Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
I think that one can consistently argue, that homosexuality is not abnormal on several levels.

Firstly the incidence of homosexual behaviour in pretty much every human society we know about and in a lot of animal species suggests that it is a naturally ocurring phenomena. In other words that it is a normal behavior from a biologistic perspective.

Secondly it is widely agreed, that human sexuality´s purpouse is not limited to reproduction, but fulfills several other important functions related to social structuration, psychological and physical well-beeing, bonding and communication amongst others. Idealy in a mutually beneficial way. Both homosexual behavior and heterosexual expressions of sexuality that can not lead to conception can fullfill these functions. If one would tie the normality or normativity of sexual behaviours to reproduction, it could be argued that a lot of very common expressions of heterosexual sexuality (think of oral sex, but also think about  masturbation) are abnormal as well.

Thirdly human sexuality is always subject to cultural norms and societal debate. In the last decades homosexual behavior has been increasingly accepted and normalized in many parts of the world. This is basically the point you make, but I think it is not the only one.

Finally I would like to invite you to not judge sexuality in categorys of normality or normativity. Those categories in my opinion are completely inadequate in this case, since they only categorize a deviation from a real or phantasized average (think about psychoanalytic theories of sexuality or Kinsey scales) or, in the case of normativity, based on a more or less arbitrary norm unrelated to the well-beeing of the affected. I think this often leads to pathogolization of expressions of sexuality that can lead to catastrophal consequences. A good example for that is the hipotesis of masturbatory insanity. If you are not familiar with it I suggest googling Tissot, Esquirol or why so many americans started circumcising their male babys at birth.

As you wrote in your reply, there are many good reasons to condemn pedophilia, I dont think it is necessary or productive to do it based on abnormality.

I honestly don´t know if one can define pedophilia as a sexuality. I lean towards no though. Simply on the grounds that there are other abusive forms of sexual behaviour on which some people are fixated (and exclusively get aroused by) where this question seems completely absurd to me.
I believe that the cathexis of objects as sexual is influenced by instinct, experiences (in the broadest possible sense of the word) and their processing. I think it is evident from the vivid bouquet of sexual fetiches that the latter can completely take over and subdue all other factors, tieing sexual gratification to highly symbolic acts. Pedophilia is such an higly symbolic act, where power and powerlessness (unconsiously) take central stage. It is no coincidence, that there is a huge incidence of former victims amongst pedophile perpretators.

cheers and sorry for the wall of text =)
Reposted byRekrut-K Rekrut-K

Don't be the product, buy the product!