Yuzutori

**welcome this is ryans yuzutori page**

**primaveraguys somehting bad has happened i dont know how to fix it i dont know how it got this bad.**

## Abstract

The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have suggested for many years now that there is significant empirical evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation as opposed to a mental disorder. This paper summarizes and analyzes that purported scientific evidence and explains that much (if not all) of the evidence is irrelevant and does not support the homosexuality-is-not-a-mental-disorder claim. As a result of their deficiencies and arbitrariness, the credibility those two groups that are typically deemed authoritative and trustworthy is called into question.

**Lay summary**: At one time, homosexuality was considered to be mentally disordered. Since the 1970s, however, major medical associations in the U.S. have labeled homosexuality as a normal counterpart of heterosexuality. Those medical associations have proposed that their homosexuality-is-normal claim is based on “scientific evidence.” This article critically reviews that “scientific evidence” and finds that much of their literature does not support the claim that homosexuality is normal. This article suggests that instead of supporting their claim with scientific evidence, those major medical associations arbitrarily label homosexuality as normal.

**Keywords:** Homosexuality, Mental disorder, Same-sex attraction, Scientific evidence, Empirical evidence, United States v. Windsor, Lawrence v. Texas, Adjustment

Go to:

## Introduction

Shortly before this paper was written, a Catholic nun was accused of “using suspect anecdotes, antiquated data, and broad generalizations to demonize gays and lesbians” (Funk 2014). Regarding the same event, another individual wrote that the nun deviated “into realms of sociology and anthropology,” which are “beyond the scope of her expertise” (Galbraith 2014). It is not outright evident what was said, but the event brings to mind some important questions. The accusation of using outdated material and deviating into realms beyond the scope of one's expertise implies two things; first, it implies that there actually is information that is more up-to-date than what the nun presented on the topic of homosexuality, and secondly it implies that there are credible experts who are more qualified to teach or speak on the topic of homosexuality. The question comes to mind, then, what exactly does the non-antiquated, that is, the up-to-date, data show about homosexuality? Also, what do the so-called credible experts say about homosexuality? When one browses the Internet, one will see that apparently many of the so-called experts on mental disorders claim that there is a significant amount of scientific evidence in support of the claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Hence, it is necessary to provide a summary and analysis of that purported up-to-date scientific evidence which supports the claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

The two groups that are typically deemed authoritative and credible experts on mental disorders in the United States are the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Psychiatric Association; thus, I will present their stances on homosexuality and then analyze the “scientific evidence” that they claim supports their stances. I will show that there are significant deficiencies in the literature put forth as scientific evidence in support of the claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Specifically, much of the literature they put forth as scientific evidence is irrelevant to the topic of homosexuality and mental disorders. As a result of their deficiencies, the credibility of the American Psychiatric Association and the APA, at least in their claims regarding human sexuality, is called into question.

Go to:

## The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association

I will begin by describing the APA and the American Psychiatric Association, and I will then present their stances on the topic of homosexuality. The APA claims to be

Their mission “is to advance the creation, communication, and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people's lives” (American Psychological Association 2014).

The American Psychiatric Association (which also uses the acronym APA)

The American Psychiatric Association publishes the *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders* (DSM) which is

The *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders* has been considered to be the authoritative guide to the diagnosis of mental. It follows, then, that those psychiatrists that make up the American Psychiatric Association, especially those involved in determining the contents of the DSM, are considered to be the authorities and experts in psychiatry. (For those who may not be aware, the study of psychology is different from the study of psychiatry, which is why there are two different professional organizations that study mental disorders.)

The stances of the APA and the American Psychiatric Association on homosexuality are discussed in at least two important documents. The first is the Brief of Amici Curiae for APA, American Psychiatric Association, and others given during the Supreme Court case *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558, which overthrew laws against sodomy. The second is the APA document titled “Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.” The task force “conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts” in order to provide “more specific recommendations to licensed mental health practitioners, the public, and policymakers” (Glassgold et al. 2009, 2). Both documents provide citations of “evidence” supporting the claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. I will refer to the scientific evidence cited in the documents, and I will follow with an analysis of that literature put forth as scientific evidence.

It should be noted that the “task force” that produced the second document was chaired by Judith M. Glassgold, Psy.D., who is a lesbian psychologist. She sits on the board of the *Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy* and is past president of the APA's Gay and Lesbian Division 44 (Nicolosi 2009). Other members of the task force were Lee Beckstead, Ph.D.; Jack Drescher, M.D.; Beverly Greene, Ph.D.; Robin Lin Miller, Ph.D.; Roger L. Worthington, Ph.D.; and Clinton W. Anderson, Ph.D. According to Joseph Nicolosi, Beckstead, Drescher, and Anderson are all “gay,” while Miller is “bisexual” and Greene is lesbian (Nicolosi 2009). So, prior to assessing their discussions, the reader should note that those involved with this APA task force are not speaking or writing from neutral standpoints.

I will be drawing quotes from two different documents. Doing so will provide more evidence of the stance of both the APA and the American Psychiatric Association.

Go to:

## The Two Associations’ Stance on Homosexuality

The APA writes:

They explain that by “normal” they mean “both the absence of a mental disorder and the presence of a positive and healthy outcome of human development” (Glassgold et al. 2009, 11). The authors writing for the APA believe that the previous claim “has a significant empirical foundation” (Glassgold et al. 2009, 15).

The Brief of Amici Curiae for both the APA and the American Psychiatric Association uses similar language:

Hence, the basic stance of the APA and the American Psychiatric Association is that homosexuality is not a mental disorder but is rather a normal form of human sexuality, and they propose that their stance is based on significant scientific evidence.

Go to:

## Sigmund Freud

Both documents proceed by providing historical reviews of homosexuality and psychoanalysis. One document begins with Sigmund Freud, who suggested that homosexuality was “nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness, but a variation of sexual function” (Freud 1960, 21, 423–4). They note that Freud attempted to change one woman's sexual orientation, but after failing to do so, “Freud concluded that attempts to change homosexual sexual orientation were likely to be unsuccessful” (Glassgold et al. 2009, 21).

It goes without saying that a letter written in 1935 is outdated—or antiquated, depending on one's choice of words. Freud's conclusion that changing a homosexually inclined person's sexual orientation is “likely impossible” after one try should qualify as a “suspect anecdote.” Hence, Freud's literature is deficient; it cannot support the proposition that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation. (It is noteworthy that Freud also suggested that homosexuality is a “variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development” [Herek 2012]. The omission of that line from Freud's work is misleading.)

Go to:

## Alfred Kinsey

The APA Task Force document proceeds by citing two books written by Alfred Kinsey in 1948 and 1953 (*Sexual Behavior in the Human Male* and *Sexual Behavior in the Human Female*):

Implied in that statement is a “normality” of the sexual behaviors, specifically homosexuality, on the continuum; for a study to be cited as “countervailing evidence” of the claim that homosexuality is abnormal, the study must suggest that homosexuality is normal. In other words, the APA is suggesting the following based off of Kinsey's books:

* 1.  In human beings, homosexuality has been demonstrated to be more common than previously assumed;
* 2.  Therefore, there is a normal variation (or a normal “continuum”) of sexual attractions to different genders.

Kinsey's argument (that is adopted by the APA) is equally as deficient as Freud's. A “continuum” is a “continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct” (New Oxford American Dictionary 2010, s.v. continuum). An example of a “continuum” is temperature readings—“hot” and “cold” are very different from each other, but 100 °F and 99 °F are difficult to distinguish. Kinsey explains his theory of continuums in nature:

In regards to homosexuality, Kinsey (and the APA authors) concludes that because some people experience sexual attraction to the same gender, then it automatically follows that there is a normal continuum of sexual attractions. It does not take a PhD to identify the deficiency in the argument. *The normality of a behavior is not determined simply by observing a behavior in society*. This is the case in all of medicine.

It may be easier to understand problems with the argument by using examples of observed human desires for specific actions. Some human beings desire to remove healthy body parts; others desire to cut themselves with razor blades, while others desire to harm themselves in other ways. These people are not necessarily suicidal; instead, they desire to remove their healthy limbs or they desire to inflict harm on themselves without causing death. These are two different conditions—one is known as “body integrity identity disorder,” “xenomelia,” or “apotemnophilia”; and the other is known as “nonsuicidal self-injury,” “self-mutilation,” or “self-harm.”

Xenomelia is “the desire of a healthy individual to have a fully functional limb amputated” (Brugger, Lenggenhager and Giummarra 2013, 1). It has been noted that “most subjects with xenomelia are male,” that “the majority desire leg amputation” although a “considerable minority of persons with xenomelia desire a bilateral amputation” (Hilti et al. 2013, 319). One study of 13 males noted that all of their participants with xenomelia “*longed for* a leg amputation” (Hilti et al. 2013, 324, emphasis added). Studies have reported that the condition has an onset in early childhood and that it may even be present since birth (Blom, Hennekam, and Denys 2012, 1). In other words, some individuals may be born with the desire to remove or a “longing for” the removal of a healthy limb. It has also been reported in a study of 54 individuals with the condition that 64.8 percent had a university degree (Blom, Hennekam, and Denys 2012, 2). One study suggested that the removal of healthy limbs results “in impressive improvement of quality of life” for individuals with the condition (Blom, Hennekam, and Denys 2012, 3).

To summarize, then, there is a mental condition in which people “desire” and “long for” the removal of their healthy limbs. This desire to remove healthy limbs may be inborn, or in other words, people may be born with the desire to remove their healthy limbs. This “desire” and “longing” is the same thing as an “inclination” or “tendency.” The “desire” or “longing” is different from the action of having body parts removed, but both the inclination, desire, and longing as well as the action of removal are considered *disordered* (Hilti et al. 2013, 324).1 The removal of healthy limbs is a *disordered action*, and the desire for the removal of healthy limbs is a *disordered desire* or a *disordered inclination*. The disordered desire comes in the form of a thought, as is the case of most (if not all) desires. In many cases, the disorder is present since childhood. Finally, individuals who act on the inclination to have a limb removed feel better after the limb is removed. In other words, those who act on their disordered desire (disordered thoughts) and perform the disordered action of removing a healthy limb experience an improved “quality of life,” or they feel pleasure after performing the disordered action. (The reader should notice here a parallel between the disordered-nature of xenomelia and the disordered-nature of homosexuality.)

The second example I mentioned previously is “self-harm” or “self-injury.” E. David Klonsky noted that:

Klonsky and Jennifer J. Muehlenkamp write that:

Similarly, Klonsky notes that

The American Psychiatric Association notes that in nonsuicidal self-injury, the injury is “often preceded by an urge and is experienced as pleasurable, even though the individual realizes that he or she is harming himself or herself” (American Psychiatric Association 2013, 806).

To summarize, then, nonsuicidal self-injury is a *disordered action* that is preceded by a *disordered desire* (or “urge”) to harm oneself. Those who injure themselves do so for “pleasure.” Some patients with the disorder are “high-functioning” in that they are able to live, work, and act in society while at the same time they still have a mental disorder. Finally, the “prevalence of self-injury is high and probably increasing among adolescents and young adults” (Klonsky 2007, 1040).

Now, back to the original purpose for providing the examples of body integrity identity disorder and self-injury. The APA claims that Alfred Kinsey's studies of homosexuality in men and women were “countervailing evidence” to the idea that homosexuality is a pathology. They based that claim off of Kinsey's studies which “demonstrated that homosexuality was more common than previously assumed, thus suggesting that such behaviors were part of a continuum of sexual behaviors and orientations” (Glassgold et al. 2009, 22). Again, an abbreviated version of Kinsey's argument looks like this:

* 1.  In human beings, homosexuality has been demonstrated to be more common than previously assumed;
* 2.  Therefore, there is a normal variation (or a normal “continuum”) of sexual attractions.

By replacing homosexuality with the examples of body integrity identity disorder and self-harm/self-mutilation in Alfred Kinsey's and the APA's argument (that is, if we follow the logic of Kinsey and the APA) the argument would be as follows:

* 1.  In human beings, it has been observed that some people are attracted to and desire to cut themselves and remove their healthy body parts;
* 2.  The attractions to cut oneself and remove one's healthy body parts have been demonstrated to be more common than previously assumed;
* 3.  Therefore, there is a normal variation of attractions to self-harm; there is a continuum of normal variations of orientation to harm oneself.

Hence, we can see how illogical and deficient Kinsey's and the APA's argument is; the observation that a behavior is more common than previously assumed does not automatically lead to the conclusion that there is a normal continuum of behaviors. One would have to conclude that every human behavior observed is simply one normal behavior on the “continuum” of human behaviors; if the desire to harm oneself or the desire to remove a healthy limb is shown to be more common than previously assumed, then (according to their logic) such behaviors would be part of a normal continuum of self-harm behaviors and orientations.

On one end of Kinsey's spectrum would be those who desire to kill themselves, while on the other end of the spectrum there would be those who desire health and normal functioning of their body. Somewhere between, according to Kinsey's logic, would be those who desire to cut their arms, and next to them would be those who desire to remove their arms completely. This brings up the question—why are all behaviors not considered to be normal variants of human behavior? Kinsey's continuum argument, when it is followed to its logical conclusion, entirely does away with any need for psychology or psychiatry; Kinsey wrote that “*The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects*” (emphasis added). If that were the case then there would be no such thing as a mental disorder (or physical disorder for that matter), and there would be no need for those groups that diagnose and treat mental disorders. The desire to be a serial killer would be, according to Kinsey's logic, simply a normal variant on the continuum of human desire. Hence, the APA's claim that Kinsey's study is “countervailing evidence” against the claim that homosexuality is a pathology is deficient and erroneous. The literature does not support their conclusion, and the conclusion itself is absurd. (Additionally, it should be noted that along with illogical arguments, much of Kinsey's research has been discredited [Browder 2004]. Kinsey suggested that 10 percent of the U.S. male population “are gay or bisexual,” but recent estimates suggest that 3.9 percent of the U.S. male population have sex with men [Purcell et al. 2012, 98], and overall, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1.6 percent of Americans claim to be gay or lesbian, while 0.7 percent claim to be bisexual. [Ward et al. 2014, 1].)

Go to:

## C.S. Ford and Frank A. Beach

Another source that was put forth as scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a mental disorder is a study by C.S. Ford and Frank A. Beach. The APA wrote:

The quotation is in reference to a book titled *Patterns of Sexual Behavior*. It was written in 1951, and it suggested that homosexual activity was accepted in 49 out of 76 cultures after looking at anthropological data (Gentile and Miller 2009, 576). Ford and Beach also “point out that among non-human primates both males and females engage in homosexual activity” (Gentile and Miller 2009).

Thus, the APA authors suggest that because two researchers in 1951 found that homosexual sex is observed in some humans and animals then the conclusion follows that there is “nothing unnatural about it.” (The phrase “nothing unnatural” seems to connote the activity being normal.) The argument is simplified in the following manner:

* 1.  Any action or behavior present in a wide range of animal species and human cultures suggests that the behavior or action is not unnatural;
* 2.  Same-sex behaviors and homosexuality are present in a wide range of animal species and human cultures;
* 3.  Therefore, there is nothing unnatural about same-sex behaviors or homosexual sexual orientation.

Here again we have “antiquated data” (a study from 1951) with an absurd conclusion. The observation of a behavior in both non-human and human animals is not a sufficient condition to determine that there is “nothing unnatural” about that behavior (unless the APA re-defines the word “natural” to accommodate that statement). In other words, there are many behaviors or actions that non-human animals and human animals both perform, but this does not always result in the conclusion that “there is nothing unnatural” about those behaviors.

For example, cannibalism has been shown to be widespread in human cultures and non-human animals (Petrinovich 2000, 92).2 Applying the behavior of cannibalism to the logic used by the APA would result in the following argument:

* 1.  Any action or behavior present in a wide range of animal species and human cultures suggests that the behavior or action is not unnatural;
* 2.  The behavior of humans eating humans and other animals eating their own species is present in a wide range of animal species and human cultures;
* 3.  Therefore, there is nothing unnatural about humans eating other human beings.

Yet, there is something “unnatural” about human beings eating other human beings. We can arrive at that conclusion through common sense (without being an anthropologist, sociologist, psychologist, or biologist). Thus, the APA's use of Ford and Beach's faulty conclusion as “evidence” that homosexuality is not a mental disorder is both antiquated and deficient. Once again, the literature does not support their conclusion, and the conclusion itself is absurd; their argument is not a scientific argument. (The discussion could also be used to illustrate Kinsey's and the APA's absurd logic: on one end of the “normal continuum of food orientation” would be veganism while on the other end would be eating humans.)

Go to:

## Evelyn Hooker and Others on “Adjustment”

The APA task force continues with its claims that homosexuality is not a mental disorder by writing:

The Amici Curiae Brief for the APA and the American Psychiatric Association cites Hooker's study as well, citing it as a rigorous examination:

So, in 1957 Evelyn Hooker compared men who claimed to be homosexual with men who claimed to be heterosexual. She tested the men by using three different psychological tests known as “the Thematic Apperception Test,” “the Make-a-Picture-Story test,” and “the “Rorschach test.” She concluded that “homosexuality as a clinical entity does not exist” (Brief of Amici Curiae 2003, 11). A thorough analysis and criticism of Hooker's study is beyond the scope of this paper, but a few points should be made.

The most important aspect of a research study is the endpoints measured in the study and whether those measurements support the stated conclusion. Another important aspect of a study is whether measurements are properly defined. In Hooker's study, the endpoint measured was the “adjustment” of homosexuals and heterosexuals, and Hooker claimed that the adjustment measured for homosexuals and heterosexuals was similar; she does not, however, outright define that term “adjustment.” For now, the reader should keep the term “adjustment” in mind, and I will return to it in a moment. It should be noted that since the publication of Hooker's study, other papers have exposed methodological errors in Hooker's study. My focus for this paper is the irrelevant endpoint—“adjustment”—used by Hooker as scientific evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is normal; I focus on that endpoint because as of 2014 “adjustment” is still the endpoint cited by the major associations as scientific evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is a “normal variation of human sexual orientation.” (Two papers explaining the methodological errors in Hooker's study are Schumm (2012) and Cameron and Cameron (2012) cited at length in the references section.)

Following the citation of Evelyn Hooker's study as scientific evidence, the APA Task Force authors state:

That last line which I emphasized is extremely important; the “newly developed measures” compared the “adaptation” and ability to function in society in homosexuals and heterosexuals and used the comparison to support the conclusion that homosexuality is not a disorder. It should be noted here that “adaptation” has been used interchangeably with “adjustment” (Jahoda 1958, 60–63; Seaton 2009, 796–99). Hence, the APA again implies that because homosexual men and women were “essentially similar” to men and women in adjustment and social functioning, it necessarily follows that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. That was the same argument proposed by Evelyn Hooker; she supported her conclusion that homosexuality is not a pathology with data showing that homosexuals and heterosexuals were similar in “adjustment.”

A review by John C. Gonsiorek is also cited by the APA and the American Psychiatric Association as evidence that homosexuality is not a disorder (Glassgold et al. 2009, 23; Brief of Amici Curiae 2003, 11). The review is titled “The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Illness Model of Homosexuality.” In the article, Gonsiorek makes multiple claims that are similar to Evelyn Hooker's. He wrote that

Gonsiorek accuses others of using “bad science” to support the claim that homosexuality is a disorder. Furthermore, Gonsiorek suggests that “The only relevant issue is whether any well-adjusted homosexuals exist at all” (Gonsiorek 1991, 119–20) and

Hence, Gonsiorek's paper used “adjustment” as the endpoint measured. Again, the scientific evidence referred to in the claim that “homosexuality is normal and is supported by scientific evidence as a normal behavior” measured the “adjustment” of homosexuals. Gonsiorek implies that if sexual orientation is “related” to psychological adjustment, then one could consider homosexually inclined people to be mentally disordered; if, however, there is no difference in adjustment measurements of heterosexuals and homosexuals, then (according to Gonsiorek) homosexuality is not a mental disorder. His argument is almost identical to Evelyn Hooker's argument, which was the following:

* 1.  There are no measurable differences in psychological adjustment between homosexually inclined people and heterosexuals;
* 2.  Therefore, homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

The Brief of Amici Curiae in *Lawrence v. Texas* filed by the APA and the American Psychiatric Association also cites Gonsiorek's review as scientific evidence which supports the claim that “homosexuality is not related to psychopathology or social maladjustment” (Brief of Amici Curiae 2003, 11). The brief then offers a few more citations of scientific evidence supporting that claim; one article cited is a review study from 1978 which also looked at “adjustment” and “concludes that findings to date have not demonstrated that the homosexual individual is any less psychologically adjusted than his heterosexual counterpart” (Hart et al. 1978, 604). The American Psychiatric Association and the APA also cited Gonsiorek's and Hooker's papers as scientific evidence in their brief for the recent U.S. Supreme Court Case *United States v. Windsor* (Brief of Amici Curiae 2013, 8). Hence, once again, “adjustment” measures were used to support the claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. We must, then, inquire into what exactly is meant by “adjustment,” since it is the major foundation for much of the “evidence” supporting the claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

Go to:

## “Adjustment” in Psychology

Previously I noted that “adjustment” is a term that has been used interchangeably with “adaptation.” Marie Jahoda wrote in 1958 (a year after the publication of Evelyn Hooker's study) that

Both Hooker's study and Gonsiorek's review are prime examples of ambiguous use of the term “adjustment”; neither author outright defines the term, but Gonsiorek hints at what he means by the term when he cites multiple studies published between the years 1960 and 1975 (which are difficult to obtain due to being outdated):

So, according to Gonsiorek, at least one indicator of one's adjustment is “self-acceptance.” Lester D. Crow, in a book published during the same time period as those studies reviewed by Gonsiorek, notes that

A more recent source, *The Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology*, notes that

Both the excerpt from 1967 and the more recent excerpt in the encyclopedia match endpoints in studies mentioned by Gonsiorek. He cites multiple studies that

Evidently, then, a person's “adjustment” is determined (at least in part) by measuring depression, self-esteem, “relationship discord,” “sexual discord,” distress, and anxiety. Presumably then, a person who is not depressed or distressed, has high or normal self-esteem, can maintain relationships, and does not show signs of “sexual discord” would be considered to be “adjusted” or “well-adjusted.” Gonsiorek claims that because homosexuals are similar to heterosexuals in measures of depression, self-esteem, relationship discord, and sexual discord, it automatically follows that homosexuality is not a disorder, as he notes: “The general conclusion is clear: These studies overwhelmingly suggest that homosexuality per se is not related to psychopathology or psychological adjustment” (Gonsiorek 1991, 115–36). Here is a simplified version of Gonsiorek's argument:

* 1.  There are no measurable differences in depression, self-esteem, relationship discord, or sexual discord between homosexually inclined people and heterosexuals;
* 2.  Therefore, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder.

Like Evelyn Hooker's conclusion, Gonsiorek's conclusion does not necessarily follow from the data that he believes supports it. One could likely discover many mental disorders that do not lead a person to become depressed or distressed or have low self-esteem; in other words, “adjustment” is not a proper endpoint to determine the psychological normalcy of every thought process and the behaviors associated with those thought processes. Depression, self-esteem, “relationship discord,” “sexual discord,” distress, and one's ability to function in society are not relevant to every mental disorder; that is, not all psychological disorders result in “maladjustment.” This idea is mentioned in *The Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology*. It notes that measuring self-esteem and happiness to determine one's adjustment is problematic.

Those are subjective measurements, the author notes,

Some examples are necessary here to prove the point. Pedophiles can report not being distressed with their “intense sexual interest” in children, and they report being able to function in society; both distress and social functioning have been included under the umbrella terms “adjustment” and “adaptation.” The American Psychiatric Association wrote that:

Also, people who cut themselves (“self-injurers” or “self-mutilators”) are able to function in society; it was noted previously that the behavior occurs in “high-functioning populations such as secondary school students, college students, and active-duty military personnel.” (Klonsky 2007, 1040) Those who self-injure to cause pleasure, then, are able to function in society, just like those adults with an “intense sexual interest” in children are able to function in society and not be distressed. Some anorexics may “remain active in social and professional functioning” (American Psychiatric Association 2013, 343) and the persistent eating of nonnutritive, nonfood substances (like plastic) “is rarely the sole cause of impairment in social functioning”; there is no mention of depression, low self-esteem, or sexual or relationship discord as a requirement to diagnose the mental disorder in which individuals eat nonnutritive, nonfood substances to cause pleasure (known as “pica”) (American Psychiatric Association 2013, 330–1).

The American Psychiatric Association also mentions that Tourette's disorder (one of the “tic disorders,” a type of mental disorder) can occur without distress or functional consequences (and therefore without any relation to measures of “adjustment”). They wrote that “Many individuals with mild to moderate tic severity experience no distress or impairment in functioning and may even be unaware of their tics” (American Psychiatric Association 2013, 84). Tic disorders are disorders that are experienced as involuntary (American Psychiatric Association 2013, 82) (that is, the patient will express they do not choose to have their rapid, recurrent, nonrhythmic motor movement or vocalization; others could likely even claim they were “born that way”). DSM-5 does not require distress or social impairment for one to be diagnosed with Tourette's disorder, and hence, it is yet another example of a mental disorder in which “adjustment” measures are irrelevant; it is a disorder in which one could not use measures of adjustment as scientific evidence to claim Tourette's disorder is or is not a mental disorder.

A final mental disorder unrelated to “adjustment” is delusional disorder.

Individuals with delusional disorder have false beliefs that are

The American Psychiatric Association notes that “apart from the impact of the delusion(s) or its ramifications, functioning is not markedly impaired, and behavior is not obviously bizarre or odd” (American Psychiatric Association 2013, 90). Furthermore, “A common characteristic of individuals with delusional disorder is the apparent normality of their behavior and appearance when their delusional ideas are not being discussed or acted on” (American Psychiatric Association 2013, 93). Those individuals with delusional disorder, it appears, do not show signs of “maladjustment”; besides their delusional ideation, they appear to be normal. Hence, delusional disorder is a prime example of a mental disorder which is unrelated to “adjustment” measures; “adjustment” is irrelevant to delusional disorder. One could say that homosexuals, though their behavior is mentally disordered, “appear to be normal” in other aspects of their lives—aspects like social functioning and areas that would indicate maladjustment. Hence, there are multiple mental disorders in which measuring adjustment has no relevance whatsoever to the mental disorder; this is a major deficiency in the literature used as scientific evidence to support the conclusion that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

This is a significant finding, although I am not the first to mention the problem with diagnosing mental disorders by looking at distress, social functioning, or other endpoints that are included under the terms “adjustment” and “adaptation.” The topic was discussed by Robert L. Spitzer and Jerome C. Wakefield in their article addressing the diagnosis of mental disorders based on clinically significant distress or impairment in social functioning (the article was written as a criticism of an older version of the *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual*, but the criticism is applicable to this discussion).

They noted that some mental conditions are mis-labeled due to

An additional disease that can be diagnosed without distress or role functioning failure that should be mentioned here is HIV/AIDS; HIV has a long latent period, and many people will not even be aware of being HIV positive. It has been estimated that 240,000 people are not aware that they have HIV (CDC 2014).

Spitzer and Wakefield imply that in many cases a disorder may be present even if an individual is functioning well in society or if the individual scores well on measurements of “adjustment.” In some situations, appealing to measurements of distress and impairment in social functioning leads to “false negatives,” which are instances in which an individual's mental condition is disordered but is not labeled as disordered (Spitzer and Wakefield 1999, 1856). Spitzer and Wakefield give multiple examples of mental conditions that can be mis-diagnosed as false negatives if social functioning or distress (which they call the “clinical significance criterion,” referring to clinically significant distress) are used as diagnosing criteria. They wrote that

Spitzer and Wakefield give other examples of mental disorders that would not be diagnosed if one looks only at clinically significant distress and social functioning; among those are some of the paraphilias, Tourette's disorder, and sexual dysfunction (Spitzer and Wakefield 1999, 1860–1).

Others have expanded on Spitzer's and Wakefield's discussion by noting that the definition of mental disorder that relies on adjustment (“distress or impairment in functioning”) is circular:

Again, the quotation is in regard to DSM-IV, but the lack of “distress or impairment in social functioning” criterion is still being used to claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Furthermore, as the quotation rightly acknowledges, a definition of mental disorder that relies on “distress or impairment in social functioning” as a criteria is circular. Circular definitions are failures in reasoning, and they are meaningless. The definition of “mental disorder” on which the American Psychiatric Association and the APA base their homosexuality-is-normal claim relies on the “distress or social impairment criterion.” So, the homosexuality-is-not-a-mental-disorder claim is based on a meaningless (and outdated) definition.

Dr. Irving Bieber, “one of the key participants in the historic debate which culminated in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual” (NARTH Institute n.d.) recognized the same error in reasoning (The same thesis was addressed by Socarides (1995, 165); cited below). He identified the same problem with the American Psychiatric Association's criteria for sexual disorders. A summary of Bieber's article notes that

**Guys click this**

[1]

Robert L. Spitzer, a psychiatrist involved with removing the disordered label from homosexuality, quickly recognized the irrelevance of “adjustment” in diagnosing psychiatric disorders. Ronald Bayer summarized the events surrounding the American Psychiatric Association's (1973) decision by noting that Spitzer's

Yet, as Bayer notes, “within a year even he [Spitzer] was to recognize” the inadequacy of the conceptual basis of his own conclusion (Bayer 1981, 133). In other words, Spitzer recognized the irrelevance of “distress,” “social functioning,” or “adjustment” in regards to the definition of mental disorder, as his paper cited previously (Spitzer and Wakefield 1999) acknowledged at length.

It is evident, then, that at least some official DSM mental disorders and other non-official DSM-5 mental disorders do not result in problems with “adjustment” or social functioning. Those who cut themselves with razor blades for pleasure and those who have an intense sexual interest in and fantasize sexually about children are clearly not mentally normal; anorexics and those who persistently eat plastic are officially considered to be mentally disordered by DSM-5, and those with delusional disorder are also officially considered to have a mental disorder. Yet, many of those appear normal and “experience no distress or impairment in functioning.” In other words, many people who are not mentally normal can function in society and do not show signs or symptoms of “mal-adjustment.” Some mental disorders seem to have a latent period or “waxing and waning” periods marked by the ability to function in society and apparent normality.

Homosexually inclined people, those with delusional disorder, pedophiles, self-injurers, plastic eaters, and anorexics can all function in society (again, at least for a certain time period) and may not always show signs of “maladjustment.” Psychological adjustment, then, is irrelevant to some mental disorders; that is, research studies that look at measures of “adjustment” as an endpoint are inadequate to determine the normalcy of psychological thought processes and their associated behaviors. Hence, *the (outdated) studies that used psychological adjustment as their endpoints are deficient; they are not sufficient to prove that homosexuality is not a mental disorder*. It follows, then, that the APA's and the American Psychiatric Association's claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder is not supported by the evidence they cite. The evidence they cite is irrelevant to their conclusion. It is an absurd conclusion arrived at from an irrelevant premise. (In addition to the conclusion not following from the premise, Gonsiorek's claim that there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals in measures of depression and self-esteem also happens to be false in itself. Homosexually inclined people have been shown to be at higher risk of major depression, anxiety, and suicidality than heterosexuals (Bailey 1999; Collingwood 2013; Fergusson et al. 1999; Herrell et al. 1999; Phelan et al. 2009; Sandfort et al. 2001); those statistics are often used to conclude that discrimination harms homosexuals, but it is another conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the premise. Common sense informs the inquirer that depression, anxiety, and other negative emotional effects may result in conflict any time someone is told that their behavior or habit is abnormal or unhealthy. In other words, one cannot necessarily conclude that the depression etc. results from stigma. That has to be scientifically demonstrated. It may be that both are true: the depression, etc. are pathological and individuals who are homosexual are not seen as normal, which in turn adds to the individual's distress.)

