Being gay a mental illness?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Martin_Hyde

It has plenty meaning, mental illness is a term frequently used in society at large. Mental disorder, much less so.

Great. Apart from who uses them or how frequently they are used, tell me the differences between the two.

Behavioral disorder is definitely the trend I’ve seen in being the approved, PC nomenclature.

What is the approved PC nomenclature, and who defines it? Clearly, behavioral health is an effort to circumvent stigma, but other than that, it has no bearing on definitions of disorders. Among professionals, the term “behavioral disorders” would typically connote ADHD, ODD and CD, and would distinguish them from mood disorders, anxiety disorders, psychotic disorders, substance use disorders, personality disorders, and so on and so forth.

Most State agencies these days use the terms “behavioral” or “mental health” none focus on terms like “illness” or “disorder” even much at all.

Do you contend that state agencies are responsible for defining mental disorders? There is a dramatic difference between labeling funding streams, service lines, catchment areas or service populations and defining disorders. And administrators are in no way, shape or form responsible for defining mental disorders, or mental illnesses for that matter.

That’s cool, so you agree mental illness is not formally defined in the DSM. I worked for the State agency in my State that dealt with people covered by DSM diagnoses, and the administration there was extremely concerned for what you call semantic quibbles BTW. They had an entire working group on coming up with the preferred term for people who were previously classified as “MR/DD” in official documents.

Super. That’s irrelevant to the issue of defining disorders. Further, if I were to go up to any colleague and say, “What is the name of our classification system for mental illnesses?” nearly every one will say “Do you mean the DSM?” Mental illness has the same connotation as mental disorder, but the latter term is the term most commonly used, especially in writing and in formal settings.

And you can confirm that IV and 5 do not define “mental illness”, correct?

Yes. For whatever that’s worth to you.

[yorick73]

@QuickSilver

Whether or not a pedophile acts on his inclinations, I believe he is considered mentally ill because what he is predisposed to do will be harmful to a member of society we put in a special protected class (children) - and for good reason I might add. Neither hetero- nor homo-sexuality is defined as a mental illness because neither involves or harms minors and is generally practiced between consenting adults.

I agree with this. My heart tells me your right but my head is trying to understand the real difference. We seem to define illness based on the external possibility as opposed to the internal mechanism in this case. A person with an anxiety disorder may be mentally ill but is not a harm to anyone.

@QuickSilver

This sounds to me very much like a distinction without a difference.

No, there is a clear difference. A child molester could be an otherwise straight person who preys on children because of opportunity, power, etc. A pedophile may be attracted to children but may never act on that impulse. Of course some do.

[Marley23]

@yorick73

I’ve seen numbers suggesting the percent of pedophiles could be 4 or 5% while I’ve seen two recent studies that put the total homosexual population at around 2-3%.

Say what? Maybe you can show us those numbers. I think you’re right about the prevalence of homosexuality but I have a great deal of trouble believing there might be twice as many pedophiles.

@yorick73

No, there is a clear difference. A child molester could be an otherwise straight person who preys on children because of opportunity, power, etc. A pedophile may be attracted to children but may never act on that impulse. Of course some do.

In other words, you believe some people sexually abuse children even though they aren’t attracted to children sexually? I find that hard to believe. It’s pretty confusing as theories go.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@yorick73

A related question is whether the scientific community should consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder (to get back to the OP) since the behavior is “abnormal”? I’ve seen numbers suggesting the percent of pedophiles could be 4 or 5% while I’ve seen two recent studies that put the total homosexual population at around 2-3%. The thing that confuses me is how we can call one an illness because of the possibility of harming another. Surely there has to be a better way to define “illness”.

What does prevalence have to do with anything. Schizophrenia occurs for about 1% of people; ADHD for about 7%; similarly for the lifetime prevalence of PTSD.

The issue is that we define disorders by the presence of a set of symptoms and associated impairment, including harm to others.

[Kimstu]

@yorick73

The thing that confuses me is how we can call one an illness because of the possibility of harming another. Surely there has to be a better way to define “illness”.

Why? To get your fun out of doing something that causes harm is justifiably considered pathological.

IANAD, but as far as I can tell the point of saying that pedophilia is an illness while homosexuality isn’t is that we consider normal healthy sex to be defined by maturity and free consent, rather than by any particular arrangement of protuberances and holes.

