The SPLC has published a report, praising its victory over JONAH, a small group of orthodox Jews minding their own business. We need to understand the mindframe of radical gay-lib. JONAH adheres to another paradigm than the extremists do when it comes to understanding same-sex attractions. In this article, we will try to understand radical gay-lib by diving deep into the homosexual experience itself. In eight paragraphs we will outline for people who are not trained in psychiatry what is going on.
(For the sake of convenience, in this article we will refer to the male).
Paragraph 1: Sexualizing
When a man sexualizes another man, he is fascinated by him, fantasizes about him, and ultimately wants something to do with him, preferably at a very personal and intimate level. When this leads to a sexual contact, he not only sexualizes the other man, but identifies with his maleness at the same time. This then is the core of the homosexual experience: sexualizing a same-sex partner and identifying with that same-sex partner. It is wanting the same sex but also identifying with the own sex. Identifying with the own sex lies at the core of the homosexual experience. Sexualizing the own sex = identifying with the own sex. They are one and the same.
In a heterosexual contact, the man does not identify with the partner, to the contrary. He enjoys and celebrates her femaleness but also enjoys and celebrates his own masculinity. The woman enjoys and celebrates her own femininity (she feels very much a woman), but also enjoys and celebrates his masculinity along with him. A mutual enjoyment, a mutual acceptance of the own sex but also of the other, all at the same time. A thrilling experience.
Radical gay-lib does not understand the heterosexual act; activist ideology therefore assumes that heterosexuality is primarily the consequence of a coercive, so-called heteronormatitive society which just imposes this behavior on people with its norms, its values, its group pressure. But people who identify as heterosexual know for a fact that heterosexual contact stems from within; they sense a deep urge, a deep thrill, an intense longing and an enduring satisfaction after a sexual contact. The man feels empowered in his maleness, the woman feels the same and both are peace with the world in regards to sexualizing and identifying.
When a psychotherapist comes along with phrases like “diminishing same-sex attractions” or “change of sexual orientation”, the homosexual feels threatened. He thinks he hears the therapist implying that after he has done some magical tricks, you cannot sexualize that great looking guy anymore. But, most important, he also hears him saying that you cannot identify with your own sex anymore. Because for the homosexual, sexualizing the own sex equals identifying with the own sex. This therapist apparently wants you to stop the very activity which you know for sure is the ultimate source of identifying with the own sex. And that is a no-no. “Go away, you evil man, drop dead. Never will I give up my search for identification with my maleness. Begone. Obama, send in the National Guard! I have a right to be protected!”
The gay thinks he hears the therapist implying that the identification with own maleness is unwanted and undesirable. And the only way he can deeply identify, is by means of the homosexual act, the sexualization of the own sex.
The therapist also seems to be promoting a heterosexual contact, that is sexualizing the other sex. But because in the mind of a homosexual, ‘sexualizing’ equals ‘identifying with’, the therapist is therefore promoting identifying with the other sex. And this is insufferable, intolerable: “Run those shrinks out of society!” The homosexual does not want to identify with the other sex, therefore he repels the idea that he will ever sexualize them. Having sex with the other gender does not satisfy his deep need for male affirmation of his own gender, because he seems to know for sure that the vital need for identification is not to be found there.
Paragraph 2: Lack of sufficient identification
For more than a century, psychotherapists and psycho-analysts have recognized that identification with the own gender is not an inborn trait but a psychological process that happens between birth and roughly age three. In these crucial developmental years, the boy learns to apprehend he is not female, but other: male. His primary identification object is the mother, and over time he learns to let go of his identification with her and identify with the father or father figure. Countless books have been written on the subject, too many to recapitulate here.
