Dear Scout leaders, let's talk about homosexuality but without prejudice

Email sent to us by giuseppina

Good morning. Put yourself comfortable I will be long. I come back to me. They are Giusi, 36 years old, Milan. I have known your site for more than a year. I am a heterosexual and believer person but very critical on the excessive prohibition of sexuality by the Catholic Church. I am very sensitive to sexual issues since I also consider myself in a condition of diversity in sexual behavior, in fact I suffered pedophilia and this led me to study a lot what can be said to be sexually normal or right. I come to the reason for this.

Only for a few days have I read the new one who talks about the problem of scout leaders And I can say that it involved me very much. I cannot therefore resist even late to comment, criticize and expose my theories based on what I have read. Excuse me if I do it as if they were articles to be published, as if I answered the speakers of the seminary, as if I had to convince someone. But I love to share what I think.

First of all (you will forgive me) I come to turn my nose when I hear that a homosexual (male) is such because he falls in love with another man and not because he feels attraction for another man. We know the truth is that the attraction comes before falling in love. The attraction is perhaps the first thing we evaluate in another living of our species.
When I see a man the first impression I have is to consider it or not attractive, in an instant I formulate the thought: beautiful-brutto-sex-to-sex- too-too old-quite young (and when I was engaged, I don't care I'm committed). Am I a perverted? No, we all do this. And gays do it too. It is the instinct that forces us to do it. Or do you want to tell me that a gay one when he finds another one falls in love every time? I don't really think.

This mental process does not cause it a female presence that I will just judge beautiful or ugly. So you are gay, straight or bisexual because it attracts us a male, female or two body and not because we fall in love.
Falling in love is almost always a gradual process that can also occur towards those who at the beginning did not like and that only after we also accept as a sexual partner. Omo -affective falling in love can also take place between the hetero but lacking erotic inspiration does not lead to sexual intercourse. I can love another woman (finding her pleasant, nice, tender and her company makes me happy) but this does not lead me to desire it because, as they say, it does not pull me.
Therefore, please stop hiding behind love. We can also want to have sex and that's it. Gays like hetero. Where is the problem? The fact is that for ancestral reasons that are difficult to investigate, we place sex in the sphere of evil (intrinsically bad for the Church), of the ugly things that should not be done so since we really want to do it we must justify it and we do it with procreation and with love: "Yes, I am true I want to fuck from morning to evening but because I am in love (not because I like it as a feeling)".

In my opinion this is a hypocrisy (which as a follower of Jesus who hated hypocrisies I can't accept). It being understood that having relationships with the person towards whom we have emotional feelings is more satisfying, the truth is that sex is done because we want it, because we like it, pechè makes us feel good, and there is nothing to justify in this, there is nothing evil to be ashamed of.

Evil is what creates suffering, does sexual intercourse bring pleasure as it is bad? The bigots will object to me: and rape? And the perversions? There is a lot of confusion on these facts but it should be understood that in reality these cases are brutal instinct and not of sexual instinct. Let me explain.

Brutality, violence is demonstrated and who knows why (perhaps because aggression is also regulated by testosterone) stimulates genital excitement and therefore it is thought to be sexual desire to trigger this brutality. Instead they are two different excitations that involve both genitals. In sexual desire, physical pleasure is found in particular genital, copula and orgasm are the ultimate goal, the goal of pleasure.
In brutal desire, the pain and humiliation inflicted or suffered and the orgasm is a side effect that can take place even without copulation, while remaining the final of excitement and brutal gesture. A man who rapes a woman does not do so to download a sexual tension accumulated by abstinence, there are prostitutes for that, hers is a punitive act towards the woman seen with contempt and superiority.

So it is not the sex that man pertains but is the perverse man of his who uses sex badly. Jesus said: Not what enters man makes him perverse but what comes out of his heart. Sex in itself is neither good nor bad. If we do not learn to distinguish between sexuality and brutality we will never progress in the judgment of the sexual act by giving it a positive or at least neutral connotation.

This is my first theory, quietly not acceptable. Let's go on criticizing step by step the report of the seminar heads that I think I have read carefully. To begin with, the usual questions of those who are exasperated by Catholic moralism are born: why do a gay person want to do the scout head knowing that a problem will be considered? Why does it insinuate that a homosexual that educates a child or boy creates in him a condition of mental, emotional or emotional confusion?

