where are the men in psychiatry/mental health?

[Ceke2002]

This just seems so apropos for some unknown reason...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jakeislove]

Do I have to read this entire thread to get the sex change reference?

 

[jakeislove]

Skipped ahead.

Generally speaking, medical culture doesn't reward conflict. Psychiatry requires a different kind of teachableness since decisions are based upon more than lab results. Someone overly cocky may be very smart but difficult to teach because you're always dealing with their ego.

I'm very much into fitness and exercise and honestly annoy the bejesus out of most friends and my kids. That being said, I'm not afraid of contact and don't feel any internal conflict about being open or gentle with people when they need it.

 

[erg923]

Rock Hudson, easily.

 

[Wilf]

This thread is ridiculous. And yet despite the farce of novopsych frothing at the gash over vistaril, vistaril emasculating an entire race, tris lamenting the triumph of the "gay agenda" and the "homosexualization" of society, I can't help but think the most ridiculous comment on this thread was "What's wrong with Rand Paul?"

Just saw this posting now. I still don't understand what is wrong with Rand Paul. I think he would make a great president and would certainly be much better for doctors than Obama. We desperately need a conservative.

 

[erg923]

Just saw this posting now. I still don't understand what is wrong with Rand Paul. I think he would make a great president and would certainly be much better for doctors than Obama. We desperately need a conservative.

Who's "we?"

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Getting back to the male non-physicians in mental health thing, I think in one of those places in the west coast where your hobbies are way more important than your job. This is maybe not sustainable considering how expensive it's gotten to live here, but whatever, still true for now. So that means we've got male social workers and what not who are also great snowboarders, ultra marathoners, rock climbers, band members, etc.. I think that would count for traditional values of manliness (not to say we should or shouldn't validate those things, but still). We also have the most strip clubs per capita.

 

[michaelrack]

Lord knows why, I guess I like the diversion, I started thinking of real-life examples of "real men" as defined by Vistaril's characteristics. Charlie Sheen came to mind as did Donald Trump.

If you're still here Vistaril, I would love if you could rank the following for us in order of real-manliest to least. These are just the men who came to me—feel free to add your own.

Various well-known people who identify as male (to my knowledge):
Charlie Sheen
Donald Trump
Stephen Hawking
Richard Branson
Tiger Woods
Michael Sam
Chaz Bono
Tom Cruise
George Clooney
Rock Hudson
Howard Stern
Tim Allen
Jerry Seinfeld
Pat Buchanan
Eckhart Tolle
Adolf Hitler
Jesus of Nazareth
Aristotle
Stephen Sondheim
Walt Disney
Michael Jordan
Magic Johnson
John Leguizamo
Barack Obama
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
George H.W. Bush
Ronald Reagan
Vladmir Putin
Fidel Castro
Kim Jong Un

Top: Jesus of Nazareth, followed very distantly by Ronald Reagan, who stood up to the evil empire. Farther down George HW Bush, who was a WWII war hero, although his presidency was disappointing. Putin is manly in an evil sort of way. Not much manly about Chaz Bono.

 

[michaelrack]

Who's "we?"

By "we" I think Wilf meant the American people. I agree that Americans need a conservative (not necessarily RAnd Paul). Who they want and will elect will probably not be a conservative.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Getting back to the male non-physicians in mental health thing, I think in one of those places in the west coast where your hobbies are way more important than your job. This is maybe not sustainable considering how expensive it's gotten to live here, but whatever, still true for now. So that means we've got male social workers and what not who are also great snowboarders, ultra marathoners, rock climbers, band members, etc.. I think that would count for traditional values of manliness (not to say we should or shouldn't validate those things, but still). We also have the most strip clubs per capita.

Are you actually trying to recruit Vistaril to the Pac NW now?

