From Focus on the Family’s "Family News in Focus" radio broadcast and an accompanying article for March 3, 2005:
Magellan Health Services, the largest health care provider in the United States, has dropped Dr. Warren Throckmorton from an advisory panel after five years. According to Focus on the Family, Throckmorton was dropped because he believes homosexuality is not a fixed condition.
But in the radio interview, Throckmorton refers only vaguely to unspecified "views" that Magellan allegedly found objectionable. In fact, some of Throckmorton’s controversial views have little to do with the mutability of sexual orientation.
Scroll to 6:07 for the broadcast:
Windows Media broadcast | RealAudio broadcast
In the broadcast, Focus on the Family correspondent Steve Jordahl asks Magellan spokesperson Erin Somers a leading question: "Sounds like you’re not really tolerant of someone who does" [advocate that sexual orientation can be changed]. Somers replies: "I do not believe that is an accurate statement." She describes Throckmorton’s departure as a "business decision," says Magellan respects Throckmorton’s freedom of speech, and requests that Throckmorton reciprocate the respect.
Not likely. Throckmorton has recruited George Ohlschlager of the American Association of Christian Counselors to mount a political pressure campaign against Magellan.
Lacking any hard evidence of a gay witchhunt at Magellan, nor any quotes from gay groups or individuals who might be petrified of fluidity in sexual orientation, Ohlschlager asserts out-of-the-blue that "we are constantly being challenged by a militant gay minority who hates the appearance of any idea that change is possible."
Addendum, March 9, 2005: In the midst of this affair, Throckmorton has an opportunity to publicly address his affiliation with religious-right political campaigns that use discrimination and the threat of imprisonment to constrain and deny self-determination to people who choose not to become ex-gay.
Unfortunately, Throckmorton has chosen not to pursue the option of responsible reflection about his political activities.
Instead, Throckmorton extends his campaign of unsubstantiated assertions about others in an article on the American Family Association’s AgapePress site.
Throckmorton accuses unidentified and undocumented "homosexual activists" of pressuring Magellan and somehow denying sexual self-determination to workers who are already familiar with celibacy and capable of choosing it for themselves.
Throckmorton also implies that chief medical officer Alex Rodriguez or other Magellan leaders sympathize with him. But what Rodriguez said was (according to Throckmorton, again), "I know where you’re coming from" — not exactly an expression of support for the inclusion of religious judgmentalism in the field of corporate workplace counseling.
Wow, I would really like to hear from Magellan what their reasoning for dropping Throckmorton was. It’s interesting, though, that they said it was not because of his views on homosexuality, yet the Focus article says that was the “apparent” reason. I guess honesty in reporting is lost on them.
Also, Throckmorton has been a pretty big name in ex-gay stuff for a while. I’d venture to say before he joined Magellan. If they were dropping him because of his ex-gay views, wouldn’t they have never brought him on in the first place?
These sort of panels are rather problematical. Is it a paid position or voluntary? From what I have read, one function of such panels is to evaluate the cost efffectiveness of various treatments. Not scientific validity, but does the benefit outweigh the costs. On which terms, reparative therapy spectacularly fails.
Also, is this the sort of advisory panel where the membership is changed periodically? There are lots of them out there where people serve for a fixed term and then are replaced. Just to keep the process fresh and up to date.
There may be a more pragmatic reason for Throckmorton’s removal – the Behavioral health world, at least in my anecdotal experience (I work in health care quality) has a high percentage of gay men. It may simply be that Throckmorton’s work was more suspect in that environment.
That doesn’t automatically make his removal correct, but it may make it understandable.
On the other hand, maybe Throckmorton’s bloviations and self-promotions didn’t prove to be particularly–um–healthy. Maybe a company that promotes itself to be into health services would prefer not to align itself with someone whose pontifications aren’t healthy.
One never knows, does one?
BTW, just how much was Mr. Throckmorton acquiring from his prior gig?
Magellan states that
“We fully support his right to express his views…We hope that Dr. Throckmorton will support our right to make a business decision that we think is in the best interest of our company.”
It’s not really clear why he was dropped. But it seems highly doubtful that it would be due to any misconduct/illicit behavior.
My suspicion that this “business decision” may be due to high ranking (gay, or gay-sympathetic) financial benefactors of Magellan who take offense to Dr. Throckmorton’s conservative views.
There is a lot of gay men in the health care business, and this does not seem like too far fetched a theory.
If only Throckmorton would stop imposing his religious/moral views on everyone, then maybe people will actually pay attention to his scholarship (he is no intellectual slacker in that department).
“No one has yet to explain to me, what qualifies a heterosexual to decide that being gay is a choice and gay people are obligated to change.”