Go to:

## “Adjustment” and Sexual Disorders

Here I will need to go on a bit of a tangent and discuss the implications of looking only at “adjustment” measures and social functioning to determine whether sexual behaviors and their associated thought processes are mentally disordered. Basically, looking at adjustment measurements is both arbitrary and irrelevant to all psychosexual disorders. One should ask, why do the APA and American Psychiatric Association solely look at “adjustment” and social functioning measures in some mental disorders but not in others? For instance, why do they not look at other aspects of the paraphilias (sexual perversions) that clearly indicate their mental disorder liness? Why is a person who stimulates himself and masturbates to the point of orgasm while fantasizing about causing psychological or physical suffering in another person (a sexual sadist) not mentally disordered, yet those with delusional disorder are considered mentally disordered? There are individuals who believe that there is an infestation of insects on or in the skin, when the evidence clearly shows they are not infested with insects; those individuals are diagnosed with delusional disorder. On the other hand, there are men who believe that they are actually women, there is evidence that clearly indicates the contrary, and yet those men are not diagnosed with delusional disorder.

Individuals with other sexual disorders have shown similar measurements of adjustment as homosexuals. Exhibitionists, also known as “exposers,” are those individuals who have intense urges to expose their genitals to unsuspecting people in order to sexually arouse the exposer (the sexual arousal they seek is personal, that is, in themselves, not necessarily in the unsuspecting person) (American Psychiatric Association 2013, 689). One source notes that

The finding that those with “deviant” sexual attractions can function in society is also observed in homosexual and heterosexual sadomasochists. Sexual sadism, as I mentioned previously, is “intense sexual arousal from the physical or psychological suffering of another person, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors” (American Psychiatric Association 2013, 695); sexual masochism is “recurrent and intense sexual arousal from the act of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer, as manifested by fantasies, urges or behaviors” (American Psychiatric Association 2013, 694). Sadomasochists in Finland were studied and were noted to be “socially well-adjusted” (Sandnabba et al. 1999, 273); the authors noted that 61.0 percent of sadomasochists studied “had leading positions at work, while 60.6 percent had [sic] different forms of service in the community, such as being a member of the local school board” (Sandnabba et al. 1999, 275). So, both sadomasochists and exposers apparently do not necessarily exhibit problems with social functioning or distress (again, terms which have been included under the umbrella term “adjustment”).

Some have noted that the “defining features” of all of the sexual perversions or sexual deviances (also known as the paraphilias) “may be limited to the individual's sexual behavior and causes minimal impairment in other areas of functioning” (Adams et al. 2004). Furthermore, they suggest that

Hence, they propose that the only sexual behavior that is “universally deemed dysfunctional” (and therefore universally considered to be a mental disorder) is sexual homicide. The conclusion is arrived at by implying that any sexual behavior and associated thought processes that do not cause impairment in social functioning or measures of “adjustment” is not a sexual disorder. As I have explained up to this point, that premise is an error, and it leads to an erroneous conclusion. What is evident is not that all sexual deviances are normal, but rather that those in psychiatry and psychology have misled society by citing irrelevant measurements as evidence that a condition is normal. (I am not claiming they intentionally misled. Honest errors may have been made.)

The catastrophic consequences of solely looking at irrelevant endpoints (“adjustment” and social functioning) when attempting to determine whether a sexual desire is mentally disordered or normal is further observed by appealing to DSM-5’s discussions on sexual sadism and pedophilia. The American Psychiatric Association no longer considers sexually sadistic behavior itself as mentally disordered. The American Psychiatric Association writes:

Hence, the American Psychiatric Association does not consider the “sexual attractions for physical or psychological suffering” of another person to be a mental disorder in itself; *that is, sexual attractions and fantasies occur in the form of thoughts, and the thoughts of a person who thinks about physically and psychologically abusing another person to stimulate themselves to orgasm are not considered to be mentally disordered by the American Psychiatric Association*.

It should be noted that the American Psychiatric Association does not consider pedophilia in itself as a mental disorder either. After discussing the ways that a pedophile could disclose “intense sexual interest in children,” they write:

Again, sexual fantasies and “intense sexual attractions” occur in the form of thought, so a 54-year-old man who has “an intense sexual interest” in children thinks repetitively about children in order to stimulate himself to orgasm. That person's thoughts, according to the American Psychiatric Association, are not disordered. Irving Bieber made this same observation in the 1980s, as is noted in a summary of his work:

It is alarming that a sadistic or pedophilic fantasy could be considered *not* to meet the criteria for a mental disorder. Michael Woodworth et al. note that

Sexual fantasies are images or thoughts in the mind, they result in “arousal,” and it is not a stretch to say that those fantasies are used to stimulate orgasm during masturbation. The content of sexual fantasies depends on what individuals see, hear, and directly experience. So, it is also not a stretch to claim that a pedophile with young neighbor children has sexual fantasies of those neighbors; it is also not a stretch to claim that a sexual sadist fantasizes about causing psychological or physical suffering in his or her neighbor. Yet, if the sexual sadist or the pedophile do not experience distress or impairment of social functioning (again, those terms are included under the umbrella term “adjustment”) or if they do not harm another person, then they are not considered to be mentally disordered. The sexual *images or thoughts* about a 10-year-old in the mind of the 54-year-old pedophile or the images or thoughts of a sexual sadist fantasizing about causing psychological or physical suffering in his neighbor are not disordered unless they cause distress, impairment in social functioning, or harm of another person.

That is arbitrary, and it is an absurd conclusion arrived at from the erroneous premise that any thought process that does not cause maladjustment is not a mental disorder.

One will see that the APA and the American Psychiatric Association have dug themselves a deep hole with their assessment of sexual disorders. It seems that they have already normalized sexual deviances as long as there is “consent” of those individuals involved in the actions. In order to be consistent with their logic used to normalize homosexuality, they must normalize all other sexual actions that stimulate one to the point of orgasm that do not cause bad measurements of “adjustment” or result in impaired social functioning; it is true that they also allow a diagnosis of a sexual disorder if a deviance causes “harm” to another, but that is only if there is lack of consent. Sadomasochism is basically stimulating oneself or another to orgasm by harming someone or by being harmed by someone, and as I discussed previously, this is considered to be normal by the American Psychiatric Association.

Some might call this paper a “slippery slope” argument, but that is an incorrect assessment of what I have proposed; the American Psychiatric Association has already normalized all orgasm-stimulating behaviors except those that cause “adjustment” problems (distress, etc.), problems in social functioning, or harm or risk of harm to another person. The last part—“harm or risk of harm”—needs an asterisk because there are exceptions to that criterion; if there is consent, then an orgasm-stimulating behavior that results in harm is permitted, which is evident in the normalization of sadomasochism (This explains why there is a push by pedophiles to claim that young children are able to consent to pedophilia (LaBarbera 2011); they do not want to be considered to be mentally disordered either.). Hence, an accusation that this paper proposes a slippery-slope argument would be off-base; those mental disorders have already been normalized by the American Psychiatric Association. It should be alarming that the authority on mental illness has normalized any orgasm-causing behavior to which one consents; that normalization is a result of the erroneous premise that “any orgasm-stimulating behavior and its associated mental processes that does not result in problems with adjustment or social functioning is not a mental disorder.” That is deficient reasoning.

While another paper would be required to thoroughly explain criteria for determining what constitutes a mental and sexual disorder, I will attempt to propose briefly some criteria. It has been shown, up to this point, that mainstream psychology and psychiatry have arbitrarily determined that any and every sexual behavior (except sexual homicide) is not a mental disorder. I have already alluded to the concept that many mental disorders involve physically disordered uses of the body—xenomalia, self-mutilation, pica, and anorexia nervosa. Other mental disorders could be mentioned here as well.

Physical disorders are often diagnosed by measuring the functioning of bodily organs or systems. A physician or other practitioner would be negligent or ignorant to claim that there is no such thing as proper functioning of the heart, lungs, eyes, ears, or other organ systems of the body. Physical disorders are somewhat easier to diagnose than mental disorders because of available objective measurements such as blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate that can be used to determine the health or disorder of certain organs and organ systems. So, in the field of medicine, a foundational principle is that there are proper functions of bodily organs. That foundational principle has to be acknowledged by practitioners, otherwise they have nothing upon which to base their claims (they would be reduced to Alfred Kinsey-like medicine—every organ of the body would simply have a normal continuum of functioning).

An (arbitrary) exception to the foundational principle of medicine is in regards to the orgasm-causing organs; many have arbitrarily, it seems, ignored the reality that the sex organs also have proper physical functioning.

The mental orderliness of a sexual behavior could be (at least in part) determined from the physical orderliness of the sexual behavior. So, in regard to men who have sex with men, *the physical trauma caused by penile-anal intercourse is a physical disorder; penile-anal intercourse almost always results in a physically disordered state in the anorectal area (and possibly the penile area of the inserter as well)*:

It seems that the information in the previous paragraph is established as a solid scientific fact; it seems that a researcher, practitioner, psychiatrist, or psychologist would have to be ignorant or negligent to deny that fact.

So, one sign or indicator of whether a sexual behavior is normal or disordered could be whether or not it physically harms one or both people. It seems to be clear that penile-anal intercourse is physically disordered and it causes physical harm as well. Since many men who have sex with men desire to perform those physically disordered actions, it seems to follow that the desire to engage in such actions is disordered. Since desires occur at the “mental” or “thought” level, it follows that such male homosexual desires are mentally disordered.

Furthermore, the body has within it various types of fluids. Those fluids are “physical,” and they have proper physical functions (again, that is simply a reality of medicine or health—the fluids in the human body have proper functions). Saliva, plasma, interstitial fluids, and tears all have proper functions. For example, one proper function of plasma is to transport blood cells and nutrients to other parts of the body.

Semen is a male bodily fluid, and hence (unless one arbitrarily applies one's own rules to the field of medicine) semen has a proper physical function (or multiple proper functions) as well. Semen typically has within it many cells, known as spermatozoa, and those cells have a proper location to be transported to—the cervical area of the woman. A physically ordered sexual act of a male, then, would be one in which the semen physically functions properly. Hence, another criteria for a normal or “ordered” sexual behavior is one in which the semen functions properly by delivering spermatozoa to the female's cervical area. (Some might counter that some men experience azoospermia/aspermia, or lack of measurable sperm in semen; they might conclude, then, that the healthy or proper function of semen is not delivering spermatozoa to the cervical area of the woman, or they might suggest that, according to my argument, aspermic individuals can place their ejaculate wherever they wish. Azoospermia/aspermia is an exception to the norm and a result of either “profound impairment of sperm formation (spermatogenesis) due to damage to the testes … or—more commonly—to obstruction of the genital tract (e.g., resulting from vasectomy, gonorrhoea, or *Chlamydia* infection)” (Martin 2010, 68, s.v. azoospermia). Healthy males produce spermatozoa, whereas medical impairments may result in no measurable spermatozoa in semen. If there are objective normal functions of body parts, then the malfunctioning or absence of one body part does not necessarily result in normal change in function of another body part. Such a claim would be similar to claiming that healthy or normal plasma does not function to deliver red blood cells to the body because some people are anemic.)

It is also very evident that the body has a “pleasure and pain” system (which could also possibly be called “reward and punishment system”). That pleasure-and-pain system, like all other body systems, has a proper function; its basic function is to act as a signal sender to the body. The pleasure-and-pain system communicates to the body what is “good” verses what is “bad” for the body. The pleasure-and-pain system, in a way, regulates human behavior; eating, excreting urinary and fecal waste, and sleeping are common human behaviors which involve a degree or type of pleasure as a motivator or reinforcer. Pain, on the other hand, is either an indicator of a physically bad human behavior or a disordered bodily organ; the pain associated with touching a hot stove should steer one away from that behavior, while painful urination often indicates a problem with a bodily organ.

A person with “congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis (CIPA)” cannot feel pain, and hence, it is said that the pain system (using broad, non-medical terms) is disordered. It does not send the proper signals to the mind to assist in one's bodily actions. The pleasure system can also be disordered, and this is observed in individuals with “ageusia” who cannot taste food.

Now, orgasm is a special type of pleasure. It has been compared to the drug-like high experienced by those who use opiates like heroine (Pfaus 2009, 1517). Orgasm, though, occurs normally in human beings who have properly functioning sex organs. Some (apparently including the American Psychiatric Association) have taken the stance that orgasm is a type of pleasure that is good in and of itself regardless of the circumstances surrounding the orgasm. Again, another paper is needed to show the flaws in that argument, but basically, if those in the field of medicine are to be consistent (and non-arbitrary), it seems that they would have to acknowledge that the pleasure associated with orgasm serves as a signal or a communication to the body that something good occurred (it also would have to be argued that orgasm occur in marriage, which again, requires another paper). That “something good” associated with orgasm is the stimulation of the penis to the point of releasing the semen near the cervix. Any other type of orgasmic stimulation (like any type of masturbation—whether it is self-stimulation, same-sex, or opposite-sex masturbation) would be an abuse of the pleasure system.

The abuse of the pleasure system that occurs during masturbation (and in all same-sex orgasm-stimulating actions) can be better understood by referring to other bodily pleasures. If one could press a button that caused the “full” or “satiety” feeling associated with eating, one would be abusing the pleasure system; the pleasure system would be sending a “false-reading” or an incorrect signal to the rest of the body. The pleasure system would be “lying” to the body in a sense. If the body felt the pleasure associated with a full-night's rest but had not actually rested at all, or the pleasure of urination or defecation without actually urinating or defecating, eventually the body would suffer significant ill-health.

Thus, another criterion for determining whether a sexual behavior is normal or disordered is whether the sexual behavior causes a malfunctioning of the pleasure or pain systems in the body.

Finally, it should go without saying that consent (and therefore appropriate age-of-consent) is a criterion that should be involved with determining healthy versus mentally disordered “sexual orientations.”

Go to:

## Conclusion

The American Psychiatric Association and the APA provide the aforementioned studies as the scientific evidence that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation. The APA noted that homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities. Further, the APA urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations (Glassgold et al. 2009, 23–24).

The Amici Curiae Brief reiterates the same claim, and it supports the claim by citing the aforementioned literature which looked at “adjustment” and social functioning (Brief of Amici Curiae 2003, 11). As has been shown, though, adjustment and social functioning are irrelevant to determining whether the sexual deviations are mental disorders. As a result, the scientific studies that only looked at measures of adjustment and social functioning draw erroneous conclusions and result in “false negatives” as Spitzer, Wakefield, Bieber, and others have noted. Unfortunately, fatally flawed reasoning has served as the basis for “rigorous” and “scientific evidence” supporting the claim that homosexuality is not a mental disorder but is rather a normal variant of human sexual orientation.

