Sexual Orientation

[Violet]

Doing in depth research of this nature would take quite some time. Again, I would suggest that you do it before asking me to speak for all of psychology on this issue.

I've done myself plenty of forays into the nature of man. And into the nature of woman. And even into the nature of spaghetti. What I've found is that nature is multifaceted, and that looking at it under a microscope will reveal a different face than 'eyeballing it'.

I'm asking you to speak for yourself. It's for myself that I speak, and it's by myself that I will review any study in particular which you find to be a reasonable source for whatever you wish to say. See: I can't give you a specific rundown on the limitations of a specific study, if I don't know which study in particular you are using to make your claims. I am unable to provide for you a list of the factors which may or may not put any given study right on into the dumpster for all it teaches us (say... small sample size, questions formed in a manipulative manner (watch fox news for examples), or perhaps a concurrent issue to be considered amongst the majority of the sample (40% of the women interviewed over their average menstrual flow were transwomen).

As an example of the jar of dirt we could dig into: 'Paraphilia' alone is right on up there with 'gender identity disorder' and 'ADHD/ADD' for being unbelievably inaccurate in what they're trying to accomplish through saying it. Simply: one can no more cure a disease that doesn't exist than they can return order to that which is not out of order. One might call these terms, 'misnomers'. I like to think of them more as 'marketable buzzwords' (like... 'organic', or 'natural').

History is a great place to draw upon in the above consideration... as there was once a time when homosexuality ranked right up there next to paedophilia, chocolate-chasing, and S/M all as 'paraphilia'. Now, one might be inclined to talk about the changeability of this category in tune with cultural shifts (sociology, anyone?)... but instead, I'm going to look directly at the subject matter, and say this:

Being sexually stimulated by something (anything) is not necessarily indicative of a diseased mind, nor does it constitute an illness in and of itself... therefore so-called "paraphilias" do not exist in a form relevant to medical science.

There, I've made a claim. Now... I can defend this claim, should you wish to contest it for no reason that I can fathom that is 'relevant to medical science' (ie you find someone being turned on by murder to be icky, or "immoral" on some grounds that I'm not aware of but I'm sure to discover momentarily). It's not a perfect logical circle yet, because i'm ill writing it at 0415 after working hard all day and I haven't established the definitions of anything within (hell, last time I tried to see if we could define what an 'illness' was, I got shit slung at me, and made someone cry when I'd had enough of it)... but somehow, I think it'll do for now.