Maybe no one has yet explained it to you because so few people (whether heterosexual or not) continue to believe that being gay is a choice, or that gay people, as free citizens, should be forced to do anything (eg. psychotherapy to try to change).
“Of course, the problem with CU’s is, will they be EXCLUSIVELY for gay people?
If not, than heteros could civilly union and mess it up for everyone.
Or sue to have marriage lite’ and then the limits of CU’s should be painfully obvious to anyone.”
I’m not really following this…? How can “heteros” mess up civil unions any more than they’ve messed up marriage? It’s not like marriage means very much today anyway, especially to the 50 or more percent (?) of kids who’ve had to suffer through the destruction of one. At least civil unions preserves the pragmatic “I want my money” side of the inheritance and divorce proceedings. It’s interesting that you used the expression “civilly union”. This is what marriage has become in a large percentage of cases – two people who used to have vague romantic feelings for eachother but are now happy to be civil and break up, as long as they get taken care of financially. As Julia Roberts apparently said, why should gay couples miss out on that?
I maintain my view that if you’re a same-sex couple and you want marriage, go to a UCC or MCC minister and get one. If you also want the legal recognition, get a civil union.
“No one has yet to explain to me, what qualifies a heterosexual to decide that being gay is a choice and gay people are obligated to change.”
Very very few people today, even among conservatives, believe that being gay is a choice. Rather, they believe that the choice lies in choosing whether or not to act on the homosexual orientation, as opposed to choosing to have the orientation.
The focus has shifted: conservatives view homosexual orientation as something that was UNCHOSEN, however, they also view it as something that can be changed to a certain degree, in some people. Although this latter point is scientifically correct, they make the mistake of extrapolating from this to conclusion that all gays can change, and that all gays SHOULD change.
And, in answer to your question, I do not believe that conservatives should meddle in the business of gays who are happy being gay.
-Nave
Although this latter point is scientifically correct, they make the mistake of extrapolating from this to conclusion that all gays can change, and that all gays SHOULD change.
I would dispute that the point is actually ‘scientifically correct’ as you state: the evidence that sexual orientation is changeable is far from equivocal at this point[1], although I would agree that many seize upon what evidence does exist as proof that we should all undergo reparative therapy.
While many people don’t outright state that gays choose their orientation in political debate these days, I think it is still believed by a good many people. It goes hand in hand with the argument that if gays want to marry, they can, they just have to marry the opposite sex like everyone else.
I’ve still had disbelieving acquaintances and family members say they can’t imagine why I would choose such a thing for my life.
And, as to the choice as to whether to be openly gay or to live celibately or change, I think the right enormously downplays the ease of doing that. They make it sound like gays are just weak-willed people choosing to sin, never really putting themselves in the shoes of gays. Could they just choose never to be romantically in love with anyone for the rest of their lives? Could they choose to never have a romantic relationship ever? I’d like to see many that are against gays try to take up the cause of turning away from homosexuality on themselves- if we have to be celibate, maybe they should give it a shot for 5-10 years too- and by celibate I mean no romantic involvement at all- not just the physical aspect- (Hey, they are asking us to do it for our entire lives).
They make it sound like gays are just weak-willed people choosing to sin, never really putting themselves in the shoes of gays.
This is probably my biggest issue with the “pro-family” movement, which seems to regard gays as 1) having descended from some alien planet and 2) to have blithely decided one morning, over eggs and coffee, to be a homosexual. They do not ever acknowledge the often difficult and years-long process most gays (at least those over 30 today) go through during their adolescences and early adulthoods, to understand and come to terms with our orientations.
It takes an enormous amount of courage to understand that society, religion, etc. may actually be wrong about gay people, and to live openly – even more so for the Del Martins,Phyllis Lyons and Frank Kameny’s of the world, who did so when it was still a legal risk to be out.
“Booted from home, regardless of being a good kid.”
You just reminded me of one of the desperate 13-year old kids in my class who’s mum decided it was either her new boyfriend or her daughter, and chose to boot out her daughter. She didn’t need an excuse like her daughter is gay (she’s not, as far as I know).
“They make it sound like gays are just weak-willed people choosing to sin, never really putting themselves in the shoes of gays.”
I agree that some people seem to talk about celibacy like it’s a comfortable lifestyle choice. It is much more difficult, particularly in our “pair off into twos ASAP” culture.
Regan- good first post, I agree and like the way you worded the ending about change.
Following up on what I said about celibacy and what Trevize said about pairing off. When I told my dad I was gay, he was crushed (he had no idea it was coming). Two of the first thoughts were 1). Embarrasment (how was he going to tell his friends, our family) and 2). Sadness about not having grandkids from me.