In my view, all the hindrance that revolves around the possibility of a Catholic to relate to a gay is a source of emotional confusion worse than having a gay brother (real or symbolic).
In my view, the worst that can happen in being in contact with a gay is that the boy get used to considering gays normal people, is this precisely the problem? (Rhetorical question: this is precisely the problem, because it must never happen that a depravity is considered normal, even if we are careful not to call it that although it is what we think of Catholic extraction).

We continue. The religious Don Compagnoni is superfluous to comment on him says the usual classical-Catholic things: follow the catechism and who has seen has been seen. Try to be also respectful by saying that the sinner must be judged and not the sinner, we are not our sin, but tell me a little bit, how do you judge a person if not based on what he does and what he thinks? Don Compagnoni preaches and does not do, it is clear that for him the gay is his sin even if to be tolerated with charitable kindness.

Mrs. Tomisich exhibits the educational process that takes place in one person: observation of models, identification, generativity; And it suggests that gay is one who has identified itself badly, in some way, in the models proposed during growth. I don't really think. A gay has no longer had childhood disturbances and problems with the parents of anyone else heterosexual, his in my opinion is a defect (excuse me the term), an anomaly of instinct. Sissignori because in my opinion sexuality does not learn but there is and the nature requires it before even being born.

None of us wonders as a child: am I male or am I female? We just know it. Recognizing that it belongs to a genre is instinctive (except perhaps in the rare cases of people with malformed genitals to whom it was not known well to attribute the genre to birth). Growing up we discover that others exist, starting from the mother, and that these too are males and females and always instinctively begins the emulation process.
The males follow males and females, females. In gays and transsexuals this emulation in the kind of belonging is not so natural, something pushes them to emulate partly or completely another kind. How come? There are two theories. Or, as I believe, this push, let's face it, inverse has always been present in his brain system, or as psychologists of psychoanalytic address claim, something went wrong in the first three years of life: an absent or weak father, a not very careful or oppressive mother, an imposition of only female or only male models, would have jammed the publishing process necessary to become so normal.
If so, however, a bad mother with more children should have all the gays but it is usually not so. Even the orphans risk being all homosexuals since institutions are managed almost only by women but usually these have emotional disturbances but sexual orientation does not undergo shots. So it is likely that the Oedipus process has nothing to do with it. It is also likely that the Oedipus process, as I believe, does not exist. Certainly someone who has sexual disturbances towards his mother can exist but it is a problem of his own is not the norm.

Of bad infantile relationships, not necessarily with parents and not necessarily in the first three years of life, they can have effects on the intensity of desire, and how much aggression we mix to mix sex by believing it eroticism but hardly establishes our gender identity and the genre that attracts us. The occurrence of misogyny or androphobia can create fictitious homosexuality but usually these beliefs are transient or latent heterosexuality leads to have relationships with both genres. If Androphobia and adhesion to male behaviors were necessary causes for lesbism, I should have been a lesbian for 20 years, instead I don't like naked women.

I make a comparison, which will be wrong, but perhaps being gay is like being Mancini (also once sentenced by the Church). A left -handed is such not because the father was left -handed and he identified himself in that, something in his brain acts differently from the norm. So even those who have an absolute ear for music have not listened to a lot of music in the first three years of life but have it by nature. Even for homosexual the push, or orientation, to an homo sexuality could be completely natural.

This is my second theory, which is also not acceptable. Dr. Seghi, also inclined to believe in an editic error in the gay, is the one that has triggered the most of my opinion of the opinion. First point. Dr Seghi says: It is born in a male and female body but it becomes male and females through the relationship. I don't understand how to affirm a similar corbellery.

We, like all species, be born males and females and we are males and females by nature, what we learn growing up is being male and female according to stereotypes established by culture. Growing up we learn that in our world behaviors, tastes, and objects, are considered some male and others female, but these considerations are only cultural inventions, they have no natural foundation.
There are no male things and female things in nature. I like to say for example: could you distinguish a male tiger from a female tiger without looking at him under his tail? No because their behavior is identical. There are very few things that can be said instinctively only male or female, and I don't think of one.