When the father is distant, rejecting, hard to get, or totally absent, the little boy has great difficulty identifying with him. He needs the physical contact, the affirmation, the admiration, the reassurance, and the feeling that he, as a boy, is part of the gang, the male gang as opposed to the female gang. This is a genetically driven urge, thanks to which the human race has managed over the millenia to come so far (see more on this subject below: the origins of the identification process). When that great instinctive need is not met, the boy can either fight or flee: he can become quite oppositional and demand, yell, misbehave, do anything to get that male attention. This is the birth of a very Angry Little Boy, who knows he is misunderstood and not getting what he needs. And his upheaval is caused by his instincts.
Or he can close down, blaming himself. Closing down can happen when the father is literally absent (either all or most of the time), or when the mother makes it quite clear to the boy that this kind of insolent, rude and aggressive behavior is not tolerated in this family. He is punished for his actions, punished for being a bad little boy, and is threatened with loss of love. He already felt insufficient love or connection from the male parent, and he can’t afford to lose both. So we witness the birth of the Good Little Boy Syndrome, basically a sad predicament.
If Daddy (who is always right) does not look at me, see me, affirm me or touch me, then I am to blame. After all, he gets along real well with other men, so I am the problem. I am just not good enough: we see here the foundation of what psychology calls the Inferiority Syndrome. The child does not manage to identify enough with the father, and most importantly: all that he stands for.
In rebellion, the boy will protect himself from these extremely hurtful experiences, and he unconsciously decides to reject back, to withhold his father or father figures with love. “If you don’t love me, go to hell. Get lost. Don’t touch me, go to hell”. Of course he needs to be touched and told he is part of the male gang, but after so many degrading disapprovals by his parents, he actually gives up and lets go of his desires. He has run out of coping strategies. He turns away from the father figure and all that this man stands for: heterosexuality, a normatitive society, the whole world that Dad calls his own.
We call this phenomenon rejectionism, and it will become a way of life.
Rejectionism is a sad and lonely experience; it is not caused by genes as radical gay-lib in its ignorance conveniently assumes. You were not born a rejectionist. You have become one.
And it is an ancient feeling, an ingrained coping strategy if you will. It served a purpose once, a defense wall, a private self-fabricated Chinese Wall against humiliation and feelings of hopelessness, but if rejectionism isn’t dealt with by kind and understanding therapists, it becomes a Great Dividing Wall, not pushing out the Mongols, but pushing out all that Dad stood for: heterosexuality, the heterosexual world, the male gang that the boy so much wanted and needed to be a part of at an age when the world started to make sense.
The Wall had a purpose once, but when growing up it leads to an isolated experience, a loneliness and a deep feeling of not being understood, recognized or valued for who you are. And every gay guy knows that feeling, if he is prepared to be honest.
If the feeling is not recognized and addressed soon enough while growing up, the child runs the risk of suppressing that feeling, of forgetting about it, and no longer understanding or reaching the roots of his feelings about same-sex identification. It becomes a mystery and its origins become lost in the mists of time.
Paragraph 3: Lost but not forgotten
But the call of the genes lingers on. Genes don’t give up. Maleness is strong, maleness is instinct, maleness is body, and the body does not lie. The urge to identify with the own sex has been a driving force throughout the history of the human race. Let us look into this phenomenon.
For hundreds of thousands of years, mankind has mostly lived in small family groups where there was a great necessity for children to acquire a quick identification with same-sex parents. They lived as small vulnerable bands of hunters/gatherers, with usually a division of labour between the sexes. With parents often dying around the age of 30 or 35, children were in that case forced to quickly assume the deceased parent’s role in order for the group to survive. The women conceived, raised children, cared for the meal and were at all times available for the young ones. The men, more often than not, were the ones that could afford to go out, hunt, find new grounds, and fight or defend the family group from other groups or wild predators if necessary.
The quicker and easier a ten year old could assume the parental role if necessary, the more likely the group would survive hardships, famine, disease or conquest. In present day Africa, we see small gangs of AIDS-survivors, orphans often, whose parents and aunts or uncles have fallen prey to the deadly disease. They are on their own, usually headed by a 12 year old girl, assuming the role that her mother had. The easier and quicker this girl can assume that role, the more chance of survival the orphan gang has. A sad predicament to which the world has turned its back.