The funny thing is- if I live the right wing answer to this, neither of these problems would be solved. I would live celibately, denying my gay attractions, but when people ask me why I dont’t have a girlfriend, etc.- I would have to tell them that I am gay- I don’t want to commit the sin of lying. So, the embarrasment is not something my being celibate will help him get around. Then, since I am not attracted to girls (I have tried, trust me), he still won’t have grand kids.
He was also worried about my salvation. His divorce and remarriage kind of puts him in the same boat as me in that respect- if being gay is a sin, surely divorce and remarriage are too(whether or not he admits it).
“I would live celibately, denying my gay attractions, but when people ask me why I dont’t have a girlfriend, etc.- I would have to tell them that I am gay”
Interestingly, a few of those that are incredibly religious/spiritual are able to find a great deal of inner peace living celibately.
“I would dispute that the point is actually ‘scientifically correct'”
You yourself might dispute that, but several prominent homosexual psychologists/scientists admit that some change is possible for some people. Jack Drescher agrees with Spitzer that scientifically, a minority of people can and do change. However, he feels that it is only a minority, and one should not force the gay population to undergo therapy just so we can extract a few heterosexuals. Greg Herek admits that a minority are able to change (just check out his website if you don’t believe me). It’s just that he feels that this change may be a natural phenomenon that would’ve occured without therapy. Even though these two have their (major) disagreements with pro-reparative therapy people, they do believe that sexual orientation is not invariably fixed for all people. And that is the point I was getting at in my previous post.
In my opinion, some more interesting/complex questions to ask are:
1) How many people can change? (we don’t know, although those that can change are probably fewer than those who can)
2) Does therapy really help people change i.e. is there a direct causal link between therapy and change? And can therapy be harmful? (the APA says “To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or HARM of “reparative” treatments.” In other words, we don’t know for sure, since to date we only have anecdotal/retrospective data on the subject, and this isn’t scientifically rigorous enough.)
Conclusion: there is a lot we don’t know regarding the more complex issues. But in answer to the more simplistic question “can some people experience some degree of change?” The answer would be yes.
Hi.
One thing I didn’t make clear enough in my last post: the “change” I talk about is not the black and white, gay-to-straight. I’m talking about different degrees of change, with respect to the Kinsey scale. To find an examples of this type of subtle shifting up and down the Kinsey scale, one does not even need to talk to a right wing conservative. The gay/bisexual communities have countless anecdotal stories about people experiencing subtle changes in inner feelings regarding their sexuality. Kinsey himself admits that some people do slide up and down the scale due to outside influences.
In discussing change, I think it’s important to distinguish between gay and lesbian. Research shows (and I have loaned out the source and can’t quote exactly) that gay women are more fluid in their sexuality and have higher levels of bisexuality (thus are more likely to “change” to some extent) while gay men have lower levels of bisexuality and have very very low incidences of change in sexuality once it is onset.
While this link https://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_spit.htm doesn’t address the issue discussed in the previous paragraph, it does take to task the research done on “change”.
>Interestingly, a few of those that are >incredibly religious/spiritual are able to find >a great deal of inner peace living celibately.
Generally those people are in expected positions of celibacy though (like a priest–but with scandals many no lnger see such people as legit celibates). Some people who go into such positions also consider themselves asexual and have little sexual feeling.
Those who are not in such positions are often ridiculed. People question friends who do not date. Fellow employees can feel very awkward if they do not know who you date (I know this myself–I had a job in which people felt strange because I did not discuss my dating life. People try to set you up and do other various things). People will often accuse a celibate person of being homosexual (which is ironic). Celibacy in general is something many are suspicious of.
Good post Aaron. I am frequently trying to get set up by older family members that do not know I am gay. Having to hide the reason I did not date girls while I was in the closet brought a huge deal of stress to me.
Nave, while I don’t deny that some people find great inner peace living celibately, I would like to point out that it is surely not for everyone (even the Bible acknowledges this), and I believe the far right make the idea of celibacy sound much too simple, and as I said earlier, they are quick to point out what gays should do when most have not even contemplated how that would affect their own lives.
Hi.
“Research shows that gay women are more fluid in their sexuality and have higher levels of bisexuality.”
I suspect you are talking about the Bailey study regarding the 50 men and 50 women, all of which were shown porno clips, am I right? If not, would you care to give me the name of the study and the researchers who conducted it (by the way, the Bailey study doesn’t really prove that)?
“gay men have lower levels of bisexuality and have very very low incidences of change in sexuality once it is onset.”
