GirlChat #733652

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

"conservative" = "supportive of status quo"

Posted by girlzRprettiest on Sunday, March 08 2020 at 9:52:26PM
In reply to Conservative? I wish posted by manbot on Sunday, March 08 2020 at 09:55:00AM

Keep in mind that, broadly speaking, political conservatism seeks to maintain (or "conserve") the status quo, whatever it may be. This is what makes psychiatry essentially conservative. Reinforcing and thereby legitimating the status quo vis-à-vis behavioral norms is psychiatry's function. All similarly ethnocentric cultural elements are, in some way, conservative.

Regarding your "denial of nature" remark, there is no reliable scientific evidence that specific psychological traits have some particular, consistent genetic basis. Biological determinism, which is the idea that such traits are to some significant degree innate, relies on faulty lines of evidence; these include twin studies, which suffer from a slew of methodological flaws, and heritability estimates, which merely measure group trait variation due to genetics rather than the genetic influence of traits in individuals. Moreover, molecular genetics evidence for it has been challenging to come by for scientists, despite decades of intense research, an issue known as the “missing heritability problem.” Basically, while hundreds of studies have linked specific genes to particular psychological traits, virtually all have produced false-positive results; that is, they have all failed to survive the replication process. Replication, of course, is an integral aspect of science. Findings that do not replicate are regarded as statistical aberrations and discarded.

On the other hand, what researchers have found is that virtually all psychological traits, including self-concept, emotions, motivation, memory, color perception, and even sexuality, exhibit vast cultural variability. The fact that these traits take on culturally-specific features disconfirms the notion that they are coded for by genes.

Regarding psychosexual traits specifically, the idea that they are biologically determined is especially indefensible. For instance, sexual orientation is liable to change throughout the lifespan, even back and forth several times. When these changes occur, they are not stimulated or otherwise accompanied by biological changes of any sort. Additionally, consider that the prevalence of homo- and bisexuality in our society over the past half-century has significantly increased. Given that it takes at least 1,000 generations for morphological changes to manifest in our species, this shift cannot possibly be due to biological evolution. (To put this into perspective, only about 100 generations have come and gone since the founding of the Roman Empire.) Since the shift was not generated by genetic factors, we can rule out genetics as having a deterministic role vis-à-vis homo-, bi-, and by extension heterosexuality. Not only have researchers failed to reliably gather the molecular genetics evidence necessary to confirm the hereditarian theory of human sexuality, but the available evidence definitively demonstrates that these traits lack some particular, consistent genetic basis.

Human sexual attraction is a function of visual perception. Perception, which is distinct from mere sensation, is a highly active, subjective, cognitive process. As I noted above, even color perception is culturally variable. Researchers have found that color perception is mediated by linguistic (cultural) categories that organize and conceptualize different colors. When we cast our eyes on something, we are not simply sitting idly by and passively processing it “as it is.” Instead, we make use of culturally-derived cognitive mediations to aid us in imposing organization on the stimuli we selectively focus on. Genes do not code for the specific cognitive mediations involved in this process, meaning that the former have nothing to do with particular ways in which stimuli are perceived (experienced).

Given that such elementary perceptions as color perception lack genetic underpinnings, the notion that higher-order forms of visual perception involved in sexual attraction, such as facial and body perception, are genetically determined is untenable. Visual perception is clearly fundamentally cultural, so the idea that specific forms that it may take are due to genetics makes little sense. This applies as much to normative as it does to deviant sexual attraction, such as pedophilia.

Interestingly, gay rights activists have in the past resorted to similar biological determinist, or “naturalistic” explanations of sexual orientation in an attempt to impose some kind of protected status to their group. In my view, this is a silly strategy. For example, research has shown that the biologization of psychological disorders has actually, against expectations, served to maintain or even fuel the stigma against those deemed “mentally ill.” Evidently, while people do sympathize with others suffering from physiological health problems, their compassion does not similarly extend to those who exhibit deviant behaviors thought to have particular biomedical origins. In other words, people still think lowly of social deviants, regardless of whether they’re perceived to be responsible for their behavior. Regarding the biologization of homosexuality by gay rights groups, there’s little evidence that this has reduced homophobia.

This demonstrates how sociocultural factors have primacy here. It isn’t the denial of biological determinism, which due to its scientifically baseless status is rightfully denied, that supports the re-education of pedophiles. It’s the oppressive, traditionalist, sex-negative norms which prohibit adult/child sexual interactions that are responsible here. Keep in mind that the current dominant thinking is that genes don’t mechanistically determine specific psychological outcomes, but merely make outcomes more or less likely to manifest in response to experience. So, contrary to what you say, it is actually this “genetic predisposition” hypothesis, which is essentially just biological determinism-lite and likewise baseless, that has already given authorities justification to re-educate pedophiles. The thinking is that, since genes aren’t fate but do exert significant influence, thorough re-education efforts may successfully "cure" the adult sexual attraction to minors. Further, this hypothesis also supports the ongoing practice of chemical castration against pedophiles, which is thought to target the supposed genetically determined biomedical origins of pedophilic sexuality. Neither the re-education nor chemical castration of pedophiles would be instituted if the stigma against adult/child sexual interactions didn’t exist and weren’t supported by biological determinism. Indeed, biological determinism is an insidious ideology that should be eschewed by all well-meaning people, particularly oppressed groups such as pedophiles, whose mistreatment is routinely justified by such thinking.



Based on "progressive" support for anti-pedophilia, hinted on in Dissident's post, why desire "progressive" solution to the "pedophile problem"?

The vast majority of self-proclaimed "progressives" are actually just misguided fauxgressives. Virtually all contemporary progressives buy into some fauxgressive hype or another. This is especially the case when it comes to issues of sexuality, women, and gender. Mainstream leftist culture promotes highly conservative, prudish, anti-egalitarian views regarding these topics.

The legitimately progressive solution to our society’s issues surrounding pedophilia would simply be to eliminate the oppressive stigma against adult/child sexual interactions (including all associated laws, such as age of consent legislation) and allow these demographics to freely enjoy each other sexually. Unfortunately, “woke” culture misconstrues these interactions as being inherently oppressive themselves, which is why we are in this current predicament.





Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?