Thinking that it isn’t harmful for a pre-pubescent child to be used for the sexual gratification of an adult is delusional. When adults are so invested in that delusion for the sake of their own gratification that they actually commit child sexual abuse, it’s quite reasonable to consider them mentally ill. We also consider someone mentally ill if they’re so fixated on their own gratification that they will do what it takes to obtain it even if they know it harms somebody else: that’s pathologically selfish.

Thinking that it isn’t harmful for two mutually attracted and sexually mature homosexuals to share sexual gratification, on the other hand, is not delusional or pathologically selfish. There is no reason to claim that people who pursue such experiences are mentally ill.

[newinitiation]

There exists a genetic basis to homosexuality as well as it being a learned or conditioned behaviour.

Wouldn’t go so far as to say that being gay is a form of mental illness but this naturally occuring anti-natural aspect should not be condemned with prejudice and discrimination as human beings are human beings first before they are gay, straight, bi, white, black, tall, skinny, fat or ugly.
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Homosexuality_-_What_is_its_Cause%3F

Homosexuality - a Natural Occurence in Conflict with Nature

Homosexuality is a sexual variation that is occurring naturally, yet is against nature. “Occurring naturally, yet being against nature” here means that it manifests itself through a natural process but cannot serve the law of natural reproduction. It is therefore against nature, or rather, a naturally occurring sexual variation that is against nature. Homosexuality is a variation rooted in genetics, and for this reason it is considered natural. But due to the inability to reproduce, it is categorized as being against nature; hence, homosexuality is called a naturally occurring sexual variation that is against nature. Homosexuality, as a naturally occurring sexual variation that is against nature, could never be classified as unlawful on account of any of the natural-creational laws and directives. It is therefore considered naturally normal - although against nature, precisely because of the impossibility for procreation to occur. Certain genes and their characteristics determine the type of sexual variation, including homosexuality. But genes and their characteristics, in turn, are tiny particles of nature and are thus subject to nature’s laws and directives. This then implies that nothing can be abnormal in the sense of its naturalness, if nature permits, indeed creates it; whereby furthermore it follows that homosexuality is a natural manifestation whose anti-naturalness is simply based on its lack of any possibility for procreation. Furthermore, as homosexuality is a natural manifestation, hence nature-given, it cannot and must not be considered, judged or condemned as degenerate and unnatural, and similarly not as reprehensible, as loathsome, and neither as violating natural or human law. What is termed unnatural and a transgression against nature, however, is homosexuality and bisexuality of a sodomitical, degenerate nature - the sexual gratification with and on animals of any kind. This form of sexual variation namely develops exclusively from human thinking processes and fantasies, through which a person is even able to influence genes and their characteristics. By doing so, an individual can generate a particular corresponding predisposition. This predisposition then amounts to an aberration, an antinaturalness, and a transgression against the laws of nature as described in the following verses on homosexuality in Genesis:

[QuickSilver]

@yorick73

I agree with this. My heart tells me your right but my head is trying to understand the real difference. We seem to define illness based on the external possibility as opposed to the internal mechanism in this case. A person with an anxiety disorder may be mentally ill but is not a harm to anyone.

A person with a mental disorder may not be a danger to others but he may be a danger to him/her-self. We try to prevent that as well, when possible.

And ability and desire to do harm to others is not a bad criteria by which to assess mental illness. We tend to lock up mass murderers for life and have no trouble classifying them as mentally ill and a danger to others. Why not pedophiles and child molesters?

[QuickSilver]

n/m

[Chimera]

Short answer;

NO

[newinitiation]

@QuickSilver

Oh, not this shit again… :smack:

Take it for the truth that it is because its actually the truth

[Marley23]

And we’re done here.

[yorick73]

@Marley23

Say what? Maybe you can show us those numbers. I think you’re right about the prevalence of homosexuality but I have a great deal of trouble believing there might be twice as many pedophiles.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,232584,00.html

@Marley23

In other words, you believe some people sexually abuse children even though they aren’t attracted to children sexually? I find that hard to believe. It’s pretty confusing as theories go.

Not what I believe…it’s a simple fact. Look it up.

Here’s one description:

Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don’t imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.

Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully.

And here:

Not all pedophiles molest children. Nor are all child molesters pedophiles. Studies show that about half of all molesters are not sexually attracted to their victims. They often have personality disorders or violent streaks, and their victims are typically family members.

[Inner_Stickler]

@yorick73

A person with an anxiety disorder may be mentally ill but is not a harm to anyone.

Being harmful is not the only criterion for determining mental illness. It just happens that it’s the relevant one when it comes to pedophilia. With anxiety disorders, I imagine daily functioning would be the kicker.