One cannot conclude (with Alfred Kinsey) that a human behavior is normal simply because it is more common than previously assumed—otherwise all human behaviors, including serial killing, would have to be considered normal. One cannot conclude (with C.S. Ford and Frank A. Beach) that there is “nothing unnatural” about a behavior simply because it is observed in both humans and animals—otherwise cannibalism would have to be considered to be natural. Most importantly, One cannot conclude (with Evelyn Hooker, John C. Gonsiorek, the APA, the American Psychiatric Association, and others) that a mental condition is not disordered because it does not result in “maladjustment,” distress, or impairment in social functioning—otherwise, many mental disorders would have to be labeled erroneously as normal. The conclusions arrived at in the cited literature are not supported by the premises proposed to be scientific fact; the faulty works cannot be considered credible sources.

It is always best to give others “the benefit of the doubt.” Maybe the APA and the American Psychiatric Association accidentally made catastrophic logical mistakes in the literature they cite as evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality (and other sexual deviances) is not a mental disorder; that scenario is quite possible. Still, one should not be naïve and ignore the potential for powerful organizations to perform advocacy science. There are major inconsistencies in logic as well as arbitrary applications of certain principles by those upheld as “authoritative” in identifying and diagnosing mental disorders. The present summary and analysis in this paper of the literature put forth as “rigorous” and “significant” empirical evidence uncovers major deficiencies—irrelevant, outdated, and absurd literature—and calls into question the credibility of the APA and the American Psychiatric Association's discussion and identification of sexual disorders. Indeed, suspect anecdotes and antiquated data have been used in the debates surrounding homosexuality, but the evidence shows that even the authoritative sources on mental disorders are guilty of those charges.

Go to:

## Biographical Note

Robert L. Kinney III holds a doctorate in pharmacy from Purdue University and an M.A. in philosophy with a concentration in bioethics from Franciscan University of Steubenville.

Go to:

## Notes

1The *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual*, 5th edition, does not consider body identity integrity disorder to be a disorder; the DSM-5 writes: “Body identity integrity disorder (apotemnophilia) (which is not a DSM-5 disorder) involves a desire to have a limb amputated to correct an experience of mismatch between a person's sense of body identity and his or her actual anatomy.” See American Psychiatric Association (2014b, 246-7).

2Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

Go to:

## References

* Adams Henry E., McAnulty Richard D., Dillon Joel. 2004. Sexual deviation: Paraphilias. In '**Comprehensive handbook of psychopathology'**, ed. Henry E. Adams and Patricia B. Sutker Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media; http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sprhp/sexual\_deviation\_paraphilias/0. [Google Scholar]
* American Psychiatric Association. 2013. '**Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders'**. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. [Google Scholar]
* American Psychiatric Association. 2014a. About APA & psychiatry. http://www.psychiatry.org/about-apa-psychiatry.
* American Psychiatric Association. 2014b. Frequently asked questions. http://www.dsm5.org/about/pages/faq.aspx.
* American Psychological Association. 2014. About APA. https://www.apa.org/about/index.aspx.
* Bailey J. Michael. 1999. Homosexuality and mental illness. '**Archives of General Psychiatry'** 56: 883–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
* Blom Rianne M., Hennekam Raoul C., Denys Damiaan. 2012. Body integrity identity disorder. '**PLoS One'** 7: e34702. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
* Brief of Amici Curiae for American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and Texas Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers in Support of petitioners 2003. *Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558.
* Brief of Amici Curiae for the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, et al. 2013. *United States v. Windsor*, 570 U.S.
* Bayer Ronald. 1981. '**Homosexuality and American psychiatry: The politics of diagnosis'**. New York: Basic Books, Inc. [Google Scholar]
* Browder Sue Ellin. 2004. Kinsey's secret: The phony science of the sexual revolution. CatholicCulture.org. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6036.
* Brugger Peter, Lenggenhager Bigna, Giummarra Melita J.. 2013. Xenomelia: A social neuroscience view of altered bodily self-consciousness. '**Frontiers in Psychology'** 4: 204. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
* Cameron Paul, Cameron Kirk. 2012. Re-examining Evelyn Hooker: Setting the record straight with comments on Schumm's (2012) reanalysis. '**Marriage and Family Review'** 48: 491–523. [Google Scholar]
* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2014. Expanded testing initiative. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/eti.html.
* Collingwood Jane. 2013. Higher risk of mental health problems for homosexuals. Psychcentral.com. http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-for-homosexuals/0006527.
* Crow Lester D. 1967. '**Psychology of human adjustment'**. New York: Alfred A Knopf, Inc. [Google Scholar]
* Fergusson David M., Horwood L. John, Beautrais Annette L.. 1999. Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? '**Archives of General Psychiatry'** 56: 876–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
* Freud Sigmund. 1960. Anonymous (letter to an American mother). In '**The letters of Sigmund Freud'**. ed. Freud E. New York: Basic Books; (Original work published 1935.) [Google Scholar]
* Funk Tim. 2014 Controversial nun cancels May speech in Charlotte diocese. 2014. Charlotte Observer. April 1, http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/01/4810338/controversial-nun-cancels-may.html#.U0bVWKhdV8F .
* Galbraith, Mary Sarah O.P. 2014. A statement from Aquinas College. Aquinas College Press release. April 4, 2014. http://www.aquinascollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/PRESS-RELEASE-Statement-about-Charlotte-Catholic-Assembly-address.pdf.
* Gentile Barbara F., Miller Benjamin O.. 2009. '**Foundations of psychological thought: A history of psychology'**. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
* Glassgold Judith M., Beckstead Lee, Drescher Jack, Greene Beverly, Miller Robin Lin, Worthington Roger L., Anderson Clinton W., APA task force on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. 2009. Report of the task force on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
* Gonsiorek John C. 1991. The empirical basis for the demise of the illness model of homosexuality. In '**Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy'**, eds. Gonsiorek John C., Weinrich James D.. London: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
* Hart M., Roback H., Tittler B., Weitz L., Walston B., McKee E.. 1978. Psychological adjustment of nonpatient homosexuals: Critical review of the research literature. '**Journal of Clinical Psychiatry'** 39:604–8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Psychological+Adjustment+of+Nonpatient+Homosexuals%3A+Critical+Review+of+the+Research+Literature. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
* Herek Gregory. 2012. Facts about homosexuality and mental health. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty\_sites/rainbow/html/facts\_mental\_health.html.
* Herrell Richard, Goldberg Jack, True William R., Ramakrishnan Visvanathan, Lyons Michael, Eisen Seth, Tsuang Ming T.. 1999. Sexual orientation and suicidality: A co-twin control study in adult men. '**Archives of General Psychiatry'** 56: 867–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
* Hilti Leonie Maria, Jurgen Hanggi, Deborah Ann Vitacco, Bernd Kraemer, Antonella Palla, Roger Luechinger, Lutz Jancke, and Peter Brugger 2013. The desire for healthy limb amputation: Structural brain correlates and clinical features of xenomelia. '**Brain'** 136: 319. [Google Scholar]
* Jahoda Marie. 1958. '**Current concepts of positive mental health'**. New York: Basic Books, Inc. [Google Scholar]
* Kinsey Alfred C., Pomeroy Wardell R., Martin Clyde E.. 1948. '**Sexual behavior in the adult male'**. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders, excerpt from American Journal of Public Health. June 2003; 93(6): 894–8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447861/#sec4title. [Google Scholar]
* Klonsky E. David. 2007. Non-suicidal self-injury: An introduction. '**Journal of Clinical Psychology'** 63: 1039–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
* Klonsky E. David, Muehlenkamp Jennifer J.. 2007. Self-injury: A research review for the practitioner. '**Journal of Clinical Psychology'** 63: 1050. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
* LaBarbera Peter. 2011. Firsthand report on B4U-ACT conference for “minor-attracted persons”—Aims at normalizing pedophilia. Americansfortruth.com. http://americansfortruth.com/2011/08/25/firsthand-report-on-b4u-act-conference-for-minor-attracted-persons-aims-at-normalizing-pedophilia/.
* Marshall Gordon. 1998. Advocacy research. A dictionary of sociology. Encyclopedia.com. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-advocacyresearch.html.
* Martin Elizabeth A. 2010. '**Oxford concise medical dictionary'**. 8th ed New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
* Narrow William E., Kuhl Emily A.. 2011. Clinical significance and disorder thresholds in DSM-5: The role of disability and distress. In '**The conceptual evolution of DSM-5'**, eds. Regier Darrel A., Narrow William E., Kuhl Emily A., Kupfer David J.. 2011 Arlington, VA: Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. [Google Scholar]
* NARTH Institute. n.d. The A.P.A. normalization of homosexuality, and the research study of Irving Bieber. http://www.narth.com/#!the-apa---bieber-study/c1sl8.
* Nicolosi Joseph. 2009. Who were the APA “task force” members? http://josephnicolosi.com/who-were-the-apa-task-force-me/.
* Petrinovich Lewis. 2000. '**The cannibal within'**. New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. [Google Scholar]
* Pfaus J.G. 2009. Pathways of sexual desire. '**Journal of Sexual Medicine'** 6: 1506–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
* Phelan James, Whitehead Niel, Sutton Phillip. 2009. What research shows: NARTH's response to the APA claims on homosexuality: A report of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. '**Journal of Human Sexuality'** 1: 53–87. [Google Scholar]
* Purcell David W., Johnson Christopher H., Lansky Amy, Prejean Joseph, Stein Renee, Denning Paul, Gau1 Zaneta, Weinstock Hillard, Su John, Crepaz Nicole. 2012. Estimating the population size of men who have sex with men in the United States to obtain HIV and syphilis rates. '**Open AIDS Journal'** 6: 98–107. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3462414/. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
* Sandfort T.G.M., de Graaf R., Biji R.V., Schnabel P.. 2001. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: Findings from the Netherlands mental health survey and incidence study (NEMESIS). '**Archives of General Psychiatry'** 58: 85–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
* Sandnabba N. Kenneth, Santtila Pekka, Nordling Niklas. 1999. Sexual behavior and social adaptation among sadomasochistically-oriented males. '**The Journal of Sex Research'** 36: 273–82. [Google Scholar]
* Seaton Cherisse L. 2009. Psychological adjustment. In '**The encyclopedia of positive psychology volume II, L–Z'**, ed. Lopez Shane J. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc. [Google Scholar]
* Schumm Walter R. 2012. Re-examining a landmark research study: A teaching editorial. '**Marriage and Family Review'** 8: 465–89. [Google Scholar]
* Sanday Peggy Reeves. 1986. '**Divine hunger: Cannibalism as a cultural system'**. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
* Socarides C. 1995. '**Homosexuality: A freedom too far: A psychoanalyst answers 1000 questions about causes and cure and the impact of the gay rights movement on American society'**. Phoenix: Adam Margrave Books. [Google Scholar]
* Spitzer Robert L., Wakefield Jerome C.. 1999. DSM-IV diagnostic criterion for clinical significance: Does it help solve the false positives problem? '**American Journal of Psychiatry'** 156: 1862. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
* New Oxford American Dictionary, the. 2010 Oxford University Press; Kindle Edition. [Google Scholar]
* Ward Brian W., Dahlhamer James M., Galinsky Adena M., Joestl Sarah. 2014. '**Sexual orientation and health among U.S. adults: National Health and Interview Survey, 2013'**. National Health Statistics Reports, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, N. 77, July 15, 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf. [Google Scholar]
* Whitlow Charles B., Gottesman Lester, Bernstein Mitchell A.. 2011. Sexually transmitted diseases. In '**The ASCRS textbook of colon and rectal surgery'**, 2nd ed., eds. Beck David E., Roberts Patricia L., Saclarides Theodore J., Genagore Anthony J., Stamos Michael J., Vexner Steven D.. New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
* Woodworth Michael, Freimuth Tabatha, Hutton Erin L., Carpenter Tara, Agar Ava D., Logan Matt. 2013. High-risk sexual offenders: An examination of sexual fantasy, sexual paraphilia, psychopathy, and offence characteristics. '**International Journal of Law and Psychiatry'** 36: 144–156. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

magnolia

***Wataru**: “Hmm, so it’s something troubling! Then this can only be about the person you like, Himegimi, right?”*

***Yuzuru**: “…….Who knows? I will exercise my right to remain silent.”*

***Wataru**. “Well, that’s fine.”*

^ i had it like as “im not sure” for doudeshou but i changed it to who knows because i think its obv more like evading the question and being cheeky than yuzuru actually being unsure

magnolia epilogue 1 excerpt:

***Yuzuru**: “I mentioned earlier that I enjoy labor, did I not? If I can also assist Bocchama while working, then I enjoy it even more.”*

*Please, continue to involve me with your struggles. It makes me at ease rather than Bocchama doing something alone.”*

***Tori**: “You aren’t being completely honest, are you~? Well, that’s fine, I’ll grant your wish, and let Yuzuru be involved from now on. I hope that as a servant, you’ll appreciate your master’s graciousness~...!”*

*“...Thank you for always supporting me. You being here really helped me.”*

***Yuzuru**: “Bocchama......? Just now, what did you say?*

*I couldn't hear you properly over the music and the cheers of the crowd, so please, say it again!”*

***Tori**: “Uh-uh! I’m not saying it again~. The interlude is over, you should start singing or else it’ll be bad, won’t it?”*

*(*♪ ♪ ♪*)*

***Yuzuru**: “(Seriously, while smiling like an angel… It’s futile to pursue him further, isn’t it…)*

*(What did you say, Bocchama? ...It's no matter, just seeing your smile is enough.)*

*(How lovely and adorable... It shines brighter than a rainbow over the heavens.)*

*(I'm sure that the path you take from here will be just as glorious.)”*

*(*♪ ♪ ♪*)*

i genuinely have no idea what tori is getting with the honesty thing like. it says litetlaly that “sore ga honne janai no~?” and i would say its tori making fun of yuzuru for being so easy to please but this is said right after tori says he knew yuzuru stayed at school late at night to work the part time jobs so. well. who knows what tori knows

magnolia epilogue 2 excerpt

***Tori**: Yup... And tomorrow It’s right back to special hell training with long-hair once again…...I hope I see Eichi-sama soon.*

***Yuzuru**: Just now, you said “Eichi-sama”, did you not? I thought I told you to stop saying that...?*

***Tori**: I-I understand! I didn’t mean to! I’m really tired and out of it!*

***Yuzuru**: ....Well, I will ignore it for today. Bocchama, if you’re tired, let me make you a cup of tea to wake you up.*

***Tori**: Yes please~. Oh, but don’t make anything that's bitter or smells weird… I want sweet tea, ‘kay?*

***Yuzuru**: Sweet tea doesn’t pair well with sweets.*

***Tori**: Eh? You’re even giving me sweets? What’s the matter, do you have a fever?*

***Yuzuru**: I don’t have a fever… I’m rewarding you for all the hard work you put into your part-time job and our live.*

*I’m going to make the tea, so please wait a little.*

***<10 Minutes later>***

***Yuzuru**: Bocchama, excuse the wait.*

*The tea is made from the leaves the chairman provided, and the cookies are from Anzu-san♪…*

***Tori**: Oh, that’s right… You got these from Anzu. Not much time has passed, but it feels like that happened ages ago.*

*Actually… How is this supposed to be a reward when Anzu was the one who gave me these~? (nomnom) I’m not convinced~… (nomnomnom) ♪*

***Yuzuru**: Bocchama, It is not polite to eat while talking…Furthermore, it is also not polite to eat while laying down.*

***Tori**: Ehhh~... I already told you, I can’t even lift a finger.*

***Yuzuru**: Oya? If you’re incapable of moving, then I presume you can’t eat cookies right now?*

***Tori**: Ugu! You’re getting too cheeky for a slave, kicking me when I’m down, you know?*

***Yuzuru**: I’m not a slave. I am a loyal servant to Bocchama.*

*Hmm, shall I embrace you from behind and have you say “A~hhh” as usual..?*

***Tori**: Hmmmm~... I don’t feel like it today. Because, Yuzuru also did his very best with the event and part time job too, didn’t he?*

