Hi:
Since Devi seems to have objected to my having inferred that he might be
moving toward adopting a biological deteminist position, I went back to check
on his message about paramecia, etc., to explore the reasons why I made that
inference.
In reviewing DEvi's post, I must have concluded that since Devi had
outlined the phylogentic history of talking about sex, he was suggesting that
we inherited the motivation to discuss sex through the long chain of
evolution.
Sorry, Devi.
But, I am still trying to get some discussion of why humans have made
sexual failure-sexual competence or sexual failure-sexual attractiveness
into primary superordinate constructs.
As I suggested, I suspect that over the course of history all kinds of
subordinate constructs have become subsumed under the superordinate --
weakness-power, despicable-estimable, repugnant-attractive etc, whereupon all
sorts of other constructs are assumed to be subordinated as well --
slender-fat, smelly-fragrant, flabby-muscular.
Why is it that psychologists and psychiatrists have gone along with this
move? For example, we find many discussions of different sexual orientations
-- homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, etc. What about asexual? Those poor
victims of social ostracization have had to hide in their own kinds of
"closets." They had to pretend that they were homosexual, bisexual, or
hetersexual. Some of them have been so victimized they have gone as far as
having children so that they wouldn't be "outed!!!" Did you ever run across
an eighteen year old male who would admit that he was an asexual???
Asexuals are so repressed that they have never even formed an organization to
assert their rights!!! Homosexuals have pressured the American Psychiatric
Association to take out of their diagnostic manuals the designation of
homosexual. Yet, the asexuals are still threatened with being diagnosed,
under various guises.
And, why haven't we constructivists (Who believe that all behavior
derives from the constructions we place on ourselves, right???) succeeded in
getting Ann Landers to desist from excusing irresponsible sexual behavior by
saying, "His hormones got the best of him?" And how about the people who
promote the dispensing of contraceptives being allowed to say that "They'll
do IT anyhow, so you might as well let them have the condoms;" all the while
allowing the inference that everybody will be out there doing IT as soon as
those homones kick in. Doesnt that kind of argument encourage young people to
build self constructions that would obviate the possibility that they would
be construed as hormoneless, asexual wimps???
And it all started because some scribe decided that some god had told the
first humans, "Be thee sexual, fecund, and reproductive," or something like
that!!!
It has been good for sex therapists, though!!! Maybe that god had wanted
go be sure that future sex therapists would be gainfully employed.
Jim Mancuso
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/soi
A website dedicated to information on Italian-
American history and heritage.
--------------0347DB9F1F0059CB87E6C6B1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Hi:
Since Devi seems to have objected to my having inferred
that he might be moving toward adopting a biological deteminist position,
I went back to check on his message about paramecia, etc., to explore the
reasons why I made that inference.
In reviewing DEvi's post, I must have concluded
that since Devi had outlined the phylogentic history of talking about sex,
he was suggesting that we inherited the motivation to discuss sex through
the long chain of evolution.
Sorry, Devi.
But, I am still trying to get some discussion of
why humans have made sexual failure-sexual competence or sexual
failure-sexual attractiveness into primary superordinate constructs.
As I suggested, I suspect that over the course of
history all kinds of subordinate constructs have become subsumed under
the superordinate -- weakness-power, despicable-estimable, repugnant-attractive
etc, whereupon all sorts of other constructs are assumed to be subordinated
as well -- slender-fat, smelly-fragrant, flabby-muscular.
Why is it that psychologists and psychiatrists have
gone along with this move? For example, we find many discussions of different
sexual orientations -- homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, etc. What
about asexual? Those poor victims of social ostracization have had
to hide in their own kinds of "closets." They had to pretend that
they were homosexual, bisexual, or hetersexual. Some of them have
been so victimized they have gone as far as having children so that they
wouldn't be "outed!!!" Did you ever run across an eighteen year old male
who would admit that he was an asexual???
Asexuals are so repressed that they have never even formed an organization
to assert their rights!!! Homosexuals have pressured the American
Psychiatric Association to take out of their diagnostic manuals the designation
of homosexual. Yet, the asexuals are still threatened with being
diagnosed, under various guises.
And, why haven't we constructivists (Who believe
that all behavior derives from the constructions we place on ourselves,
right???) succeeded in getting Ann Landers to desist from excusing irresponsible
sexual behavior by saying, "His hormones got the best of him?" And
how about the people who promote the dispensing of contraceptives being
allowed to say that "They'll do IT anyhow, so you might as well let them
have the condoms;" all the while allowing the inference that everybody
will be out there doing IT as soon as those homones kick in. Doesnt that
kind of argument encourage young people to build self constructions that
would obviate the possibility that they would be construed as hormoneless,
asexual wimps???
And it all started because some scribe decided that
some god had told the first humans, "Be thee sexual, fecund, and
reproductive," or something like that!!!
It has been good for sex therapists, though!!!
Maybe that god had wanted go be sure that future sex therapists would be
gainfully employed.
Jim Mancuso
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of
Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University
at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington
Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/soi
A website dedicated to information on Italian-
American history and heritage.
--------------0347DB9F1F0059CB87E6C6B1--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%