It stands to reason that those individuals who instinctively identify with the same-sex parent are more destined to survive group casualties than individuals who turn their back on the group, the group identity, and who reject all the parents stood for. Therefore in the course of millenia, the tendency to identify quickly and strongly with the same-sex parent has been a lifesaver, at the expense of rejectionist children who, in defiance, go their own way. The ability to identify has become an instinct, at the expense of those who defy and denounce the same-sex parent and all he/she stands for.
We can safely say that the urge to identify with the same-sex parent has become part of the genetic make-up of the human race, which is not a race of lone individuals on their own, but a race of socially cooperative individuals forming strong relationships as part of their survival strategy. Only in this way has mankind managed to come so far in an unpredictable world of hardships and impending early-age death.
Every boy and girl is born with this inherent need to socialize, to identify with the same-sex parent, and it distinguishes the human race from other creatures who often live a life on their own. Mankind cannot do that, nor does it want to. It is a genetic urge, and a pervasive urge at that. It has made us the super power in the animal kingdom that we are.
Paragraph 4: identification as an inner struggle
Ask any man who identifies as ‘gay’ if he feels he is part of the usual male gang, one of the boys, one of the men, one of the average guys and blokes, just a common mediocre dude. He will always say ‘no’. He will say he does not belong to that group, that he is not part of the mob, and doesn’t want to be either. You are then talking with a rejectionist.
In that case, does he not have that urge? Oh yes he does, but in a way that needs some explanation. For he is a normal human being, just like his parents, aunts, uncles, and siblings, whether he likes to hear it or not.
He is a rejectionist, denouncing and disengaging from the same-sex parent or at least all that he stands for. But there is a tell-tale sign that he is struggling to find that identification after all: his homosexual feelings and his homosexual actions. The fact that he says he is gay, proves he is normal. What a paradox! Let me explain.
From age three onward, the rejectionist child is caught between body and mind, between the genetic persistent urge to identify with the same-sex parent and the fact that he has (unconsciously) made up his mind to reject. It goes on and on, and leads to an obsession with the issue.
I have two cats, siblings who came into our home at the same time, male and female. I loved feeding them and they obviously love being fed. One day I was emptying one of those little cans they have these days with cat food into the bowl. The female cat, who is smaller with a two colored face, more sensitive, more high strung and unusually creative, sniffed the can while I was busy shaking it to get that food out. I accidentally hit her on the nose. Shouldn’t have done that! She was off to the attic, hid under the sofa there and refused to come out. It has taken me more than two years to regain her confidence. And boy, can Her Majesty harbor a grudge!
Her orange, huge brother to the contrary is a swell dude, a big fat lazy loaf of cat fur. You can kick him around the room like a football, he loves it. And when you stop, he gives you this look like: “come on, we are having fun”. One day I accidentally hit his nose too with the food can. Cats can be so greedy and impatient! He looked up at me, and just waited for the food to come out. He had this gaze like: “Yeah, that food will do. Let’s have some”.
Am I into bad parenting? No. It was not specifically me who dunnit, it is the individual reaction to my doing what constitutes the problem. And every cat and child can reach different conclusions with the same parental act. One cat or child can reject and resent for years, the other loves you just the same. Orientation therapists do not blame parents, they are only interested in what the cat or client makes of it, and whether he or she has decided to hide under the sofa, run to the attic, not come down and/or sulk. And that winning of trust takes patience.
Despite the feeling of being rejected by the same-sex parent, or not seen, or not being found important enough, the need to identify with the same-sex cannot easily be suppressed.
In the rejectionist child, it goes underground and becomes part of his very private inner world of looking, seeking, longing and yearning. It is a loneliness that very many people who identify as ‘gay’, who openly reject, can relate to. On the one hand the boy rejects to avoid further pains and feelings of hopelesness, but on the other, he is still waiting and yearning for that identification to come. It is what the brilliant psychologist Joseph Nicolosi calls a double bind. Two opposing forces within the same mind of the child. A keen insight, so simple and yet so powerful.