*So you can say “A~ah” this time! Well, If I were the one to cuddle you I would be crushed, so I can’t do it from behind.*

***Yuzuru**: Um... While that is a tempting suggestion, I’m terribly afraid I can’t ask you to do something like that.*

***Tori**: I already said I would do it, so you should just be quiet and obey! Unless… you actually hate doing this with me?*

***Yuzuru**: “Hate”? That’s ridiculous. Rather, it makes me happy.*

***Tori**: That’s good then! Come on, open up…~*

***Yuzuru**: W-well… Um, “Aaah...”*

***Tori**: Well? Is it yummy?*

***Yuzuru**: Y-yes.. It’s very tasty.*

***Tori**: Then, I’ll feed you another one, ‘kay~? ...Say “Aa~h”*

***Yuzuru**: Bocchama, no more, please. With all due respect, I really cannot eat another.*

***Tori**: Ahaha, Yuzuru is so flustered~. It’s so rare to see you make that kind of face, I wanna see more…...☆*

***Yuzuru**: Uu. That’s mean, Bocchama… Don’t entertain yourself by embarrassing me.*

***Tori**: Ehehe, sorry, sorry. Well… Here, you can have this, so cheer up.*

***Yuzuru**: Oya……? You hid a paper bag between the cushions… What’s in it?*

***Tori**: You’ll see. Come on, come on, open it~.*

***Yuzuru**: ...Okay. I don’t really understand, but I’ll open it.*

***Yuzuru**: Hmm, It’s a ballpoint pen. What is the meaning of this?*

***Tori**: Yep, It’s a gift. I asked Anzu to let me work part-time at the gift-store for a little bit to earn school funds.*

*I wanted to buy a nicer one, but that’s all I could get with the funds, so, if you don’t like it, sorry.*

***Yuzuru**: Bocchama… I am the happiest person in the world.*

***Tori**: Hey, seriously… Quit crying~! Aren’t your tear ducts a little runny lately?!*

*...Well, in any case, I’m glad you like it.*

***Yuzuru**: Yes.. I’ll cherish it for as long as I’m alive. I’ll leave it at my bedside to take care that it stays pristine.*

***Tori**: No. It’s a pen, so you should use it…. If you don’t, I’m taking it back.*

***Yuzuru**: Please don’t. I don’t want to damage it, but it will be a waste if I don’t use it… I will use it tomorrow.*

***Tori**: ‘Kay. If it doesn’t work out, I’ll just get you a different present. So don’t hesitate to use it.*

***Yuzuru**: Right. Thank you, Bocchama.*

*(How am I supposed to repay you for making me so happy?)*

*(It makes me so happy to serve you, Bocchama. You’ve given me far too much.)*

*(Danna-sama, Bocchama is growing by the day.)*

*(Getting a part-time job, preparing a gift for someone he admires through his hard-earned money...)*

*(Bocchama, who was accustomed to receiving things, not giving.)*

*(Bocchama. Please continue to grow as you are, no, please grow even beyond that.)*

*(To watch after you, it is my life and happiness.)*

*(Please continue to let me watch over you. Forever, at your side...)*

^ another fucking zutto soba de reference and i think ill snap

**FREAK**

ok moving on.

not a fan of the enstars appellation page saying yuzuru only calls tori by name when hes emotional bcs yuzuru tends to do it whenever he wants

merry xmas

noble game

**Y**: Tori……!

**T**: ……! What was that?! Just now, what did you just call me?!

**Y**: Nothing. It’s just your imagination, *Bocchama*🎵

I HAD A FUCKING VIDEO HERE OF YUZURU SAYING TORI IN JINGLE BELLS BUT ITS MISSING FUCK YOU FUCK YOU GOOGLE DOCS DIE GO TO FUCKING HELL ALL OF YOU **\*\*tearing up the drywall and eating the insulation\*\***

**video would be here**

jingle bells

^ So true.

tori is pretty clingy and insecure in general? i get the feeling its a mix of tori having a very sheltered childhood and something to do with yuzuru being sent off to camp when they were kids bcs tori says a bit abt it in shangri la (tled somewhere below in the doc)

gang

toyland

***Yuzuru**: “I am assisting Bocchama until he is of age. In a few years, everything will be in Bocchama’s hands.”*

***Tori**: “...When that happens, Yuzuru will stay by my side, right?”*

***Yuzuru**: “So long as Bocchama needs my assistance, I will be by his side. Please be rest assured.”*

***Tori**: “H-hmph! Then try not to get sick of me, ‘kay?”*

primavera minitalk

*“Am I worrying too much...? I hope It’s just my imagination.”*

*Q: Are you lonely?*

*“.......Only a little bit. I mean, everybody has a secret or two, even people as mysterious as Long Hair.”*

I RAN OUT OF FUCKING ATTACHMENTS ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING STEVE JOBS GO TO HELL ←this is a remnant from when this was written on icloud

robin hood

?? ep link? right??? i think???? yeah this is ep link

toris opinion on yuzuru. where god everyone gets the idea that tori wants him dead i do not know

summer vacation

noble game

shangri la

***Makoto**: “...Himemiya-kun, you really love Fushimi-kun, don’t you?”*

***Tori**: “Duh, isn’t it obvious? We’re family.”*

Whatever the fuck this is about

yuzuru about tori in gang

^ le fucking yuzutori dorm!!!!

yuzurus self exploration via hobbies… you can see in the bg of their dorm that they have plants like. everywhere which is a funny little touch

^ushimari ch3

**T**: Come to think of it, Yuzuru, you’ve been reading a lot lately. What are you even reading?

**Y**: It’s an all-print sort of book. Nothing *Bocchama* would be interested in.

**T**: Hmmm… You have a hobby outside of cleaning? That’s news to me.

Wordy books aren’t my kind of thing, but if you read anything good, tell me about it🎵

**Y**: But of course. 🎵

^ushimari ch8 (this one isn’t tled on the wiki yet)

^tori idol story 2

tori is very encouraging of yuzurus exploration + trying to prove his own self dependence which shouldn’t be confused with him disliking yuzuru or not wanting him around bcs. again he is clingy to an extent and considers yuzuru very important to him

^ganbare anata he or whatever i dont know what they translated the title as on the wiki i cant be assed to look something like doing my best for you

its pretty obvious to people that one of yuzurus main motivations for character development is tori? but yuzuru is pretty clear cut of toris main motivations for character development too. in toyland he makes it obvious that he wants to continue to grow as an idol so yuzuru wont regret being tied down to him amongst other things ofc (proving himself to his parents + eichi + having his abilities recognized by fans overall)

toyland

***Tori:*** *“(Snuggle up\* close to me and I won't let you regret taking this path.*

*I'm going to continue to do my best, so even Yuzuru himself will realize that aiming to be an idol was the right choice.)”*

\*not a fan of this tl but i wanted to write it like that to highlight the fact that tori reuses lyrics from zutto soba de. and ok. APPARENTLY you can actually still read toyland on the wiki if you go through the edit history. i did not know before i translated hefty excerpts from it

and then i feel like this whole “get yuzuru to enjoy being an idol” arc is touched on later in shangri-la

shangri-la first

***Yuzuru:*** *“When I was a child, still immature and naive, I once dreamed of a life other than the one I was supposed to have!*

*That dream can come true, even if only for a moment! If that's the case, I sincerely believe that I'm glad I became an idol!”*

pre-ynski tori info i think its cute

i forgot what story its like.i dont know tanabata or something its old im pretty sure its unfinished tl on the wiki

***Yuzuru:*** *“Fufu. Bocchama loves karaoke.*

*He longed to be an idol out of admiration for Fine, but there was no place at home to practice singing.*

*So occasionally, he would escape from the mansion in order to sing and dance together at karaoke.*

*This was prior to being enrolled, before there was a karaoke room and other facilities at home.*

*It seemed like a good escape for Bocchama, who was constantly busy with lessons and socializing back at home.”*

***Tori:*** *“Yep! After all, singing and dancing are just plain fun…..☆”*

not related this doc is so messy that i dont know where to add this in but yuzuru regularly cooks dinner for tori now apparently. living his malewife-dom up i guess

^yuzuru idol story 3

yuzuru chan so jealous

circus

his jealousy is literally always targeted at anzu i think he hates women. yuzuru misogynist arc

i think also its kind of funny to point out that most of yuzuru and toris main character flaws are more based around social aspects? theyre both pretty nasty and jealous people when you think abt it and struggle with interacting with people outside of each other. or at least they did initially theyve had their moments like yuzuru w arashi and mika and tori with hajime and chiaki and wataru blablabla

\*flipping through pages of my magazine\* i call this one tori fronting with annoyance as a result of poor communication skills

this one is just silly

tempest

yuzuru. . . . . . . . .. . . …. .. . . . . ….

tempest again

toris sister is also super prone to jealousy and tries her best to protect tori from being stolen away so she has it out for yuzuru and eichi but i think yuzuru tries his best to be nice to her

^noble game

^tempest

^noble game

^pretty mission

THIS IS BANTER so many people dont understand yuzuru and tori’s senses of humor and misread this stuff as malicious its so annoying

noble game

merry xmas

tori birthday w/ yuzuru 2021

^nitpicking yuzurus like “sore wa….nmou……” in the raws and it sounds a lot more childish than this person translated it

triumph of the emperor

circus

this sc again bcs yuzuru specifically says in circus he isnt family when later in noble game he says this

noble game

not really made apparent but it feels like yuzuru has a lot of self worth issues and only recently values himself more esp in relation to tori

i know for a fact theres mentions abt this in other stories but tori genuinely cannot dress himself without yuzuru. well atleast in ! he tries now to be fair

yuzuru. i cant tell anymore but he seriously had mad beef with eichi in !

summer vacation, to eichi

yuzuru has tsumugi relay his personal experience w/ the war and old fine to him so he can explain it all to tori. i cant really tell if it was in spite of eichi or if it was because he genuinely thought it was something tori should know given yuzuru is pretty fond of coddling tori when he can and also is very very nasty under all that polite schmuck. ofc tori being an actual fucking angel chooses to forgive eichi immediately and holds no resentment because even if tori is mean to people at the end of the day it comes from a lack of social skills and never genuine hatred

^jingle bells ch18

yuzuru USUALLY has toris best interest in mind but is obstructed by people with more power (primavera w/ toris dad) and even will more often than not put his well being after toris (threatening to quit in primavera to toris dad). i think hes probably agreeable to eichi (if not most people) out of obligation and moreso to make tori happy. in !! though.. its either him being agreeable or coming to forgive eichi after realizing his change

valentines day 2021

**Yuzuru:** *“I am preparing the chocolates for this upcoming program, but please keep this a secret from Bocchama. I would like to surprise him if I can.”*

ive reread this one so many fucking times but i have no idea what the fuck “bangumi” is referring to tling it like program feels wrong but i just dont have the right context for this

other people abt yztr:

^for all your hard work yuzuru idol story

ummm dream travel

shangri la first

*“When it concerns Tori, a certain passion arises in Yuzuru, who is usually composed.”*

*“Danna-sama tells me that I seem to have a sweet spot when it comes to Bocchama...”*

i literally have no fucking idea where this came from i feel like its a minitalk but i found it on jp twt

ehmm oh rainbows

yuzuru inpromptu monologue 90439073 of ???????? about tori i dont even remember where this ones from its probably magnolia or something or best shot

zutto soba de lyrics i wont even comment i think everyone understands whats happening here

tori is pretty good at telling when yuzurus off its cute bcs i dont think a lot of characters or even enstarries can tell when hes being sarcastic a lot of the time

summer vacation

tempest

noble game

merry xmas

^tori idol story 2

primavera

***Tori:*** *“When I was on my lunch break, I happened to see Yuzuru wandering around campus. So, I wondered if something had happened.*

*It sounded really important, so I waited outside of the room.*

*...You made your master really worried, you know? So, you should at least tell me what happened. What’s going on?”*

tori on yuzurus audio idol introduction i tled this like way early into my jp studies so it reads so bad im embarrassed on this one but im too lazy to listen to it again right now so take it with a grain of salt \*\*scratches my head\*\*

SUMOMO...

toyland

tori office cake

yuzuru made him for tori also he calls toris bears もも様 (momo sama) brown one and すもも様 (sumomo sama) pink one because hes so polite its really funny

toyland

*“So, your name is Sumomo, right? Yuzuru made you for me... Well, I’ll be honest, you’re losing to Momo in terms of cuteness, but you're still really cute.* ♪

*Hmm~.... Where do I put you then... Momo is already on my cell phone.. So... Ah! My bag.*

*Ehehe, from today on, I’m your new master* ♪*”*

bits of yuzuru using his name in place of watakushi? sometimes he uses cutesy talk at tori either as a means of sarcasm or coming off as sincere because hes. kind of emotionally dense and doesn’t know how else to be expressive

^ yuzuru birthday 2020

tori birthday 2020

this one hes being sarcastic

magnolia

derailing heres yuzuru fake polite moments

triumph of the emperor

best shot

magnolia

shangri la fist ch10

*“..Anyways. Eichi-sama is a supporting character, and somehow Yuzuru landed a really good role, like, the semi-lead role.*

*The “main character’s rival”, An eye-catching role that stands out start to finish, like that.*

*Even though it’s Yuzuru... Well, the role of the heroine or the rival, either way they’re about the same in terms of importance.*

*It’s not like I think I’m inferior to Yuzuru or something like that, rather,*

*...Yuzuru in that position… He isn’t used to standing out so much, so I’m worried.*

*^*this was so vague it could be “so hes worried” but im just using my best judgement and assuming tori meant himself

*He’s always wholeheartedly been a servant to me, putting himself on the back burner... Hasn’t he, that guy...*

*Yuzuru is an idol too, so I wish he would stop lingering and put himself up front more.*

*There should be more people who are fans of “Fushimi Yuzuru” himself, not just some guy who’s “Himemiya Tori’s butler”.*

*He’s always had a pretty handsome face, and sometimes the way he acts is cool enough to make my heart skip a beat.”*

yeah leave it to tori to refer to yuzuru like “aitsu” and call him handsome in the same breath

*“Eh? Why don’t I tell him that..?*

*Ehhh~...What an awful idea… That guy almost never praises me, even though I’m constantly nice to him, so it pisses me off.*

*Praise him or scold him, that his attitude never changes, so it’s not worth it.*

*Even though we’ve known each other for so long, I almost never see him get embarrassed or distraught.*

*When he was really little though, I feel like he expressed his emotions clearer...*

*He’d sob when he got scolded by his parents, and when he was scared of our King, he’d hide behind trees.*

*^*tori literally uses onomatopoeia to describe yuzuru crying and it would probably be like the jpn equal to boohoo but i had no idea how to tie it in so just.absorb that knowledge

*But. After some time, he was sent somewhere for the purpose of “training”, or something like that.”*

*“We were separated for a while, and when he got back, he became all robotic-like and stuff.”*

shangri la first

*“If it’s my fault, if this was for my sake, I think my real role is to help him get back whatever he lost then.*

*But, I veered way off track, huh……. Ahhh jeez, What’s actually going on with this movie?”*

**toyland idk what chapter this is i cant be fucked to go look**

***Tori**: “Ugh! How many times do I need to tell you to stop treating me like a child? I’m not some baby that can’t stand on his own without Yuzuru to take care of him, get it?!”*

***Yuzuru**: “...I’m sorry. I hope you will forgive me for my poor behavior.”*

***Tori**: “Eh?! Hang on, don’t look sad?*

*Where did the real Yuzuru, who, despite being a ~~slave~~ malewife, nags about everything I do and is just as annoying as a sister-in-law go?*

*Hey, if you aren’t feeling good, you don’t have to come with. We’re just going to check the toy store out before opening day.*

*It’s not like a meeting or anything, just me and the twins, that’s a~ll.* ♪”

***Yuzuru**: “I’m completely fine, however, I’m terribly sorry if I have stunted Bocchama’s growth.”*

***Yuzuru**: “I have only just realized that love isn’t solely about making up for someone else’s faults and being by their side, but... This kind of personality has been cultivating for years, and cannot be changed overnight, can it?”*

toyland

***Tori**: “....? I don’t really get it, but Yuzuru will always be Yuzuru.*

*There’s no need for you to force yourself to change your personality, I mean, suddenly changing your attitude like that would really trouble me, you know?*

*Anyways! You’re fine as you are! Well, part of me wishes you’d be a liiittle nicer, seriously…”*

yuzuru chronic hugger for life so cute i like this one

yuzuru birthday story um. i dont remember which year

***Tori**: “Mugyu!? Don’t hug me so suddenly! You’re way too strong! You're hurting me, I give I give!”*

**T**: (Uhyuu? Yuzuru, you’re hugging… too tight! Even if it’s in the script! For some reason, his fixation with me feels so sincere it’s almost scary~......?)

i forgor the source name :skull:

***Keito: “**Aah. Himemiya, is it? You really love him, don’t you?”*

***Yuzuru: “**Yes. His thoughtless behavior can be annoying more often than not...*

*Even still, I adore him regardless of the difficulties.”*

yuzuru unconditional love yep yep check it off the list nothing new

primavera

***Yuzuru:*** *“(Waiting for Bocchama’s response in such a way… It’s almost as if I am an awkward young man who’s fallen in love with him.)”*

no comment

primavera

***Yuzuru:*** *“(I care about you a lot.)”*

I can’t tell if 貴方 here is supposed to mean “you” or like the himemiyas in general??? i guess it could be yuzuru being shy though because zutto soba de also uses anata

^ update on this anata no koto is just a roundabout way to refer to someone and is said especially when stating feelings as a result of being shy. there is a lot of self doubt in this document because yuzuru just says shit thats so fruity i dont want to believe it

*“(But... These indescribable feelings... It’s just because I care so much for Bocchama, Is it not?)”*

**ganbare anata he**

**Yuzuru**: It’s fine to be on standby right here, isn’t it? I understand.

No, please don’t worry yourself. The number of dressing rooms is limited, if they are out of service due to renovation, it cannot be helped.