I cannot relate to this because as a male bisexual, my sexuality oscillates between a kinsey 2 and a kinsey 4, depending on my psychological state. Also, you say men have “very very low incidences of change in sexuality once it is onset.” Interesting that you say this, because last time I checked, no long term longitudinal study has ever been done regarding the stability of sexual orientation over a person’s lifetime. And by LONG TERM I mean over a period of MANY years, from the person’s youth into his old age. So no one really knows for sure how stable sexual orientation is. However, there are theories. Hard-core old school essentialists hypothesize that orientation is rigidly fixed for ALL people, while social constructivist “queer” theorists contend that it is fluid. I tend to go more with the social constructivist theory simply because my life is proof to myself that orientation can change to a degree. Also, I’ve currently acquainted myself with a few bisexual men who used to identify as gay. By the way, none of these men underwent therapy of any kind. The change was a natural one that took place as result of changing life circumstances and perspectives.
TA,
“I would like to point out that it is surely not for everyone.”
That’s true. And I never said it was for everyone. That wouldn’t be fair.
Aaron,
“Some people who go into such positions also consider themselves asexual and have little sexual feeling.”
I believe asexuality to be a legitimate sexual orientation. Some people simply don’t have any sexual feelings. May be a chemical thing, or maybe some underlying psychodyamic thing–I really don’t know. I believe repression of sexual urges though, to be an unhealthy thing.
Fair enough, Nave. I didn’t mean to imply that you had said that, I was just trying to make my side clear.
No worries TA. I knew what you meant. I just wanted to be clear that I didn’t feel that way.
nave
Nave,
Re: “I believe asexuality to be a legitimate sexual orientation.”
I read recently something that supports the idea of asexuality as an orientation. I’d have to dig into my notes to find the source, but many feel that the old Kinsey model is inadequate to explain the range of sexualities experienced by many people. That model was limited by the fact that it had exclusive homosexuality on one end of the scale, exclusive heterosexuality on the other end, and everyone was expected to fall somewhere onto a straight line drawn between or on the two end points.
Now many sexuality researchers envision a two-dimensional graph, with intensity of homosexual orientation on one axis and the intensity of heterosexual orientation on the other axis. In this model, the origin of the graph describes perfect asexuality. This model also more adequately describes cases of sexual compulsion or hyper-sexuality, and blends of relative sexualities.
Being asexual (for whatever reason) and being repressed are two entirely different things. I believe I can glean from your response to Aaron, who mentions asexuality vs. the priest scandal in passing, your recognition of the distinction between asexuality as an orientation, and asexual behavior as a chosen behavior that is distinct from (and in the case of the priest scandal contrary to) orientation. If I understand you correctly, I think we’re pretty much in agreement.
But then this brings us back to the example of heterosexual behavior as a chosen behavior that is distinct from and contrary to homosexual orientation. From that viewpoint, I think the RC priest scandal, in which the priest voluntarily takes on an asexual behavior on contradiction to his own sexuality (whether it be heterosexual, homosexual, or anything else) provides a very powerful cautionary tale.
Repression, even voluntary repression for religious reasons (and maybe especially for religious reasons), can result in some very disturbing things. And so on that note I’ll add my Amen to your statement: “I believe repression of sexual urges though, to be an unhealthy thing.”
Nave cee,
I wish I could remember the source re: the research. Unfortunately, I can’t.
I wasn’t trying to raise issue as to whether on not there is bisexuality and fluidity in sexuality. Personally I’m a Kinsey 7 but I have to reason to doubt that both bisexuality and fluidity of sexuality are part of the fabric of sexuality.
But the point of my post is that gay men and gay women have very different levels of bisexuality and fluidity in sexuality. Too often both sides of the debate do not distinguish between the two.
(oh, and before someone corrects me, yeah i know that the scale only goes to 6)
Timothy,
“I have reason to doubt that both bisexuality and fluidity of sexuality are part of the fabric of sexuality.”
Well, because we’re not scientists who study sexuality in a general, empirical way, we can only extrapolate from our own experiences. As someone off the deep end of the Kinsey scale, you can’t possibly imagine (male) sexuality to be anything but rigid and unchanging.
On the other hand, as a male bisexual who oscillates between a Kinsey 2 and Kinsey 4, I have a hard time imagining sexuality to be anything but fluid, and subject to change due to life experiences.
I have reason to believe that sexuality is more fluid than people seem to think. But based on the responses of people like you, this fluidity may not exist in all people. Which of course, due to the variable nature of the human race, comes as no surprise.
Hi Jim,
I’m going to go off on a bit of a tangent regarding this repression discussion, so bear with me…
So, to begin…
Our heart beat is controlled by our autonomic nervous system. What this means is that our heart beat is outside of our conscious control. That’s why your heart continues to beat even when your unconscious and asleep. Just about every biology text book on the planet will say that your heart beat is controlled by the “autonomic nervous system.”
