Paràmetres rellevants de l’equació corresponents al receptor

How can we know if an unseen entity connects itself to us and taps our energy during sex? If we are going to search for evidence of this entity, we have to start by examining all aspects of the sex act, from the genesis of sexual arousal to the

experience of sexual orgasm. However this is easier said than done. Sex is not an easy thing for people to talk about openly for a lot of reasons. First and foremost, people do not want to talk about their own sexual desires because they do not wish to reveal their sexual inclinations, especially when those directions may be considered aberrant by their peers, and may jeopardize their reputation. Said Rose concerning sexual revelations, "People's protestations in public or anonymous revelations concerning their sexual inclinations are not very dependable if the person should happen to wish to put forth a certain hypocritical pose. And I must admit that we will always be limited to anonymous or unsigned testimony when it comes to sexual behavior."¹³⁴ Simply put, what a person thinks when they think about sex is a very intimate and subjective area of study that no one divulges readily. As the actor Peter O'Toole, a past "womanizer of grand repute," said in a recent interview when asked about his past romantic liaisons, "Talking about sex often makes people feel uncomfortable....I don't particularly like to talk about things like that." We need to know what people think when they think about sex or fall into the mood of sex. Knowing how and what they think will illuminate the sex connection that Rose believed exists between the sex act a person indulges in, and the mind. Therefore we have to look at all phases of the sexual experience objectively, without personal bias clouded by politically-correct thinking or our own desires, to be able to determine what exactly happens inside the mind of the individual when they become sexual. It is only through this kind of study that we can examine the mind to see if there is some trace of an external agent acting upon us that would give credence to Rose's belief that unseen forces tap our neural energy through the sex act. If they in fact do, then there must be some evidence of their presence that we can discover. Because these questions about sex involve the mind, Rose turned to psychology first, to shed light on the subject.

"We have a drug for every thought."

Rose thought that psychology had an obligation to look at the mental part of sex because psychology was created as an objective scientific study of the human psyche and the things that affect that psyche. As a layman, Rose felt that the field should know the human mind and the things that happen to it, including the mental aspect of the sexual experience. Rose believed that the phenomenon of the sexual experience should be examined objectively if a person is to discover what the sex connection is to their own mind. He thought that if we can see what happens to a person mentally when they engage in a sex act we could discover what aspect of sex demonstrates that an individual's thoughts and behavior are being influenced by an unseen external force as he inferred. Questions about the nature of sex and its impact on the mind need to be answered. Rose also felt that it was important to look at sex to see if some sex acts have a negative impact upon the mind of an individual. Is there evidence, if looked at objectively without personal sexual bias and politically-correct thinking, that certain sex acts have a profound negative influence upon a person who indulges in them that can be a contributing factor to subsequent mental problems and mental breakdown, as Rose thought was the case? Rose turned to the field of psychology for answers to those questions. He believed that psychology should have the answers but he found

that the field of psychology had not done that kind of objective research nor were psychologists interested in doing so. Any previous studies about sex that had been conducted under the auspices of clinical objectivity, Rose thought were tainted by the social-political orientation of the researchers involved, such as Masters and Johnson, Kinsey and Hite, who Rose believed were suspect of personal sexual bias. For example, Rose believed Kinsey was masquerading as a clinical sex researcher to justify his own sexual desires and promote his private sexual agenda. Years later this was subsequently found to be true when other researchers took a closer look at Kinsey's research and found it to be grossly skewed, and his conclusions about the prevalence of homosexuality in society flawed.

To the contrary of everything that Rose thought psychology should be

investigating when it comes to sex and the mind, Rose found that modern psychology, which he included with psychiatry, refused to talk about sex at all, except in social-political terms in which psychologists and psychiatrists validate all sexual acts and all sexual experience as behavior disconnected from the mind. Sex is no longer

considered to have any connection to an individual's thought processes, as was believed in the past. Therefore sex is something that people do as a matter of personal choice for pleasure, and cannot be evaluated impartially under any circumstances that might appear judgmental or discriminatory against individuals who engage in certain sex acts in private. Along with this new approach to sexuality by modern psychology, Rose found that both traditional ideas of sexual morality and sexual perversion no longer have any place in modern psychological thinking because special interest groups promoting sexual equality for all sexual orientations had successfully lobbied the psychological and psychiatric establishment to change previous psychological thinking about morality, perversion, and sexual dysfunction. No longer can clinicians say that certain sex acts have a negative impact on the mind and label a person who engages in such an act an aberrant or pervert. Consequently, Rose found that sex is no longer an issue that modern psychology believed they had to deal with. Not only did Rose find his questions irrelevant to modern psychology but even the idea of the existence of an individual mind was falling into disfavor as a new emerging behavioral approach to psychology was gaining ground in the 1980's. This new approach to psychology was based on what Rose qualified as social behaviorism, in which ideas like mind, thought, and mental phenomena were discarded in favor of the perspective of an individual being an organism interacting behaviorally in the greater milieu of society and its relevant values determined by group behavior. Rose was critical of this new form of psychology for falling far short of the mark in defining the mind and those things which affect that mind when it opted for a behaviorist approach to the individual. "I have to identify the objectionable psychology as 'modern

psychology' which is predominantly behaviorism. Psychology should be a study of the mind, not the body. Psychologists since the turn of the century found it easier to study the body than the mind, so they decreed that the mind was protoplasmic, or somatic.

In so doing they became anatomists."¹³⁵ Critically, Rose would turn away from what he came to call "modern psychology" and its negative assessment of the human mind.

The reason that Rose believed modern psychologists refused to recognize the impact of sex upon the mind is that by legislating all sexual behavior as different but equal, they had effectively boxed impartial sex researchers into a corner. Researchers feel that they can no longer objectively discuss sex in any forum out of fear of offending someone's sexual orientation. For example, a legitimate study on some aspect of sex might come up with results that clinically point out the effects of a particular sex act when practiced. However these impartial findings could be placed in

jeopardy when made public because they might appear biased or prejudicial if those findings found some aspect of a particular sexual orientation or sex act that could be called adverse. Those findings, although objective and impartial, would be seen as negative to the interests of anyone practicing that sex act, so the findings of the study would fly in the face of modern psychology's attempt to take a non-judgmental stance and not offend anyone due to their sexual orientation. Sex research has increasingly become taboo unless it includes studies that support and promote the new policy of mandated equality of sex acts by politically-correct psychologists. A good example of this is the recent study conducted by Dr. Charles Roselli, a researcher at the Oregon Health and Science University, who set out to discover what makes approximately 8%

of male sheep homosexual so as to understand "the fundamental mechanisms of sexual orientation in sheep." In publishing his findings, Roselli came under intense negative criticism and personal attacks by gay-rights advocates who accused Roselli of conducting research that could "pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans." Responding to the criticism by homosexuals Roselli denied their claim saying, "Merely mentioning possible human implications of basic research was wildly different from intending to carry the work over to humans." Nonetheless, the firestorm of criticism from gay-rights advocates leveled against Roselli has been intended to silence him and send a message to anyone else that same-sex research of any kind will not be tolerated by the gay community for political reasons.¹³⁶

With this kind of approach incorporating social activism with subtle behavioral control using intimidation and censure on anyone who disagrees with the new sexual equality, Rose believed that behaviorist psychology promotes a psychological maxim that is the antithesis of honest research. Said Rose in analyzing the behaviorist approach, "A body behaves badly (according to standards of modern psychology) only if it is socially disruptive. It does not matter if each person indulges in sex, drugs, or alcohol for twelve hours of each day as long as he makes no ripples. The belief in sin is an aberration. The only guilt we should feel is guilt for things done against humanity, meaning society."¹³⁷ It is not hard to see that today, several decades after Rose wrote his criticism, that the politically-correct approach of modern psychology in regards to sex has reached social ascendance. We now live in a society where it is forbidden to talk about sex in any terms other than acceptance and toleration of all sex acts and all sexual lifestyles. Today, these social standards surrounding sex are

determined by popular thinking derived from what most people are perceived to be doing sexually, and from political pressure exerted by special interest groups interested in a particular sexual orientation who continue to lobby the vote in all quarters of society, telling us that their approach should become popularized without protest. It began in 1973, at the height of the social, political movement called the

"Sexual Revolution" that was sweeping America. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a handbook published by the American Psychiatric Association, was revised so that the definition of homosexuality as a mental disorder of sexual deviation could be changed to "one form of sexual behavior" which "by itself does not constitute a psychiatric disorder."¹³⁸ This came about as a result of a perceived change of social attitudes in respect to homosexuality and the need by the APA to adjust their diagnostic manual to reflect those changes. Modern psychology became instrumental in changing behavior to fit ever-changing socially acceptable standards. In the case of the homosexuality issue, it was decided by psychology reflecting the desire of the gay-rights movement that society as a whole should not discriminate against homosexuals just because their sexual orientation is different from heterosexuals. Homosexuals deserve equal rights under the constitution and

should not be discriminated against as a minority. The issue of homosexuality became a political, civil rights issue for psychology. Nowhere did modern psychology

question whether the practice of homosexuality had any intrinsic deleterious effects on the individual. It was simply mandated by psychology that homosexuality does not have any negative effect and no further study of the issue is needed, or the

"discrimination card" will be played by homosexuals. In the case of sex practices like homosexuality, objective psychological research has been banned as prejudicial in and of itself.

What Rose believed happened was that modern psychology, as a tool of the homosexual lobby, got into the bias business of politically-correct attitude adjustment by advocating that a well-balanced normal individual should change their behavior to eliminate prejudice against homosexuality rather than engage in making prejudicial value judgments. Of course, Rose claimed this was reverse discrimination by homosexuals who believe at the heart of their argument that the whole world should practice homosexuality. Rose was quick to point out the hypocrisy of a so-called objective, scientific psychology that would label anyone who questioned

homosexuality as homophobic and in need of behavioral bigotry treatment, when no reliable, independent and objective study of the effects of homosexuality had been conducted by anyone other than pro-homosexual researchers substantiating their own sexual orientation. Rose asked when it was decided that the book was closed on objectively investigating sex and homosexuality. Was it not correct to say that

labeling as deviant anyone who questioned the effects of sex acts was also prejudicial, discriminatory, and bigoted? It was not a question to Rose of whether homosexuals should have equal rights under the law and be treated with respect, but whether there is a mind and how that mind can be affected by sexual practices like homosexuality.

In the end, Rose came to believe that the emerging trend in modern psychology demonstrated itself to be nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for behavioral control of society. By forcing the individual to conform to a predetermined set of rules dictated politically, psychological thinking could determine standards for sanity and deviance irrespective of the true nature of the mind. According to modern psychology, the idea of an individual mind can be legislated out of existence in favor of pre-determined behavioral indices that an individual must conform to. Rose considered this notion absurd, that the only reality for the individual is the larger social reality.

What Rose disputed most of all in the new psychology he called modern

psychology emerging in the 1980's was the idea that psychology no longer needed to be based on the mind—only behavior is important by which to define the individual.

Rose's whole life had been devoted to the study of the interior mind of the person and the mental phenomena that are a part of that mind and which determine behavior, not behavior determining the mind. Writing at the time, Rose said, "Psychology, as we know it in this century, is the observation of behavior and responses of man. It would like to be a science, but in its analyses it ignores some of the factors. It is in itself not pure, but is part business and part politics....Such a psychology is only pretentiously scientific."¹³⁹ His criticisms went further. To Rose, the mind of the individual is a real entity that is more than a bundle of behaviors, but he could see that the psychological field as a whole had determined to ignore the idea of mind altogether. "Modern psychology leaves a large gap in the very beginning of its paradigm structure. I think that there is a pretense [in modern psychology *author's note] that we should all understand that we are the body. I do not agree that I am only a body, so I require a definition in greater depth."¹⁴⁰ Rose scorned the idea promoted by B.F. Skinner in his

book "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" that modern psychology should define the individual by how their behavior conforms to a social consensus. "What we need is a technology of behavior,"¹⁴¹ said Skinner, the father of behaviorism, in response to the dilemma, as he saw it, of dealing with the idea of a fickle individual mind. What Skinner meant was that society as a whole and the field of psychology in particular would be better served if the idea of an inner self and mind was replaced with behavioral social contingencies that shape the individual by altering his behavior.

Skinner believed theoretically that you can change the way people think by changing how they act, and you do this with the use of social reinforcers, much like red and green traffic lights that enforce a desired behavior. Said Skinner, "Is man then abolished? Certainly not as a species or as an individual achiever. It is the

autonomous inner man who is abolished, and that is a step forward."¹⁴² Abolishing the inner man meant to Rose that psychology was subverting the individual mind

altogether. Said Rose, "My quibble with modern psychology is that it not only poses with inquisitional authority, but also reneges on the basic job of at least approaching the mind. It tries to make of psychology a materialistic and mechanistic science and in the ensuing efforts, aborts the very meaning of psychology. It now only investigates only protoplasmic and sensory reactions. The physical senses are part of the body which is visible while the mind and its projections are not. Of course, the modern psychologist gets around this by issuing an encyclical....Either the mind is physical or it does not exist."¹⁴³

Rose considered the approach of modern psychology completely negative, because it ultimately does not hold any real value for the individual who wishes to better understand themselves and their own motivation by looking within. "The present study of behavior, of minds interpreting reason for action by making observation of physical reactions is not even a level of the mind studying the mind, but a step lower of the mind denying the mind and pretending to study the body with material calipers—or the rock studying the worm—an impossible undertaking."¹⁴⁴ It was apparent to him that modern psychology is not interested in studying the mind to understand the person, but is comfortable taking the stance that the mind does not exist and only an individual's behavior is important to study. Russ Newman, a clinical psychologist with the American Psychological Association, revealed the importance of the behavior modification approach to psychology when he commented on how social prejudice against minorities like homosexuals should be handled by

psychologists in treating people with biases who are not accepting of social and

psychologists in treating people with biases who are not accepting of social and