...You atleast would like for me to sit in this chair? Well, I’ll do as you suggest, I’ll sit here then.

Yes. Please continue to work hard in the latter half of the photoshoot.

(I have been trained well. I don’t mind standing.)

(I am a guest appearance here, It would be in poor taste to continue standing against their wishes.)

(But… As of late, I have been completing a lot of solo work.)

\*\*ILL FINISH LATER

And then ryan never finished translating it before someone else got to it.

**Primavera ~CH4 & CH5**

**Yuzuru**: …………

**Eichi**: I see you’ve finished your errands, Yuzuru.

**Yuzuru:** I have. I arrived only moments ago. I am sorry for leaving without notice this morning, *Bocchama*.

**Tori**: Oh, I bet you are. And why exactly do you have a suitcase? Normally, you don’t have much to carry around, it’s making me freak out…...!

**Wataru**: Now, now. if you want to argue, there will be plenty of time later!

With all these tasty looking sweets here, it would be a crime to talk before taking one! Let us secure our meal first and discuss matters afterwards…… ♪

Look! Mont Blanc and Persimmon cake amongst a whole menu of various autumn treats! It’s hard to choose one to start with～♪

**Eichi**: That’s right. I originally chose this location to discuss “Choco Fest”, but since we all went to the trouble of coming here, we might as well talk over sweets.

**Tori**: Fine, but I have a bone to pick with Yuzuru.

**Wataru**: You know... Everyone here seems to have their own opinions, Should I have prepared a “Minor’s Claim”\* as well~?

If you wish, let us scream our love from the rooftops!

\* feature on a popular 90’s japanese variety show “gakkou e ikkou”, where students confess their secrets from the school rooftop to their classmates below. (ref. 1, 2) if anyone has a more eloquent translation suggestion for “minors claim” my ears are open because it sounds weird but its literal at least

**Yuzuru + Tori**: ............

**Wataru**: Oops… It seems that what I said created an awkward atmosphere. Perhaps I should go home?

**Eichi**: Fufu. You’re fine, Wataru. If I may, I would like to ask for you to intervene in the case that things become complicated.

**Wataru**: Hmmm! In that case, shall I be the referee~?

Okay, then, when you all deliver harite\*, I shall vigorously call out to you, “Not yet! Still standing!”……♪

\*sumo move (ref. 1)

**Eichi**: Yes. If you could be lively just like that, I would really appreciate it.

If the atmosphere and topic got too grim, I don’t think my poor health would be able to take it.

With “Choco Fest” as the catalyst, it gave life to three varying opinions—unexpectedly, it became a three-way battle.

––

**Yuzuru**: Then, I would like to speak first.

I don’t know the extent of which you’ve noticed, but I have been keeping a certain secret from you, *Bocchama*.

Before anything else, I would like to apologize for that.

There is absolutely no excuse for what I have done.

(not sure what approach to take here Yuzuru uses “本当に、申し訳(moushiwake)ありませんでした” which is literally "truly, there is no excuse" and apparently the more formal approach to gomenasai as opposed to sumimasen.. and on TOP of that his sprite is reeeeeally sad here but i dont know how to balance how formal hes speaking with the emotion? i could change this to “im so sorry” but im not sure if it sounds too out of tone for yuzuru)

Having said that, I would like to elaborate now. My secret is closely involved with “Choco Fest”.

**Tori**: That’s the reason you became so proactive in “Choco Fest”, then?

**Yuzuru**: Yes. It occurred by chance, and was something *Danna-sama*\* had asked me to keep a secret until *Bocchama* came of age.

\*referring to tori’s dad to clarify i dont like translating titles and names

I went to extreme lengths to hide this. I continuously lied to *Bocchama*.

If it had been a single lie, I would have accepted it as a butler’s obligation. But, lies on top of lies began to trouble my conscience.

*Bocchama* and I have been acquainted for many years. It was easy for him to see through my unbecoming behavior.

So I was forced to weigh between these two options: my promise to *Danna-sama*, or resigning.

I have made my decision. I directly appealed to *Danna-sama* to be allowed to tell this secret to *Bocchama*.

In the case that he did not allow me to do so, I told him I was considering resignation—

**Tori**: Is that true…?

**Yuzuru**: It is. I assume that *Danna-sama* wasn’t expecting as much. He said that if you truly desired to know, I had permission to tell you.

**Tori**: .........

**Yuzuru**: *Bocchama*. I will tell you the truth now.

**Tori**: …...I don’t want it.

**Yuzuru**: You... don’t?

**Tori**: I could tell you were hiding something, Yuzuru.\* Because of that, I’ve thought a lot about what I wanted to say today.

\*not related this line is so funny because Tori uses super outdated fancy words and does the japanese equivalent of just putting -ing on them to make them into a verb instead of using actual grammar. if i was being literal it would be like "i understood Yuzuru was secret-ing" like he literally could have said KEEPING a secret theres a verb for it. he talks like this a lot actually its all apart of his cute schtick anyways moving on

I worried myself sick over you and got no answers, but I get it now…

If it’s something you aren’t willing to talk about, then I don’t want to force you. I would never be able to forgive myself for doing something like that.

So, I don’t need the truth. No matter what sort of secrets you’re keeping, our relationship won’t be affected.

Okay, Yuzuru?\*

\*TORI TALKS SO VAGUEEEEEEE UEEEEEEEEEEE this could be interpreted as literally anything my other picks were “so thats it, yuzuru” or “thats my answer, yuzuru” but those sound kind of repetitive

**Yuzuru**: But that’s… Are you sure? Even though you have the right to know, you don’t want me to——

**Tori**: And THAT’S the most annoying thing about you! What, you hate keeping secrets so much that you’d quit being a butler? That makes *no* sense!

We don’t have to tell each other everything, and we don’t have to understand everything about each other!

I don’t care if you have a stupid secret, but when you willingly abandon your responsibilities for something like that, that’s what pisses me off!\*

\*”pisses me off” could be tled as “thats what annoys me!” but its written with katakana and also ends with の which imo feels pretty strong considering tori isn’t a stranger to using stuff like n’da

And more importantly, if you’re implying someone can’t be trusted because they’re hiding something, what does that say about Hibiki-senpai? That guy is a mystery from head to toe!

**Wataru**: Oya... What a perfectly timed stray bullet!

Humankind has been bestowed with boundless imagination! Is the ability we all possess to find beauty in the damaged goddess statue not a beauty within itself?\*

\*..reference to venus de milo???? (ref 1). not sure if my wording takes away from the ability to understand what hes getting at, the kanji wataru uses can be interpreted as missing *or* broken.

**Eichi**: Knowing everything about each other isn’t what defines love一That’s Tori’s conclusion, or something like that.

**Tori**: Yep. And I don’t mean that I don’t want to know everything about you, but, you don’t need to know everything about something to say that it’s good. Well, that’s what I think, anyways.

See, I don’t really understand everyone in *Fine*, but I still think that *Fine* is the supreme unit without a doubt.

Right now, the way we’re all gathered and talking like this, that’s my proof.

So that’s why, no matter what your truth is…

You, you’ll be a butler to the Himemiya family for the rest of your life, ‘kay?

**Yuzuru**: *Bocchama*…

**Tori**: …….Fufu~. What, is that not what you wanted to say? Was that just an excuse because you actually wanna quit being a butler~?

**Yuzuru**: …...No, don’t be absurd.

It seems I reached the wrong conclusions about you, *Bocchama*. I believed it was being courteous to you as you matured, to form a relationship in which there was nothing to hide from each other.

But regardless of facing you head on or from behind, I’m always deeply enveloped in your love, aren’t I?\*

\*1. he uses 愛 ← ai to say love in case you’re curious

Serving you is always my pleasure, *Bocchama*. I feel incredibly honored……♪

**Tori**: Is that so~. You should praise me even more then, Yuzuru!

After all, your secret was actually something like you don’t like chocolate and were scared to tell me, right?\* I’ll forgive you this time, so don’t ever try something like that again!

\*context for anyone who doesnt know the plot of primavera the secret was yuzurus military trauma and a war toris dad’s military base got involved with over chocolate imports

**Yuzuru**: Yes. Your understanding is correct.

A long time ago, *Bocchama* made me terrible homemade chocolates. Ever since then, I have hated chocolate.

This is the truth I have been hiding from you...♪

**Primavera EP2**

(i think this one actually takes place a year after the other epilogue i forgot to translate the time stamp im too lazy to go back and look)

**Yuzuru**: Bocchama. Before we go on stage, allow me to have a word with you.

**Tori**: Could it be… you’re nervous? But that’s not like you at all… No matter how big the stage, you always manage to persevere with class.

**Yuzuru**: No, that’s not the case. It’s just… I was thinking of formally expressing my words of gratitude.

**Tori:** Your gratitude…?

**Yuzuru**: Yes. At the time Primavera was being held, I didn’t tell you about that important thing –– then, in horrible jugement, I almost forfeit my position as well. It was an act of betrayal.

The reason I am standing here right now is because you told me, “I’ll accept your truth, no matter what.”

Even if there are secrets, just being at your side is good enough –– That is what your love\* has told me.

\*坊ちゃまの愛 bocchamano ai bocchama no ai bocchama no ai bocchama no ai bocchama no a oh also he uses anata to refer to tori it makes me smile it sounds like hes a cheesy housewife talking about her husband

That is what makes me human.

\*i dont know if i tled this vaguely but yuzurus like sore koso ga, yadadyada which is riding off of the bocchama no ai line to clarify. i think writing your love, thats what makes me human or your love makes me human is a little too direct and possibly repetitive

I love you, Bocchama.

No i cannot make this shit up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**Tori**: I’m your master, of course you do~. Well, if you’re so grateful, that means it’s okay to spoil me more, isn’t it?

Ah! Chocolates were delivered to the dressing room! Can I eat these after the live?

**Yuzuru**: Fufu. Isn’t that a lot of chocolates for one person? I cannot approve of this, given my job is to take proper care of you.

But… It can’t be helped. It’s almost Valentine's day, so I will overlook this.

To let a gift so filled with love go to waste would be unbecoming of the next head to the Himemiya family.

\*is this a run on sentence. i love to translate japanese and be english illiterate

**Tori**: Ehehe. Did you really just say that, Yuzuru~? You’re not gonna go back on your word later, are you?

**Yuzuru**: I did. I will turn a blind eye for today.

…...Thank you for your time, Bocchama.

Shall we join everyone on stage? Eichi-sama, Hibiki-sama –– All of the fans, they’re waiting for you.

**Tori**: Yeah!

记者约翰·奥沙利文（John L. O'Sullivan）是杰克逊民主制的有影响力的拥护者，他的性格复杂，被朱利安·霍桑（Julian Hawthorne）形容为“总是充满了盛大的世界性计划”。[22]奥沙利文（O'Sullivan）在1839年发表的一篇文章中，虽然没有使用“明显的命运”一词，但确实根据诸如建立在地球上的平等，良心权利和个人特权等价值观预测了美国的“神圣命运”。人的道德尊严和救赎”。[23]这种命运并没有明确地域性，但奥沙利文预测，美国将是拥有这些价值观的“许多共和国联盟”之一。[24]

六年后的1845年，奥沙利文（O'Sullivan）在《民主评论》中发表了另一篇题为《吞并》的文章，[25]他首先使用了“明显的命运”一词。[26]在这篇文章中，他敦促美国吞并德克萨斯州，[27]不仅是因为德克萨斯州希望这样做，而且因为“我们明显的命运是要遍及普罗维登斯分配给我们每年成千上万自由发展的大陆”。 [28]为了克服辉格党的反对，民主党人于1845年吞并了得克萨斯州。奥沙利文首次使用“明显的命运”一词引起了很少的关注。[29]

奥沙利文（O'Sullivan）对这个词的第二次使用极具影响力。 1845年12月27日，奥沙利文（O'Sullivan）在他的报纸《纽约晨报》（New York Morning News）中谈到了与英国的边界纠纷。奥沙利文认为，美国有权要求“整个俄勒冈州”：

这项主张是基于我们明显的命运权，它可以扩展并拥有整个普罗维登斯所给予我们的整个大陆，以发展委托给我们的自由和联邦自治的伟大实验。[30]

就是说，奥沙利文认为普罗维登斯已经赋予美国宣扬共和民主的使命（“伟大的自由试验”）。奥沙利文认为，由于英国政府不会传播民主，因此英国对领土的主张应被推翻。奥沙利文认为明显的命运是一种道德理想（“更高的法律”），它取代了其他考虑。[31]

奥沙利文最初的清单命运概念并不是要以武力扩大领土。他认为，美国的扩张将在没有美国政府的指示或军方介入的情况下发生。美国人移民到新地区后，他们将建立新的民主政府，然后像德州所做的那样寻求加入美国的资格。 1845年，奥沙利文（O'Sullivan）预测，加利福尼亚州接下来将遵循这种模式，加拿大最终也会要求兼并。他不赞成1846年的墨西哥-美国战争，尽管他开始相信这一结果将对两国都有利。[32]

具有讽刺意味的是，奥沙利文的用语仅在受到波克政府反对派的辉格党批评后才流行。辉格党谴责明显的命运，争辩说：“将由本国政府实施的征服方案的设计者和支持者叛国我们的宪法和权利宣言，为共和主义的敌人提供帮助和安慰。他们正在倡导和宣扬征服权学说”。[33] 1846年1月3日，代表罗伯特·温思罗普（Robert Winthrop）在国会嘲笑了这一概念，他说：“我想，除了普遍的扬基民族之外，任何国家都不会承认有明显的传播命运的权利。” [34]温思罗普是第一个一连串的批评者认为，表观命运的拥护者们以“神圣的天意”为由沙文主义和自我利益所激发的行动的正当性辩护。尽管受到了批评，但扩张主义者还是接受了这个词组，该词组迅速流行，以至于很快就忘记了它的起源。[需要引用]

历史学家威廉·E·威克斯（William E. Weeks）指出，明显命运的拥护者通常触及三个关键主题：

美国人民及其机构的美德；

传播这些机构的使命，从而以美国的形象赎回和重塑世界；

上帝在这工作下的命运。[35]

第一个主题（后来称为美国例外主义）的起源通常可以追溯到美国的清教徒传统，尤其是约翰·温思罗普（John Winthrop）于1630年发表的著名《山丘之城》讲道，在那次讲演中，他呼吁建立一个有道德感的社区。是旧世界的光辉榜样。[36]托马斯·潘恩（Thomas Paine）在其1776年颇具影响力的《常识》（Common Sense）手册中回应了这一观点，认为美国大革命为创建一个新的更好的社会提供了机会：

我们有能力重新开始世界。自从诺亚时代到现在，还没有发生过与现在类似的情况。新世界的生日即将来临...

