I don't think that anyone of us completely knows
why someone might be gay, lesbian, straight or
bisexual. Research shows that sexual orientation
is likely to be caused by a combination of factors
and although sexual orientation is usually set
early in life, it isn't at all uncommon for desires
and attractions to shift throughout someone's life.

Also not everyone who has sexual feelings or attractions
to the same gender will act on them. Which shows that what
people feel or do is not always the same as how they
identify themselves.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality have both been
documented in many different cultures and historical eras.
Several decades of research and clinical experience has
found that there is an interplay of genetic, hormonal,
developmental, social and cultural influences at play
in the determination of sexual orientation - despite
the persistence of stereotypes that portray gays as
disturbed.

These research and clinical studies have led mainstream
medical and mental health organisations to conclude that
sexual orientations such as lesbian, gay, straight and
bisexual represent normal aspects of human sexuality.
These mainstream organisations long ago abandoned
classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

cont'd ...

I forgot to add that studies have corroborated that
homosexual people are substantially higher risk
for some form of emotional problems including
suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorders.
This could be due to the persistence of stereotypes
that portray gays as disturbed and not normal in
many societies and cultures.

Dear Foxy,

I feel an area very much under researched also is the role of deeply hierarchical, patriarchal, religious organisations in producing the relatively unfettered power discrepancies that seem to facilitate widespread corruption of behaviour toward the youngsters within the care of those institutions.

Unlike perhaps Big Nana an yourself I don't think Brian Huston would consider himself gay nor that he would be objectively homosexual. I think he has been corrupted by the power he has wielded over others and combined with a Paulian outlook toward sexuality has found access to 'forbidden fruit' too easy and has taken advantage of it.

Who can forget Ted Haggard who featured in Dawkins God Delusion documentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBC5L6cyq2Y

He ended up being exposed as having paid for sex from a male prostitute and purchased meth from him on numerous occasions over a three year period.

He claims he isn't a homosexual and I am inclined to believe him. I feel in his mind the attraction is once again 'the forbidden fruit' rather than straight forward same sex attraction.

What do you think?

Dear Steele,

You could be right - religious leaders are their
church's men, tied to their institutions through a whole
system of intimate interconnections, spiritual,
social, economic and professional. They do have
authority, leadership, and power. And their life-styles
in many cases can leave some of them seeking other
releases to the frustrations they surely face on a daily
basis. But I also think there's more involved than
just the issue of power and "forbidden fruit.

I feel sorry for some of the conditions in which"for example,
Catholic priests have to work. They have little or no life of
their own. They are financially and domestically tied
to the church through low wages and modest domestic
arrangements. They are on duty 24 hours a day, live on
the job in the presbytery and have to assume high levels of
responsibility for the lives of others.

They have to be jacks-of-all trades and of course
"the sacralisation of the priesthood also evokes an
idealisation of the clergy by the laity, placing huge
expectations on priests."

The result could well be burn out and extremely high levels
of stress. In some cases this could occasionally result in
the tragedy of priestly suicide.

I guess the point that I am trying to make is that because
of the lack of separation of their personal and professional
lives this can also result in the loss of personal
boundaries and the occurrences of what clerical
professional standards organisations call "boundary
violations." And of course we all blame the clergy when this
does happen. I'm not suggesting for one moment that any form
of sexual abuse should be accepted but -

Perhaps, we need to look more closely at all the causes that
bring on this abhorrent behavior. At
issues like celibacy, ordination
of women, et cetera - to try to solve the issues and problems that
force the attraction of
"forbidden fruit."

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

In my previous post I wrote :

« Our conscious mind is produced by our brain and allows us to be aware of our own existence as well as that of our environment. It can determine our thoughts and behaviour, but it does not have access to our unconscious mind which can influence it “surreptitiously”. »

I should have mentioned that the term “unconscious mind” refers to that part of the mind that, according to Freud, cannot be known by the conscious mind, and includes socially unacceptable ideas, wishes, desires and emotions, traumatic memories, etc., that have been repressed.

He, at first, employed the terms “subconscious mind” and “unconscious mind” interchangeably before later describing the former as accessible under certain favourable conditions – though not immediately and not without special effort – as they are just under the surface, as it were.

Whereas, he indicated that the unconscious mind stores the primal, instinctual thoughts, desires, emotions etc., which we cannot access under any circumstances.

He, nevertheless, considered that our overt behaviour may, involuntarily, give signs of the unconscious forces that drive them.

.

Dear Banjo,

Researchers have described the human sex drive
to the hunger drive. We all have an innate tendency
to feel hungry periodically, but we have to learn
through the socialisation process what we may eat and
what we may not eat, although different societies
teach rather different lessons in this regard.

Unlike the inhabitants of some societies, the
well-socialised Australian or American who
encounters a dog, rat, or spider does not for one
moment consider the creature as "food" : we have
what seems to be an "instinctive", but what is in
fact learned, aversion to the idea.

The way we come to follow our society's norms of sexual
conduct is similar. We start with a basic, undirected
drive and learn through the socialisation process to
recognise some stimuli as nonsexual, some as sexual and
appropriate, and some as potentially sexual but inappropriate
or even taboo.

The fact that our sex drive is so flexible is, of course,
the reason every society goes to such lengths to regulate it.
If we all behaved "instinctinvely" in a rigid and predictable
manner, there would be no need for the guidelines supplied
by powerful norms and taboos, and they would not exist.