretical work? APA recommended training materials? Experiments and analysis? Likewise, "sexual perversions" isn't a term that shows up in modern psychiatric or psychological research. Honestly, what you're refering to sounds like either fuzzy summaries of legitimate work, weird sub-schools of psychoanalysis that most professionals will never run into, or work that is at least fifty years out of date. Regardless, I'm not sure who, exactly, you're objecting to, which complicates things. quote:
what moral right do these people have to comment on the sexual practices of others ? You seem to be implying here that it is immoral for them to comment on your sexual practices. Do you expect them to stop doing this because of your moral beliefs? I doubt that you will stop engaging in the kind of sex you like simply because others believe it immoral. If you expect people to to stop talking about the sex lives of others for moral reasons, you are more optimistic about human nature than I. quote:
they are just theories, no hard and fast facts, so I question their value. I question the value of football. This doesn't mean that football should not exist. If I wanted to end institutionalized football, I would need to find reasons to do so other than the fact that I see no value in it. Is it harmful? Is it bad? If so, why is its lack of value relevant? quote:
But, I suppose, if we were to live in an ideal world, people and their perversions would be seen as just part of life, the live and let live scenario, but it seems we do not live in that idyll and we have a so called learned profession delving into the intimacies of others, perhaps even themselves via others, and that as I became aware a while in the past, many of the psychiatric profession possess psychiatric problems themselves and one whom I knew even said they entered the profession to understand themself, but is failing in that, as others are not themselves. Why is this one sentence? There are at least three ideas here. Does each not deserve its own full stop? quote:
if we were to live in an ideal world, people and their perversions would be seen as just part of life, the live and let live scenario How are "people and their perversions" not seen as "part of life?" Do you mean to say that ideally, a large variety of sexual practices would be accepted as normal? Or is this ideal more a freedom from judgement? quote:
we have a so called learned profession delving into the intimacies of others I believe the subtext I'm reading here is that it is bad for people to look into the intimate lives of others. (Or are you being too coy to say sexual practices?) This is not something that you will find universal agreement for. There are a lot of researchers, and people who read research with interest, who believe that human sexuality is a valid area of study. You will actually have to argue this point before you can stand on it. It strikes me, also, this this is a strange critique to post on a message board dedicated to talking about and exploring human sexuality. quote:
many of the psychiatric profession possess psychiatric problems themselves and one whom I knew even said they entered the profession to understand themself Ad hominem. The motivations of a researcher may shed light on her conclusions, but is not sufficient to overturn them. Also, I think, mostly an old wives' tale. There are people with mental problems in psychiatry, but there are people with mental problems everywhere else, too. I have seen no research to indicate that the ratios are different. If you have, please, share! But don't fall back on hearsay. quote:
my personal understanding of sexual perversion in myself is it is a question that needs and answer, so I may do what I do to gain that answer and then move onto the next question You have questions. You want answers. Once you have found these answers, you will move on. So far so good. I am not, however, certain how this is different from what you criticized psychiatrists for doing a paragraph ago. quote:
a lot of that has to do with my self defined spirituality A lot of your search for answers? A lot of your willingness to move on once you find them? A lot of your sexuality itself? quote:
If I do not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, the question takes a different method of approach and that I see as my evolving interests This does not yet make any sense. If you led with the context of the next bit, it might. quote:
whatever answer there is to be obtained, will be obtained in the best method possible, that of enjoyment and pleasure You're framing enjoyment and pleasure as a search for answers. Evolving sexual interests are a shift in the ways you search for those answers. What is the question? I had thought that you were asking where your "perversions" came from, but engaging in them seems like a strange way to do this? Am I misreading you? If not, how does this work? Should it work for everyone, or only for you? quote:
Sexual perversion I view as the games adults play in order to well basically enjoy themselve I agree. Not sure how this fits in with the previous paragraph. quote:
all work and no play makes jack a dull boy and dull in many ways, which can lead to problems the psych profession will be interested in Quoting the crazed killer from The Shining is either a poor tactical choice or a brilliant cultural reference. I'm not sure which, yet. You seem to be implying that a lack of play (earlier defined as "sexual perversion") leads to psychiatric problems. This seems, perhaps, a bit extreme. Or is sex one of many types of play that can help to prevent psychiatric problems? That seems more reasonable. quote:
But also in that play is learning, for we need to learn and evolve as a result of that learning. Kinky sex helps us learn and evolve! I'm totally with you on this as long as you don't go all Darwinian. quote:
But the impression I am arriving at is that the psych profession is seeking to define people based upon just happen to fit theories and theories that have no answer except uppers, downers and further analysis under duress I'm going to go backwards on this one: quote:
theories that have no answer except uppers, downers and further analysis under duress There's a lot more to psychiatric medicine than uppers and downers, but I'll let that lie. What I'm hearing is that the theories give rise to diagnoses, but the only solutions to these diagnoses are drugs and forced therapy. Even if this was true (in the US, I'm not aware of any drugs used to treat alternative sexualities) I'm not sure that a lack of treatment invalidates the diagnosis. Have you had personal experinces with people in the psychiatric field that lead you to think this way? You, ah, write with someone like a thought disorder. quote:
just happen to fit theories Isn't that what a theory is? An explanation that happens to fit? quote:
the psych profession is seeking to define people "Pathologizing normal variety" is a better argument, in my opinion. quote:
what the courts can do on the advice from the psychiatric profession There's an argument to be made here. Feel free to make it. quote:
does psychiatry have a valid moral right to be delving into the sexual perversions of people, or are they overstepping their duties? "Moral right" and "duty" are very much different concepts. I have a right to free speech, but that doesn't make it my duty to say everything.
_____________________________
On that other site as Exegesis.
|