Monthly Archives: July 2013

A personal opinion and hypothesis regarding homosexuality in today’s society.

by Christopher Barredo

I had stumbled upon a discussion in one of my online groups regarding gay people.

And out of the blue I was suddenly put into thought for a reply.

It has been a while since I have written about things in psychology and homosexuality was a topic I had touched during my clinical psychology class.

One of my patients was homosexual, this person was very much masculine as a child and was quite the alpha male.

So what could have possibly changed him?

(Please take note that I am looking at this in an objective fashion and am not here to tell you that Homosexuality is evil. I have many homosexual friends and my mentor is homosexual too.)

Actually, looking at it from observation,

Homosexuality is nothing new, it is present in others in the animalia kingdom.

However, Humans have a bit of a difference due to our higher cognitive ability and behavioural adaptions.

True there are some naturally born be gay (perhaps). But for many of us humans, their tendency to become homosexual was due to environmental enforcement and stimulus that had nothing to do with their natural interests in their beginning.

As an example,there are far less gay people in masculine societies than in countries that tolerate and accept homosexual activities or ideas.

Let me explain,

In psychology, we study human development.
And children grow up acquiring traits based on the society they grew-up in regardless of what their natural personalities are in the beginning.
This holds true in hate societies where violent environments produce violent people (generally).

A society where a child is reared in a homosexual culture that enforces being gay as an honorable and more acceptable direction is far more likely to produce children who will decide that they will be gay.

“Behaviourism in psychology focuses on one particular view of learning: a change in external behaviour achieved through a large amount of repetition of desired actions, the reward of good habits and the discouragement of bad habits.” If this is the case, then children who are reared thinking that homosexuality is a really honourable choice are more likely to adopt homosexuality regardless of cognition or being gay at the beginning.

“While the main issues that interest cognitive psychologists are the inner mechanisms of human thought and the processes of knowing. Cognitive psychologists have attempted to shed some light on the alleged mental structures that stand in a causal relationship to our physical actions.” I believe one of the many things that should be considered about this is the probability that our physical actions may be the result of a complete reversal of cognitive thought due to a possible change in opinion or view during the developmental stage.
Whereas before, the child is heterosexual, then that child is bombarded with negative thoughts and affiliations towards his own gender, this would be forcing a complete reversal of what is desired and known in their beginnings. If a heterosexual child is therefore enforced with ideas regarding negative traits among males, what then will be the direction of a child but to choose the more noble trait that is acceptable within the society he or she is in?

This shows a unity or symbiosis in behavioural and cognitive theories.

Let us talk about history for a while,

In ancient Greece and Rome, homosexuality was tolerated and accepted, true. However, it was still considered un-natural and often seen as a point of humour. Especially among soldiers.

Sure soldiers in Greece practiced some ass-pumping, but masculinity was the desired choice. Ass pumping had nothing to do with homosexuality for them but more with traditional rearing. You were still a man.

Alexander the great was homosexual but he acted like a man.

A feministic personality among those who should be acting masculine, males, was considered lowly despite acceptance and tolerance.
This is in contrast with “effeminate” mannerisms.

During the renaissance era, feminism was said to be the desirable trait. But this was due to beauty and charm being related to females while masculinity was more about barbaric and brutish mannerism.

This is therefore more closely akin to “effeminism”. “Effeminism” is something I would describe as being gentle and civil. Civility had to do more with the love for beauty and design (one can now see in South Korean pop culture where men look beautiful) and gentlemanly conduct and fashion (like the napoleonic gentlemanly conduct of warfare) – not homosexuality.

Today is different. Today, homosexuals are rearing society to accept that, although they are male, they should be looked upon and treated as females.
They do not wish us to see them as effeminate males but as females. Which is quite contradictory to what they really are.

It is no longer the love of males towards their fellow brothers (or bromance as some would call it) in gender that modern homosexuals espouse but a complete reversal of who and what they are – males.

They now dress up to be female (not just fashion), they have body parts medically changed to be female, they act female to be considered female (not effeminate), and they call themselves females tapped in male bodies (a denial of their physical attributes).

Now my hypothesis;

as I stated in the beginning is that, there are naturally homosexual beings.
And These, I suggest, are a small percentage of those who are homosexual in today’s society. A majority of the new homosexuals are merely environmentally reared.

What therefore are the dangers in such a system where males are being now accepted to be females as opposed to what historically was the accepted norm?

As I said, these are merely my observations.
Feel free to critique.

About The Author
Christopher Michael Barredo graduated from Emilio Aguinaldo College in 2012 with a bachelor’s degree in Psychology. He served in MAGDALO from 2005 to 2009.

Advertisements