EA Forums

This question was explored in another post and raised some hackles over certain sexual predilections and desires being referred to as "Abnormal". So that got me to thinking...... what is "normal" and why is "abnormal" considered pejorative when applied to sexual behavior. Though certainly not exclusive, I'll use homosexuality as an example.

Societies, often heavily influence by religion, define what is, and is not, "normal". In ancient Greece and throughout most of the Roman Empire, teenage boys (generally between 12 and 21) were considered objects of sexual desire for older men and taking a young male lover was considered "normal" sexual behavior for men. Further, young boys were encouraged to explore their own sexuality with other boys, presumably as a way of discouraging premature pregnancies. Again, this was "normal" behavior in the social environment of the times.

Later, homosexual behavior was deemed "abnormal" and even criminalized (as it still is in less progressive cultures). In fact, until 1972 homosexuality was considered a mental illness in Western psychology circles.

Yet why is being "abnormal" considered to be a negative label? Are we, as humans, to blindly follow current social dictates like sheep, simply to be comfortably labeled "normal"?

I'm personally proud of the fact I am not normal. I rejected my parents desire that I follow them into a 9-5 job, suburban house with two cars in the garage and 2.5 kids. I've quietly rejected "normal" my entire life. I'm a eunuch because I chose to be so, without regard to it being universally considered to be an "abnormal" desire.

So here's so food for thought for those who may find offense in being labeled "abnormal":

The "normal" man seeks to adapt himself to his surroundings, whereas the "abnormal" man strives to adapt his environs to himself. Therefore, all progress in human evolution can be attributed to the "abnormal" man.

150 years ago, being black meant you were abnormal

Firstly you need to decide what attribute you are discussing, let us take your suggestion of "homosexuality". Now we need to sample the population, the sample size will need to be international and be big if you want to go for a global norm. Your could do it for a city a town or a street etc. if you wanted.

Then you need to assign a value to "levels" of homosexuality or if you though it meaningful you could just say "yes" or "no" but then this leaves a big problem about "bisexuality" and would make your study quite poor.

Assigning a value to Homosexuality would be a big problem ...how homosexual is any individual?

Assuming you overcame this obstacle (and assigned the values in a certain way) you would plot out a graph of the sample and get a bell shaped curve. You can then decide the percentile to deem "normal" by applying some statistical tests to the results. Anyone above a level of assigned homosexuality would be deemed not part of the "normal" population according to your initial definition, this would be for males and females. Just thinking about this it would be interesting to see if you got any skew toward more males identifying as homosexual or more females. As an aside I wonder what result you would get and if it would say more about the way you defined "homosexuality" in relation to the "value" that was assigned and the way males and females rate their own homosexuality. This is the population science (simplified) version as I understand it.

If you didn't want to do all this hypothesis testing type work and just wanted to philosophise or discuss "normal" in the social context the discussion is just open ended and pretty meaningless as a an answer to the question. To be honest deciding the values and definitions and getting good survey data would not be definitive on this type of topic.

1 People would lie on this sensitive question.

2 People would have different understanding of nearly any definition of homosexuality score system you devised.

3 The definition and score system you devise may prove to be poor.(The score system may prove to not be very sensitive or good at collecting data across the sample in a linear way. It would skew the results)

4 Even after peer review of a study like this there would undoubtedly be wide opinion on the interpretation of the results. Objective analysis of social data is so open to criticism since the score system is so arbitrary.

I am sure there are people here who may have read, worked on, taken part in, or set surveys designed to answer questions like this. You only have to look at the recent survey launched here and the responses it provoked,to get a flavour of the problems involved in trying to answer this type of complex question. Tie it in to an interest in castration and it would provoke an even greater challenge to resolve in a meaningful way.

A million years ago (give or take 999,950 years), my grandmother taught me that "pretty is as pretty does".

I think that wisdom applies here as well, "normal is as normal does".

I am certainly normal for me. Would anyone else want my brand of normal, maybe not. I have certainly learned to enjoy and cherish my new normal.

I agree tugon I feel pretty normal and all the people I know and work with act like I am. The definition normal is actually pretty ambiguous for the most part.

I appear normal however I would like to go about nude then cloth,I where body jewelry and more. So what is normal I ask you?

I think this shows "normal" is in the eye of the beholder

Normal is average and common. Unless you are a follower, I would strive for much higher. Homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality etc. more than abnormal is one example. Abnormal is more rare and special.

I think that "normal" is often not based on occurrence of the similar, but compliance with society's prevailing "norms". So we have excused the banishment of any individuals not deemed to fit.

We gradually become more tolerant, even accepting of transitions in life, M<->F, but less of M->E, and almost not at all of M/E->N.

I have no logical reason, but perhaps new notions need a little time to reach acceptance.

(Elsewhere here, is a discussion of how it is that to be castrated is more acceptable than to be penectomized, and yet many aspire to be a nullo despite it.)

While I'm all in favor of kindly help to avoid surgery that would be likely regretted, it seems that we should be allowed general freedom to modify our bodies as we see fit. It follows from this, the the modified individuals are just as much part of society as the unmodified.

But how best to spread the message?

So,, we should be free to be and be accepted as transgender, androgyne, eunuch, nullo, as a personal choice.

.....

daifu-orchid (imported) wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 12:50 pm While I'm all in favor of kindly help to avoid surgery that would be likely regretted, it seems that we should be allowed general freedom to modify our bodies as we see fit. It follows from this, the the modified individuals are just as much part of society as the unmodified.

But how best to spread the message?

So,, we should be free to be and be accepted as transgender, androgyne, eunuch, nullo, as a personal choice.

I just came by this link which shows the modern eunuch in a much more positive light:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/why ... 36/?page=1

Paolo like me to include the text, so:

(but you'll still need to click the link for the links.)

"This post originally appeared in the Newton blog on RealClearScience. Read the original here.

Thanks to a popular character on the exhilarating HBO fantasy series Game of Thrones, many viewers are learning the meaning of the word "eunuch" for the first time. The term describes a man who has been castrated, his testicles either removed or rendered nonfunctional by chemical means. In the show, the castrated Varys serves as the "master of whisperers": a cunning and calculating spymaster. Impervious to the lustful wants and weaknesses of other men, he is "sly, obsequious, and without scruples."

Despite its overall awesomeness, Game of Thrones leaves the incorrect impression that eunuchs are relegated to a fantastical, bygone era. In reality, there are more castrated men alive today that at any other point in history.

As many as 600,000 men in North America are living as eunuchs for medical reasons. The vast majority are afflicted with prostate cancer. Testosterone, the principal male sex hormone, is thought to prominently contribute to the growth of cancerous tumors in the prostate. Thus, as a way to impede the cancer's spread, many doctors recommend shutting down the hormone's primary source: the testes. This is accomplished either surgically, where the testicles are removed, or chemically, where patients receive anti-androgen drugs or injections of the female birth-control drug Depo-Provera.

Both the surgical and chemical methods have the same effects. Testosterone levels are drastically reduced. This in turn gives rise to a host of side effects.

"A castrated adult male will lose muscle but gain fat. He can expect hot flushes like those that women have at menopause. He will lose body hair, and his penis will shrink. Erections will be rare and weak, if they occur at all. He will be sterile," describes Richard Wassersug of the Australian Research Center in Sex, Health, and Society. Wassersug is himself a eunuch.

These side effects are psychologically and physically distressing to men undergoing treatment for prostate cancer. However, a much smaller set of men voluntarily choose castration precisely for the side effects. For them, castration is not a means to a cure. It is a cure.

The Eunuch Archive, the largest online society for men who are castrated or are considering it, features a great many brave, candid, and personal accounts from neutered men. Often, their desire to be castrated stems from abuse sustained during childhood, homosexuality, exposure to animal castration during youth, or religious condemnation. Others describe themselves as sex addicts or pedophiles, desperate for freedom from their out-of-control lifestyles or lurid fantasies.

"I was castrated because my sex drive was out of control. I was in debt from phone chat rooms and those fees. I bought a lot of porn. Paid for sex and met someone who abused me and took my money. My life was a mess. I needed riskier sex to feed my addictions. I put 100,000 miles on a car in two years out looking for a thrill. I needed to stop those actions," wrote one anonymous member.

The good news is that many of these stories have happy endings.

"Most voluntary eunuchs are pleased with the results of their emasculations." Wassersug noted in a 2007 study. "Despite a suggested association of androgen deprivation with depression, voluntary eunuchs appear to function well, both psychologically and socially."

Not all modern eunuchs are masters of whisperers -- almost none of them are really. They're just normal people. But like Varys, they often live secretive lives, concealing their gender status for fear of stigmatization. Wassersug firmly believes that this needs to change.

"Everyone should be aware that a multitude of men are either chemically or surgically castrated for a variety of reasons in contemporary Western society."

(Image: Varys via HBO)

So, do we feel better now?

Links go stale over time, and the story would be lost.

That was Kristoff's rule, about text posting. Not mine.

Thanks.

Wow! the need to ask what is normal. In our modern world society has been so dumbed down that there is a need to ask what is normal.

Even animals and fish have innate sense for what is normal as demonstrated by casting out those that are different from the vast majority of the species.

Just because I seem different to another does not mean I should be cast out from the majority of my species. Normal being defined as similar and abnormal not so much to the majority of the topic. I AM DIFFERENT THAN THE MAJORITY! That make me unique and only me. I am one of a kind and do not blindly follow the multitude. It is curious though, our discussion of what is normal? Considering who we are!

Exactly right! Maybe only dead fish go with the flow? Unusual, interesting? Certainly! Congratulations! You are valued for being you.

Normality might be taken to mean healthy (mean +/- 2SD). It follows in some minds, that the uncommon is therefore unhealthy until proved otherwise. By this measure, red hair and freckles should be considered abnormal and therefore unhealthy, but we have learned that these are just normal and even attractive variants. No problem.

What to do to get the gender-zoo here accepted as maybe unusual but a kind of normal?

Asking for "attractive" might be too much!