Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: Benny2016 on 28/03/2016 05:51:12
-
I am looking for studies that had the result that having had gay sex is correlated to several negative psychological outcomes, such as anxiety disorder and attempted suicide.
Can anybody please post titles of such studies here?
I heard that such studies exist and it is proven with studies that there are correlations between a homosexual orientation and several negative psychological outcomes so the whole thing seems to be plausible.
Of course a correlation itself says nothing about the cause. I believe homosexuality is 100 % normal and all the damage is done by homophobia.
-
Can't immediately think of any published studies, but anxiety is common among all tribal animals that get excluded from the tribe for any reason. Whilst homosexuality may be acceptable in some human tribes, it would be mathematically unsound to describe it as "normal" - you could consider for example a less emotive subject like lefthandedness which is clearly a deviation from the norm, is tolerated to a greater degree than homosexuality in most (but not all) societies and is associated with various kinds of (mostly advantageous) baggage.
Given the general social affinity for the norm, it would not be surprising to find a greater incidence of anxiety, self harm and suicide among those who are disinclined to the heterosexual norm, but I think you would find it very difficult to distinguish whether the cause is overt homophobia or a fear of homophobic activity or social isolation (homophobiaphobia?).
-
Hopefully someone can post the titles of some published studies here.
Does "a deviation from the norm" mean something is abnormal? If someone is very big is his height abnormal just because his height is much away from the mean value? I guess mathematics and statistics can not give the answer to the question what is "normal". In sexual science being heterosexual was a long time the unreflected norm and seen as "normal" but the current view of sexual science has changed for good reasons.
"I think you would find it very difficult to distinguish whether the cause is overt homophobia or a fear of homophobic activity or social isolation (homophobiaphobia?)."
I agree but first empirical studies can explore such issues and second even in the case of "homophobiaphobia" homophobia can be seen as the deeper reason for problems because without homophobia there would be no homophobiaphobia.
-
That's why I used the term "mathematically unsound". In statistics, the norm is a single number or property (the most frequent in a population - hence righthandedness) with no bandwidth, so the concept of deviation from the norm (lefthandedness) is meaningful and useful. In sociology, the norm is a band whose width depends on the prejudices of the person defining it, so deviation may or may not mean anything at all.
-
In sociology, the norm is a band whose width depends on the prejudices of the person defining it, so deviation may or may not mean anything at all.
Actually, the width of the band can be defined mathematically without any reference to anyone's prejudice. We do that using concepts such as the standard deviation.
-
I believe homosexuality is 100 % normal
Is this supported by any scientific evidence?
-
I am looking for studies
You probably can find a lot of information by using a search engine.
-
Below is a summary of statistics about suicide. http://www.speakforthem.org/facts.html
This is not a study about homosexuality per se, but this demographics is included in the statistics. The statistics overviews all the demographics.
Some of the facts are:
1. The elderly have the highest rate of suicide of any age group.
2. Veterans are twice a likely to commit suicide that non-veterans
3. Suicide rates amongst youth ages 15-24 have increased more than 300% since the 1950's.
4. Gays and Lesbians are two to six times more likely to suicide than Heterosexuals.
These statistics seem to put aside the myth that suicide is caused by peer pressure, unless culture is guilty of applying twice the peer pressure to the elderly. That is a myth.
If we use the peer pressure assumption, the sales pitches of the glass ceiling, rigged workplace and the wage inequality for women, the wide spread racism, and the illegal aliens being targets of hate, should cause these demographics to be way up there in suicide. The is not the case. Why are their less vulnerable if the sales pitch says there is a conscious effort to discriminate these groups? Something does not correlate in terms the standard sales pitch.
If we go back to the topic of maladjustment, that is a better way to correlate these statistics. The elderly are not being discriminated against at twice the level of any other group. In fact, they see less peer pressure than the political sales pitch says it is being done to minorities and women. That can't be it. However, the elderly would be expected to feel more internal personal pressure, due to living longer, often with declining health, while not being fully prepared for independence in a bumbling economy, where social security is used like a terrorist weapon by politicians.
Veterans are often required to do things in the service of their country; fight and kill, which may make it hard to merge with the needs of civilian life. It is not outside pressure per se, but an extra pressure they place on themselves. They are not adjusted to the needs of their unique situation.
Relative to the increasing rate of suicide among the youth, kids have always applied peer pressure to each other. In the 1950;s you could be lynch mobbed, which is taboo today. The correlation of increase suicide among the youth appears to show less and less ability to deal wth peer pressure; maladjustment. This could be due to the shift away from the self reliance mentality of the 1950's, due to major wars, into the more social dependency mind set of the modern era; freebies in exchange for dependency.
The youth appear to have less emotional self sufficiency. For example, College kids; adults, seem to have emotional break downs if someone gives a lecture different what they think. Why would Trump speaking at a college amp out so many young people so they feel violated; maladjustment. An adjusted person is built to withstand so they can learn anywhere.