However, recently, scientists have been questioning this. This is because in Tibet, they have discovered that some of the Buddhists monks can CONSCIOUSLY control their heart beat, and lower them or raise them voluntarily during meditation. This has been freaking out some scientists.
My question is this: If people can control their heart beats, which is something that has been deemed impossible for the past centuries,
Would it not be a stretch to assume that there are some rare individuals who can control their sexuality in the same way? And by control I mean turning it off and on whenever they like. After all, sexual arousal is controlled by the autonomic nervous system as well.
And, would this still be repression of sexual urges? I don’t think so, because if you can truly turn it off, then its turned off. There are no raging feelings struggling to get out, until you turn those feelings on.
Just an interesting thought.
Not sure. The folks that can lower their heart beat only do it for short periods of time (i.e. by sitting still and meditating) not the lifetime that taking that kind of control over sexuality would require.
Anyway why would that freak out some scientists I can think of lots of reasons why the heart rate would slow via meditation (not moving=lower oxygen requirements=slower heart rate). Heck when I was younger I could relax enough to lower my blood pressure a small amount for a while but the moment I moved back to normal it went. (Now my mind is much too busy for it)
I however have strong doubts that anyone can turn their sexuality off at will. Not act on it, yeah (sadly I do it all the time). Concentrate on something else defiantly but that is different from turning it on/off at will. And you can’t spend a lifetime meditating.
My own experience is attraction will turn on whenever and to whomever you find cute (or atleast not repulsive) providing you have enough libido (there are days when I can think a guy is extremely attractive and others the same person less cute or not cute but not repulsive).
It matters not if the guy is straight, married, or otherwise incompatible, annoying, or so annoying you couldn’t pay me to sleep with him.
Also, wow that is interesting. Never heard of a bisexual claiming that sort of range. Usually they are somewhat equally attracted to members of both sexes at all time and claim very small shifts over wide ranges of time.
Our heart beat is controlled by our autonomic nervous system. What this means is that our heart beat is outside of our conscious control. That’s why your heart continues to beat even when your unconscious and asleep. Just about every biology text book on the planet will say that your heart beat is controlled by the “autonomic nervous system.”
However, recently, scientists have been questioning this. This is because in Tibet, they have discovered that some of the Buddhists monks can CONSCIOUSLY control their heart beat, and lower them or raise them voluntarily during meditation. This has been freaking out some scientists.
Um, sorry, this is probably incorrect. What is probably being observed is the fact that people can relax themselves so that their heartbeats autonomically are reduced. If one conciously reduce one’s heart beat, it seems plausible to believe that one can autonomically reduce one’s respiration rate. Try that and see what happens.
As an aside regarding the RC clergy, I have known more than a few RC Religious who were leading an active gay life. Sometimes this was private, once in a while semi-open among gay people. These men always claimed to be celibate. According to them the vow of celibacy they had taken precluded sex with women, not with men. Quite clearly they were not involved with women, so to their minds they were celibate. There were enough of them to convince me that this was not an isolated personal type response. It seemed that prior to the mid70’s this was a fairly common understanding among RC Religious, both Secular and in Orders.
Thanks for responding Jason. That last post you responded to was merely a thought experiment. I don’t really believe a person can turn their sexuality on and off. However, I wanted to throw something out that would get a response.
I’ve just done some research, and apparently, the benefits of meditation extend way, way beyond what we seem to think.
Meditation can slow the heart rate down. This is due to breathing techniques and concentration, as you rightly indicated. Also, it has been clinically shown to restore balance in the face of such psychiatric disturbances as depression, hyperactivity and ADD.
It’s actually been shown that meditation can re-wire the brain.
Also, meditation has been experimentally shown to have a beneficial effect on sociopaths. Lastly, meditation has been shown to have enormous benefits on people with auto-immune diseases
This is not to say that meditation can make you go from gay to straight–that’s ridiculous, nor will it give you the ability to turn off your sexuality at will.
However, my current position, and I think it’s a valid one, is that a meditative lifestyle might make it easier for a person to transition into a celibate lifestyle, whether gay or straight, male or female. The brain re-wiring that scientists talk about may include a dampening of sexual desire.
I also do think asexuality is an orientation. I read some studies that suggested 1% of the population is asexual.