Paragraph 5: sexualizing the inner struggle
If that inner conflict of identification is not resolved before the sexual hormones kick in, then that conflict becomes sexualized. Such is the power of sex hormones. These hormones or chemicals cause you to sexualize that which is ‘other’, that which is exotic, thrilling and which adds a new dimension to your life. Sex hormones do not just give you an erection, they broaden the mind, the longings, and open a whole new world of excitement and grandness. A boundary displacing emotion, very addictive and such fun. You sexualize that which is other. This is the paradigm of orientation therapy, and a great deal of sexology to go with it.
And so the rejectionist child in puberty sexualizes what for him or her is ‘other’. And for the rejectionist child, it is the same sex with which he has not fully or adequately identified yet. But his genetic urge to identify just keeps pounding away, relentlessly beating on the mind, on the dreams, and then the sex hormones take over. And they deliver.
In the sexual act, sexual fantasy or masturbation cycle, a deep sense of gratification is reached when fantasizing about the same sex. And to his surprise and great delight, he achieves magically a deeper sense of getting closer to the same sex, to incorporate it into mind and body, and to feel an intense union to the way things should be. Just touch your penis and all will be well. What a toy, what a gift, and how good it feels, how right, how ‘me’. Coming down from the attic at last, the boy has found a very private way to achieve that identification yet. And it feels good. “It belongs to me, it is ME, it is mine, and don’t let anyone ever touch it“. Home at last, home with yourself, home inside yourself. The ‘gay’ child is born.
Orientation therapists are not anti-gay. In fact, they are the only ones really interested and ready to understand and ally with the client against all odds. These odds include religious extremists who denounce homosexual actions by definition, right-wing or Islamist extremists who feel people do not have the right to be Lord and Master over their own life and body because it is ‘faggy’, and most recently gay-lib extremists (not gay-lib moderates) who denounce any looking into personal predicaments and who label society as the sole factor of any misery or psychological doubt.
Licensed orientation therapists try to understand, and offer help in a moderate, careful and ever so prudent way. After all, hiding under the sofa in the attic is so comforting. Yet the food-can experience is distorted due to the age of the kitten. And so it is with rejectionist kids, who see a cardboard replica of their much hated father on every street corner, and who cannot by the love of God identify with all that he stands for.
And so it was with my kitten. And boy, is she stubborn! Although I love her. But then again, Her Majesty has opinions all of her own.
Banning licensed therapists, as the extremists insist, is a license to hand kids over to amateurs who are not savvy, who are not scrutinized nor informed by any body of knowledge or regulation. It is with a sad heart that we see the therapeutical child being thrown away with the religious-intolerant bathwater by the extremists. Since when and on which subject are radicals, fanatics and alarmists our best bet on any issue, for that matter?
Paragraph 6: Sun goes up, sun goes down
When the sun goes down, the dick goes up. During the day, the person who has decided to identify as ‘gay’, who has consciously gone through what is now labeled as the ‘coming-out process’, has made up his mind (or has been taught by Gay Affirmative Therapy) to denounce heterosexuality, to denounce the father figure (not necessarily the own father) and all that mainstream society stands for. “They are not me, they are other. They are another world, the heterosexual world, another continent, another globe, not me.”
This is rejectionism. And heterophobia to go with it.
But an ancient inborn trait still insists, still calls at night, still haunts: the need for male identification. It has been there for millennia, and it is a pervasive genetic urge. No matter how effeminate you behave or feel inclined to do. You know it. Every gay guy knows it. The call goes on all night, and when the sun goes down, all of a sudden this inborn trait takes over: Go for it!
And so it feels good to take your wallet and head for an all-male pub, perhaps to venture into an all-male darkroom, or if you need a quick fix or do not live in a big city, you switch your computer on, and Google to a porn website, free or otherwise. And get your satisfaction, you will. Enjoy it. It is a natural genetic urge. Life is short.
But when the sun comes up, the dick goes down. The sexual urge has disappeared, and when you are sober, when the poppers (drugs to enhance sexual pleasure) are out of your system, when you are alone in bed again, getting up, just as you were as a seven year old, then the seven year old child’s feelings come to the scene. Because it is you, the person you have always been: the rejectionist.
This ancient feeling, this ghost from the past, takes over and what does he say? “I denounce those male machos, I hate the coercive heterosexual society, I hate being male as society defines it, I am different, I am not part of the gang, never have been, never wanted to, never going to”.
In doing so, we are back to Square 1. No identification with maleness, no identification with the naturally confident and cheeky guy who does not understand (nor experience) rejection. No identification with the mob, no identification with society. “ I am different, I am special, I am lonely, and it is your fault”.
The Child in the Man takes over during the day, with ingrained feelings of good old rejectionism. And these feelings are glorified by gay-lib ideology.
When the sun goes down however, the dick goes up and the sexual urges to identify, not reject, with maleness, take over and the cycle begins all over again, just like the night before.
Or does it? Is the next night of darkroom, porn, masturbation, or gay bar and disco the same, or has something changed? More often than not, the previous experience wasn’t good enough. (It has worn off due to the rejectionism the next day, but few people are aware of that). The feeling didn’t last long enough, and seems to fade far, far away (due to rejectionism). And so we need a new fix, only this time with more excitement or pleasure. In this way, the gay man can search for a new partner, someone more exciting. Promiscuity sets in, and very often drug abuse or experiential enhancement. The previous sex encounter or porn masturbation isn’t quite doing the job, and the great feeling of orgasm wears off all too soon. Perhaps a more intense or enhanced sexual experience will satisfy the nagging urge for real male identification.
Rejectionism next day when we are sober of alcohol, drugs or hormones, ruins all that has been accomplished in terms of fulfilling the natural need for identification.
In this way, rejectionism during the next day is the main issue in understanding homosexual acts. It is not worthwhile considering the homosexual act at night itself as the “be all, end all” of homosexuality. It is rejectionism during the day which fuels the motor of the homosexual search for the ultimate and lasting identification with the own sex.
If the individual does not acquire any insight into this unconscious process, then the cycle of sexualizing=identifying, interspersed with rejectionism, can go on for life. It becomes the tredmill of the adopted “gay lifestyle”, which differs from the usual boy-meets-girl way of life and all the social interactions and expectations connected to the latter. This explains why many gay men can have hundreds of sexual partners in a lifetime, but at age 60 remain single, and very often lonely, as statistics have proven. In the Guardian, we read:
“A YouGov survey found that older gay and bisexual men are three times more likely to be single than heterosexual men. Their fears are compounded by their lifestyles.
Gay people are far more likely to drink alcohol regularly, take drugs and have a history of mental health problems than heterosexual people. Frank, 64, said: “I worry about my partner becoming ill or dying, and about leaving him alone if I die first.” James, 55, said: “Being gay and getting older is like not being gay and getting older but difficulties are magnified.”
Gay men end up living alone far more often than men who have found their same-sex identification at a very early age. The latter are labeled heterosexual, as if they would be a special subset of the human race. But these are only labels. As we have stated in a previous article (“The False Notion of Sexual Orientation”), there is no such thing as an innate sexual orientation.
It is a myth, a social convention, a social construct. We are all the same, but some individuals are still struggling at a later age with the genetically driven need to identify with the same sex. These people are not genetically different; they are not a third sex, they are normal guys with normal urges, but the struggle for identification has merely become a bumpy ride. That is all, no big deal. And it can be explained by caring, compassionate licensed therapists. No need for Obama to call in the National Guard. The hysterics of it all!
