From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: To be or not to be.
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:22:08 GMT

In article <jbj6p28@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.224057.7307@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
> >In article <jbamoso@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> >>In article <1992Apr9.175735.22367@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not looking for friendly.  I am looking for "unbiased".  Freud's views
> on homosexuals are biased, since he treats it not as a varient of
> behavior, but as a symptom of some sort of disorder.

As I said before, I do not believe that all that has being said by Freud was
right. I believe that he used self-analysis, and that he did make a lot of
mistakes and left things incomplete. I just believe that what is called
"Freudian School", that incudes Lacan a lot more of people since then, has
a lot of valid results.


> 
> His analysis is not taking into account modern theories concerning
> homosexuality (how could he? He was dead by time they were developed).
> Therefore, his model of "the homosexual" is flawed.  This brings his
> theories into question.
> 

I never said anything about his theories about homosexuality, because I
believe that he died while still trying to understand it. If I remember
OK, his studies about DaVinci, based on an incorrect translation, are
very scketchy, or just like a person trying several concepts knowing 
that they are not complete.
I just talked about the Oedipus Complex, which I consider a valid point
in the whole theory, developed after Freud's death. I do not refer to his
theory per se.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the situation with Freud.  In the time he was writing, homosexuality
> was either a third sex, or a mental disorder depending on where you were
> in the world.  Since this time, both the mental disorder and the third
> sex theory have been discarded.  Because of this, schools of thought concerning
> homosexuality based on either of these ground level discussions are rather out
> of date.

I agree, and as I said before, I just took the Oedipus Complex, I said 
nothing about any theory about homosexuality.


> 
> But you insist on drawing conclusions on homosexuals based on his incomplete
> theories.   Okay, I do not completely discard Freud's theories either.  Just
> his theories concerning homosexuals.  How's that?

Again, I made a comment about the problem that a kid might face in an
homosexual household. I said nothing about homosexuals based on his theory.
Moreover, I was talking, also, about the social reaction about homosexual
households, and its possible effects on the kids.
I do not take a theory on face value. I take some pieces that I consider
valid. 


> 
> >But, I do believe that he made important advances, and that homosexuality 
> >might be a traumatic problem just like several other we all have.
> 
> 
> This is where it seems that he is wrong, according to modern psychology.
> There is no evidence at all that this assertion is correct.  There are
> many more recent people who have said the opposite of this is true.
> 

I believe that the problem was with the generalization: All homosexuals 
have such and such traumatic experience.
I believe that in some particular cases, might be true.

> >According to my experience, the Earth is not round, I look to both sides
> >and it looks quite plane.
> 
> We can prove that the earth is not round.  

That might be really something to see.

> Can you prove that homosexuals
> are "formed" by "traumatic experiences"?   Neither could freud.
> 

I would say that I know some particular cases where I believe that that is
true, and I know a lot more where that is not true.

> 
> 
> FWA

AAP
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:2132 alt.sex:14497