 

[touchpause13]

Most manly
Jesus
Stephen hawking
Aristotle

Less manly because politics
Clinton
Bushes
Obama
Reagan (he gets a double non manly because actor)
...rest of politicians

Then all the athletes

Then all the actors

Then all the other celebrities (including chaz bono because I think he's kinda a dick)

Then all the evil mofos

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Well sure, but most cities my size only have a few different places....they are also heavily racially segregated. White guys go to the furnace or Sammy's and black guys/girls go to some other places on the north side

Atlanta is where the much better places are, but that is over 2 hours away

So (since this thread is already such a train wreck I don't think this is a derailment) I'm wondering, in all seriousness, having met several young women in the course of my work in community psychiatry settings who supplement their income with a little "exotic dancing" when they can...have you ever thought through the professional ramifications of a) being recognized, b) having Monday's intake turn out to be someone whose artistic talents you enjoyed on Saturday evening, or c) discovering too late that the lady whose charms you are admiring was your patient earlier in the week?

I'm always kind of amazed how many times I've encountered present and former patients in the "real world"...the Y locker room, a waiter when I'm out with family, and at least three times so far at my church. This is not a small town, either...metro area of 2 million. Seems like it has a finite non-zero probability of happening to you someday. What's your plan?

 

[birchswing]

Top: Jesus of Nazareth, followed very distantly by Ronald Reagan, who stood up to the evil empire. Farther down George HW Bush, who was a WWII war hero, although his presidency was disappointing. Putin is manly in an evil sort of way. Not much manly about Chaz Bono.

Chaz Bono is manly in exactly the way Vistaril is: an obsession and worry about what is manly or not. I consider him more manly than me. I sort of float in between. I don't identify as a woman. I acknowledge that I'm male. Don't really care too much about it. I've always thought that if I realized I were transgendered I couldn't be bothered to go through with the whole transition.

Edited to add: I'm surprised Jesus is at the top of several lists. I thought people would have said something to the effect that he couldn't be classified and is distinct from humans in a way that defies classic gender roles.

I would love to be a fly on the wall to see what it was actually like back then. I mean I know there were a lot of people like him, but I wonder if it was typical to deny your own father the way he did (Joseph). It's kind of a mean thing to do when you think about it. He wasn't really a lady's man either, if that fits into your definition of manly. Not only did he not marry, but he told all of his followers not to marry. I think he may have also had an ego issue. And he didn't live that long because of all the adolescent-like rabble-rousing.

Of course that's speaking only historically. From a religious perspective, I can't really speak to his presence in people's lives. Maybe from that perspective he's more manly.

 

[touchpause13]

Chaz Bono is manly in exactly the way Vistaril is: an obsession and worry about what is manly or not. I consider him more manly than me. I sort of float in between. I don't identify as a woman. I acknowledge that I'm male. Don't really care too much about it. I've always thought that if I realized I were transgendered I couldn't be bothered to go through with the whole transition.

Edited to add: I'm surprised Jesus is at the top of several lists. I thought people would have said something to the effect that he couldn't be classified and is distinct from humans in a way that defies classic gender roles.

I would love to be a fly on the wall to see what it was actually like back then. I mean I know there were a lot of people like him, but I wonder if it was typical to deny your own father the way he did (Joseph). It's kind of a mean thing to do when you think about it. He wasn't really a lady's man either, if that fits into your definition of manly. Not only did he not marry, but he told all of his followers not to marry. I think he may have also had an ego issue. And he didn't live that long because of all the adolescent-like rabble-rousing.

Of course that's speaking only historically. From a religious perspective, I can't really speak to his presence in people's lives. Maybe from that perspective he's more manly.

Chaz went lower on my manly list just because I watched a documentary about him and think he's a bit of a tool/ didn't treat his girlfriend very well. I would have put Buck Angel at the top of my list if that was an option.

Jesus went on the top of my list not because of the divine thing, but because he stayed true to his beliefs in the face of major adversity. Ghandi and MLK would also be high up on my manly list.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Manly enough for you?

