Post a response:
| When I started to study sexology I was appalled by the immature of science in this area. There are only weak studies, premature hunches, dubious concepts in the field. I thought about behaviorism, positive and negative reinforcement of behaviors, but conversion therapy based on such premise (aversion therapy, orgasmic reconditioning) doesn't work. I myself was in conversion therapy, and therapist tried to hypnotize me to feel like a man (I am trans woman) and to f*** women (I am asexual and feel aversion to sex, especially in masculine role, I can image to have sex in feminine role and positioning, but only in very limited circumstance) , also he tried to reinforce new patterns of behaviors and feelings using positive reinforcement(praise, support, orgasmic reconditioning). It doesn't wok, in fact such therapy and attempts to live as a "normal" man was the worst experience in my life. So, we can abandon behaviorism and it's variations. What about cognitive science? Maybe there are cognitive schemes in the psyche which organize experience related to sexuality and sensuality. Some such experience is organized into generative model which is called gender identity (generative model which make sense from the inner experience, such model creates gendered subject ) and other experience is organized into generative model which make sense from the outer experience (desire of something, liking something), and it is called sexual orientation or sexual interest. By the way, I don't know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual interest. APA firstly called pedophilia sexual orientation, then renamed it into sexual preference, WHO uses the term "sexual preference", different sexological schools use different terms even within one country, so there is a lack of standardization. I think that cognitive approach to sexuality can be fruitful, but cognitive revolution which happens in the 60s didn't affect sexology, I claimed that it is still behavioral. Even James Cantor has cryptobehavioral approach, he talks about inborn instincts, it is like something unconditioned response to unconditioned stimuli. I would like to talk about algorithms of organization of experience, generative models, perception, etc. Chomsky and other linguists have such approach to language. They claimed that behaviorism and it's variations can't explain language, there are some inborn cognitive structure, "algorithms" which allow children to make sense from chaotic sounds and organize it into higgle organized process, language. I think something like this happens with sexuality. Nevertheless new reincarnations of behaviorism is dominant in the field, I was appalled when I read recent paper about pedophilia where authors claimed that pedophilia can be explained by the relational frame theory (RFT). And RFT is new reincarnation of behaviorism. What are your thoughts on this matter? Should scientists try to find substrates of unconditioned sexual response (Cantor's approach)? Should they try explain sexuality by creating association (relationships) between different stimuli (associations are related to behaviorism). Or should they do something else? There is also psychoanalytical approach, but I don't have interest in talking in this domain. I am scientists in the field of exact science (PhD student in the filed of physics) and cognitive approach (structures, algorithms, generative models) is the most interesting and promising to me. |