Paragraph 7: people can change
The need for identification can be gratified at all ages. There is no special reason to assume that after the onset of the sex hormones around age 11, all is lost and all would be fixed for ever more. That is nonsense. Some people state: “I cannot change, this is how I am”. We must look into that assertion, and not just merely take it for granted. Reaching same-sex identification can be met in various ways. Sexualizing is not the only coping strategy, there are others. And if one studies world cultural history and anthropology, one will see that the genetically induced need for identification can and usually is also met in other ways in different cultures and eras. It is a historic fact.
The stronger the bonding takes place in a group or society, the more identification needs are met outside of the sexualizing context. The Greeks, the Romans, the Samoans, people living in close knit rural areas or in religious communities, all offer a variety of identification possibilities for the group members. By identification, we mean the way one can feel at last to be part of the gang, to be a man amongst men and not to feel inferior or inadequate or a loner.
The more a society like ours however, becomes individualistic, with its members leading isolated private lives, the less identification possibilities are at hand. Therefore this model offers a sound explanation for the fact that within Western societies, the sexualizing of the identification need is a more predominant coping strategy compared to other societies, and that it is more predominant in larger Western cities where people have hardly any sense of community compared to rural life.
In recent years, the coping strategy of ‘sexualizing = identifying’ to gain closeness to the own sex has become predominant in Western societies, and lies at the root of the gay emancipation movement. Due to a diminishing of other identification possibilities in the Western world, it has become for many the one and only way to yet fulfill that genetically driven identification need. Therefore we see the birth of radical gay-lib, a movement which holds as a paradigm that sexualizing the same-sex is the only way to go.
Birth of radical gay-lib
The average member of gay-lib does not see other possibilities within himself, and therefore radical gay-lib finds it necessary to speak on behalf of all mankind. And if other coping strategies are propagated, the reaction is negative, and very often vehemently so. Other coping strategies are not trusted, because losing the sexualizing strategy would ultimately mean that all is lost.
Every other way of experiencing the identification need outside of sexualizing is, after all, rejected. It would mean ultimately joining the gang, the mob, the world of heterosexual men, and that perspective has been denounced since early childhood. And so we face a “winner takes all” struggle within the emancipation movement.
Us-them thinking sets in, people with other views are seen as outsiders, as a threat, as the heterosexual menace, as the Dad who was once deeply rejected. and even if the relationship with Dad improves later on in life, then most certainly his heterosexual ‘accomplices‘ will be the object of rejectionism.
And so anyone who contests radical gay-lib will have to face the full force of the gale winds of the small child’s rejectionism. It was a strong impulse during very early childhood when the child felt hopeless in his emotions. For many that impulse still lies dormant in the unconscious mind and will rage again at the drop of a hat. Rejectionism has become a way of life.
Paragraph 8: fifty shades of rejectionism
Rejectionism is in my view the core theme in understanding homosexuality. The core issue is not sexualizing, for the homosexual sexualizes that which is other, as does someone who sexualizes the opposite sex. It is the same mental process, and there is no evidence that something remarkably different is taking place. Homosexuality is therefore not a variation of sexuality, as many people have been led to believe. The need for identification with the same-sex is also universally present, therefore the person who labels himself ‘gay’ is not different on that issue either, whether he realizes that or not.
The difference between someone experiencing predominantly same-sex attractions and someone experiencing opposite-sex attractions lies in the rejectionism at an early age and its persistence into adulthood during the day, not the sexualizing process itself. The person who labels himself ‘gay’ identifies at last with the same-sex due to the physical presence of the same-sex, and the person who identifies as ‘heterosexual’ already has sufficient identification material in his mind, in his ‘portable Dad’, the internalization of male bonding at a very early age.
The person who labels himself as ‘gay’ has also got a portable Dad inside himself, but it is felt to be insufficient, and a little bit of adding to it, is what is being sought after. “Gimme, gimme, gimme, I wants it, I wants it, I needs it, gimme”. And it is the rejectionism which subsequently ruins it in the next days.
Rejectionism takes many forms, and the extent of rejectionism is decisive when it comes to creating personal happiness, social relationships, sexual relationships and when it comes to acting as a participator in the broader realm of society. If you know one rejectionist, you do not yet automatically know the next. Labels are not helpful, to say the least, into understanding one another.
