I honestly think of myself as open. I'm not a pushover, I think, so the majority of the time I'm not going to be swayed, but I have no problem admitting once I do realize there is a flaw in my thinking.
I have changed my position on things when the data showed that my original position was incorrect, or more information became available, or the situation itself changed. Case in point, I once accepted the idea of repressed memories of sexual abuse. It seemed entirely possible a person could repress these memories then have them recovered years later. I changed my mind when more information became available that showed 1) a big part of trauma is precisely the inability to forget; 2) several "recovered memory" cases were proven false, for example, when the father was actually stationed overseas at the time the recovered memory said he'd abused his daughter; 3) the credentials of the recovered memory therapists were called into legitimate question as it became clearer the suggestions came mostly or entirely from them and not the patient; 4) the recovered memories got more and more wild - for example, children brought into Mexico for repeated rape and torture but showed no physical signs because Satan erased them; 5) the recovered memory therapists started listing repressed memory as the cause of absolutely EVERYTHING, many mutually exclusive - self starvation, overeating, hyperactivity, lack of activity, promiscuity, lack of interest in sex. Anything. It just got more and more unlikely. Pithy arguments won't change my mind; show me facts.
No, she jumped in on our conversation about ones ability to change ones mind when exposed to new information. This thread already went off the rails a while ago.
I'm a big fan Emmental cheese and others of the swiss variety. (I'm just seeing how far off topic we can get.)
Well let's tall about this "child abuse" stemming homosexuality. So my ex wife had two gay aunts. They both went to the same shrink and this guy convinced them that their father sexually molested them; which instilled the "don't trust men" and became homosexual. There brother now lives in Portland and I usually always visit him. He's a principle at some prestigious art school in downtown Portland. Anyway, I asked about those two girls. The oldest sister died and on her death bed; she admitted that her father never abused him and she used that to leave her family. The next daughter is still alive and said the same thing. Sometimes shrinks give people outs and really fuck up relationships with their family. Don't be gay and listen to shrinks!
I am totally and utterly confused. I think i must have missed some other thread or something. From what you said, there was no child abuse From what you said there was no molestation From what you said, the molestation led to the sisters being gay But if there was no molestation, then there is no way for that to be any cause for being gay. I know nothing about repressed memories. I know about lack of memory from drinking a bit too heavily, but thats as far as I know. I have never even read about it more than as a passing component of another story.
When those two were young; their shrink convinced them they were sexually molested by their father. That same shrink said their homosexuality was triggered by this After 50 years; those kids now said they were never sexually abused by their father and regret losing out with a relationship with their father.
But if it never happened, then them being gay can't be "blamed" on molestation. I personally see traits such as sexual preference as much more complex than a gene or an experience, or how one is raised, or any one thing. I think there are genetic components, there are nurturing components, there may be hormonal components based on things we aren't even considering at the moment. But in the end, it's a big old pot of gumbo. Some spoonfuls have more sausage and some have more seafood. But regardless of the original reasons why, it's not a choice or a decision to be gay or straight. We can't go back and change our DNA, we can't go back and change our childhood, we can't go back and change diet, we can't go back and change our loved ones. And if we can't reverse influence, than shit is as it is. So why not except the situation and move on. On a separate note One thing that has always puzzled me is it seems to me that the most accepting should be those that believe in God. If you believe in God, it only makes sense that God meant for people to be as they are. So God made people straight or gay. And if that's the case, who are we to lay judgement. And then there is the whole love thy neighbor, the cast the first stone stuff, the Jesus helping the the meek like prostitutes and lepers. It just seems like they should be the most welcoming of all types of people. Oh well, I'm not one of them, so I guess that's why I don't get it.
I absolutely agree. See this is what pissed me off. These woman felt they had this problem and had to blame someone. They fabricated molestation so they wouldn't be ridiculed for their sexual preference. I think they were just gay and were embarrassed or something. Wrong way of thinking. Again, I totally agree. These woman completely turned their back on their family. Maybe it was because the dad was a church loving man and just assumed he would be against it. The younger of the two daughters came back about 20 years later and developed a relationship with their dad; but he died roughly 2 years later. 20 years of family down the drain. I 100% agree again (Is this some kind of record?!?!). A true Christian should embrace all walks of life and allow God to be the role model in their life. If there is something wrong, then God would work through them. If they are fine, then so be it. Too many Christians are soooo quick to judge. Almost as bad as atheist. Not quite!
I really don't know about the specific situation you are talking about. I just have no idea. I am talking more generalities. But since you are agreeing with me, I must have misunderstood the situation. Kidding, I don't know what you are getting at though, the women were convinced according to you by the therapist of these repressed memories. So how could it have been the women making it up to cover for their sexuality, they were the ones who were duped. It seems like the one who should be shoved into a deep pit full of fire-ants is the therapist. All others in the story, the women, the father, and the family, seem like they were the victims. apropos of nothing Mags, you are so damned wrong!!! (thanks, I just needed to type it)
Well, I do believe the therapist is mostly to blame; but if a man didn't sexually molest you; then he didn't molest you. What if they turned him into Child Services and he went to prison for nothing? And waiting 20 years before one of the woman came back? Yeah maybe it was the woman that made it up and the therapist just went along with it. There is always two sides to the story though.
A big issue for me would be the age of the girls when this happened. If they were in their late teens or later, I would say they share some culpability. If the girls were younger, then they could be guilty of lying and making stuff up, but more likely the therapist misinterpreted stuff they said, and it got built up and up until eventually there is a semi-memory of the incident. It's a different situation, but when I was 6 years old I got lost in Acapulco Mexico on a vacation. My older siblings were told that if they went to the beach they had to bring me, they didn't want to, so they ditched me. I wandered alone at 6 years old for the next 5 hours before I was found. I had a specific memory from this of talking to a guy selling jewelry out of a briefcase when I was found, my parents were so happy they bought me a turquoise ring that I liked. This story was told so many times over the years, and each time, in my mind, little bits of information built a false memory of the incident. I know this because I was going through some old boxes at my parents house and came upon the ring my parents bought me and a picture of the guy we bought the ring from. First off, the ring was all silver, no turquoise on it. Second, the picture showed a man very very different than my memory (which was a very stereotypical Mexican beach bum) and that merchant didn't have a briefcase, but actual display cases laid out neatly on blanket on the beach. My point is, memories are not perfect but if repeated enough times, become totally real. If someone wanted to bet me everything I owned that my ring had turquoise on it, I would have jumped at that bet. Each time we retell a story, we solidify the facts of the story into becoming a strong memory. And if those facts are incorrect, then our memory can be incorrect. Did that make sense, or was I just rambling.
Then I think the blame also falls on the girls, but at 20 I'd call them women. I'm not sure what it is, but if just feels like something is being left out of this story.
