Against Heterosexuality

[Paprika]

Source:Discuss.

[Jedidiah]

Condense. What do you want to discuss.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah.

[robrecht]

This article barely touches upon Freud, but never even mentions Carl Jung, whose anima/animus sexual continuum is really the opposing view of sexual essentialism. I do not know much about homosexuality, bisexuality, etc, but Jung's model was heralded in the pop psychology of the 1980s as the more sophisticated, natural, and comprehensive view of these questions. Essentially, homophobia and anti-heterosexuality were the two pathological extremes, with some vague bisexuality being the more healthy middle ground. Nearly everyone is said to have a sexual preference, but not a pathological obsession or extreme preference that was blind to recognizing what is attractive among people of the same or opposite sex.

[Paprika]

Condense. What do you want to discuss.

Should we reject orientation essentialism and the terms ("homosexual", "heterosexual") that connote it?

[Jedidiah]

To a very limited degree the concept is accurate. It is a social decision, but based upon something real. It may be true that sexual orientation is not an absolute in every case. How does that change the fact that the characteristics that go with those terms are mostly concrete. So I say no, there is no intelligent reason to abandon the terms. Because it may get fuzzy at the fringes does not mean the majority of cases are not quite accurately described by those terms.

ETA: The "theological" reason presented is not consistent with mainstream thought - at least as I understand it. In
Christ we are not freed to do whatever we want. We are freed from enslavement to sin. The behaviors we classify as homosexual are pretty clearly a part of what we are to be free from, not free to engage in.

[Paprika]

Essentially, homophobia and anti-heterosexuality were the two pathological extremes, with some vague bisexuality being the more healthy middle ground. Nearly everyone is said to have a sexual preference, but not a pathological obsession or extreme preference that was blind to recognizing what is attractive among people of the same or opposite sex.

I haven't read Jung, but I don't think one cannot be both homophobic and attracted to a person of the same sex.

[Paprika]

To a very limited degree the concept is accurate. It is a social decision, but based upon something real. It may be true that sexual orientation is not an absolute in every case. How does that change the fact that the characteristics that go with those terms are mostly concrete.

Could you elaborate?

So I say no, there is no intelligent reason to abandon the terms. Because it may get fuzzy at the fringes does not mean the majority of cases are not quite accurately described by those terms.

Is that so? The conceptualisation is not only rather recent, it is usually connoted with a dichotomy between "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" that cannot contain many cases both past and present.

The "theological" reason presented is not consistent with mainstream thought - at least as I understand it. In
Christ we are not freed to do whatever we want. We are freed from enslavement to sin. The behaviors we classify as homosexual are pretty clearly a part of what we are to be free from, not free to engage in.

I'm not sure how you read from the article the idea that 'we are freed to do whatever we want'.

[robrecht]

I haven't read Jung, but I don't think one cannot be both homophobic and attracted to a person of the same sex.

Huh? That's not what Jung or I was saying, but you may have to make thoughtful distinctions when applying his theory to the different ends of the spectrum. That said, I do think it is possible for some homosexuals to also suffer from self-loathing, but, of course, that was not the point that Jung was making.

[Paprika]

Huh? That's not what Jung or I was saying, but you may have to make thoughtful distinctions when applying his theory to the different ends of the spectrum. That said, I do think it is possible for some homosexuals to also suffer from self-loathing, but, of course, that was not the point that Jung was making.

I'm not sure how to read "homophobia and anti-heterosexuality were the two pathological extremes, with some vague bisexuality being the more healthy middle ground" other than homophobia and anti-heterosexuality being the two extremes of human sexuality.

[robrecht]

I'm not sure how to read "homophobia and anti-heterosexuality were the two pathological extremes, with some vague bisexuality being the more healthy middle ground" other than homophobia and anti-heterosexuality being the two extremes of human sexuality.

That is correct (according to this Jungian theory). But, keep in mind that those at one of the spectrum are not the same peple at the other end of the spectrum. Thus, the point is not that 'one can be both homophobic and attracted to a person of the same sex'. Those at one extreme, the homophobes, would be blind to what is attractive among people of one's own sex. At the other end of the spectrum, the extreme homosexuals, would be blind to what is attractive to among people of the opposite sex.

[Jedidiah]

Could you elaborate?

This conceptualization idea is an artificial construct. Even before the concept of a dichotomy same sex behavior was condemned in both the OT and NT. We are discussing concrete behavior and to play at this conceptualization is only slightly accurate. The behaviors are accurately defined for the most part.

Is that so? The conceptualisation is not only rather recent, it is usually connoted with a dichotomy between "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" that cannot contain many cases both past and present.

We are talking about terms here. My point is that the terms are only a slightly different way of describing something that is not in any way new.

I'm not sure how you read from the article the idea that 'we are freed to do whatever we want'.

Show me any other rational way to interpret "It is at odds with the freedom for which Christ set us free."

[Paprika]

This conceptualization idea is an artificial construct. Even before the concept of a dichotomy same sex behavior was condemned in both the OT and NT. We are discussing concrete behavior and to play at this conceptualization is only slightly accurate. The behaviors are accurately defined for the most part.

Not at all. Behavior describes what someone does; orientation essentialism describes what someone: something innate and unchangeable. In addition, the dichotomy hardly takes into account those who had sexual partners of both sexes.

My point is that the terms are only a slightly different way of describing something that is not in any way new.

And my point is that the terms are hardly a good representation of reality; instead they are inaccurate and misleading.

Show me any other rational way to interpret "It is at odds with the freedom for which Christ set us free."

It is at odds with the freedom for which Christ set us free "to treat the sin of sodomy as a prima facie proof of an identity", "helping bind the sinner to his sinful inclination".

[Jedidiah]

Not at all. Behavior describes what someone does; orientation essentialism describes what someone: something innate and unchangeable. In addition, the dichotomy hardly takes into account those who had sexual partners of both sexes.


And my point is that the terms are hardly a good representation of reality; instead they are inaccurate and misleading.


It is at odds with the freedom for which Christ set us free "to treat the sin of sodomy as a prima facie proof of an identity", "helping bind the sinner to his sinful inclination".

Sorry, I simply see all this as nonsense. Messing with the words does not change the facts.

[Paprika]

Sorry, I simply see all this as nonsense. Messing with the words does not change the facts.

Since you're dismissing everything, I suppose there's no point to this conversation with you.