许多美国人同意潘恩的观点，并开始相信美国的美德是对自由与民主进行特殊试验的结果。托马斯·杰斐逊（Thomas Jefferson）在致詹姆斯·梦露（James Monroe）的信中写道：“我们不可能不遥远的时代，我们的快速增长将超越这些极限，并覆盖整个北部，甚至不是南部大陆。” [37]在《独立宣言》所体现的所谓的人类自由之后的几十年中，美国人只能被描述为“新的时标”的揭幕，因为世界将回顾并把历史定义为以前发生的事件，之后是《独立宣言》。随之而来的是，美国人对世界负有扩大和维护这些信念的义务。[38]

第二个主题的起源不太精确。美国总统亚伯拉罕·林肯（Abraham Lincoln）在1862年12月1日给国会的信中对美国任务的描述很受欢迎。他将美国描述为“地球的最后一个最大希望”。在林肯的《葛底斯堡演说》中，美国的“使命”得到了进一步阐述，他在那次演说中将美国内战解释为确定是否有民主理想的国家能够生存的斗争。历史学家罗伯特·约翰森（Robert Johannsen）称其为“美国舱单命运与使命最持久的声明”。[39]

第三个主题可以被认为是上帝对美国的建立和进一步行动具有直接影响的信念的自然产物。学者克林顿·罗西特（Clinton Rossiter）将这种观点描述为“在历史的前进的适当时期，上帝召唤了一些古老而特权重重的民族坚强的灵魂……并且，在赋予他恩典的同时，他也赋予了他恩典。特殊的责任”。美国人假定他们不仅被选举为维护北美大陆，而且还“在国外传播了《人权法案》所述的基本原则”。[40]在许多情况下，这意味着邻国的殖民地和国家被视为障碍，而不是上帝赋予美国的命运。

法拉格对民主党与辉格党之间政治分化的分析是：

大多数民主党人是扩张的全心全意的支持者，而许多辉格党（尤其是在北方）则反对。辉格党欢迎工业化带来的大多数变化，但主张采取强有力的政府政策来指导该国现有边界内的增长与发展；他们担心（正确地）扩张会引起争议性的问题，即奴隶制向领土的扩展。另一方面，许多民主党人担心辉格党欢迎的工业化……对于许多民主党人来说，解决国家社会弊端的办法是继续遵循托马斯·杰斐逊（Thomas Jefferson）关于在新领土上建立农业以平衡工业化的愿景。[41]

另一个可能的影响是种族优势，即美国盎格鲁-撒克逊人的种族是“独立的，先天优越的”种族，并且“注定要为美洲大陆和世界带来良好的政府，商业繁荣和基督教”。这种观点还认为，“劣等种族注定要处于从属地位或灭绝”。这被用来作为“黑人的奴役以及印第安人被驱逐和可能灭绝的理由”。[42]

替代解释

托马斯·杰斐逊（Thomas Jefferson）于1803年在路易斯安那州购买了美国，使美国的规模扩大了一倍，为美国的大陆扩张奠定了基础。许多人开始将其视为新的天命使命的开始：如果美国成功地成为“光辉的山丘上的城市”，其他国家的人民将寻求建立自己的民主共和国。[43]

但是，并非所有美国人或其政治领导人都认为美国是一个神圣的国家，或者认为它应该扩大。例如，许多辉格党反对基于民主党的领土扩张，声称美国注定要成为世界其他地区的贤惠榜样，并且负有神圣的义务，要在整个世界范围内传播其上级政治体系和生活方式北美大陆。辉格党中的许多人“担心过于广泛地扩散”，并且“坚持将国家权力集中在有限的区域内”。[44] 1848年7月，亚历山大·史蒂芬斯（Alexander Stephens）谴责波尔克总统对美国未来的扩张主义解释是“虚假的”。[45]

尤利西斯·格兰特（Ulysses S.Grant）在与墨西哥的战争中服役，后来写道：

我非常反对[吞并德克萨斯州]的措施，直到今天，我仍在与[与墨西哥的战争]进行对抗，这场战争是强国对弱国发动的最不公正的战争之一。这是一个共和国的榜样，效仿欧洲君主制的坏榜样，因为他们没有考虑要获得额外领土的正义。[46]

在19世纪中叶，扩张主义，尤其是向南向古巴的扩张主义，也遭到了那些试图废除奴隶制的美国人的反对。在接下来的几十年中，随着美国领土的增加，南方人心目中的“扩大自由领域”也意味着扩大了奴隶制。这就是为什么内战之前奴隶制成为美国大陆扩张的中心问题之一。[47]

内战之前和期间，双方都宣称美国的命运是正确的。林肯反对反移民的本土主义，反对明明命运的帝国主义既不公正又不合理。[48]他反对墨西哥战争，并认为这些无序的爱国主义形式威胁着他与自由和联盟密不可分的道德和兄弟般的联系，他试图通过以智慧和批判性的自我意识为指导的对国家的爱国爱心来维持这种自由。林肯于1852年6月6日发表的“对亨利·克莱的悼词”，是他反映爱国主义最有力的体现。[49]

大陆扩张时代

约翰·昆西·亚当斯（John Quincy Adams）于1816年由查尔斯·罗伯·莱斯利（Charles Robert Leslie）绘画，是大陆主义的早期支持者。晚年，他开始后悔自己在帮助美国奴隶制扩张方面所扮演的角色，并成为德克萨斯州吞并的主要对手。

“明显的命运”一词通常与1812年至1867年美国的领土扩张有关。从1812年战争到1867年收购阿拉斯加的这个时代被称为“明显的命运时代”。 [50]在这段时间里，美国扩展到了太平洋-“从海到光亮的海”-大致上界定了当今美国大陆的边界。[51]

1812年战争

更多信息：1812年战争

1812年战争的目标之一是威胁要吞并下加拿大的英国殖民地，作为讨价还价的筹码，以迫使英国人放弃在美国西北部的防御工事，并支持居住在美国西北部的各种美洲原住民部落。[52] ] [53]这种过度乐观的结果是1812年的一系列失败，部分原因是训练有素的州民兵而不是常规部队的广泛使用。但是，美国在1813年的伊利湖战役和泰晤士河战役中取得的胜利结束了印度的袭击，并消除了威胁吞并的主要原因。为结束1812年战争，约翰·昆西·亚当斯（John Quincy Adams），亨利·克莱（Henry Clay）和阿尔伯特·加拉廷（Albert Gallatin）（前财政部长，印度人的主要专家）和其他美国外交官于1814年与英国谈判了《根特条约》。他们拒绝了英国在大湖以南的美国领土上建立印度国家的计划。他们解释了美国对获得印度土地的政策：

美国虽然打算永远不以其他方式和平地从印第安人手中获得土地，但在他们的自由同意下，美国已完全决定以这种方式逐步扩大其规模，并根据其人口增长的需要，从自然状态中夺回土地。 ，并在其公认的边界内进行耕种。这样，在为数以百万计的文明生物提供支持时，他们将不会违反任何正义或人类的命令；因为他们不仅会给散布在那片领土上的数千野蛮人一个相当于他们可能放弃的任何权利的充分机会，而且将永远让他们拥有比他们能够耕种更多的土地，并足以维持他们的生存，舒适，和享受，通过耕种。如果这是一种进取精神，那么签署人愿意在这种意义上承认其存在；但他们必须否认，它提供了丝毫证据，表明其意图是不尊重它们与欧洲国家之间的边界，或者侵占大不列颠领土的愿望……他们不会以为政府会宣誓就职。其对美国政策的基础是在自己的领土上制止其自然增长的制度，目的是保护永久性的沙漠供野人使用。[54]

根特的英国谈判代表之一亨利·古尔本（Henry Goulburn）感到震惊，他是在了解了美国人占领印第安人土地的立场后说道：

直到我来到这里，我都不知道每个美国人心中有根深蒂固的决心来消灭印第安人并占有他们的领土。[55]

[1:58 AM]

19世纪认为美国最终将涵盖整个北美地区的信念被称为“大陆主义”，[56] [57]是一种碲化体制。亚当斯是这个想法的早期支持者，在1803年的路易斯安那购买和1840年代的波克政府之间成为美国扩张的领导者。 1811年，亚当斯（Adams）写信给父亲：

整个北美大陆似乎都被上帝的天意注定要由一个国家来集结，说一种语言，承认一种一般的宗教和政治原则体系，习惯一种社会习惯和风俗习惯。为了他们所有人的共同幸福，为了他们的和平与繁荣，我认为必须将他们加入一个联邦联盟。[58]

1840年之前的第一座拉勒米堡。阿尔弗雷德·雅各布·米勒（Alfred Jacob Miller）的绘画作。

亚当斯为推动这一想法做了很多工作。他精心策划了1818年的条约，该条约确立了加拿大与美国之间直到洛矶山脉西部的边界，并规定了对美国历史上称为俄勒冈州，英国和加拿大历史上称为新喀里多尼亚和哥伦比亚特区。 1819年，他与《洲际条约》进行谈判，将佛罗里达州从西班牙转移到美国，并将美国与西班牙墨西哥的边界一直延伸到太平洋。他制定了1823年的门罗主义，警告欧洲西半球不再对欧洲殖民开放。

门罗主义与“清单命运”形成了密切相关的原则联系：历史学家沃尔特·麦克杜格尔（Walter McDougall）称，命运是门罗主义的必然推论，因为门罗主义并未规定扩张，但为了执行该教义，扩张是必要的。在美国，人们担心欧洲大国试图在北美获得殖民地或更大的影响力，因此呼吁进行扩张以防止这种情况。阿尔伯特·温伯格（Albert Weinberg）在1935年发表的有影响力的研究中写道：“ [1830年代]的扩张主义是为阻止欧洲在北美的入侵而做出的防御性努力。” [59]

俄勒冈州

当“清单命运”一词起源时，清单命运在美国和英国之间的俄勒冈州边界争端中发挥了最重要的作用。 1818年的《英美公约》规定了对俄勒冈州的联合占领，成千上万的美国人在1840年代通过俄勒冈小径迁移到那里。英国拒绝了美国总统约翰·泰勒（John Tyler，1841-1845年就职）沿49条平行线划分该地区的提议，而是提出了一条沿哥伦比亚河向南延伸的边界线，这将使后来的大部分变成华盛顿州是其北美殖民地的一部分。明显命运的拥护者提出抗议，并呼吁将整个俄勒冈州吞并至阿拉斯加线（北纬54°40ʹ）。总统候选人波尔克利用这种普遍的抗议手段来发挥自己的优势，民主党人呼吁在1844年美国总统大选中吞并“全俄勒冈州”。

伊曼纽尔·洛伊兹（Emanuel Leutze）着名的画作《向西走帝国路线》（Westward the Empire Course Takes Way）（1861）是美国向西扩张的理想选择。这幅画的名称取自伯克利主教1726年的一首诗，是在明显命运时代经常引用的一句话，表达了一种广泛相信的信念，即文明在整个历史上一直稳步向西发展。 （更多）

然而，在担任总统期间，波尔克寻求妥协，并再次提出较早时的提议，即将领土沿第49条平行线一分为二，这使最热衷于表象命运的拥护者感到沮丧。当英国人拒绝这一提议时，美国扩张主义者以“整个俄勒冈州或没有俄勒冈州”和“五十四十四或打架”之类的口号作出回应，指的是该地区的北部边界。 （后一个口号常常被误认为是1844年总统大选的一部分。）[60]当波尔克（Polk）提出终止联合占领协议时，英国人终于在1846年初同意沿49平行线划分该地区，较低的哥伦比亚盆地，是美国的一部分。 1846年的《俄勒冈条约》正式解决了争端。波尔克政府成功地将条约卖给了国会，因为美国即将开始墨西哥-美国战争，而总统和其他人则认为与大英帝国作战也是愚蠢的。[引用文献]

尽管较早地呼吁“全俄勒冈州”，但《俄勒冈条约》在美国很受欢迎，并很容易被参议院批准。雷吉纳德·斯图尔特认为，最热衷于清单命运的拥护者并未在北部边界占主导地位，因为尽管使用了“大陆主义”一词，但清单命运的指南针指向的是西南和西南方向，而不是北方。” [61]

1869年，美国历史学家弗朗西丝·富勒·维克多

[1:58 AM]

清单的命运在德克萨斯州和美国与墨西哥的关系扩大中发挥了重要作用。[63] 1836年，得克萨斯共和国宣布脱离墨西哥独立，并在德州革命之后寻求加入美国成为一个新州。这是从杰斐逊（Jefferson）到奥沙利文（O'Sullivan）提倡的理想化扩张过程：新民主和独立的国家会要求加入美国，而不是美国将政府扩大到不希望这样做的人。吞并得克萨斯州遭到反奴隶制发言人的攻击，因为这将使联邦增加另一个奴隶制国家。德克萨斯州总统安德鲁·杰克逊（Andrew Jackson）和马丁·范布伦（Martin Van Buren）拒绝了德克萨斯州加入美国的提议，部分原因是奴隶制问题威胁到民主党的分裂。[64]

在1844年大选之前，辉格党候选人亨利·克莱（Henry Clay）和民主党候选人，前总统范布伦（Van Buren）都宣布反对吞并得克萨斯州，他们都希望避免将这一麻烦话题变成竞选议题。这出乎意料地导致了范布伦被民主党人抛弃，而赞成波克，后者赞成吞并。波尔克将德克萨斯吞并问题与俄勒冈纠纷联系在一起，从而在扩张方面提供了某种地区性的妥协。 （北方扩张主义者更倾向于推动俄勒冈州的占领，而南部的扩张主义者主要集中在得克萨斯州的吞并。）虽然很微弱优势当选，波尔克进行仿佛他的胜利已经扩张的授权。[65 ]

全墨西哥

主条目：全墨西哥运动

1847年美国占领墨西哥城

波克的大选后，但在他上任之前，美国国会批准吞并得克萨斯。波尔克（Polk）移居到德克萨斯州（Texas）的一部分，该地区于1836年宣布脱离墨西哥独立，但仍被墨西哥宣称拥有主权。这为1846年4月24日爆发墨西哥-美国战争铺平了道路。随着美国在战场上的成功，到1847年夏，人们呼吁吞并“整个墨西哥”，特别是在东部民主党人中，他们认为使墨西哥加入联盟是确保该地区未来和平的最佳途径。[66]