I want to add in a different view of celibacy. It is often assumed in a religious context that celibacy is always ok. However, I know a Catholic family that was quite upset that its son was to be a priest. More personal though, I grew up in a religion where celibacy is a major no-no. Everyone was expected to marry by a certain age, and if you were not married, you were not going to attain all the glories of heaven. It is a very, very bad thing. Certain religious rituals and other aspects were denied the celibate. Homosexuality is considered pretty much as bad as murder (and some think worse–some believe the only thing worse than homosexuality is blasphemy against the holy ghost). Celibacy, while better than sexual sin, is still considered bad. Celibates are forced into certain social situations to get them married (they are even considered “special interests”) and they are considered a nuisance. Celibates are really pushed into marriage because celibacy is considered a really bad situation. Not all religions view it as a legit position.
Asexuality does indeed exist and it’s even been achieved on child molestors by performing lobotomies.
The discussion seems to have gotten a bit far afield from the original topic of the post. I have made the fact that I consider psychology and psychiatry to be ascientific fairly clear here and elsewhere. But hey, what do I know about science–my scientific training was merely in physics.
On the topic of the post, the complaint of the witch doctor Throckmorton that he was removed from a Magellan advisory panel after five years or so, presumably because of complaints from homosexuals, one might seriously ask what the average lifetime is for a member on a Magellan advisory panel is. If the average lifetime is on the order of five years, the witch doctor Throckmorton may have been removed because his time was up.
Raj, in answer to your first comment:
“I have made the fact that I consider psychology and psychiatry to be ascientific fairly clear here and elsewhere.”
My first answer would be, “so what?” My second answer would be: “you’ve also made it clear elsewhere that the 1973 decision was scientific. However, how can this be if psychology and psychiatry is as you say, “ascientific?” How can “ascientific” research lead to a scientific decision? Sounds pretty contradictory to me. You either have to admit that the decision was not scientific, or that psychology and psychiatry can be practiced scientifically, but that it has not been under certain circumstances. But hey, what do I know…”
As for your second comment:
“If the average lifetime is on the order of five years, the witch doctor Throckmorton may have been removed because his time was up.”
Sure. Sounds reasonable. Although it would reflect incredibly poor on Throckmorton’s character to bitch and moan over a supposed natural termination, but hey, he is a whiner.
Nave
Throckmorton says that he was at first invited to say on for another term, and that the the invitation was rescinded.
Interesting Mike. The thing about Throckmorton is that he lets his conservative religious views color his scholarship, and this detracts severely from his work.
The biggest problem is that he refuses to admit that gays can be responsible, mature individuals who practice monogamous relationships.
So no matter how much he says he supports the rights of people to make decisions with whether or not they want to stay gay, or pursue change, it is clear that he feels that those who don’t choose to pursue change are “bad” and defective.
My second answer would be: “you’ve also made it clear elsewhere that the 1973 decision was scientific.
On the assumption that you are referring to is the 1973 decision of the AP(psychiatrists, not psychologists)A to de-list “homosexuality” as a mental disorder from their DSM, you would be in error. I haven’t asserted that the 1973 was scientific, here or elsewhere. Indeed, I am quite aware that it was in large measure a political decision. So?
What I have made clear was that their original decision to list “homosexuality” as a mental disorder in their DSM was ascientific. If they had not originally listed homosexuality as a mental disorder in their DSM, there would have been no need to engage in the political activity to de-list it.
One hopes that you comprehend the distinction.
On the topic of the post (and, analogous to my point above)…. One wonders why Magellan originally appointed Throckmorton to its advisory panel. Throckmorton is, of course, an instructor in psychology at a relatively obscure college–Grove City isn’t Harvard, after all, and psychology is hardly “public health”. Why Throckmorton?
It should be noted that Magellan is the family business of US Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee.
Raj,
Re: “It should be noted that Magellan is the family business of US Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee.”
That’s a fascinating piece of information. Could you point us in the direction of a source? Google came up empty, as did Magellan’s website. Is there a name other than Frist that we should look for?
Raj, Nave,
Re: “I have made the fact that I consider psychology and psychiatry to be ascientific fairly clear here and elsewhere” followed by Nave’s response —
Raj is far from alone in holding this opinion. I’ve seen this debate come up numerous times among psychologists and psychiatrists in professional publications, particularly with regard to the medicalization of behaviors in academic research.
As for the particular discipline of psychoanalysis, (and as I have mentioned earlier, I have a bone to pick with those folks so I can’t claim any impartiality here) the argument about whether it is scientific in methods or research is not only hotly debated among practitioners, but many will concede that what they practice is closer to being a discipline of philosophy or an art rather than science.
The “medicalization” of behaviors throws a major monkey-wrench into the whole debate. There are few researchers who are interested in “what went wrong” to cause left-handedness, and there are far fewer still who are interested in what causes heterosexuality. But thousands make their living trying to figure out what abnormality(ies) cause(s) homosexuality.
As long as selected behaviors and traits which are clearly non-psychotic are viewed from the standpoint of abnormal vs. normal development and causes, the ongoing attempts to medicalize benign behavior leaves the whole question of science vs. politics very much in play.
Jim Burroway | March 14, 2005 10:45 AM
Sorry, my memory was incorrect. Frist’s family fortune came from the Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), not Magellan
https://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/08/news-ireland.php
I’m still wondering, though, why Magellan Health Services–a competitor of HCA–would appoint a lecturer in a pseudo-science like pyschology at an obscure college to its advisory board.
Raj, I understand the distinction you are trying to make (fighting fire with fire, or more to the point, pseudo science with pseudo science). But my question is: Shouldn’t the listing of the other conditions as disorders in the DSM be called into question as well? After all, the criteria for listing some disorders in the DSM are just as poor as the ones for listing homosexuality, if not poorer. Yet some of these conditions remain listed (gender identity disorder is an example, social anxiety disorder is another).
Jim, the medicalization of certain behaviors as destructive vs. benign, “good” vs. “bad,” in my humble opinion, can never be totally based on science. The final say is always societal and philosophical. That’s the constant struggle of psychologists…to remain philosophically and moral neutral…something which is hard due to human nature.
Who replaced Throckmorton on this board? If it is another wingnut, that says one thing. If someone more mainstream another. And I wonder just what this board actually does. What effect their recommendations have. We really seem to need more information.
But my question is: Shouldn’t the listing of the other conditions as disorders in the DSM be called into question as well?
If you wish to do so, feel free.
One thing Throckmorton said struck me in particular.
But before I get into that: someone in a previous post, stated that “consenting love filled sex” is a the way to go in terms of sexuality, whether gay or straight. She also expressed her discontent with adolescent understandings of sexuality.
Now, Throckmorton states,
“In many contemporary sexual education curricula, young boys and girls who listen carefully in health class will be schooled in the virtues of condoms. They may learn the mechanics and become involved in “safer sex”…Sadly, though, such programs rarely inform them that their emotional and sexual adjustment would be enhanced if they would wait”
What he is saying seems to sound pretty reasonable. Perhaps waiting to have sex increases the possiblity that one would experience love filled consenting sex, since this would allow for emotional maturity.
Now, the current sex education videos spend a few seconds talking about abstinence, and then the rest of the hour talking about condom mechanics.
However, the argument is that: kids are not going to abstain no matter what we say. So why not just let nature do their course and instead teach them to be responsible? But maybe its just that we need better ways of communicating the benefits of abstinence to the adolescent mind? I know some might find this ridiculous and impossible, but hey, its just a thought.
As for “love filled, consenting sex” in adolescent children: consenting? yes. Love filled? Probably pretty rare. In Taiwan, the rate of STD’s has gone up dramatically, and this has coincided with teenagers losing their virginity at much younger age than before, with multiple sex partners.
I guess my point is that I do feel “love filled, consenting sex” to be the healthiest sex act, in my opinion. And perhaps we can increase the incidence of this if we find better ways to promote abstinence towards young children.
I guess in way I’m greatful that he was a member of Magellan in that he was able to promote this view, however unpopular it might be.
“emotional and sexual adjustment would be enhanced if they would wait”
This is pure BS. There are so many assumptions here. It reminds me of a minister who said that orgasms are stronger for married people than nonmarried. First of all, there is a very little proof that this is true because I don’t think such a statement can be verified. Second, when one is in a sexual mood, many are in pure love at that moment regardless how they feel later. Also, a loving marriage does not ensure sexual fulfillment at all.
You are wrong about most sex programs Nave–condoms and safe-sex are actually not emphasized and they were not when I went to school either. I regret not having sex in high school. I was ready but because of scare tactics and stupid instruction (high school sex classes teach nothing about sex really–come on, I saw Minny Mouse have a period in my classes–I had no idea what that meant.) I held off. Sex would have been fulfilling and satisfying at that time.
Also, sex ed made no sense to me. When I hit puberty, I imagined gay sex and nothing else (no, I was never molested or saw anything–it was instinct). When I heard about hetero sex (I heard more from my sister than from my classes), it was as foreign then as it is now to me.
It is also dangerous and irresponsible to suggest to students that waiting will make their lives better and more fulfilled. What happens when “abstenent” students wait and start to doubt what they were told? Those marriages and sexually enhanced relationships will be disappointed and fall apart. Throckmorton may feel that way, but he should not generalize to all.
One more thing–this idea is like the “virginity is a gift” idea which is vile. It is mysoginistic. Viginity is an imaginary construct. It does not really exist. It leads people to do unnatural and dangerous things so that they can “enhance” marriage night bliss.
