|
|
21 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Bad science.Wrong underlying anthropological presuppositions, 20 Aug 2002
Gerard Van den Aardweg is well known as one of the few and last psichologist who still supports the idea that homosexual orientation is in itself pathological. At misleading works like this, one must remember a few simple facts: 1)In 1973 -28 years ago!- the APA retired homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses. 2) there are DOZENS of studies that prove that there's no more connection between homosexuality and psychopathology than in the case of heterosexuality -for a good review on this, see J.Gonsiorek: "Homosexuality, research implications for public policy"- 3)there are many healthy happy homosexuals... and many unhealthy unhappy heterosexuals.Nevertheless, it seems that books like this do have an appeal. One reads them and says to oneself: "hey, that happened to me!". That's why I think we must look at the possible reasons for this fact. We could find many, but I will just indicate two: 1.- He selects common bad experiences from childhood, relates them directly to homosexuality, and implies that these bad experiences are exclusive of homosexuality, three things must be said about this: a)these experiences are extremely common, and we could find them also in heterosexual people (how many of us, gay and straight, complain that our mother was too present. In a world where traditionally the mother spends more time with her offspring, it is not at all surprising). b) it`s a well-known fact that we are uncounciously influenced by current points of view when remembering our childhood. In a world in which we have been repeatedly told the classical theory about the origin of homosexuality, who can be surprised at this theory distorting our reminiscences in such a way that they conform to the theory? c) Even if there were some truth in this theory, Van den Aardweg silences the fact that heterosexuals may have different conflicts within the family. These conflicts are also conflictive (sorry for the repetition), what makes them "better" to the "homosexual conflicts". 2)More important: Van den Aardweg takes for granted that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality. Well, one may object: if (as he hasn't recognized) both heterosexuals and homosexuals come from a childhood in which they have had to cope with conflicts, if all our personality traits come from resolving conflicts (this is the touchstone of psychoanalysis), Why then, is the "heterosexual solution" of the conflict better than the "homosexual" one?. I dare to state this: both "solutions" to the conflict have the same potential to help have a happy or unhappy life. The problem, then, lies in an anthropological presupposition that states that the height of human sexuality is the man-woman couple. This presupposition is philosophical, and deserves philosophical critic. I won't do this, just I'll say that I have good reasons for saying that the height of human sexuality is to love and be loved, whatever the genders of the people involved. Some gays have said here they had found grief in their lives. We all have unhealed wounds, this is common to all human beings, this is not exclusive for gays. And I insist: we can be happy, healthy and gay.
|
by Leanne Payne
by Lee Payne
by Alan P. Medinger