Let's make another obvious example. We think of the automatism with which we now attribute the blue color to the male and the pink color to the female. Why? In nature the blue is only blue and the pink is pink, and we humans invented that one is male and the other as a female and we also invented that the female must instinctively like the pink and the male the blue and if it were the opposite perhaps they have doubts about their gender identity.
This is not the case. In reality there is no reason why a female should not please blue and the male rose is only the cultural conditioning of adults who leads them to this. This speech can be brought back to anything else.

Another real example is my son. My two -year -old son is a continuous pronouncement: "bus, train, car, trucks, bulldozers"; Well I should say, they are male things. But he also likes dolls: "Beautiful doll, sleep" he says, and he makes them pampering. Should I worry and prevent it because it is a females, oh god or he could become gay? But why? Why should a male not liked dolls and a female cars too?
As long as we do not say, we big ones for children everything is male and everything is from females and personally I don't see the reason to convince them that this is not the case. This does not confuse their awareness of being male and females will condition their future sexual intercourse. It is my opinion but I'm sure.

Prohibiting something to a male because it is from female or impose another because as a male it only serves to make him complex of guilt, shame and making him believe that something in him does not go. As a child I was ashamed to answer the question "What do you want to do when I grow up" because I wanted to do the carpenter, and since it was a male thing and I had heard that if you like a male thing you are a boy, I felt such. Now I know it's not so. I was a very normal female to which by creative nature it liked to build with wood. Why shouldn't it like me?

It will be objected: then there would be no reason why a male must necessarily please a female and vice versa to both of them may really like two. From an aesthetic point of view it is so for me. I can find a man than a man more beautiful. But sexual attraction is not among the things we learn to know growing, it is a behavioral mechanism of instinct that has always been present in our brain, such as hunger.
It will still be objected: but in life depending on where you are born we get used to eating and loving different foods even for sexual tastes can be like this. In fact, we learn to prefer a lean to a fat rather than a blond or dark but in my opinion not to prefer a sexual genre.

How should it happen that a child learn in life to prefer one genre to another? With the phantom Oedipus complex? Both homosexual and the straight come from various types of family and types of education and environments, if there is a psychological process that derives from education and the relationship that makes the kind of attraction choose a certain equality of straight and gay presence in the same society instead I understand that gays are a clear minority. So where the serious Oedipus defect is I don't see it.

It will be objected further: even a small child try to read genital excitations and test them both in front of a nude of woman who, therefore, should mean that they are all potentially bisexual; Only by teaching them that they must have tastes relevant to their genre will they learn to identify themselves in the right way and choose which of the two bodies he likes most. I don't think this is.
Teaching male tastes and behaviors to a male does not guarantee that he affirms himself straight. Even a truck driver could be gay, and a hairdresser a great Tombeur de Femmes. Secondly, the child is embarrassed and gets excited in front of any nude because he both perceives them as relevant to sexuality, a bit like when we see the coupling of animals, embarrasses us but does not make us become bestialists (who knows which unresolved Oedipal complex have the bestialists). However, if a child has fantastic, and has them, he will already have them towards a genre.

For bisexuals, this theory of mine has some flaws, they should be the one to say if children were infatuated with both genres. It can be insisting that infactly of this or that depends on the system's excuse of the relationship with the mother in the first years of life but I suppose not, it is instinct not learning.
Second affirmation of Dr Seghi: homo offenders. The lack of homo -affective relationships between teenagers would lead to a gender confusion since identification would be missing in the male or female group (if I have not misunderstood). In my opinion it is the opposite, the excessive division of males and females leads to be wary and not love the company of the other genre. A child who grows up with ten sisters will be a little feminine but probably will probably fall in love with a woman than one who does not attend women. Here has the editic process has nothing to do with it but the habit of environmental conditions.

There would be, for seeds, more gay and transsexual male than lesbians because the females are more brought to homo offenders since from birth they have a homo -affective relationship with the mother so for females the eedipic complex is less complex. As a demonstration of the habit of female homo officance there would be the fact that the girls are held by the hand, kiss and go to the bathroom together while the males do not do it. It is not true. The males do not do it for the reason that we teach them in a subliminal way that holding hands is a closancery and the geeks are from females and therefore they stop doing it. But very small male children, under three years, still not conditioned have emotional effusions equal to females, indeed they are also more cuddly, those like me who have a male child can see it. This does not establish that they are at risk of homosexuality.

