Lisa

Were you reading my mind? Came across the rubric Louise mentioned the other day and wondered about the same question you posted.

Thanks for posting this - I look forward to your opinion.

Snoops,
Your response really made me think (not an easy task ) because I fall into the trap of thinking of the only two types of sexuality - hetero & homo - and obviously, as you pointed out, tis ain't so.

__________________
Man, do not pride yourself on your superiority to animals. For they are without sin and you in your greatness defile the earth by your appearance on it and leave traces of you foulness after you. Dostoyevsky

Some ideas from two lecturers in my college:

1. When the patient is happy with his/her sexual identity, it's not a symptom. However, when the patient shows signs of struggle / difficulty/ confusion, it's worth exploring and looking at the relevant rubrics.

2. Another lecturer has shown us a very interesting case on video with follow-up of three years. Patient is a transexual (from M to F), but 'her' manner and voice is still very musculine. About 10 minutes into the consult, we students were all confused about her story: various past relationships with men and women, gays and lesbians, etc. There was apparent confusion of her sexual identity. She was first given Staph for wart from suppressed anger. Physical symptoms cleared. Then the case moved on to the deeper issues. Hydrogen was prescribed for the confused sexual identity,deep loneliness, among other symptoms. In the next consult, the patient came in with a very girly look! She was in skirt instead of previous short pants. After a while, she went into a stable relationship (can't remember m or f) and was much more peaceful within herself.
There was much more details in the case, but I'm reluctant to write more for privacy reason.

From this case, I am convinced that homosexuality is no disease, and it's only a disease when one's confused about his/her sexual identity.

Just like to add that I have also used Hydrogen for a confused sexuality. It seemed to do the trick.

__________________
RSHom - Registered Homeopath

I have treated LOTS of gay people, and not a single one of them has ever mentioned feeling inclined "go straight" - in fact, if there is any shame or guilt associated with it, it is that feeling that goes away. The remedies I use have used have been the same as the ones I have used for straight people - however, as I think I have said before, I have seen alot of Thuja gay men with religious(catholic/islamic) backgrounds. Which I guess means it is society's attitude to them which is making them sick, rather than their sexuality.

Unfortunately, the repetory contains some predjudices of the physicians of the time - masturbation features prominently too, which is often referred to as the "secret vice", and they thought it caused all sorts of illness.

[ 27 December 2001: Message edited by: DavidJK ]</p>

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

Well, where to start?

I got so many good replies - such good input from everyone and I really appreciate the way each and every post has made me think.

Snoopy's post/analogy in particular appealed to me. It made sense..but I have one question to it now...

(I'm playing devil's advocate for the pure sake of discussion)
If hetero and homo sexuality is just part of the spectrum and considered natural in a basic primal sense in that spectrum of human sexual behaviour, then why would the other forms of sexuality be considered any different sine they too, form part of the spectrum? Beastiality, for example, is within the spectrum (albeit, and I do pass my opinion on this particular urge, strange) and yet we consider it to be freaky (and I do..I admit it..cannot fathom it in from any veiwpoint try as I might).

This is why, as Smiles said, this is a difficult subject to pin down.

So, as Snoopy said: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The array of behaviors is endless; but we acknowledge only 2--heterosexual and homosexual, with the presumption that one is healthy and the other is not. It needs to be re-thought.<hr></blockquote>

I agree it needs to be thought out thoroughly - at least I feel this way out of sheer curiosity...but those questions above then come to my mind when thinking through Snoops thoughts on it. Though, maybe it doesn't matter in the context of being a Homeopath?... Maybe that is the point that Hans was making?

So, this leads me to ask (maybe a seemingly ridiculous question but please bear with me) - Hans, if a patient was into strange sex (such as with animals or young boys or self mutilation during sex, or sadism or masochism...; the elements of the spectrum I think most of us would agree are strange) and they were OKAY with themselves in this particular behaviour - would that not matter Homeopathically? I mean, if they didn't mention it early on - and then it came out later...and they were carrying on with that sexual behaviour and yet, seemed okay in other aspects...would you find yourself in a strange position from assessing the case? Or is this where we find ourselves having to take a deep breath and not judging them for say, having sex with animals and enjoying it - and just focus on other symptoms??
Do you believe this type of behaviour (the examples above) would be a part of someone's character?

I ask that because you said (and I agree in the general focus of what you said!!) that:
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I shy away from the thought of wanting to change someones character or believe with homeopathic remedies and would view this atempt (treatment of/by mental pictures)as moraly very critical. (brainwashing?)<hr></blockquote>

Okay, this is really pushing the boundaries, but I want to know - truly - how we are to view this kind of stuff if it ever comes up in practise.

Where does one draw a line in the spectrum of what is normal human sexual behaviour and what is not?

Do morals and beliefs not enter into it when we 'all agree' that beastiality is sick and twisted? Or when someone is into having sex with wee babies? If we apply our morals those aspects of the spectrum of human sexual behaviour, why not in other parts of the spectrum? (Chris, this is purely for the sake of argument, mate..I really want to think all this through!!) Am I missing something in my reasoning here (quite possible, but I'm grateful to be able to talk about it back and forth!)?

Right..those are my thoughts, musings and questions for now. Nothing is cemented with me as yet...but I definitely agree:

We cannot change people's personalities or character traits. We shouldn't judge. We should live and let live..(but those boundaries do come up and I question just where they are and how we arrive at those very boundaries of what is normal and natural and what is unacceptable and even treatable....and sincerely want to know what others really think).

Hope no one minds my asking all these questions..and if anyone finds any of this offensive..just ignore this thread, okay .

This discussion is stretching me to ponder and think, and I hope it does others too as opposed to defense mode of any viewpoint .

All the best,
Lisa

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Lisa,

There's a big difference between consensual sex between adults of whatever sexual oriantation (hetrosexual,homosexual,bi-sexual) and non-consensual sex (child or adult).
From experience, personal & proffesional, of the latter, I know quite well that these acts happen due to an abuse of power, which is why they can't be deemed as sexuality as such; so I don't agree with Snoopy that sex with children is another example of the spectrum of sexuality. It is an act of power.

In which case a homeopath might look to a rubric like 'sexual urges, ungovernable.'

I'm completely against the classification and catagorization of human beings themselves or the choices they make as consenting adults.
This is the source of 800yrs of war in Ireland & indeed untold persecution worldwide. Nothing appals me more than the healing art being used to stereotype & box people into 'tpyes' and 'mental pictures'.
If we stick to disease we can be of better service to humanity.

Can't say much about the beastiality, but it dosn't strike me as a particularly consensual act.

Louise.

Hi Lisa,

The issue of sexuality is an interesting one in relation to homeopathy, and it's one I've been giving some thought to recently so I'll just add my two cents from my own observations. With regards to homeopathic treatment, I find it helpful to differentiate that which is pathological from that which is not, and that is really the question here when we are analysing a case.

I'm currently treating a gay man and his partner, who are in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship. Their homosexuality is a natural part of who they are and is not pathological; therefore, it has no place in the symptom picture. However, because of imbalance, one of them is plagued by thoughts and desires that are of a promiscuous nature. These would be called "ego dystonic" in psychiatry because they are incongruent with who he knows himself to be inside. So, these compulsions figure prominently in the symptom picture but not the fact that they are homosexual in nature (if he were heterosexual the compulsions would be for women rather than other men). He has described this experience to me as an "addiction" but one that he never actually acts upon.

The way I look at this is: Does this form of sexuality contribute to the person and his or her partner in a positive, constructive way? Is it genuinely loving? One issue that figures prominently in whether or not a given expression of sexuality is moral or immoral is consent. Obviously, a baby or child cannot consent to sex (although NAMBLA would disagree), and I personally find bestiality utterly and completely disgusting. But for the purposes of differentiating the pathological from the non-pathological, I find it helpful to see if the activity contributes to the higher good of the individual. If it is not a natural, healthy part of the person's make-up, it might be helpful to understand the source and determine, like other pathologies, whether it is the result of a derangement of the vital force. If it is, there's a good possibility of healing through homeopathy.

In response to David's post, I always get a chuckle when reading "ailments from masturbation" in the MM's.

P.S. I wrote this before reading Louise's post and she makes my points so much more succinctly :razz:

[ 25. September 2002, 02:45: Message edited by: Tomi Conner ]

I think Tomi does a good job of bringing out the varieties of behaviors on the sexual spectrum including impotency and no sex at all.

I didn't mean to imply that because a behavior exists it's normal. My point was that heterosexuals, who may be engaged in disgusting behaviors, are getting a free pass while gays are getting all the scrutiny.

To me, the major sexual perversion in this world is rape and the objectification of women for the purpose of selling products. The treatment of women is absolutely huge as an issue, and it goes back centuries, when you figure Melanie had to dress up as a man to travel to Germany to see Hahnemann as a patient because women weren't allowed to travel alone...it gives you a whole new light through which to view Samuel Hahnemann, because he trained Melanie to be a homeopathic physician--she wanted to learn--and got one of the homeopathic medical schools in America to send her a diploma--she was the first woman doctor in the western world! She saw patients, she didn't serve tea in the waiting room.
When Hahnemann died, the world turned on Melanie!
The homeopaths deserted her, the allopaths took her to court....Hahnemann had the courage to say,
"She's the best homeopath in Europe! My best student! All my life I've been looking for one good man, and I finally found him in a woman." I may be babbling, but, can you imagine the independent thinking this took, the lack of prejudice, the ability to stand alone and stand up for what's right? Hahnemann is an inspiration in more ways than one!

Snoopy

Hi All, just want to clear something up. I didn't mean to make it sound like Snoopy meant that all behaviour is normal ..sorry about that Snoopy...wasn't my intention.

Louise, good point about what is consentual and what is not. Cleared my thinking on that, thanks (it was late when I was pondering all this last night)...and your comment about animals made me chuckle and made me remember a wee email/video I received of a man that was out in a pasture having a wee (i.e. his pants were down) - when all of a sudden an amourous donkey started chasing him ! Quite aggressively if you get my drift - the poor guy was running whilst trying to hoyk up his trousers!! - so I guess this could go both ways ....

Tomi Ann, thanks for your input...it was well thought out and made lots of sense!!

Snoopy, I agree that Homosexuals seem to get all sorts of grief from people (though, to be fair there are a lot of us who have no problem with other people's choices!!!) whilst some Heterosexuals with some strannnnnnnge 'tastes' get no attention for their choices. Thinking along this thought - I'd say this is where I think we should really live and let live..and realise that each of us are living, breathing, feeling people who bleed the same blood.

But I still ask, where do we draw our boundaries between what is normal and what is not? And, based on just what?

As Tomi Ann pointed out there are some who say that sex with children (and NO I don't agree with this line of thought in any way, shape or form, thank you very much) is quite natural. I know that there are some (or maybe it is just one) tribes in Africa where this is perfectly acceptable with young girls - that is, until they are about to become women (just before onset of menses) - and then it is STRICTLY taboo for fear of pregrancy outside of marriage ! Who are we to judge their culture if this is the norm for them?? (can't say that it wouldn't be hard for me not too, though..I admit)

Louise wisely pointed out that anything that is consentual between adults is no one elses business (I agree).

I've got so many question running through my head..but I think I will leave at this for now..otherwise we'll have 5 threads going at once .

But I still question just where are the boundaries but more importantly from where are we actually setting those boundaries? Society, culture?....

Thanks for all input ,
Lisa

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

In regards to bestiality, someone whom I respect made the comment that perhaps animals might enjoy sex with humans. It is my opinion that this could be true to the extent that some sexual behavior in animals is dependant on physical stimulation and what they experience is more or less a mechanical response. Much the same kind of response I understand rape victims or molested children sometimes experience that is so confounding to them and causes some to suffer guilt, as they believe they must have some responsibility for the acts performed against them.

I may be wrong but my experience is that male non humans ( I will not comment on male humans!) at times show homosexual behavior. They also are able and ready to indulge in heterosexual activity at any time providing there is a female who is in "heat" or in "season". That is the major distinction from the non human world. Non human females are only interested in sexual contact when they are fertile. That can range from monthly (perhaps even more frequently for species that I have no real knowledge of) for some species to once or twice a year, or even longer, for others. Sex isn't at all the giggly or dirty or romantic thing with animals that it is with people because they actually have a purpose, to reproduce their species. Humans turn natural non human animal creation processes into jokes but for the amimals, it is serious business. (The likelihood of the donkey chasing a man urinating in his/her pasture because of any sexual reason would be negligible to non existent....a human's little off color "joke". A jenny would have cared less and a jack probably wouldn't have either, frankly. I think men tell those "jokes" because they want to think their manhood was important enough to arouse a response!)

I have personally never witnessed any homosexuality in female animals nor have I seen anything that would be considered masturbation among females. I have seen male animals indulge in what could be interpreted as masturbation but doesn't seem to culminate in ejaculation. (Not talking about stimulation done to collect semen for artificial breeding purposes.) However, when we see this in domestic horses, dogs or cats we have to keep in mind how altered these animals are from what they should be naturally and also, that they are fed a diet rich in hormones as almost all our meat today is loaded with them. Even horse and cattle feeds have "animal protein" which interprets to dead carcasses which would then contain hormones.

In the non-human world, sex is breeding and that very rarely occurs naturally cross species. I can't imagine any ewe, mare, heifer, sow or doe consenting to a human penetrating her. She wouldn't even consent to (and will sometimes fight to the death) a male of her own species mating with her unless she was in "season". If the sexual act is performed by a human on a female animal it would be gravely cruel and harmful, physically and emotionally. Therefore, such person would be considered for homeopathic (or other) treatment since they are disturbed enough to cause harm to another for sexual gratification, in my opinion.

If the sexual contact is with a male animal and involves stimulation of his genitals, I guess that wouldn't be as harmful to the animal but would certainly promote a behavior pattern that wouldn't be accepted by other than the person who promoted it and would leave that animal vulnerable and at serious risk should he ever need to be placed in another home.

From a homeopathic standpoint, bestiality would indicate to me a lack of regard for another living, non consenting being, which I would see much the same as rape or molestation. Since it seems only humans take pleasure using other than their own species for sexual gratification and I feel animals are naturally more natural than we humans, I think bestiality is an imbalance of the vital force.

Like Snoopy, Louise and others who have posted, I feel any sexual behavior between consenting adults (of the same species!) is acceptable as long as they are comfortable with themselves.

The boundary would be... when what one does sexually causes harm to another.

__________________
Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.