[Kimstu]

@Amateur_Barbarian

Understand that I am not anti-gay in any slightest way, but I can follow the arguments that it is a mental aberration. The purpose of sex is procreation/continuation of the species; if you are wired to be attracted to a form of sex that is non-procreative, I think it’s fair to say there is “something wrong” with you at a gross instinctual level.

Heh heh heh. Sorry, but just think for a second how many heterosexual individuals are “wired to be attracted to a form of sex that is non-procreative”, even if it happens to involve a partner of the opposite gender.

I simply don’t understand how people can think that straight guys liking oral or anal or intermammary counts as “normal” in terms of sexual reproduction, whereas gay guys liking oral or anal is an “aberration”.

Is it just that the straights enjoy “procreative” vaginal sex too? Fine, but there are plenty of gay guys who are able to enjoy vaginal sex sufficiently for procreation purposes if they happen to find themselves in proximity to a vagina.

Moreover, if a straight guy is not sexually attracted to a reproductively fertile fat woman or bald woman or flat-chested woman, by your logic that should count as an “aberration” too. If “the purpose of sex is procreation/continuation of the species”, then obviously any failure to be attracted to a form of sex that is procreative must mean that “there is ‘something wrong’ with you at a gross instinctual level”.

This talk of “aberration” is just heterocentric bullshit. Our species does not need all individuals to be heterosexual in order to propagate itself successfully, so there is nothing biologically “aberrant” or “abnormal” or “wrong” about a small minority of individuals not being attracted to the opposite sex at all.

[yorick73]

@QuickSilver

A person with a mental disorder may not be a danger to others but he may be a danger to him/her-self. We try to prevent that as well, when possible.

And ability and desire to do harm to others is not a bad criteria by which to assess mental illness. We tend to lock up mass murderers for life and have no trouble classifying them as mentally ill and a danger to others. Why not pedophiles and child molesters?

Yes…I completely understand and feel the same way myself. My problem is the definition WRT pedophiles. Basically:

attracted to opposite sex= not ill
attracted to same sex = not ill
attracted to a tree = not ill
attracted to your car = not ill
attracted to a child = ill

Now, logically, I would think that if any of the above is considered mentally ill then they should all be…with the exception of what is normal (opposite sex attraction). Being a danger to another is simply being a danger to another…not necessarily mentally ill.

[Marley23]

@yorick73

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,232584,00.html

Good gravy, Time magazine? No. Just no.

Not what I believe…it’s a simple fact.

Fair enough. I suppose there are things that count as sexual abuse that aren’t for self gratification.

[QuickSilver]

@yorick73

Not all pedophiles molest children. Nor are all child molesters pedophiles. Studies show that about half of all molesters are not sexually attracted to their victims. They often have personality disorders or violent streaks, and their victims are typically family members.

Interesting. So these studies suggest that child molesters have what is widely recognized as a mental disorder (including one case where it was caused by a tumor). However, they don’t appear to absolve pedophiles of having a mental disorder.

[yorick73]

Let me be clear that I am not trying to argue a point here but I’m trying to understand the underlying reasons we would consider one type of attraction “abnormal” but not ill and another to be “abnormal” and ill. I’m not trying to argue with anyone on this point but just trying to wrap my mind around the definitions.

[QuickSilver]

@yorick73

Yes…I completely understand and feel the same way myself. My problem is the definition WRT pedophiles. Basically:

attracted to opposite sex= not ill
attracted to same sex = not ill
attracted to a tree = not ill
attracted to your car = not ill
attracted to a child = ill

Now, logically, I would think that if any of the above is considered mentally ill then they should all be…with the exception of what is normal (opposite sex attraction). Being a danger to another is simply being a danger to another…not necessarily mentally ill.

Not exactly true. I would modify in the following way:

attracted to opposite sex= not ill
attracted to same sex = not ill
attracted to a tree = ill, no harm, not a crime
attracted to your car = ill, no harm, not a crime
attracted to a child = ill, harm, crime

Also, I recall a story of a woman sexually attracted to the Eiffel Tower and considers herself married to it.

[yorick73]

@Marley23

Good gravy, Time magazine? No. Just no.

Okay…not exactly Nature but I’m at home so I can’t access journal articles. The latimes article I linked to says “The best estimates are that between 1% and 5% of men are pedophiles, meaning that they have a dominant attraction to prepubescent children.” That’s more of a spread.

Wikipedia says “The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known, but is estimated to be lower than 5% among adult men.”

I don’t think you are going to get a hard number here for obvious reasons.