 

[michaelrack]

Chaz Bono is manly in exactly the way Vistaril is: an obsession and worry about what is manly or not. I consider him more manly than me. I sort of float in between. I don't identify as a woman. I acknowledge that I'm male. Don't really care too much about it. I've always thought that if I realized I were transgendered I couldn't be bothered to go through with the whole transition.

Edited to add: I'm surprised Jesus is at the top of several lists. I thought people would have said something to the effect that he couldn't be classified and is distinct from humans in a way that defies classic gender roles.

I would love to be a fly on the wall to see what it was actually like back then. I mean I know there were a lot of people like him, but I wonder if it was typical to deny your own father the way he did (Joseph). It's kind of a mean thing to do when you think about it. He wasn't really a lady's man either, if that fits into your definition of manly. Not only did he not marry, but he told all of his followers not to marry. I think he may have also had an ego issue. And he didn't live that long because of all the adolescent-like rabble-rousing.

Of course that's speaking only historically. From a religious perspective, I can't really speak to his presence in people's lives. Maybe from that perspective he's more manly.

From a Christian perspective, Jesus died to save mankind. From a non-Christian perspective (assuming one accepts the existence of Jesus as a historicial figure), He stood up to the Roman empire and was a charismatic leader. People (including many women) flocked to him. Looking at Jesus as a historical figure, he reportedly remained celibate because he was following what he believed to be his Father's (God's) will, not because he couldn't find a woman.

 

[Ceke2002]

So (since this thread is already such a train wreck I don't think this is a derailment) I'm wondering, in all seriousness, having met several young women in the course of my work in community psychiatry settings who supplement their income with a little "exotic dancing" when they can...have you ever thought through the professional ramifications of a) being recognized, b) having Monday's intake turn out to be someone whose artistic talents you enjoyed on Saturday evening, or c) discovering too late that the lady whose charms you are admiring was your patient earlier in the week?

I'm always kind of amazed how many times I've encountered present and former patients in the "real world"...the Y locker room, a waiter when I'm out with family, and at least three times so far at my church. This is not a small town, either...metro area of 2 million. Seems like it has a finite non-zero probability of happening to you someday. What's your plan?

Something tells me Vistaril isn't paying too close attention to their faces Just kidding (sort of), you've got a very good point here. That's one thing I was always concerned about when I was stripping, that someone I knew would come in, and it's not like you can just refuse to dance until they leave. Thankfully the only person I did ever recognise was more of a casual acquaintance , and he didn't stay long as it was (just popped in for a quick drink after work). When I was working the streets I recognised a fair few clients about the place, including Doctors (and yes most of them saw and recognised me as well and the majority of them looked utterly mortified). I've been in the waiting room of a medical centre and had a Doctor I'd serviced a few nights ago walk out to collect his next patient's notes, see me, drop everything, turn heel and walk straight back into his office. It happens, you get recognised, and customers (whether from stripping or other activities) recognise you. If you're going to either work in this sort of industry, or frequent certain establishments/areas then it's something you need to be prepared for.

 

[erg923]

Birchswing,

Jesus=badass manly change table turnover, dead bringer backener, wine changeness, rebel ever. Both "man" and divine. Take that. I am pretty sure he didn't go to strip bars though.

(And where some might view Chrstianity as "conservative" I view it as the ultra of progressive and liberal)

 

[Ceke2002]

Bitchswing,

Jesus=badass manly change table turnover, dead bringer backener, wine changeness, rebel ever. Both "man" and divine. Take that. I am pretty sure he didn't go to strip bars though.

(And where some might view Chrstianity "conservative" I view it as the ultra of progressive and liberal)

Totally. Obviously I have a different view on the divinity of Jesus (although I don't believe he was a mere man), but other than that you gotta say dude kicked some serious ar5e in his time. He was a rebel, a revolutionary, his ideas were radical and had the potential to usher in sweeping social and political reformations. If Jesus was living in modern times he'd be the one on t-shirts and posters as the ultimate image of revolution and socialist ideology, not Che Guevara (IMHO).

