From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: To be or not to be.
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:40:57 GMT

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:
>>To be or not to be, that makes all the difference in this newsgroup.
>
>
>
>I think that the oedipus complex is a load of shit.  Period.  Modern
>psych tends to discard this theory, other people have posted references.

I just posted several references from Modern psych, that do not agree with 
you.
One of them, for example, analyzes the fact that the Oedipus Complex was
mostly based on a image of Mother as a primary supporter of the kid, and
then this person analyzes the applicability of this concept to modern
family types, where there is no such a image of mother.

>
>
>I will give you some history on why homosexuals do not believe in
>Freud or any of the other psych people.  They have always been 
>biased against homosexuals.  Homosexuality was only removed from the
>list of mental illnesses in the 70s, when gay activists forced them
>to realize that their classifications were not made using good science.
>The psychiatric research field has never been gay friendly, or even
>gay neutral.  They have always been a hostile force.

I knew this, and I believe that I made a comment about that to Sr. Dyer.
Now, what means friendly?




>
>AAP, would you like the names of essays concerning this battle, and proof
>that these people used bad researching techniques to come to there
>conclusions?  I can produce them rather easily.
>

Would be nteresting. I guess that I commented to you that Michael Foucault,
in his "Historia de la sexualidad" (in Spanish), analyses the basis of
this dicourses.

>
>You see, you are arguing from a completely heterocentric point of view.
>The gay academia have discarded Freud, since he comes from a homophobic
>point of view.  Therefore, invoking Freud is like invoking the bible.
>

Discarded with proof of him being wrong, or just because they think that he
was homophobic?
As I said, I do not believe that he was homophobic, as I do not believe that
all what he said is right. I would said that is mostly incomplete.
But, I do believe that he made important advances, and that homosexuality 
might be a traumatic problem just like several other we all have.

>
>
>I get tired of having people quoting "scientists" (sneer quotes) to me
>telling me that I am inherently disfunctional.  I can tell you from 
>experience that homosexuals are not inherently disfunctional.  You pull
>more quotes from these same scientists.  We say "we speak from experience
>and what you say does not fit".  You say "But Freud says so... see, here
>are my references."  Can't you see that your references are biased against
>homosexuals to begin with, and therefore will fit your assertion exactly?
>
I would say here that I do not believe that homosexuals are 
disfunctional, I just say thet your's is not a scientific method.
According to my experience, the Earth is not round, I look to both sides
and it looks quite plane.

>
>
>
>Learn to see the biases behind the research.  If the bias is there before
>the research, you will see it in the results.  Case in point, Freud.
>

I disagree about Freud being bias. Wrong, might be.
>
>
>
>FWA
>
>

AAP
:wq

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality