I like your approach on the matter, taking back to early academic views of homosexuality and them getting to Freud's. But I can't help to think that this should turn into a series, taking a more contemporaneous view perharps. What are the academics references that we have today? We know that it is not a mental illness, however I feel like sexuality still plays a major role on one's mental health. So I believe we could use more references. Anyway, I'm such a fan of your work here and I wish you continues the amazing content you offer us.
Absolutely. Also, if the biggest criticism I get for this video is that folks want more videos with more detail then for TH-cam standards, I think I'm doing alright 😉
There are many problems related to studies about sexuality and especially stigma and discrimination rekated to it. 1) there's lack of research that would compare psychotherapeutic or pharmacological treatment of mental disorders in LGBTQ compared to straight non-discriminated people 2) the boundary between normal feelings in a discriminated / stigmatized person vs adjustment disorder vs anxiety disorder are blurred, how are we sure that statistics reallyshows the prevalence of anxiety disorders in LGBTQ people? Read about views on eco anxiety for comparison 3) we ignore the subjective evaluation of psychiatrists who are not unbiased 4) psychotherapies may involve techniques that actually sound like victim blaming when coping for anxiety coming from a long lasting stressor (discrimination, stigma) -- obviously "cognitive restructuring" or "psychological defenses" aren't relevant 5) the ignorance of the effect of activism on anxiety
Loved this video! As a homosexual guy who wants to become a psychologist it is very interesting to know about the story of sexuality in psychiatry leading to the positive and negative aspects of it today. When I first got interested in psychology/psychiatry I was surprised by how much homophobia there is in the field of medicine even today, and I'm very happy that we got people like you being important voices that help further inform people on these topics.
This is really great and I second the need for more videos and more information! I’ve just been doing research on Jung and his ideas and the people that elaborated on and evolved his ideas and sometimes I really wonder where queerness fits into all this because it often seems to be erased. Thank you for making this!!!
Wow, that was a big surprise. Never thought of Freud as an ally xD I still remember a time in uni where we would check our newspaper archive databank and I stumbled upon a headline from the 20's or 30's or some such. It was a warning that a "Homosexual had escaped from a mental institution". It was very weird to see and truly makes you realize how different those times were. That makes it even more impressive that Freud was capable of challenging these views.
I would really be interested on your option of Karl Ulrich, he wasn't a medical or psychological doctor but had a huge impact on the view of the lgbt community. He was the first one to scientifically argued that being lgbt was normal and natural and form different labels for sexualities before the word homosexuality was created. He argued this in front of 500 doctor, lawyer and officers in germany
The developmental thing is kinds funny for me right now. I'm 30 & spent most of my life living in a major city and recently moved to a country town where a lot of people are married and people who look like children have their own children.
A bit of misrepresenting Freud, because his theory also underwent a lot of change. Its kind of true, that for him homosexuality as well as every perversion (which just means that its sexuality that’s not reproductive - for him kissing was a perversion too) is a kind of immaturity. But in a later text he says there is just one parent which the child wants and the other that forbids that, which is sex wise interchangeable and can also happen partially with each parent. He considers it a tendency that probably comes biologically. He fought the notion that homosexuality is anything special (which is also directed against homosexuals at his time that thought of themselves as special) and that pretty much everyone has some kind of perversion - so some kind of lust that got stuck in an early stage of sexual development which also happens to be something that society actually endorses by allowing kisses because its a much more acceptable way of living out sexuality in public.
Thanks!! Psychoanalysis and Freud in particular is so badly butchered in America I think for ideological/economic reasons that eventually became widespread misinformation. This video is not even that bad, to be fair, but without understanding what's a perversion and what is neurosis in Freud (normal stuff) often you really can't grasp what he means.
So many ostensibly smart men and none of them realized that what makes gay men is how many cute guys there are?? Seriously though, it's a sad history and unfortunately we still hear the echoes of some of these arguments today (from the public, not necessarily psychologists). I've often wondered what the "cause" of my homosexuality is myself, but I don't know how much of that is my own genuine curiosity and how much is a hope that the answers shuts some of the particularly awful voices out there up.
I'm not a historian but I've been on the planet a long time and seems to me what you're referencing is about *male* homosexuals. Which were just about all anyone seemed to consider back then. Were there other views about, for example, the etiology of lesbians?
It's far less clear and there is a huge absence of evidence about how psychiatry interacted with gay and bi women. Good essay summarising the evidence here www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-03661930059-8/fulltext
“Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime - and cruelty, too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis.” “It is well known that at all times there have been, as there still are, human beings who can take as their sexual objects persons of either sex without the one trend interfering with the other. We call these people bisexual and accept the fact of their existence without wondering much at it … But we have come to know that all human beings are bisexual in this sense and their libido is distributed between objects of both sexes, either in a manifest or a latent form.” Sigmund Freud Please note when you quote Edmund Bergler you are showing a picture of Carl Jung. Jung had an equally liberal theory and actually one that might turn out to be more accurate. He put forth a “born this way” hypothesis via Lamarckism, which although Lamarckism is refuted it actually has similarities to epigenetic cause which is currently proposed. Jung wasn’t perfect he considered that some will have “the fate of homosexuality”. Which I think opened the door for Jungian reparative therapy most notably Harry Hay had a Jungian therapist who advised that he marry a masculine woman. But it was Marie Louis Von Franz who often bought into very narrow stereotypes for example calling all gay men puer aeternus perpetually immature. She also once conflated the early homophile movement with the Nazi for example because there were gay Nazi (Ernst Rohm) and a bisexual nationalistic homophiles Adolph Brand there must be some connection. She didn’t look into the question very deeply because Thomas Mann who was vehemently anti-Nazi wrote for Der Eigene. Psychology should be taken with a grain of salt really.
Criminalized or infantalized lol. Variation is hated based on a overwhelming need for having expectations matched in every situation. In uncertain times we get scapegoated more....
Growing up in a time where we can confidently and with certainty act around homosexuality as a normal thing, certainlynis an achievement. I just often like to travel back in time with my brain and wonder if I, someone who considerd themselves to be rational and logical, would have lived in a different society, woulf I have defended homophobia? It's a thought experiment that I like to make, to get an ides of the way I will reflect on myself today, from the future. I think I would have been a homophobe in action, but without believing in it, because most arguments I use to state that are evidence that homosexuality is a normal human thing, are the exact same points I use in the opposite way when discussing incest. I could not make an argument for why incest is a bad thing eventhough I am against it (especially, I think consenting adulzs should have their rights to do what they want when no one is harmed). I just wonder if in the future we will grow more respectful towards that too, or if there are any reasons I overlook. This is not to compsre the two, just with how I make the arguments in my mind.
“For good practical reasons” what about not getting pregnant? I don’t think they ever examined it that way, because people would rather not have sex then have sex with a gender they are not attracted too. However “for good practical reason” many 🏳️🌈 people were. I think his statement was good for the time but it needs an editor to cut a few sentences. Live your authentic self proud and know there are people who will accept you for you.
What are you talking about , Freud Sigmund is homosexual by him self and ofcours it’s a must for him to support it even though he knew something is wrong , read his books .
About Freud : the letter to a mother you quote (thanks for that one, Siggi) is from 1935, the very end of Freud's life. As he was a clever fellow, his views evolved quite a bit but never to the point of endangering the system of treatment he had created. I also think he had a hard time getting over the idea he had of women, an idea very much inherited from the role attributed to them in the very old-fashioned Austrian society he grew up in. Although he died in 1939, he was very much a man of the 19th century. But hey, thanks for that letter to a mother, Siggi.
We are our mothers’ biological processes before we are our own. No mammal individuates prosocially without her preparing us for and supporting the separation. Nothing sexist about it. Secondary parents are useless to infants but their support is critical to nursing mothers. Trait homosexual orientation is an obvious efficiency mechanism for not imposing the alternative of one’s hypothetical sterility onto heterosexual partner fertility. It’s selected-for in utero by a neuroadrenal stress response empirically and anecdotally to anxiety over unwanted pregnancy. So lots of babytrappers and prolifers. Freud oversexualized everything because he was molested [how he was able to articulate the paraphilias just from hearing his patients’ descriptions of their pervert (his word) husbands]. He figured out his own autism but oedipal theory sense-making of his own abuse prevented him from realizing postpartum psychosis (wish for the child to become “unborn“) is the pathogenic etiology of autism (and SIDS). Stomach-sleeping doesn’t CAUSE SIDS (or autism). It’s a defensive posture against a scowling or menacing mother that PREDICTS them both. Slept on my stomach until hernia surgery broke me of the habit in my 40s. Doubt I’m unique. The significant cooccurrence of autism and trait homosexual orientation indicates most of us are undiagnosed autistics (and the etiologies explain why). They also explain some of the more critically-observed common characteristics AND THEY DEFINITELY EXPLAIN BUGCHASING. So thanks Siggy certainly more than thanks Mom.
This is really interesting. I'm not a fan of psychoanalysis, generally speaking, and believe it's a combination of objectively wrong and outdated theories & beliefs, but I've always lumped Freud into a pile with the rest and viewed him as a homophobe. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on him as a misogynist (although psychoanalysis seems to be steeped in misogyny). Thanks for this. Love your channel.
I dislike Freud. He advocated for the use of cocaine because he himself loved using it. He also catered to rich people because of $$$$, and he was obsessed with sex. And that’s only scratching the surface. But I do believe he contributed one good thing to the field, which is talk therapy. And I’m not going to discount how important that is. Just my two cents, and my opinion only. I am in no way saying everyone else’s opinions are invalid or anything.
@@DoctorElliottCarthy what I'd give to back in time like in Bill and Ted to show him video after video of pride parades and pictures of happily married same sex couples at their weddings 🤣 he'd lose his marbles! P.s. I'd love to see a future video of a reaction to Good Will Hunting! Your Robin Williams video was excellent 👌🏻
Freud's views do have homophobic, transphobic and misogynistic backgrounds and ideas... So even if many try to turn around things, half stands from his time (sociocultural context) so 😬 i don't think he is that liberal
@@davidholmgren8156 I don't think so, he isn't progressive even for the time, he was slightly less shitty and although we can akwoledge that, the root of what he proposed is problematic and outdated as fuck, it's a dogma I prefer psychology that changes, envolves and isn't binary or thinks everything that isn't cis het is an issue And let's not even point out how outsidated and not progressive he was that he said that Woman's orgasm that wasn't penetrative was an immature orgasm (sexologists have truly dissected many things )
Couldn’t disagree more. I’d love to see your references for these claims (not the ideas, but the literature itself). From my readings of Freud (as a strong and proud ally mind you) I always interpreted his works as rejecting the modern ideas regarding sexuality and gender.
I really agree with you, as a gay man I always felt uncomfortable during psychoanalysis classes in college. I disagreed with so many things, but I was afraid to speak up because the teacher always exaggerated and turned everything into an unnecessary show, as if she were a fanatic protecting her "god Freud". Currently working in the field of psychology, I notice that everyone who goes into the field of psychoanalysis becomes strangely fanatical, to the point where complaining about psychoanalysis is almost taboo. From their perspective, not liking psychoanalysis means that either you haven't studied enough or you're trying hard to be the villain of the story. You can't just have your own opinion about something (something quite dated, if I may say so)
Surely pathologizing feelings, either using religion or fear of affection for own sex (amongst males in particular) does not help the individual. For some it IS a phase, therefore by labelling someone lgbtq+etc (or conversely "homophobic") is just as harmful as labelling them as "sinful". So called "conversion therapy" which focuses on making someone change is not therapeutic but don't lump it with any therapy which seeks to address someone's innate aversion to sexualizing same sex affection and label it "banned". Then it denies the profound effects of child sexual abuse on childhood development, especially how the adolescent grows into the confusing world of being a sexually attracted and attractive adult. This is seen in schools which have now gone to the other extreme to phobia about sex to forcing it on all kids, tbus still denying the respect of individual children to exploring life at their own pace and with trusted family who need to learn also. It is interesting that the term "homosexual" means feeling sexual to one's own gender. Therefore "homophobia" means fear of self. I would suggest that to find the same gender attractive does not indicate fear of the opposite gender, but fear of and a deep feeling of non acceptance by one's own gender. This would explain why so many say they have felt this way from the age of 3. The basis of therapy must be from an innate awareness of one's inner pain causing confusion not ignoring it or being told one should feel pained by one's feelings when one does not.
Sin is not a mental disorder amenable to medical intervention. The repressed guilt associated with deviant behaviour may be masked if you can convince a person their deviant behaviour is ok. There is very little hope for a person so deluded.
@@andreasluxbr read the Ten Commandments ( it will only take a couple of minutes, unlike the huge tomes produced by even the smallest governing authority) Can you dismiss these as just a social construct aimed at controlling your freedom? ( not that freedom for others who disagree with them is something that liberals want to exist)
@@philipbaker2894 No, I don't see them as just social construct, they are a very specific text relevant only to those who believe them. Sin is a social construct because it is perceived throughout many cultures, the bible is just for christians. For others they are just a piece of fiction, and a bad one at that.
@@philipbaker2894 It is very curious that you choose to use the term "phobia" related to the bible, when most preachers use the very fear of damnation to influence their flock. I know the bible, yes. But I don't fear the texts, I fear what men are capable of doing in the name of a God, even when their very act goes against the fundamental idea of the very texts they so passionately defend.
Bottom line, it is not a choice. "Nothing is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" Martin Luther King Facts..... Homosexuality is not a choice. But Homophobia is. Is Homosexual orientation acquired or natural?🤔 From the scientific community: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Psychological Association (APA) takes the position that a variety of factors impact a person's sexuality. The most recent literature from the APA says that sexual orientation is not a choice that can be changed at will, and that sexual orientation is the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. Also, over 1500 species have been proven to exhibit homosexuality. (American Psychological Association 2010).” Lamanna MA, Riedmann A, Stewart SD (2014). Marriages, Families, and Relationships: Making Choices in a Diverse Society. Cengage Learning. p. 82. ISBN 978-1305176898. Retrieved February 11, 2016. Conclusion In conclusion, we showed that sexual orientation is associated with distinct changes in brain structure and that these effects vary with biological sex. Altogether, our findings show that sexual orientation has strong associations with areas primarily linked to processing and integrating incoming sensory, reward-related, and motor information. The findings aid the understanding of the neurobiology of Li sexual orientation and emphasizes the need of including or controlling for potential effects of the sexual orientation of participants in neuroimaging studies. Moreover, results provide new insights into sexual behavior in general and have implications for healthcare policies. From the Christian community: The Catechism of the Catholic Church discussed this issue in the book with subheading,"Homosexuality" paragraphs 2357-2359 which described that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect”: 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. Based on the current evidence above, we can at least conclude for now that homosexual orientation is a natural phenomenon. In Christianity, we are taught that God has a hand on all matters and life in the universe. We can therefore suggest that God has a hand in creating homosexual people as well. If this is so, what is God’s perfect plan and purpose for their existence? Keep in mind that in general gay (homosexual) population are for the most part are talented, peaceful and productive group of people that contribute immensely to the economy, arts, social, and charity, and other parts of society. A perfectly good explanation would be God’s purpose is that with homosexual people’s inability to procreate, their existence can be an aid in not adding anymore to the already overpopulated world especially the 3rd world countries. As well as created to take care of children heterosexuals abandon. And with the predominantly same-sex attractions comprise about 12% of respondents in most Western surveys and with data from non-Western cultures as consistent with this conclusion, homosexual community can really contribute to the depopulation of our world to a degree. Note: There is no persuasive evidence that the rate of same-sex attraction has varied much across time or place. Just from raw observation (due to the lack of documented statistics), the homosexual community in general excel in many aspects of society, citing a few: * In cultural arts, entertainment, music, etc. * Business, and technologies * Law abiding citizens (low crime rate) compared to the general public. And with their extraordinary talents (also a gift from the Almighty and Omniscient God), their contributions can be huge positive boost to the well being of mankind in all aspects of human endeavor and necessities. Based on the above informations, it is safe to say that it is about time that the age old discriminations and homophobic sentiments of some sectors of society must be altered because for one thing their orientation is not their choice but rather a natural phenomenon. Recognizing that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, Pope Francis courageously announced recently his endorsement of homosexual civil union and welcoming gay community to the Church (at the dismay of many of his detractors (both in the Catholic and non-Catholic Christian world) because in his words “they are also children of God and should be integrated into society”. If homosexuality is natural thus it follows that their sexual desires is just as natural as the heterosexual sexual desires, therefore I can guess that Pope Francis and the magisterium is well aware of this reality that’s why his support of their civil union and his compassion to the gay community. With the available facts and truths of this issue in time the homosexual realm will be legalized and accepted in all aspects of society including religious tolerance and/or sanction. To the fundamentalist Catholics and evangelical non-Catholic Christians, and to the detractors of Pope Francis, it is about time to consider the positive merits of gay communities instead of maintaining the archaic-homophobic negative sentiments against them because it’s not actually their choice to be homosexual but God has a hand in it. God Bless us all children of God! "Pew's research study found that people in wealthier and more developed economies are more accepting than countries that are less wealthy and developed. Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, nations with a per-capita gross domestic product of more than $50,000, registered among the highest levels of acceptance. By comparison, less than 2-in-10 respondents in Nigeria, Kenya and Ukraine have per-capita GDPs of less than $10,000, express acceptance." Wealth provides access to information and facts, knowledge. "The problem in the world is Oppression of man by man; it is this which threatens Existence. Men continue to misinterpret the second-rate status of women as implying a privilege status for themselves; heterosexuals think the same way about homosexuals; gentiles about jews; whites about blacks; haves about have-nots."
@@joey9562 Heterosexuality is natural. Homosexuality is cultural. 20% of Gen Z consider themselves as LGBT compared to 4% of Gen X. That big jump within one generation isn't at all natural. On the other hand, in today's culture, it is socially acceptable, even encouraged maybe, to be LGBT.
@@NameGueSapeYe lmao. Read the history of homosexuality, homosexuals always have existed. It's abrahmic religions that influenced the normality of heterosexuality and demoralized homosexuality. Before abrahmic religions, bisexuality was actually more widespread than heterosexuality and homosexuality. Technically, most people are bi. There is nobody who's purely homosexual or heterosexual. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are cultural. We are becoming more comfortable with our original nature for connection regardless of gender.
He was homosexual and was cool with pedophilia and incest. When it’s said homosexuality is abnormal it is. That’s not an insult it’s just not the norm. Clearly men and women fit like a key and lock and is how more people come to be. Are people born how they are? Sure. Can people influenced due to outside situations? Of course. It’s not just one thing that makes up homosexuality. Dismissing things to justify others doesn’t suit anyone well regardless of the source. How much truth is in the findings is what counts.
![เปิดคำทำนาย นอสตราดามุส - บาบา วานก้า ปี 2025 คนทั่วโลกต้องเจออะไรบ้าง? | แฉ 11 ธ.ค. 67 [2/3] |GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xmTIKWJUMPM/mqdefault.jpg)
"I have no bias." 🙄"Let me continue to describe my non bias in detail."
I like your approach on the matter, taking back to early academic views of homosexuality and them getting to Freud's. But I can't help to think that this should turn into a series, taking a more contemporaneous view perharps. What are the academics references that we have today? We know that it is not a mental illness, however I feel like sexuality still plays a major role on one's mental health. So I believe we could use more references. Anyway, I'm such a fan of your work here and I wish you continues the amazing content you offer us.
Absolutely. Also, if the biggest criticism I get for this video is that folks want more videos with more detail then for TH-cam standards, I think I'm doing alright 😉
There are many problems related to studies about sexuality and especially stigma and discrimination rekated to it. 1) there's lack of research that would compare psychotherapeutic or pharmacological treatment of mental disorders in LGBTQ compared to straight non-discriminated people 2) the boundary between normal feelings in a discriminated / stigmatized person vs adjustment disorder vs anxiety disorder are blurred, how are we sure that statistics reallyshows the prevalence of anxiety disorders in LGBTQ people? Read about views on eco anxiety for comparison 3) we ignore the subjective evaluation of psychiatrists who are not unbiased 4) psychotherapies may involve techniques that actually sound like victim blaming when coping for anxiety coming from a long lasting stressor (discrimination, stigma) -- obviously "cognitive restructuring" or "psychological defenses" aren't relevant 5) the ignorance of the effect of activism on anxiety
Loved this video! As a homosexual guy who wants to become a psychologist it is very interesting to know about the story of sexuality in psychiatry leading to the positive and negative aspects of it today. When I first got interested in psychology/psychiatry I was surprised by how much homophobia there is in the field of medicine even today, and I'm very happy that we got people like you being important voices that help further inform people on these topics.
The queerphobia is still there to dome extent but its so important to face our past to at least try and learn from it
Freud thought everybody also wanted a penis so really I don't care anything about what he has to say.
@@DoctorElliottCarthy there's no such thing as queer phobia, queer theory is homophobic and it hurts homosexuality gay/lesbian.
I love how you provide historical context for historical practices.
This is really great and I second the need for more videos and more information! I’ve just been doing research on Jung and his ideas and the people that elaborated on and evolved his ideas and sometimes I really wonder where queerness fits into all this because it often seems to be erased. Thank you for making this!!!
Wow, that was a big surprise. Never thought of Freud as an ally xD
I still remember a time in uni where we would check our newspaper archive databank and I stumbled upon a headline from the 20's or 30's or some such. It was a warning that a "Homosexual had escaped from a mental institution". It was very weird to see and truly makes you realize how different those times were. That makes it even more impressive that Freud was capable of challenging these views.
I would really be interested on your option of Karl Ulrich, he wasn't a medical or psychological doctor but had a huge impact on the view of the lgbt community. He was the first one to scientifically argued that being lgbt was normal and natural and form different labels for sexualities before the word homosexuality was created. He argued this in front of 500 doctor, lawyer and officers in germany
Not what I expected! Very interesting.
The developmental thing is kinds funny for me right now. I'm 30 & spent most of my life living in a major city and recently moved to a country town where a lot of people are married and people who look like children have their own children.
Freud was playing butt games with his friend
Oh wow, that serves to even further complicate my feelings on Freud.
Can you recommend some books that queer/gay people should read!!
Just want to say... I love you ❤️
Everything you say, share, and teach is essential xx
A bit of misrepresenting Freud, because his theory also underwent a lot of change. Its kind of true, that for him homosexuality as well as every perversion (which just means that its sexuality that’s not reproductive - for him kissing was a perversion too) is a kind of immaturity. But in a later text he says there is just one parent which the child wants and the other that forbids that, which is sex wise interchangeable and can also happen partially with each parent. He considers it a tendency that probably comes biologically.
He fought the notion that homosexuality is anything special (which is also directed against homosexuals at his time that thought of themselves as special) and that pretty much everyone has some kind of perversion - so some kind of lust that got stuck in an early stage of sexual development which also happens to be something that society actually endorses by allowing kisses because its a much more acceptable way of living out sexuality in public.
Thanks!! Psychoanalysis and Freud in particular is so badly butchered in America I think for ideological/economic reasons that eventually became widespread misinformation. This video is not even that bad, to be fair, but without understanding what's a perversion and what is neurosis in Freud (normal stuff) often you really can't grasp what he means.
instead of calling out sick from work i should just call out gay. like nope, sorry, can't come in, i'm too queer
Great video brother.
So many ostensibly smart men and none of them realized that what makes gay men is how many cute guys there are??
Seriously though, it's a sad history and unfortunately we still hear the echoes of some of these arguments today (from the public, not necessarily psychologists). I've often wondered what the "cause" of my homosexuality is myself, but I don't know how much of that is my own genuine curiosity and how much is a hope that the answers shuts some of the particularly awful voices out there up.
If Sigmund Freud was a homophobe boy don't let them learn about Dr. Money and David Reimer.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I prefer the ones over 7 inches.
I'm not a historian but I've been on the planet a long time and seems to me what you're referencing is about *male* homosexuals. Which were just about all anyone seemed to consider back then. Were there other views about, for example, the etiology of lesbians?
It's far less clear and there is a huge absence of evidence about how psychiatry interacted with gay and bi women. Good essay summarising the evidence here www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-03661930059-8/fulltext
Thank you for this succinct history lesson
“Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime - and cruelty, too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis.”
“It is well known that at all times there have been, as there still are, human beings who can take as their sexual objects persons of either sex without the one trend interfering with the other. We call these people bisexual and accept the fact of their existence without wondering much at it … But we have come to know that all human beings are bisexual in this sense and their libido is distributed between objects of both sexes, either in a manifest or a latent form.”
Sigmund Freud
Please note when you quote Edmund Bergler you are showing a picture of Carl Jung.
Jung had an equally liberal theory and actually one that might turn out to be more accurate. He put forth a “born this way” hypothesis via Lamarckism, which although Lamarckism is refuted it actually has similarities to epigenetic cause which is currently proposed.
Jung wasn’t perfect he considered that some will have “the fate of homosexuality”. Which I think opened the door for Jungian reparative therapy most notably Harry Hay had a Jungian therapist who advised that he marry a masculine woman.
But it was Marie Louis Von Franz who often bought into very narrow stereotypes for example calling all gay men puer aeternus perpetually immature.
She also once conflated the early homophile movement with the Nazi for example because there were gay Nazi (Ernst Rohm) and a bisexual nationalistic homophiles Adolph Brand there must be some connection. She didn’t look into the question very deeply because Thomas Mann who was vehemently anti-Nazi wrote for Der Eigene.
Psychology should be taken with a grain of salt really.
We really need to study the effects of conversion therapy from straight to gay. For science. 😝
Was most the research and were most of the papers based on gay male relationships?
He was working 100 years ago so my guess would be yes?
Turns out the answer was no
Yes, but the fanatics of these outdated theories will twist his every problematic line to make it tolerable.
Criminalized or infantalized lol. Variation is hated based on a overwhelming need for having expectations matched in every situation. In uncertain times we get scapegoated more....
To be complimented on intellect by a peerless genius…nice.
"Psychic"!? Do I get special powers? What was I doing when the powers were handed out?
Growing up in a time where we can confidently and with certainty act around homosexuality as a normal thing, certainlynis an achievement.
I just often like to travel back in time with my brain and wonder if I, someone who considerd themselves to be rational and logical, would have lived in a different society, woulf I have defended homophobia? It's a thought experiment that I like to make, to get an ides of the way I will reflect on myself today, from the future.
I think I would have been a homophobe in action, but without believing in it, because most arguments I use to state that are evidence that homosexuality is a normal human thing, are the exact same points I use in the opposite way when discussing incest.
I could not make an argument for why incest is a bad thing eventhough I am against it (especially, I think consenting adulzs should have their rights to do what they want when no one is harmed). I just wonder if in the future we will grow more respectful towards that too, or if there are any reasons I overlook.
This is not to compsre the two, just with how I make the arguments in my mind.
“For good practical reasons” what about not getting pregnant? I don’t think they ever examined it that way, because people would rather not have sex then have sex with a gender they are not attracted too. However “for good practical reason” many 🏳️🌈 people were. I think his statement was good for the time but it needs an editor to cut a few sentences.
Live your authentic self proud and know there are people who will accept you for you.
What are you talking about , Freud Sigmund is homosexual by him self and ofcours it’s a must for him to support it even though he knew something is wrong , read his books .
"I'm not biased... but..."
how can you read that?
About Freud : the letter to a mother you quote (thanks for that one, Siggi) is from 1935, the very end of Freud's life. As he was a clever fellow, his views evolved quite a bit but never to the point of endangering the system of treatment he had created. I also think he had a hard time getting over the idea he had of women, an idea very much inherited from the role attributed to them in the very old-fashioned Austrian society he grew up in. Although he died in 1939, he was very much a man of the 19th century. But hey, thanks for that letter to a mother, Siggi.
We are our mothers’ biological processes before we are our own. No mammal individuates prosocially without her preparing us for and supporting the separation. Nothing sexist about it. Secondary parents are useless to infants but their support is critical to nursing mothers.
Trait homosexual orientation is an obvious efficiency mechanism for not imposing the alternative of one’s hypothetical sterility onto heterosexual partner fertility. It’s selected-for in utero by a neuroadrenal stress response empirically and anecdotally to anxiety over unwanted pregnancy. So lots of babytrappers and prolifers.
Freud oversexualized everything because he was molested [how he was able to articulate the paraphilias just from hearing his patients’ descriptions of their pervert (his word) husbands]. He figured out his own autism but oedipal theory sense-making of his own abuse prevented him from realizing postpartum psychosis (wish for the child to become “unborn“) is the pathogenic etiology of autism (and SIDS). Stomach-sleeping doesn’t CAUSE SIDS (or autism). It’s a defensive posture against a scowling or menacing mother that PREDICTS them both. Slept on my stomach until hernia surgery broke me of the habit in my 40s. Doubt I’m unique.
The significant cooccurrence of autism and trait homosexual orientation indicates most of us are undiagnosed autistics (and the etiologies explain why). They also explain some of the more critically-observed common characteristics AND THEY DEFINITELY EXPLAIN BUGCHASING. So thanks Siggy certainly more than thanks Mom.
@@Zarathustran You are very adroit at making nonsense sound scientific.
0:37 wasn’t this guy the one that first used the word heterosexuality? For straight people who liked sex, basically 😅😂0:55
This is really interesting. I'm not a fan of psychoanalysis, generally speaking, and believe it's a combination of objectively wrong and outdated theories & beliefs, but I've always lumped Freud into a pile with the rest and viewed him as a homophobe. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on him as a misogynist (although psychoanalysis seems to be steeped in misogyny).
Thanks for this. Love your channel.
Interesting, I wonder what Jung’s view on this topic was.? He was a bit more religious
I dislike Freud. He advocated for the use of cocaine because he himself loved using it. He also catered to rich people because of $$$$, and he was obsessed with sex. And that’s only scratching the surface. But I do believe he contributed one good thing to the field, which is talk therapy. And I’m not going to discount how important that is.
Just my two cents, and my opinion only. I am in no way saying everyone else’s opinions are invalid or anything.
Looking at the ❄️-filled antics of Freud is always for a good romp.
Imagine if he had views on people actually living a long term lifestyle of bisexuality and pansexuality 🥴
Today's psychoanalysts already have too many opinions on gender identity and pansexuality as it is, let alone going back in time
@@DoctorElliottCarthy what I'd give to back in time like in Bill and Ted to show him video after video of pride parades and pictures of happily married same sex couples at their weddings 🤣 he'd lose his marbles!
P.s. I'd love to see a future video of a reaction to Good Will Hunting! Your Robin Williams video was excellent 👌🏻
@@laurenhowell7691 pansexual is not real
Freud's views do have homophobic, transphobic and misogynistic backgrounds and ideas... So even if many try to turn around things, half stands from his time (sociocultural context) so 😬 i don't think he is that liberal
He is very progressive for his time at least, if he grew up today maybe he’d be even more progessive
@@davidholmgren8156 I don't think so, he isn't progressive even for the time, he was slightly less shitty and although we can akwoledge that, the root of what he proposed is problematic and outdated as fuck, it's a dogma
I prefer psychology that changes, envolves and isn't binary or thinks everything that isn't cis het is an issue
And let's not even point out how outsidated and not progressive he was that he said that Woman's orgasm that wasn't penetrative was an immature orgasm (sexologists have truly dissected many things )
Couldn’t disagree more. I’d love to see your references for these claims (not the ideas, but the literature itself).
From my readings of Freud (as a strong and proud ally mind you) I always interpreted his works as rejecting the modern ideas regarding sexuality and gender.
You never read Freud, did you?
I really agree with you, as a gay man I always felt uncomfortable during psychoanalysis classes in college. I disagreed with so many things, but I was afraid to speak up because the teacher always exaggerated and turned everything into an unnecessary show, as if she were a fanatic protecting her "god Freud". Currently working in the field of psychology, I notice that everyone who goes into the field of psychoanalysis becomes strangely fanatical, to the point where complaining about psychoanalysis is almost taboo.
From their perspective, not liking psychoanalysis means that either you haven't studied enough or you're trying hard to be the villain of the story. You can't just have your own opinion about something (something quite dated, if I may say so)
Isn't it like hormonal imbalance like more estrogen and less testosterone?
was sigmund freud sexist is the real question
Surely pathologizing feelings, either using religion or fear of affection for own sex (amongst males in particular) does not help the individual. For some it IS a phase, therefore by labelling someone lgbtq+etc (or conversely "homophobic") is just as harmful as labelling them as "sinful". So called "conversion therapy" which focuses on making someone change is not therapeutic but don't lump it with any therapy which seeks to address someone's innate aversion to sexualizing same sex affection and label it "banned". Then it denies the profound effects of child sexual abuse on childhood development, especially how the adolescent grows into the confusing world of being a sexually attracted and attractive adult.
This is seen in schools which have now gone to the other extreme to phobia about sex to forcing it on all kids, tbus still denying the respect of individual children to exploring life at their own pace and with trusted family who need to learn also.
It is interesting that the term "homosexual" means feeling sexual to one's own gender. Therefore "homophobia" means fear of self. I would suggest that to find the same gender attractive does not indicate fear of the opposite gender, but fear of and a deep feeling of non acceptance by one's own gender. This would explain why so many say they have felt this way from the age of 3. The basis of therapy must be from an innate awareness of one's inner pain causing confusion not ignoring it or being told one should feel pained by one's feelings when one does not.
LOVE IS NOT AN ILLNESS you going around saying that being gay or queer is somehow bad you bad for saying
Your wrong. Love is a cancer. Love has no unifying purpose.
💖
Heterophobe trying to explain homophobia.
Heterophobe 🤣
Sin is not a mental disorder amenable to medical intervention. The repressed guilt associated with deviant behaviour may be masked if you can convince a person their deviant behaviour is ok. There is very little hope for a person so deluded.
Sin is a social construct created by religion to exact power over individuals. There is always hope, even to a person so ignorant.
@@andreasluxbr read the Ten Commandments ( it will only take a couple of minutes, unlike the huge tomes produced by even the smallest governing authority) Can you dismiss these as just a social construct aimed at controlling your freedom? ( not that freedom for others who disagree with them is something that liberals want to exist)
@@philipbaker2894 No, I don't see them as just social construct, they are a very specific text relevant only to those who believe them. Sin is a social construct because it is perceived throughout many cultures, the bible is just for christians. For others they are just a piece of fiction, and a bad one at that.
@@andreasluxbr Are you familiar with what the Bible says or do you just have an irrational phobia of it?
@@philipbaker2894 It is very curious that you choose to use the term "phobia" related to the bible, when most preachers use the very fear of damnation to influence their flock. I know the bible, yes. But I don't fear the texts, I fear what men are capable of doing in the name of a God, even when their very act goes against the fundamental idea of the very texts they so passionately defend.
Wow, Edmund nailed it😂
Bottom line, it is not a choice.
"Nothing is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"
Martin Luther King
Facts.....
Homosexuality is not a choice.
But Homophobia is.
Is Homosexual orientation acquired or natural?🤔
From the scientific community:
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Psychological Association (APA) takes the position that a variety of factors impact a person's sexuality. The most recent literature from the APA says that sexual orientation is not a choice that can be changed at will, and that sexual orientation is the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.
Also, over 1500 species have been proven to exhibit homosexuality.
(American Psychological Association 2010).”
Lamanna MA, Riedmann A, Stewart SD (2014). Marriages, Families, and Relationships: Making Choices in a Diverse Society. Cengage Learning. p. 82. ISBN 978-1305176898. Retrieved February 11, 2016.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we showed that sexual orientation is associated with distinct changes in brain structure and that these effects vary with biological sex. Altogether, our findings show that sexual orientation has strong associations with areas primarily linked to processing and integrating incoming sensory, reward-related, and motor information. The findings aid the understanding of the neurobiology of Li sexual orientation and emphasizes the need of including or controlling for potential effects of the sexual orientation of participants in neuroimaging studies. Moreover, results provide new insights into sexual behavior in general and have implications for healthcare policies.
From the Christian community:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church discussed this issue in the book with subheading,"Homosexuality" paragraphs 2357-2359 which described that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect”:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Based on the current evidence above, we can at least conclude for now that homosexual orientation is a natural phenomenon.
In Christianity, we are taught that God has a hand on all matters and life in the universe. We can therefore suggest that God has a hand in creating homosexual people as well. If this is so, what is God’s perfect plan and purpose for their existence? Keep in mind that in general gay (homosexual) population are for the most part are talented, peaceful and productive group of people that contribute immensely to the economy, arts, social, and charity, and other parts of society.
A perfectly good explanation would be God’s purpose is that with homosexual people’s inability to procreate, their existence can be an aid in not adding anymore to the already overpopulated world especially the 3rd world countries.
As well as created to take care of children heterosexuals abandon.
And with the predominantly same-sex attractions comprise about
12% of respondents in most Western surveys and with data from non-Western cultures as consistent with this conclusion, homosexual community can really contribute to the depopulation of our world to a degree. Note: There is no persuasive evidence that the rate of same-sex attraction has varied much across time or place.
Just from raw observation (due to the lack of documented statistics), the homosexual community in general excel in many aspects of society, citing a few:
* In cultural arts, entertainment, music, etc.
* Business, and technologies
* Law abiding citizens (low crime rate) compared to the general public.
And with their extraordinary talents (also a gift from the Almighty and Omniscient God), their contributions can be huge positive boost to the well being of mankind in all aspects of human endeavor and necessities.
Based on the above informations, it is safe to say that it is about time that the age old discriminations and homophobic sentiments of some sectors of society must be altered because for one thing their orientation is not their choice but rather a natural phenomenon.
Recognizing that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, Pope Francis courageously announced recently his endorsement of homosexual civil union and welcoming gay community to the Church (at the dismay of many of his detractors (both in the Catholic and non-Catholic Christian world) because in his words “they are also children of God and should be integrated into society”.
If homosexuality is natural thus it follows that their sexual desires is just as natural as the heterosexual sexual desires, therefore I can guess that Pope Francis and the magisterium is well aware of this reality that’s why his support of their civil union and his compassion to the gay community.
With the available facts and truths of this issue in time the homosexual realm will be legalized and accepted in all aspects of society including religious tolerance and/or sanction.
To the fundamentalist Catholics and evangelical non-Catholic Christians, and to the detractors of Pope Francis, it is about time to consider the positive merits of gay communities instead of maintaining the archaic-homophobic negative sentiments against them because it’s not actually their choice to be homosexual but God has a hand in it.
God Bless us all children of God!
"Pew's research study found that people in wealthier and more developed economies are more accepting than countries that are less wealthy and developed. Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, nations with a per-capita gross domestic product of more than $50,000, registered among the highest levels of acceptance. By comparison, less than 2-in-10 respondents in Nigeria, Kenya and Ukraine have per-capita GDPs of less than $10,000, express acceptance."
Wealth provides access to information and facts, knowledge.
"The problem in the world is Oppression of man by man; it is this which threatens Existence.
Men continue to misinterpret the second-rate status of women as implying a privilege status for themselves; heterosexuals think the same way about homosexuals; gentiles about jews; whites about blacks; haves about have-nots."
Not a choice but certainly cultural.
@@NameGueSapeYe no more Cultural than heterosexuality
@@joey9562 Heterosexuality is natural. Homosexuality is cultural.
20% of Gen Z consider themselves as LGBT compared to 4% of Gen X. That big jump within one generation isn't at all natural.
On the other hand, in today's culture, it is socially acceptable, even encouraged maybe, to be LGBT.
@@NameGueSapeYe lmao. Read the history of homosexuality, homosexuals always have existed. It's abrahmic religions that influenced the normality of heterosexuality and demoralized homosexuality. Before abrahmic religions, bisexuality was actually more widespread than heterosexuality and homosexuality. Technically, most people are bi. There is nobody who's purely homosexual or heterosexual. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are cultural. We are becoming more comfortable with our original nature for connection regardless of gender.
@@NameGueSapeYeRiddle me this then. Why is there no straight gene?
He was homosexual and was cool with pedophilia and incest. When it’s said homosexuality is abnormal it is. That’s not an insult it’s just not the norm. Clearly men and women fit like a key and lock and is how more people come to be. Are people born how they are? Sure. Can people influenced due to outside situations? Of course. It’s not just one thing that makes up homosexuality. Dismissing things to justify others doesn’t suit anyone well regardless of the source. How much truth is in the findings is what counts.