 

[erg923]

Soprano voices are manly, at least in 1976....

 

[Ceke2002]

Soprano voices are manly, at least in 1976....

Oh I love male soprano voices, I can't remember the band's name off the top of my head but there's a modern group who's lead singer is a natural male soprano (as in can sing in the female soprano opera range without employing techniques like falsetto. One of my absolute favourite male soprano's though is Radu Marian, he's devoted most of his career and training to reviving Baroque period compositions that were originally written for the Castrato. He has an amazing voice, very ethereal in a way.

And yes he has somewhat of a female following, as in 'holy sh** I want to sleep with this guy right this minute', apparently it's somewhat of a nuisance for his wife when he's receiving so many propositions. Oh, but wait, that's right, I forgot women are only turned on by manly men doing manly things and looking extra manly.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

What about Sigmund Freud? He's kind of manly in creating his own thing, striking his own course and all that (again, assuming we buy into these ideas). Also, women dug him. And to go there, he was pretty impressed with his penis. That's dude like.

 

[2tall]

"... anger is often vulnerability's mask."

For Men's Rights Groups, Feminism Has Come At The Expense Of Men

http://n.pr/VPYNx6

 

[nancysinatra]

While this has probably been beaten to death already, and I agree its good to have a healthy dose of skepticism on the internet, this isn't a dating website. The point is for people to give, and receive, advice on psychiatry. Deliberately misleading people (as opposed to not disclosing particular information) kind of renders this point moot, at which point this forum would just turn into random salary figures and people critiquing their own fantasy worlds (e.g. even though I'm a chief resident at a top Northeastern program, I can't find believe how much my fiancee is making and how I can't find anyone to talk about repairs on the slums I'm rebuilding).

Also, since we're discussing the virtues of the internet, its probably not a good idea to say anything that you wouldn't say to your PD or patient. I've seen so many people get burned assuming what they're saying is anonymous.

What's the point of having this forum at all if people only want to discuss things they'd say to their patients or PDs? If you see it as a Venn diagram, the subcategory of overlapping things most people would be willing to say to BOTH their patients and their PD is little or nothing. Not to mention, why come here for that purpose?

 

[nancysinatra]

now, we're all just a cog in the healthcare juggernaut. it is beneficial to be a weaker don't ask questions type of person.

This sure is the truth

 

[nancysinatra]

That's actually somewhat related to the primary theory on how wolves evolved into dogs. They developed pleasing behaviors that were less likely to frighten humans, so as to be able to live near civilizations. It's why they're so good at sitting around a kitchen table waiting for a scrap to fall. It's very cute when you think about it.

Wow, you have described the medical profession perfectly. This is up there with the House of God ice cream cone analogy.

 

[nancysinatra]

Hippies/counterculture types were a minority of the population in this country, even at the height of their prominence. Many individuals, my parents included, never bought into free love or anything of the sort. So, no, I dont think my views are simply a product of the times.

Your claim about hippies is debatable, especially in some quarters, but regardless, it sounds like you think you live outside of and above the times and culture. Do you feel this way about all your opinions or only the ones expressed on this thread? Instead of debating the ideas that Vistaril was raising (stupid ideas, granted) - you made a personal attack on him and questioned his romantic success in life. For all the stupidity of Vistaril's original post, I think an attitude of moral superiority conveyed with ad hominem attacks is equally bad or worse.

Let's say I'm a patient. Do I care, or should I care, how successful my psychiatrist has been in their romantic life? Remember there is a high divorce rate among physicians of all kinds. So WHO, in your estimation, is good enough to do this kind of work, and how do you verify that?

Have you ever met a marriage and family therapist? Keep in mind the principle that people become psychiatrists because they need one. So how will you fill the ranks with people who meet your standards?

There's not an admissions committee in this country that would admit Tri to their psychiatry residency program if he wrote that in one of his essays, right? Why is that? See my point above..

I certainly hope you're right. Tri comes across as nuts, frankly. Hopefully that shows in other ways. I agree with you that we do ultimately promote certain values in our work, but we should be humble in doing so, and always question ourselves.

I would again argue that if her views is that homosexuals need to "stay in the closet" (since we know the adverse effects this has on ones mental health and other health behaviors), then yes, I would have concerns about her. Similarly, if she advocated that her patients should conform to stereotyped gender behaviors/interests, yes, I would have concerns. Now, I doubt V does that explicitly in his professional duties, but I think it would be hard not to let such a black and white view of human nature "seep out" in some way.

You think it would be hard, but how do you know? That's my point. As long as the practitioner walks the walk and talks the talk there's not much more that can be done.

As far as what we advocate for or do not advocate for, we should be guided by science, right? For example nowadays we know that homosexuality is not a mental illness and so we should advocate for self acceptance. However, only 30 or 40 years ago we thought the opposite. My point is, our science is totally questionable. Therefore, so is our advocacy.

 

[birchswing]

Wow, you have described the medical profession perfectly. This is up there with the House of God ice cream cone analogy.

Interestingly, I wasn't really agreeing with the point of view being expressed--I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. That metaphor just came to mind when reading "it is beneficial to be a weaker don't ask questions type of person," which is what I was responding to.

As a patient, my own view of the medical field is that there aren't enough doctors, patients are seen too quickly, and there is too much specialization (a lack of looking at the whole person). My answers to solving that problem (admittedly these are armchair opinions) would be to increase competition by increasing the number of doctors by making medical school free. I think the cost of medical school is too large of a deterrent, and the debt incurred by it seems to make doctors choose fields that compensate the best.

Not a great metaphor I can think of to describe that. I can't speak to doctors becoming weaker, except that I can see how they are sort of in automatic mode and seem compliant and content with systems that don't work well. It becomes normal somehow to expect absurd situations as both a doctor and patient and to pretend that the situations are normal. In other facets of life, people act more normally than they do in medicine. So I guess there is a lack of autonomy that doctors have. From the outside it's hard to see doctors being put upon, though. Like I have a psychiatrist who won't do phone calls because insurance doesn't reimburse her for phone calls. Yet she asked me to call her after my last appointment to give her an update a week later on a change we made in medication. She asks me to tell the secretary how I am doing. The secretary tells her. The psychiatrist tells the secretary her response and has her call me. When I explain to my psychiatrist that everytime we do this everything gets lost in translation, she says she can't talk to me on the phone because insurance won't pay for it. But the insurance isn't reimbursing the secretary either, lol. And then if I say I'll pay out of pocket for a phone call, she gets overwhelmed and doesn't give an answer. I can see how doctors seem overwhelmed and trapped. This is just one example out of many of where patient-doctor relationships can just seem plain bizarre to me. As another, my psychiatrist has two offices. One is literally 30 seconds from my house by car; one is 45 minutes by car. I go to the office that is 45 minutes by car. Everytime I see her I ask if I can see her at the other office. She strung me along with excuses as to why I can't, but none of them have ever made any sense. Finally she told me at the last appointment that doesn't see it happening. She'll allude to things like tax reasons, inter-office politics, etc. but I frankly have no idea.

 

[billypilgrim37]

My point is, our science is totally questionable. Therefore, so is our advocacy.

And there you have it. Nancy just became the ultimate post-modern nihilist!

For us existentialists, we happily accept the lie that the opinions we hold are worth fighting for. Our current conceptions of social justice may be false notions that just make us feel better about ourselves, but hey, we have to make meaning somewhere.

 

[masterofmonkeys]

Yes because Indian guys are typically appropriately masculine lmao.....

Say that to my face lol.

 

[novopsych]

Say that to my face lol.

If there's one thing I've learned about Vistaril from his messages on this board all the way down to my sacral chakra, it's that he would take you up on that offer—anytime, anywhere. Remember who blinked in the 2002 nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan? It wasn't Pakistan!

Vistaril knows how to keep a woman waiting, and he sure as hell knows how to outpuff a blowfish.

 

[Ceke2002]

Pops open a cold one for Vistaril and Novopsych.

 

[novopsych]

Pops open a cold one for Vistaril and Novopsych.

I have eyes for Vistaril and I don't even know what color he is. I'm literally colorblind in love. And I'm a racist for pointing out that India blinked in a nuclear stand-off?

 

[smalltownpsych]

In a war between the French and the Indians, who would surrender first? Also, I don't really like their cuisine either. Italian, Mexican, Chinese, even Persian all blow them away.

 

[novopsych]

In a war between the French and the Indians, who would surrender first? Also, I don't really like their cuisine either. Italian, Mexican, Chinese, even Persian all blow them away.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but if you're sincerely asking, the French would win. The French are violent and racist. Indians are racist too, but against their own people. The French have a monolithic identity and don't tolerate anything trying to penetrate it, which is why you see racism come into play in that country so often. Indians are divided internally by wide income disparity and varying social classes.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Also, just to make it clear for any dance therapists in the room, I really detest Bollywood dancing.

 

[Ibid]

And there you have it. Nancy just became the ultimate post-modern nihilist!

For us existentialists, we happily accept the lie that the opinions we hold are worth fighting for. Our current conceptions of social justice may be false notions that just make us feel better about ourselves, but hey, we have to make meaning somewhere.

Nietzsche was a post modern prophet before post modernism came along.....he was that good....

 

[Ceke2002]

I have eyes for Vistaril and I don't even know what color he is. I'm literally colorblind in love. And I'm a racist for pointing out that India blinked in a nuclear stand-off?

Nope, you're a troll. But if you really want an answer to that question, yes I do think implying that a person's ethnicity can have anything to do with their perceived masculinity, or lack thereof, is being racist.

 

[Ibid]

Martin Luther King was a troll and a highly effective one......creative maladjustment was his tool.......nothing wrong with a bit of maladjustment now and then..... otherwise one is just a damp squib......oh yes.....

 

[erg923]

Not blinking in a nuclear weapons standoffs is "manly." Now I think I have heard it all, lol

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." —General George S. Patton

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." —Norman Schwartzkopf

 

[Trismegistus4]

I should know better than to reply but it does irk me that there are psychiatrists who would argue this nonsense. There are still vast swathes of this country where homosexuality is as you put it largely "in the closet" and there are many men who continue to live on the DL. They tend to be at higher risk of mood and anxiety disorder, substance use disorders, and sexually transmitted diseases, especially HIV and syphilis. Those gay men who stay "in the closet" as it were tend to do engage in more risky sexual behaviors and less likely to seek testing for STDs etc. Also those areas where the ratio of syphilis cases for M:F is closer together tend to be areas where more men are "in the closet" and thus giving syphilis to their wives and girlfriends - see Hamilton County, OH, Bexar County, TX, Tarrant County, TX, and Hilsborough County, FL - which have the very similar numbers of men and women with syphilis and also tend to have a lot of anti-gay sentiment. The latter for example banned gay pride several years ago.

"aren't quite happy" - doesn't come close. There are people so tortured about their sexual orientation they just want to die, they experience significant self-loathing, isolation, aloneness and pain which often leads to the kind of risk behaviors that people who don't care about themselves develop. Most of my patients are gay and keeping homosexuality "in the closet" is what cultivated this sense of otherness they have that is often related to much of the psychopathology I see.

I have never subscribed to that idea that a doctor must be a doctor first, placing some ambiguous, supposedly medically-driven moral code of tolerance above the values of nation, culture, God, etc., and if the latter conflict with curing or treating some supposed disease, the latter have got to go. My belief in traditional Western civilization is higher and more fundamental than my desire to treat mental illness or any other illness for that matter, and I'm not going to advocate or participate in the overthrow of society to achieve some nebulous goal like the reduction of disease.

And I suspect the analog is true for you and your culturally left-wing value system. After all, for example, just being a man who has sex with men puts one at a much higher risk for contracting HIV. The "scientific" thing to do, by your logic, would be to counsel all your male patients not to have sex with men. And yet somehow I doubt you do that.

 

[Shikima]

 

[touchpause13]

I have never subscribed to that idea that a doctor must be a doctor first, placing some ambiguous, supposedly medically-driven moral code of tolerance above the values of nation, culture, God, etc., and if the latter conflict with curing or treating some supposed disease, the latter have got to go. My belief in traditional Western civilization is higher and more fundamental than my desire to treat mental illness or any other illness for that matter, and I'm not going to advocate or participate in the overthrow of society to achieve some nebulous goal like the reduction of disease.

And I suspect the analog is true for you and your culturally left-wing value system. After all, for example, just being a man who has sex with men puts one at a much higher risk for contracting HIV. The "scientific" thing to do, by your logic, would be to counsel all your male patients not to have sex with men. And yet somehow I doubt you do that.

Um... no you wouldn't. You would tell them to use safer sex practices. Would you tell a female pt looking for birth control just to stop having sex? No that would be stupid. Plus with your hypothetical pt, treating him like that would probably cause him to distrust you and other health professionals, making him less likely to seek help later if he did get infected. Further stigmatizing a person in an already stigmatized population is a bad idea.

 

[erg923]

I My belief in traditional Western civilization is higher and more fundamental than my desire to treat mental illness or any other illness for that matter, and I'm not going to advocate or participate in the overthrow of society to achieve some nebulous goal like the reduction of disease.

Then you should probably not practice medicine, much less psychiatry.

Your use of "God" to defend this is pretty blasphemous, as well. I have been a Catholic Christian for over 30 years now, so I think I know a thing or two about what the message of the Gospels is. I doubt Jesus, M.D refuses medical care to Mary Magdalene. And he was most certainly NOT indifferent to her suffering as marginalized member of society (obviously a reference to your indifference towards the mental health of homosexuals). What do you think?

 

[erg923]

And I suspect the analog is true for you and your culturally left-wing value system. After all, for example, just being a man who has sex with men puts one at a much higher risk for contracting HIV. The "scientific" thing to do, by your logic, would be to counsel all your male patients not to have sex with men. And yet somehow I doubt you do that.

Advocate/advise safe sex practices, chief. Harm reduction. Basic premise in addiction psychiatry. Use your noggin...

PS: Looks like someone alrady got that point,

 

[Trismegistus4]

Um... no you wouldn't. You would tell them to use safer sex practices. Would you tell a female pt looking for birth control just to stop having sex? No that would be stupid. Plus with your hypothetical pt, treating him like that would probably cause him to distrust you and other health professionals, making him less likely to seek help later if he did get infected. Further stigmatizing a person in an already stigmatized population is a bad idea.

I knew someone would say this. That's why I included that little word "just." Regardless of whether certain people have been advised to used condoms, merely being a man who has sex with other men puts you at a higher risk of HIV. Therefore, the "evidence-based medicine" thing to do, if one were interested in equalization of incidence of disease, as splik seemed to imply we should be, is to recommend not being a man who has sex with other men. Splik was saying that being OK with a higher incidence of depression and anxiety in homosexuals is unacceptable; that one must advocate the completely public acceptance of homosexuality because supposedly these higher incidences are caused by "homophobia."

Then you should probably not practice medicine, much less psychiatry.

Your use of "God" to defend this is pretty blasphemous, as well. I have been a Catholic Christian for over 30 years now, so I think I know a thing or two about what the message of the Gospels is. I doubt Jesus, M.D refuses medical care to Mary Magdalene. And he was most certainly NOT indifferent to her suffering as marginalized member of society (obviously a reference to your indifference towards the mental health of homosexuals). What do you think?

