From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: To be or not to be.
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:28:49 GMT

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


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.

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.





>>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.


Okay, the references will be from a book on the treatment of homosexuals
through the 20th century in america.  It discusses a lot of what was going
on...


>>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?

No... Not homophobic, just from a homophobic time.  I will give an example
which does not deal with homosexuals, a parallel sort of scenario.

Someone comes up with many theories concerning the INSECT variety called
a spider.  They are rather in depth theories concerning this creature.
Now the person dies, and the current mode of thought says "Spiders are 
not insects, they are arachnids"  Because of this, the theorizing concerning
spiders is in question, because his world view has been shown to be wrong.

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.

>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 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?

>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.

This is the primary thing that I take that Freud said as incorrect.  It 
is the same sort of theory as saying "homosexuality is caused by a weak
father and a strong mother."  No proof, no evidence, just theories from
time past.


>I would say here that I do not believe that homosexuals are 
>disfunctional, I just say thet your's is not a scientific method.

Neither is yours.

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



FWA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality