I love you Julie!!
...I could probably write an essay to you on this, but it is gettin late here (in Australia -oops I'm in SA-UK)
But I have long believed that some experts and people in general judge others based too much on their own perspective -with its own limits for what is acceptable. And that many people simply do not have the wisdom and clarity of perception to truly see others correctly. I believe that this is simply a characteristic of human nature. But having been exposed to more and more theories on anxiety, I am seeing how some people seem to comprehend the problem without making a person with it feel damaged or full-of-faults, whilst others do not.
One example of people's perceptions judging poorly that I can think of is Sigmund Freud's theory of 'Penis Envy'. By which the very words he uses denotes that such women suffer from the envy of sexual power that men supposedly have. He stipulated that both women who engage in 'too much sex' and 'too little sex' are sufferring from such a condition. .....it is no wonder that he incited rage from feminists -his employment of the word 'envy' is all about women wanting power; and yet the simple observation of survival reveals that a person concerned with the gain of power is equally concerned with the prevention of losing power. ....In my humble opinion, because Freud views others through the lens of his own eyes (values, perception) his primary attention is on gaining power -or, if you like, more focussed upon the conquest. He completely ignores women who simply stave off sex for fear of losing their status, ie: their power.
And just as a Medical Book dating back a few decades will list the disease: "Promiscuity ......in Women and How to Cure it" (-!!!!!-) it is clear that not only do people evolve in their sense of what is 'normal' and 'abnormal', but that much of what people divide into one or the other is determined by their own personal outlook.
I prefer Jung to Freud. Where Jung talks of the feminine and masculine exiting within every individual and seems more balanced in his ability to see different view-points.
And in a way, all shy, sensitive types are like the 'feminine' side to people, where even the great psychiatrist himself, Sigmund Freud represses such a side, more quickly labelling it as 'wrong', because already 'femininity' is repressed within most peoples' minds. They have a view of what is 'normal' and 'right' based upon a smaller scope for diversity. So, as soon as any more extreme degree of diversity arises, the 'feminine' (non-dominant) form of this is labelled as 'abnormal' in an effort to bring back order to the newly emerging chaos. But this chaos is simply evolution. As is shown by how society changes in its ideas of 'normal', expanding its understanding of people to find a more inclusive way of bringing order to the chaos. ...like believing that 'shadows only mean that a light is near'; or finding the solution is like finding the light at the centre of darkness.
Note that whilst promiscuity may stil not be considered the ideal, or normal, that there is a greater ability to accept this aspect of all people as having its own 'normal' core at the centre of its darkness. And with it, it is less 'abnormal' for women to be easy going sexually along with this being true for men. (Although whether we've really progressed that far is another discussion). ...it's a great argument for 'what you do to others is done unto you', or like Jung's observation that demonising others means that the unwanted, and as yet not dealt with, aspects of the subbconcious are popping up, causing a person to divide the world into 'right' and 'wrong', 'sane' and 'insane'. ...but in the light of this interpretation of sanity and insanity, what truly is sane?
Cheers and thanks for supporting the oppressed minority!! :lol: :wink:
(NOTE: I use the term 'feminine' in the sense that the feminine is simply the non-dominant side of the masculine, for example... feminine= introverted, sensitive, wanting close emotional bonds, masculine=extroverted, insensitive, sex for pleasure)