A Rant.

[NotPublished]

Statistically gay parents don't make gay babies at any higher rate that straights.  At least according to all the studies I have seen.

Hmm don't want this to go into a round of statistic, though yeah I've met a few people who have Gay parents and they are definantly not gay.

I'm more curious about the environment .. I personally don't think having 2 single gender parents will have any problems - since the child won't know any better. But if they compare it to the other relationships that other kids have with a Mum/Dad relationship - would they feel like they are missing something? There is also the possibility of being teased over it ...

I know for a fact that I wondered what it would be like if I had an actual dad.

[NotPublished]

@Nasturtiums - It is hard to take serious  Something just seems wrong with it

I dunno man. The most positive male influence I had was a lesbian.

Gender is lot more fluid and permeable in it's expression than sex. A lot of the roles amd characteristics we place on one gender over another are based on assumptions and social constructs. Some of that is good, some bad. It's hard to draw a clear line.

That was beautifully put.

[The Johnny]

Damn. I was about to ask  "What about the case with a single parent? If a parent was to act as both mum and dad."
So in that case, the child would become dependant on the parent and do what it takes to keep them happy?

But going back to your post - using that mind-set, that would mean Gay people make gay babies? (Or rather a higher chance - because the son will fight the dad/daughter fight the mum)

So - As long as personality of the parents is Dualistic (Feminine/Masculine) then the child will form the seperation?

eta : Didn't see your edit. Haha

Some cultural research ive done about Mexican culture, points to the conclusion that the lack of prescence of the father makes for a lot of "momma's boys"; they never quite differentiate completely.

Gay parents dont make gay babies, thats a whole different deal; first theres a competition for the affection of the caretaker or loved object, which later, after the child understands it cant compete, just accepts it and starts identifying with the victor.

Yes, in my opinion, one parent needs to be the caretaker, while the other helps break that fused couple.

[NotPublished]

Some cultural research ive done about Mexican culture, points to the conclusion that the lack of prescence of the father makes for a lot of "momma's boys"; they never quite differentiate completely.

Gay parents dont make gay babies, thats a whole different deal; first theres a competition for the affection of the caretaker or loved object, which later, after the child understands it cant compete, just accepts it and starts identifying with the victor.

Yes, in my opinion, one parent needs to be the caretaker, while the other helps break that fused couple.

Thanks

That makes alot of sense.

[The Johnny]

Johny - just a question

Using a scenario of a gay couple,  it would be good to have one who plays the role of the Mum and one who plays the role of the dad - other wise, if you have 2 who play the role of the dad; would the child inherittly follow the same archetype or would they be more feminine to balance it out?

Sorry for the sucky wording

This is a huge mess of a thing, so lets see, Im gonna transcribe you what the three stages of the Oedipus Complex according to Lacan...

1st stage: The triangle is formed by the child, the mother and the "phallus"; the phallus is something the mother desires and that the child attempts to become; the mother's desire is the law.

2nd stage: The father intervenes, by setting up the castration, by denying the child the mother; the father vs. the child, competing for the mother's affection.

3rd stage: The father shows he owns the phallus, castrating the child; the child realizes he cannot be the phallus and is relieved of that angst of trying to become it. This is at the same time the prohibition of incest, but also the promise, thru identification with the father, to someday get a woman of his own.

Is it wrong that I can't take any of the Oedipus Complex seriously?

Depends on your reasons why; this is a theory i need to argue for or against for my essay, but with reasons, not just ideological liking or not.

I personally have no problem with homosexual couples taking care of babies.

[NotPublished]

I think its more so to do with the wordings and laughing at it like an 8 year old

[The Johnny]

I dunno man. The most positive male influence I had was a lesbian.

Gender is lot more fluid and permeable in it's expression than sex. A lot of the roles amd characteristics we place on one gender over another are based on assumptions and social constructs. Some of that is good, some bad. It's hard to draw a clear line.

Gender is indeed a social construct, while sex you dont have a choice.

In other words, you dont have a choice to have a dick or a pussy, but you sure have a choice on how you want to act, instead of following relative/cultural gender norms.

[Nast]

Johny - just a question

Using a scenario of a gay couple,  it would be good to have one who plays the role of the Mum and one who plays the role of the dad - other wise, if you have 2 who play the role of the dad; would the child inherittly follow the same archetype or would they be more feminine to balance it out?

Sorry for the sucky wording

This is a huge mess of a thing, so lets see, Im gonna transcribe you what the three stages of the Oedipus Complex according to Lacan...

1st stage: The triangle is formed by the child, the mother and the "phallus"; the phallus is something the mother desires and that the child attempts to become; the mother's desire is the law.

2nd stage: The father intervenes, by setting up the castration, by denying the child the mother; the father vs. the child, competing for the mother's affection.

3rd stage: The father shows he owns the phallus, castrating the child; the child realizes he cannot be the phallus and is relieved of that angst of trying to become it. This is at the same time the prohibition of incest, but also the promise, thru identification with the father, to someday get a woman of his own.

Is it wrong that I can't take any of the Oedipus Complex seriously?

Depends on your reasons why; this is a theory i need to argue for or against for my essay, but with reasons, not just ideological liking or not.

I personally have no problem with homosexual couples taking care of babies.

Well, it's hard for me to agree or disagree with the whole thing as I have never had the experience of being a parent, but it just seems to frame the whole parent-child relationship in sexuality, which seems awfully odd to me.

I think its more so to do with the wordings and laughing at it like an 8 year old

Also, this.