Culture has moved from a more masculine culture in the 1950's; war mentality, to being more feminized. This is reflected in a drift away from logic, common sense and self sufficiency, in favor of emotions and big government dependency. If you look at PC and terrorism, common sense and logic sees a modest threat and can label it for treatment. PC tries to label terrorism in ways that make the threat harder to see; work place violence. It is about smoothing feeling with misinformation. This schema would help suicide rates go up, by making people unable to identify internal threats. If maladjustment is called peer pressure, one will not look inside to solve the problem. Instead the problem will persist since it is not outside. Or in the case of the youth, suicide will increase each year.
Homosexuality is highly entwined in PC. Therefore, you will not find many, if any studies that are not fluff pieces when it comes to homosexuality. It is taboo to give all facts that deviate from PC. One will be labelled a hate group. It is PC taboo to say anything that upsets feelings, even if these facts might help maladjustment. The lack of all the facts and the lack common sense, that might not allow one to feel good, can lead to maladjustment.
As an example, if I call the elderly, people in their golden years, this will make the elderly feel good since it paints a shiny picture. If I also use to PC to censor all the scary facts of getting older, that that can upset these shiny feelings, then middle age people can go forward in a dream state. When the golden feelings, become tarnished after retirement, due to no preparation for hard reality; lack of guiding facts, there will lack of adjustment skills. The same schema is true for the homosexual community. They are not prepared for reality since half of the facts are censored and taboo, in exchange for a short term feelings.
This schema benefits certain political parties because it perpetuates social problems, since it never solves the problem in term of the need of adjustment. Each generation of politicians can use the same sales pithes, since nothing changes. The war of poverty is 50 years old and we still have the same percent of poor, with the same sales pitch used 50 years later. The homosexual community would benefit by using a mind for all facts, flattering or not. If not 50 years from now you will be in the same place, which is an easy voter block for even less skilled democrat party politicians. They benefit by your maladjustment while blaming it on places that won't cure it.
The problem of the elderly could be solved if instead of crony capitalism, the children of the elderly were paid to be care givers at 50% of the nursing home rates. The saving firms up social security. Children caring for parents was the norm in the 1950's. The elderly in turn teach the grand children self reliance based on their unique needs. Grandparents can be more objective then parents and are not under the thumb of PC.
-
"Whilst homosexuality may be acceptable in some human tribes, it would be mathematically unsound to describe it as "normal""
I consider it normal if someone is 1,94 cm big. Now if you would write in this case that it is "mathematically unsound to describe it as "normal""" I disagree. Mathematics can not help us to decide if something is normal or not.
"You probably can find a lot of information by using a search engine."
I did this and did not find anything. It seems there are not many studies which looked for correlations between gay sex and maladjustment. Maybe some scientists don´t do/publish such research because results could be used against homosexuality.
"I believe homosexuality is 100 % normal
"Is this supported by any scientific evidence?"
Is it supported by any scientific evidence that homosexuality is abnormal? A lot depends how you define the words normal and abnormal. One of the many aspects that made the American Psychiatric Association 1973 declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder was that lots of homosexuals have no mental health problems at all - they just love and desire the same gender. There are thousands of scientific articles with lots of arguments why homosexuality is normal.
-
"Whilst homosexuality may be acceptable in some human tribes, it would be mathematically unsound to describe it as "normal""
I consider it normal if someone is 1,94 cm big. Now if you would write in this case that it is "mathematically unsound to describe it as "normal""" I disagree. Mathematics can not help us to decide if something is normal or not.
Precisely my point. The statistical norm is the most likely value you would find in a random sample of a population. If an alien spaceship abducted one human at random, it would more likely be a heterosexual than a homosexual.
But the sociological interpretation of "normal" is "tolerable", so anyone of viable stature can be considered normal in the context of the entire human race, but among definable subgroups such as, say, Japanese or Masai, a 1.7 m (world average) adult male would be statistically abnormal.
The probability of our "sampling alien" abducting an overt homosexual is obviously higher in San Francisco, where the sociological norm is broader than, say, Damascus, but if that probability is less than 50%, homosexuality is not a statistical norm.
So, to return to the original question, you are more likely to find suicide motivated by exclusion or fear of discovery in any subgroup of a population whose sociological norm is narrow.
The matter is complicated by opportunity. Time was, in the UK at least, that suicide was rife among dentists but not among other medical professionals. I don't think this was ever explained: self-employment was the norm for both dentists and general medical practitioners, and hospital surgeons had just as much access to lethal drugs and gases as dental surgeons, which suggests that possibly the combination of selfemployment and opportunity was the deciding factor. Yet the selfemployed generally express greater job satisfaction, better work-life balance, better general health and a longer life expectancy than employees. All very mysterious.