这是一个有争议的主张，有两个原因。首先，像奥沙利文这样的主张命运的理想主义者一直坚持认为，不应将美国法律强加于人民。吞并“全墨西哥”将违反这一原则。其次，吞并墨西哥是有争议的，因为这意味着将美国公民身份扩展到数百万皮肤黝黑，主要是天主教徒的墨西哥人。出于种族原因，南卡罗来纳州参议员约翰·C·卡尔洪批准了吞并得克萨斯，反对墨西哥吞并以及明显命运的“使命”方面。[67]他在1848年1月4日向国会发表的演讲中阐明了这些观点：

除了白人种族-自由白人种族，我们从未梦想过将其纳入我们的联盟。合并墨西哥，将是合并印度种族的第一个实例。因为一半以上的墨西哥人是印第安人，另一半主要由混合部落组成。我抗议那样的联盟！先生，我们的政府是白人种族的政府。……我们急于对所有人实行自由政府。我看到有人敦促……这是该国的使命，是将公民和宗教自由散布到全世界，尤其是整个非洲大陆。这是一个很大的错误。[68] [69]

这场辩论把明显命运的矛盾置于最重要的位置：一方面，尽管明显命运固有的认同观念表明，墨西哥人作为非白人，将对白人种族完整构成威胁，因此没有资格成为白人美国人作为明显命运的“任务”组成部分表明，通过将墨西哥人纳入美国民主制度，他们将得到改善（或称“再生”）。认同主义曾被用来促进明显的命运，但就像卡尔霍恩和对“全墨西哥”运动的抵抗一样，认同主义也被用来反对明显的命运。[70]相反，吞并“全墨西哥”的支持者则认为这是一项反奴隶制措施。[71]

从1840年到1850年的增长

这场争议最终以墨西哥割让结束，墨西哥割让将阿尔塔加利福尼亚州和墨西哥新墨西哥州的领土添加到了美国，这两个国家的人口都比墨西哥其他地区稀少。像“全俄勒冈州”运动一样，“全墨西哥”运动迅速减弱。

历史学家弗雷德里克·默克（Frederick Merk）在《清单的命运和美国历史的使命：重新诠释》（1963）中指出，“全俄勒冈”运动和“全墨西哥”运动的失败表明，明显的命运没有历史学家传统上所描绘的那样受欢迎。曾经。默克（Merck）写道，尽管对民主的慈善使命的信念是美国历史的中心，但侵略性的“大陆主义”是只有少数美国人，都是民主党人支持的畸变。一些民主党人也反对。路易斯安那州的民主党人反对吞并墨西哥，[72]而密西西比州的人则支持吞并墨西哥。[73]

这些事件与美墨战争有关，对当时居住在南部平原的美国人民产生了影响。 David Beyreis进行的案例研究描述了在此期间通过名为Bent，St。Vrain和Company的毛皮贸易和印度贸易​​业务的运营所产生的这些影响。这家公司的消息表明，“清单命运”的想法并不是所有美国人都一致喜欢的，并且并不总是使美国人受益。案例研究继续表明，该公司可能以领土扩张的名义不复存在。[74]

[1:59 AM]

(Frederick Merk)

1848年墨西哥-美国战争结束后，关于奴隶制扩张的分歧使征服行动进一步分裂，导致分裂变得过于分裂，无法成为政府的正式政策。密西西比州州长约翰·奎特曼（John Quitman）等人提供了他们可以提供的公共支持。在一个令人难忘的案例中，奎特曼简单地解释说，密西西比州已经“失去了”它的州军械库，该军械库开始出现在反对派手中。然而，这些孤立的案件只是在北方巩固了反对派，因为许多北方人越来越反对他们认为南方奴隶主和他们北方的朋友为通过束缚而扩大奴隶制所作的努力。 1859年1月24日，莎拉·雷蒙德（Sarah P. Remond）在英格兰沃灵顿发表了热情洋溢的演讲，他说，鞭ilib和奴隶制之间的联系清楚地证明了“大量的腐败构成了美国政府整个体系的基础”。[75] Wilmot Proviso及其后的“奴隶制”叙事表明，明显的命运已成为部分争议的一部分。[76]

没有官方政府的支持，最明显的命运倡导者越来越多地转向军事阻挠。最初，filibuster来自荷兰的vrijbuiter，是指西印度群岛中以西班牙贸易为生的海盗。尽管在1830年代后期有一些使人不安的远征军进入加拿大，但直到20世纪中叶，使人无所不能的一词才成为定论。到那时，《纽约每日时报》宣布：“在我们国家，狂魔症的热潮正在蔓延。她的脉搏像腕上的锤子一样跳动，脸色非常高。” [77]米拉德·菲尔莫尔（Millard Fillmore）向国会于1851年12月提交会议，为酝酿活动提供的空间是酝酿部门冲突的两倍。乞ilib们的热情和公众支持他们的热情，具有国际色彩。克莱的儿子是葡萄牙的外交官，他说入侵事件在里斯本引起了轰动。[78]

Filibuster威廉·沃克（William Walker）曾多次前往墨西哥和中美洲进行探险，统治尼加拉瓜，并被洪都拉斯政府在洪都拉斯处决之前被皇家海军俘虏。

尽管它们是非法的，但在1840年代末和1850年代初，在美国进行浪漫的鞭打行动。民主党的国家纲领包括一块木板，专门认可了威廉·沃克在尼加拉瓜的鞭打行动。富裕的美国扩张主义者资助了数十次通常来自新奥尔良，纽约和旧金山的探险活动。明显命运的阻挠者的主要目标是拉丁美洲，但其他地方则有孤立的事件。墨西哥是致力于团结奋战的组织的最爱目标，例如黄金圈骑士团。[79]威廉·沃克（William Walker）起初是个挑衅者，他企图将墨西哥州索诺拉（Sonora）和下加利福尼亚州（Baja California）分开，这是不明智的尝试。[80]名声和成功仅次于纳尔西索·洛佩斯（NarcisoLópez），他竭尽全力使古巴脱离西班牙帝国。

长期以来，美国一直对从衰落的西班牙帝国手中夺取古巴感兴趣。与德克萨斯州，俄勒冈州和加利福尼亚州一样，美国的决策者担心古巴会落入英国的手中，按照门罗主义的思想，古巴将对美国的利益构成威胁。在奥沙利文（O'Sullivan）的推动下，波尔克总统于1848年提出以1亿美元的价格从西班牙收购古巴。波尔克担心，进行乱舞会损害他购买该岛的努力，因此他告知西班牙人，古巴乱舞者洛佩斯（López）企图强行占领古巴并将其并入美国，挫败了该阴谋。然而，西班牙拒绝出售该岛，这终止了波尔克收购古巴的努力。然而，奥沙利文最终陷入法律纠纷。[81]

继波尔克之后，对总统的挑衅仍然是人们的主要关切。辉格党总统扎卡里·泰勒（Zachary Taylor）和米拉德·菲尔莫尔（Millard Fillmore）试图压制这次远征。民主党人于1852年在富兰克林·皮尔斯（Franklin Pierce）的选举中重新占领白宫时，约翰·奎特曼（John A. Quitman）为收购古巴做出的挫败性努力得到了总统的初步支持。然而，皮尔斯放弃了，而是再次提出了以1.3亿美元的价格收购该岛的要约。当公众在1854年得知奥斯坦德宣言时，论证说如果西班牙拒绝出售，美国可以强行占领古巴，这实际上扼杀了夺取该岛的努力。公众现在将扩张与奴隶制联系起来；如果明显的命运曾经获得广泛的民众认可，那就不再是事实。[82]

1850年代后期，像威廉·沃克（William Walker）这样的批评家继续成为头条新闻，但收效甚微。扩张主义是导致战争爆发的各种问题之一。随着s扩展的分裂问题

guys somethign terrible has happened

1862年的《宅基法》鼓励60万个家庭在西部地区定居，他们几乎没有土地（通常160英亩）。他们不得不继续生活并改善土地状况。[85]在美国内战之前，南方领导人反对《宅基法案》，因为他们担心这会导致更多的自由州和自由领土。[86]战争开始时，南方参议员和代表大规模辞职后，国会随后得以通过《宅基法》。

收购阿拉斯加

主要文章：阿拉斯加购买

1867年，美国与俄罗斯帝国谈判购买了阿拉斯加，这是美国在北美大陆的最终领土扩张。在1850年代的克里米亚战争之后，俄罗斯皇帝亚历山大二世决定放弃对处于困境的俄罗斯美国（今阿拉斯加）的控制，因为担心加拿大在俄罗斯与俄罗斯之间的任何未来战争中会轻易地占领该领土。和英国。 1865年内战结束后，美国国务卿威廉·苏厄德（William H. Seward）与俄罗斯外长爱德华·德斯托克（Eduard de Stoeckl）进行了谈判，以购买阿拉斯加。苏厄德最初向斯托克尔提供了500万美元；两人以700万美元和解，1867年3月15日，苏厄德向美国内阁提交了条约草案。斯托克尔的上司提出了一些担忧。为了诱使他放弃交易，最终购买价提高到720万美元，并在3月30日由美国参议院批准了该条约。移交仪式于10月18日在阿拉斯加的锡特卡举行。俄罗斯和美国士兵在州长的房子前游行。在大炮声中，俄罗斯国旗被放低，美国国旗被抬高。

此次购买使美国增加了586,412平方英里（1,518,800平方千米）的新领土，面积约为德克萨斯州的两倍。对美国购买的反应大多是积极的，因为许多人认为拥有阿拉斯加将成为扩大美国在亚洲贸易的基础。一些反对者称此项购买为“苏厄德的愚蠢”或“苏厄德的冰盒”，[87]他们认为美国已获得了无用的土地。收购后，几乎所有俄罗斯定居者都离开了阿拉斯加。在1896年克朗代克淘金热开始之前，阿拉斯加的人口仍然很少。该地区最初是由阿拉斯加省组织的，在1959年成为现代阿拉斯加州之前，该地区更名为阿拉斯加地区和阿拉斯加领土。

美洲原住民

另请参阅：印第安人驱逐和加利福尼亚大屠杀

横跨大陆，1868年的一幅石版画，描绘了白色移民的西迁

明显的命运对美洲原住民造成了严重后果，因为大陆扩张隐含了对美洲原住民土地的占领和吞并，有时甚至扩大了奴隶制。 [88] [89] [90] [91]最终导致与几批土著人民的对抗和战争。美国继续欧洲的做法，即只承认土著人民有限的土地权利。在很大程度上由华盛顿政府战争部长亨利·诺克斯（Henry Knox）制定的政策中，美国政府试图通过购买条约中的美洲原住民土地向西方扩张。只有联邦政府才能购买印度土地，而这是通过与部落首领达成的条约完成的。部落是否实际上具有能够缔结条约的决策结构是一个有争议的问题。国家政策是让印第安人加入美国社会并“文明化”，这意味着不再与邻近部落发生战争或对白人定居者或旅行者进行突袭，从狩猎到耕种和牧场的转变。文明计划的拥护者认为，解决土著部落问题的过程将大大减少美洲印第安人所需的土地数量，从而为白人美国人提供更多用于家园的土地。托马斯·杰斐逊（Thomas Jefferson）相信，尽管美洲印第安人与白人在知识上是平等的，[92]他们必须像白人那样生活，否则不可避免地被白人推开。[93]杰斐逊基于启蒙运动思想的信念，即白人和美洲原住民将合并以建立一个国家，这一想法并没有持续一生，他开始相信土著人应移民密西西比河并维持一个独立的社会，这一想法得以实现由路易斯安那购买1803年。[93]

在命运明朗的时代，这个想法（后来被称为“印第安人撤离”）逐渐普及。人道主义运动的倡导者认为，美洲印第安人最好远离白人。正如历史学家雷金纳德·霍斯曼（Reginald Horsman）在他的颇有影响的研究《种族与清单命运》中所说的那样，在明显命运时代，种族修辞增加了。美国人越来越相信，随着美国的扩张，美洲印第安人的生活方式将“消失”。例如，这个想法

1898年，美国干预了古巴的起义，并发动了美西战争，迫使西班牙退出。根据《巴黎条约》的规定，西班牙放弃了对古巴的主权，并将菲律宾群岛，波多黎各和关岛割让给了美国。菲律宾的割让条件涉及美国向西班牙支付的2,000万美元。该条约极具争议性，威廉·詹宁斯·布莱恩（William Jennings Bryan）谴责该条约，他试图使该条约成为1900年大选的核心议题。他被麦金莱以压倒性优势击败。[99]

战前美国参议院一致通过的《泰勒修正案》宣布古巴为“自由和独立”，阻止了对该岛的吞并。然而，《普拉特修正案》（1902年）将古巴确立为美国的虚拟保护国。[100]

与西班牙的战争结束后，对关岛，波多黎各和菲律宾的收购标志着美国历史上的新篇章。传统上，领土是由美国收购的，目的是成为与现有州平等的新州。但是，这些岛屿是作为殖民地而不是准国家获得的。该过程已通过Insular案例进行了验证。最高法院裁定，充分的宪法权利不会自动扩展到美国控制下的所有地区。[101]然而，在1917年，通过《琼斯法》使所有波多黎各人成为全美公民。这还提供了民选的立法机关和权利法案，并授权选举在国会中有发言权（但无表决权）的常驻专员。[102]

根据弗雷德里克·默克（Frederick Merk）的说法，这些殖民地收购标志着与明显命运的初衷不同。以前，“清单命运所包含的原理如此重要，以至于卡尔霍恩和奥沙利文都可以同意这一原则，因此，永远不能兼并没有能力成为国家的人民。这是1899年帝国主义抛弃的原则。 “ [103]阿尔伯特·J·贝弗里奇（Albert J. Beveridge）在1900年9月25日在芝加哥礼堂举行的演讲中坚持了相反的观点。他宣布，目前对古巴和其他被占领领土的愿望与华盛顿，杰斐逊和马歇尔所表达的观点相同。此外，“星条旗的主权无非是对任何民族和任何土地的福气。” [104]菲律宾最终于1946年获得独立。关岛和波多黎各至今具有特殊地位，但他们所有的人都有美国国籍。

然而，渴望独立的新生的革命政府在1899年的菲美战争中抵制了美国。它没有得到任何地方政府的支持，并在其领导人被俘后垮台。威廉·詹宁斯·布赖恩（William Jennings Bryan）谴责战争和任何形式的海外扩张，他写道：“命运”并不像几周前那样明显。” [105]

传统与后果

杰斐逊和他的“自由帝国”阐述了美国在全世界促进和捍卫民主的使命，林肯，威尔逊和乔治·W·布什[106]继续认为，这种信念继续对美国政治产生影响意识形态。[107] [108]历史学家约翰·多尔（John Dower）说，在道格拉斯·麦克阿瑟（Douglas MacArthur）统治下，美国人“充满了明显的命运感。” [109]

美国影响该地区的意图（特别是巴拿马运河的建设和控制）导致了1903年巴拿马与哥伦比亚的分离。

在19世纪到20世纪初，“命运”一词的使用减少了，因为领土扩张不再作为美国“命运”的一部分而得到促进。罗斯福总统在西奥多·罗斯福（Theodore Roosevelt）总统的领导下，1904年罗斯福推销门罗主义的推论中将美国的角色定义为“国际警察力量”，以确保美国在西半球的利益。罗斯福的推论明确拒绝了领土扩张。在过去，明显的命运被认为是在西半球执行门罗主义所必需的，但是现在，扩张主义已被干预主义取代，以此作为坚持该学说的一种手段。

威尔逊总统继续在美洲实行干预主义政策，并试图在更广泛的全球范围内重新定义明显的命运和美国的“使命”。威尔逊（Wilson）以“必须确保世界民主安全”的论点带领美国进入第一次世界大战。战后威尔逊在1920年给国会的信中说：