Nasturtiums,
Lol phallus

[NotPublished]

The father shows he owns the phallus, castrating the child

[Kai]

I really like where this thread is going, so I'm going to stay out of it except to say that I really can't take any of this psycho-analytical freudian oedepus complex nonsense seriously, and I'm saddened that it holds sway at all in psychology anymore.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I really like where this thread is going, so I'm going to stay out of it except to say that I really can't take any of this psycho-analytical freudian oedepus complex nonsense seriously, and I'm saddened that it holds sway at all in psychology anymore.

Don't knock it, it's as close to actual science as psychology ever gets - they wrote it down in a book

ETA: On the subject of gay couples bringing up kids. If two gay people are capable of completely doing a kids head in to the point where they are unable to function as an adult in society when they grow up, a shivering wreck of conflicting neuroses, then they're just as fit to be parents as most straight couples IMO.

[Kai]

I really like where this thread is going, so I'm going to stay out of it except to say that I really can't take any of this psycho-analytical freudian oedepus complex nonsense seriously, and I'm saddened that it holds sway at all in psychology anymore.

Don't knock it, it's as close to actual science as psychology ever gets - they wrote it down in a book

No, we can study consciousness through observation without making up all kinds of silly hat bullshit along the way (and from now on, when I say silly hat bullshit I'm referring to layering of ad hoc assumptions upon reality obscuring the basic nature of the system). Both Freud and Jung had some interesting ideas, but for the most part they were idiot savants about it. I refuse to accept psychology can be nothing more than silly hats.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I really like where this thread is going, so I'm going to stay out of it except to say that I really can't take any of this psycho-analytical freudian oedepus complex nonsense seriously, and I'm saddened that it holds sway at all in psychology anymore.

Don't knock it, it's as close to actual science as psychology ever gets - they wrote it down in a book

No, we can study consciousness through observation without making up all kinds of silly hat bullshit along the way (and from now on, when I say silly hat bullshit I'm referring to layering of ad hoc assumptions upon reality obscuring the basic nature of the system). Both Freud and Jung had some interesting ideas, but for the most part they were idiot savants about it. I refuse to accept psychology can be nothing more than silly hats.

Problem is, when you're observing black-box phenomenon like consciousness you can pretty much make up any reason why it does what it does. Which, as far as I can tell is how psychology works.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Sexual taboos appear to be one of the most common taboos among all societies everywhere... Saying who you can and cannot fuck has been a big control stick for a long... long... long time. Not always anti-homosexual, or pro-hetero only... but Some Rules about who/what the monkeys can and cannot pop one off with. Hell, the Hebrews had a whole mega list which included people you HAD to have sex with (just ask poor old Onan... maybe he didn't WANT to fuck his sister in law... when I was married, I sure as hell didn't want to fuck my sister in law!!!), but no, the law said that he had to.

The society of the last half of the 20th century though... has begun to move in a different direction. A direction where society cannot force their rules on you as strongly as they once did (obviously we're not free of sexual taboos... there's still lots of Do Not Touch With Your Penis categories, like kids, animals, etc). But, homosexuality, something our society (from a traditional standpoint) would forbid, is allowed due to the competing tradition in the society of freedom. I wonder how much of the anti-gay marriage issue is intolerance, as opposed to social confusion? I mean, several hundred years of tradition overthrown in a generation seems likely to leave a lot of confused monkeys.

Jefferson said that the revolution happened in the minds of the people, 10 years before the first shot. He felt that no law would usefully stick, if it hadn't already been stuck in the heads of the People.

If we look at the Civil rights movement, I think we see that. Even though there were laws, many people still behaved in an abominable fashion. Some people are still as abominable, but overall society has evolved in the minds of the people and civil rights for that group are not really fought against except by obviously intolerant bigots. I think what we're seeing now, with the gay marriage issue will follow a similar path. It's not likely to succeed now (or at least, not likely to be accepted by 'the people') because their thinking has not yet evolved (one could argue, maybe metaphorically, that the current social atmosphere is the sort of environment to force evolution/adaptation of thinking).

So I guess I see a couple groups in the anti-gay marriage groups. There are bigots, anti-gay people that want to burn, kill, destroy the gays that are 'stealing their kids and raping them' (at least in the mind of the monkey)... but I think there are also a larger group of people that are dealing with conflicting and confusing programs in their head... as those programs resolve themselves, I think many of the anti-gay individuals will become neutral or pro-human rights for this minority (much as some of the anti=-Civil rights people had a change of heart over time).

Responses like Kai's seem to be the sort of 'stress' that is needed to force the thinking to evolve.

Kai!

[Kai]

I really like where this thread is going, so I'm going to stay out of it except to say that I really can't take any of this psycho-analytical freudian oedepus complex nonsense seriously, and I'm saddened that it holds sway at all in psychology anymore.

Don't knock it, it's as close to actual science as psychology ever gets - they wrote it down in a book

No, we can study consciousness through observation without making up all kinds of silly hat bullshit along the way (and from now on, when I say silly hat bullshit I'm referring to layering of ad hoc assumptions upon reality obscuring the basic nature of the system). Both Freud and Jung had some interesting ideas, but for the most part they were idiot savants about it. I refuse to accept psychology can be nothing more than silly hats.

Problem is, when you're observing black-box phenomenon like consciousness you can pretty much make up any reason why it does what it does. Which, as far as I can tell is how psychology works.

That's why the scientific method exists, to test and retest hypotheses via observation and experiment. A judicious use of parsimony is necessary. That's how you eliminate made up reasons.

Freud pulled oedipus complex out of his ass. He didn't test any hypotheses, and he certainly didn't use parsimony. It's a whole bunch of just so stories. Truly, those who study the mind can do better.