In part 3 of this series on the JONAH trial, we have looked into the mechanism of radical gay-lib feeling threatened by heterosexual psychotherapists.
We have seen how for the homosexual, sexualizing a guy also means identifying with a guy, which is not the case with a heterosexual contact. In a heterosexual contact, you do not identify with the woman, but feel connected to your maleness just the same, more even than without that contact. Many homosexuals fail to see or feel this. It has to do with the concept of a ‘portable Dad’ created inside yourself, and the fact that, for some people, that internalizing has become a long and winding road.
We have demonstrated that the need for identification is no different in any guy, no matter what sexual label he assumes, or is assumed to him.
We have demonstrated that a separate sexual orientation does not exist. If you look at a television set and see CNN, compared to Fox News, you see different accounts of the same news story, but that does not mean that you therefore have a separate eyesight. All people have the same eyesight, a bodily function. And what you see may be different, depending on where you look. But that does not mean you have a different bodily function called eyesight. And so it is with sexuality: the ability to sexualize and later on desexualize. You do not have a separate sexuality. Therefore homosexuality is not a variation of human sexuality, as mainstream media would have it. Neither does your body harbor a different variation of eyesight, depending on which programme you are watching.
A homosexual admiration of a swell looking guy does not mean you have a different eyesight or sexuality; guys can look great, let’s face it. And we congratulate that guy on it! Sometimes jealous even, I admit. And he loves people being jealous of him. He finds it flattering, and rightfully so.
But beauty is in the eye of the beholder; it is a psychological process and it changes over time. Sexual admiration, as is true for love of music, art or your favorite baseball team, changes over time. There is nothing fixed about it, and we must not let ourselves be fooled into believing, and acting on, the contrary.
We have demonstrated that the homosexual act itself consists of two opposing strong forces: on the one hand the normal urge at night to sexualize and at the same time identify with the same sex, and on the other hand the peculiar tendency during the day to reject the same sex parent, or at least all that he stands for: heterosexuality, the heterosexual mob, peers, the world at large. We have demonstrated how Nicolosi calls this a double bind.
In the next installment of this series, we will look into the consequences of rejectionism in terms of personal satisfaction, social and sexual relationships, and finally the place a homosexual creates for himself in society.
We will demonstrate that radical gay-lib members do not come to terms with rejectionist impulses in a mature and healthy constructive way, creating much anxiety, stress and discomfort for oneself and society at large.
Radical gay-lib creates havoc by undermining confidence a client can have in the mental health community. Due to radical social pressure, having doubts about homosexuality is currently non-acceptable and is considered a mental disorder by Gay Affirmative Therapy.
So we witness the strange paradox that homosexuality was removed from the books as a mental disorder in 1973 and now the extremists are stigmatizing all doubts or reluctance about “the coming out” process as a new mental disorder. The activist gay-lib agenda is being intellectualized and made to look scientifically safe and sound, although no research into the harm of Gay Affirmative Therapy has ever been undertaken.
And harmful it is, with the fabrication of wild horror stories, alleging that there are non-gay therapists out there, ready and eager to drive you to suicide, with corpses lying around everywhere.
The GAT-boys have deleted almost all of Wikipedia on the subject of sexuality, and replaced it with their own stories. Confused youngsters, journalists and politicians will find exclusively Gay Affirmative material when they search for more insights. We therefore witness a complete ideological take-over by this Anti-psychiatry movement, founded in the fifties by the Scientology Church (Ron Hubbard). It has infiltrated professionals organizations and even the White House.
Psychotherapy has become increasingly scary; people don’t dare to confide their doubts any more. In the next installment, we will look into this Western world development in more detail.
At the end of the day, however, we need unitedness, in spite of our differences of opinion. My very different cats show the same, time and time again. May they inspire us.
Job Berendsen MD, Amsterdam.