The statistics of a greater presence of male homosexuality would play in favor of the Oedipus complex, however I venture to support the biological still. If I did not understand too bad my readings (which everyone can do on the web) for an embryo that becomes a fetus is longer and long transform into male than in female, even initially all the embryos would be females, in becoming male there is also a differentiation of the brain by hormones, it is possible that in some cases this differentiation remains incomplete. For females, on the other hand, there would be a start of transformation but evidently it is easier for the male fetus not to complete. This is always an unacceptable theory.

Question if a child has only the female figure to learn from what would happen?

Let's assume that it is impossible to have only the female figure as a model to imitate, even if there was no father there will be grandfather, an uncle, neighbors, teachers, priests, various and possible. But let's assume that absurdly a boy grows up to 15 years only between women without ever seeing a man. Would you believe a female? Or would you realize that you are morphologically different and therefore not like them?
Wouldn't he feel any disturbance or erotic fantasy towards his companions or on the contrary would feel a strong attachment and desire for them? When at a certain point he meets a man, he will perhaps be happy to see his fellow man, or perhaps he will be afraid of it but he will not necessarily think of having to please him sexually because he feels feminine.

What if a child grows only with men without ever seeing a woman?

Would you believe that women don't exist? Would you feel attachment and desire towards males or would it remain indifferent to feeling that she wants something else? It is likely that the lack of women makes him fall back on male relationships but this does not establish that it has become homosexual. When he meets a woman, he could be immediately upset and intrigued or perhaps not but it is not said that he snubs because he now feels homosexual albeit absolutely masculine.
In both cases, the lack of different models does not guarantee that the young individual does not identify himself in its kind and does not feel heterosexual thrust. There is always the probability that to become gay there must be something anomalous inherent in the brain already at the start.
Another affirmation that you read of the doctor: the child the night wants to sleep with the mother and is jealous of the father who feels in the first place (sexually) for the mother. Here is another demonstration of the Oedipus complex, and in my opinion here is another shot. The male child wants to sleep with mom and the female girl also wants to sleep with her mother.

The child, male or female, in addition to feel affection for his mother because he gives him well -being, is animated by a spirit of survival, therefore feeling that he is not able to provide for himself he feels the need for someone for utilitarian purposes, someone who has him, helps him, keeps him away and protects him. This someone is primarily the mother who is the first living with whom she becomes aware and who satisfies her need to survive. If he's misfortune he wanted his mother to fail, the child will move his needs to the second person who provides for his care who is usually the dad or in many cases even his grandmother, like mine where my son grew up both with me and with my mother. Sleeping alone, at night in the dark it is certainly afraid of the child who therefore feels the desire to be protected, for this he wants to take refuge under the mother's wing, if there was no dad's, if there was no grandmother's.
My son even if I am present often sleeps with his grandmother, would this mean that he has diverted the Oedipus complex on her and nourishes a sexual desire for her? It seems to me a bullshit, evidently the child perceives the grandmother as best to satisfy her needs and perhaps she loves her even more than me.
Satisfaction of the need for protection therefore and does not desire sexual pushes the child between mom and dad in the Latvian.

It is true, however, that the child feels jealousy for the father. How he tries it for brothers and sisters and for anyone who seems to be distracted his mother from the attention he must have only for him. The small child is selfish, he does not yet have the awareness that others also feel feelings and desires like his and does not understand that others may also need the mother and that mom can also love other people. Mom is her property and that's it. This does not mean that Erotizzi. The child does not want to replace the father to be with his mother but he believes that his mother cannot love anyone else than he! Dad is just an intruder. When he discovers that it is possible that mom loves other people also feel suffering (jealousy) but learns to share feelings.
Finally, the father for mom is first sexually but not emotionally. The first place, the older love is always the son or children. The father can criticize him and send to that country when he wants, the children are always the best and most beautiful even if they killed someone ("surely they diverted him he would never do it!").

Another statement, here we no longer speak of how a child can become gay but we talk about the educational problem: males instinctively fear of homosexuality in fact young people often use it as a teased with friends (as if to urge this fear). This would be a reason why a gay scout garment should not prove to be, in order not to uncomfortable children animated by sexophobia.

The males in fact fear the homosexual act, not so much the person, perhaps because the ancestral fear of the violent anal act that is possible was practiced primarily as a humiliatory and punitive action in certain clan of healing has survived. The male homosexual act is always unconsciously associated with brutality. Taking around saying "six gay" is a way not only to remove fear, "even if you are gays not frightened", but also a little a way to symbolicly re -propose the gesture of humiliation, as if giving gay was to give the lower, since gay is feminine and female is lower. He who says gay puts himself above the partner to whom he says it and symbolically and ironically brutalize him. In fact, in the male there is a certain dose of brutal instinct that must be expressed in some way.

However, it is not said that the irrational fear of homosexuality necessarily leads to irrational attitudes, such as nervousness and contempt, the boy can be perfectly able to discern reality and despite having acquired the culture that gay equal or equal to one who wants to rape in the back, can accept that a homosexual is not at all dangerous or melancholy personality.
However, the possibility that irrationality is manifested, a boy in contact with a gay garment could warn him as a threat or not recognize him as authority since he is not a real man. Because of this, perhaps it is not actually convenient that a gay one who works with children declares himself. Not even that he keeps him hidden in every way, if the boys were aware that a boss is gay would serve nothing pretending anything except to affirm the opinion that homosexuality is a shame to hide.

I believe that a long work of acceptance of homosexuality must be done before this condition can be declared with peace. Another step. Children and young people need a model to follow and imitate, a boss must therefore be a good model. Apparently a gay one who declares himself such cannot be a good model.
But the children and the boys of a perfect and irreproachable model to follow do not feel so much the need, they look at this and that and assimilate what most aggravates them. If a boy identifies himself only or mainly with a model and is convinced that he must imitate him in all respects even if it is wrong, it could mean that it is under plagiaris for infatuation or is not developing independent personality or both things. In my opinion, a good educator is not the one who claims to be copied but the one who stimulates the critical sense and autonomy. Jesus said: do what they say but don't do what they do.
Still on education: the gay would not be a good model because the duty of a garment is also educating to be male and females. "I don't think it's a blasphemy wanting to educate to be male and females," says dr. Seghi.

How could a gay deviate this type of education is mysterious, but above all I wonder what it means to be a real male or a real female? That the male must command and the female has to make the sock? That the male has a stink 'and the kitchen female'? But what does it mean? I have already exposed my opinion on the male and female abundantly and I only repeat that it makes no sense.
This type of education will not be a blasphemy but it is a cultural claim that mortifies the individual's nature. Why shouldn't a poet feel like a real male? Why shouldn't a woman lead the bus to feel like a real female? What purpose would this education not to confuse traditionally male and female roles? But perhaps the affirmation of the Seghi implies that we must educate to be heterosexual?
I really believe that the idea is that. But I repeat that in my opinion there is nothing that can prohibit a person to find out homosexual. An education of male and female peremptory models will only cause more or less suffering, more or less fear of society, more or less time to self -perceive himself in the individual who feels homosexual but will hardly convince him that he must strive to be straight.

Last joke: a gay one who declares himself would not be a good model because he would be the victim of protagonism, he wants to put his needs at the center of attention and load the others of his ideas. The protagonist is someone who wants to expose his ideas and make them accept as absolute truths.
Apart from that a couple of people who live in Rome come to my mind who behave like this, why would a gay be the protagonist, that is, one who wants to be noticed? And what would be his ideas that he would like to pass out to truth? Maybe being gay is normal? And yes, this is the terrible idea that that presumptuosone of gay would like to spread. Be never.

Dr. Seghi has sought throughout the seminar to seem politically corrected by putting the straight on the gay level, saying that the straightness can also be a bad educator sick of protagonism and a wrong model, but it is clear that for him homosexuality is a scandal to be avoided.
The whole story of educating the male and female that makes the doctor and with him all the Catholic guides clearly appears to be an excuse to camouflage the ideology that gay is wrong and perverse and a feeling of lawfulness must not be spread on this condition. I think gays must start from other parts to make people understand that they are not monsters rather than from Catholic environments. To be accepted by Catholic society, you must first pass for the secular one.

I finally finished the pimp. I hope I have not made your eyes overhang your stupid eyes. If I apologize. With esteem. Giuseppina