What does Mary Magdalene have to do with anything? And it seems to me pretty clear that the message of the Gospels is "believe that Jesus is the son of God, that he died and was resurrected to save people from their sins." If you think instead that it's "do what Jesus told people to do," I guess you adhere to the Old Testament law, you know, the one leftists are always mocking for forbidding homosexuality, shellfish, and mixed fibers.

 

[xlithiumx]

What does Mary Magdalene have to do with anything? And it seems to me pretty clear that the message of the Gospels is "believe that Jesus is the son of God, that he died and was resurrected to save people from their sins." If you think instead that it's "do what Jesus told people to do," I guess you adhere to the Old Testament law, you know, the one leftists are always mocking for forbidding homosexuality, shellfish, and mixed fibers.

Actually, he adheres to New Testament law, you know, the one that says "Do unto others as you would have done to you." Mary Magdalene, the prostitute, and Christ's treatment of her, has everything to do with this.

 

[Ceke2002]

Regardless of whether certain people have been advised to used condoms, merely being a man who has sex with other men puts you at a higher risk of HIV. Therefore, the "evidence-based medicine" thing to do, if one were interested in equalization of incidence of disease, as splik seemed to imply we should be, is to recommend not being a man who has sex with other men.

I'm assuming you're referring to anal penetration being a riskier behaviour in terms of HIV transmission, owing to relative weakness of the lining of the rectum when compared with the vagina, therefore making it more prone to (usually) microscopic tears allowing easier passage of disease into the body? What does that have to do with men who have sex with other men? Not all men who have sex with other men engage in anal, just like not all heterosexual couples refrain from it either. Men who have sex with men also engage in practices such as oral sex, mutual masturbation, and frottage. Does that mean heterosexual couples now need to strike these activities off their list as well? Because clearly if a man who has sex with other men engages in such practices, and they're at a higher risk for HIV merely by being a man who has sex with other men, then holy moly we're all in a lot of trouble.

And it seems to me pretty clear that the message of the Gospels is "believe that Jesus is the son of God, that he died and was resurrected to save people from their sins."

So all those sermons and teaching points that Jesus gave were just him passing time until his crucifixion? That's pretty disrespectful, in my book, to say that the only message of the Gospels is that Jesus died and rose to save people from their sins. That's like saying nothing Jesus said, did, or instructed before his death really mattered.

 

[erg923]

What does Mary Magdalene have to do with anything? And it seems to me pretty clear that the message of the Gospels is "believe that Jesus is the son of God, that he died and was resurrected to save people from their sins." If you think instead that it's "do what Jesus told people to do," I guess you adhere to the Old Testament law, you know, the one leftists are always mocking for forbidding homosexuality, shellfish, and mixed fibers.

You are talking part 1 of 2 part duty. You speak of orthodoxy, but you are leaving out orthopraxy, right?

"Preach the gospel. Use words if necessary."
-St. Francis of Assissi.

The message of the gospels is, of course, more than just "believe." This isn't an X-files episode we are talking about here.

For almost two thousands years Catholic Christians (and other sects) have spread the gospel by serving their fellow man. Ya know, kinda like Jesus did? Hospitals (all those hospitals named after Saints aren't a coincidence), schools, orphanages, soup kitchens, sanctuaries for the poor and dispossessed. In what sect of Christianity is this aspect of gospels NOT accepted? Perhaps you could enlighten us on the "Christianity of belief but not behavioral follow-through" you seem to often reference? I am unfamilar with it. Christ lead by example (Jesus obviously cared about the well being of sinners, whereas you, apparently, do not?). You live your faith.

I am also curious if you have ever read some of the more well know theologian-philosophers? Aquinas, Merton, etc have written extensively about how diverget orthodoxy can be seen as representing a univeral zetgeist.