Hmmm, if waiting enhances married sex lives, why do so many evangelical Christians divorce? After all, their rate of divorce is higher than for the general population. Just wondering.
Hi Aaron,
“I don’t think such a statement can be verified.”
But you attempt to verify the statement as “pure BS” right off the bat without more consideration. So either you are contradicting yourself in stupid way, or you really are capable of verifying the unverifiable(personally I think it’s the former).
“Second, when one is in a sexual mood, many are in pure love at that moment regardless how they feel later.”
But is the feeling really love if its a feeling that’s only felt during sex? Is the feeling really love if it vanishes after sex? It’s obvious that you define “love” in a very immature, superficial way that is unenduring and tied down with sex. The stereotypical argument against gay marriage is that gay men are just a bunch of sex addicts who can’t love, and who whom are inherently incapable of monogamy. Your definition of “love” inadvertently lends credence to this view.
“It is also dangerous and irresponsible to suggest to students that waiting will make their lives better and more fulfilled.”
How utterly fascinating. You might have heard about something called AIDS. FYI, AIDS is an STD, and STD’s are a very real threat, as opposed to the pseudo-threats you pose about a student being dissappointed that he didn’t get enough ass in high school. C’mon man…seriously.
I’m not necessarily saying that one should be married to have sex. But my personal view is that one should at least be in love with the person they have sex with. And it might be nice if this “love” was something that was much deeper than a transient feeling that dissappears after the sex act. And because of this, I feel that Throckmorton is right on the money on this issue.
“Why do so many evangelical Christians divorce? After all, their rate of divorce is higher than for the general population. Just wondering”
You need to make some important distinctions here. Liberal christian divorce rates were only slightly higher than atheists (24% vs. 21%). Conservative Christians, on the other hand, have a much higher divorce rate than both atheists and liberal Christians.
Also, why do you assume that the high rate of divorce is based solely on sexual issues i.e. waiting awhile on having sex?
“You are wrong about most sex programs Nave–condoms and safe-sex are actually not emphasized and they were not when I went to school either. I regret not having sex in high school.”
I’d have to disagree with that. When I was at high school (about a decade ago now), sex-ed basically consisted of learning about STDs (now called STIs), and how condoms would prevent them. No one ever talked about the importance of caring relationships, probably because that would be adding too many subjective values to the curriculum.
And I definitely do not regret not having sex in high school. That period of life is unstable enough already without bringing in those kind of factors. Many adolescents are desperate for a sense of belonging and for something to block out a general feeling of abandonment – which is an extremely self-focussed imperative for having sex, in my opinion.
NC Wrote: Conclusion: there is a lot we don’t know regarding the more complex issues. But in answer to the more simplistic question “can some people experience some degree of change?” The answer would be yes.
As you state above there is far too much to learn on this issue. You cite other scientists and Spitzer’s report – which has been disputed and even contradicted by other studies – but this far from makes a consensus on the issue. The evidence, if one examines it, seems far from conclusive and this is a huge leap from then stating that this is all “scientifically correct”. Without further evidence, you might think change is possible, but a scientist would conclude that the issue is far from settled, even if it is ever possible to prove your conclusion.
On the issue of sex ed in high school- my school taught a lot about STD’s, pregnancy, the emotinal involvement in sex, etc. It also stressed abstinence over condoms, but it did talk about both. In high school I was also fairly involved with church youth groups and friends of like minds- that went a long way in keeping me from having sex. I have to agree with Nave that abstinence should be given at least equal weight as condoms/safer sex in school settings, but I don’t believe it should be the only side presented.
Looking back, I don’t regret not having sex in high school. I do, however, regret not coming out in high school. I’m the type of person that no one guesses would be gay, and I think it would have been good to show the many kids in my high school that gay people don’t always (and probably don’t usually) fit into the stereotypes that are out there. I also think having a “relationship” at all in high school probably would have been good for me emotionally- not for the sex, but for the “dating” and relationship building lessons it would have afforded me.
Shouldn’t the listing of the other conditions as disorders in the DSM be called into question as well? After all, the criteria for listing some disorders in the DSM are just as poor as the ones for listing homosexuality, if not poorer. Yet some of these conditions remain listed (gender identity disorder is an example, social anxiety disorder is another).
Actually, the 1973 DMS update, which removed homosexuality, was the first attempt to scientifically define mental illness. It was not perfect, and I believe since then gender identity disorder, for example, has been removed, but science is always a process and not an end.
There are, however, far to many dubious behavioral health illnesses in the DSM – social anxiety disorder, borderline personality disorder, and the like, so work remains to be done.
The basic definition of mental illness appears to be if the problem interferes with the activities of daily living, or causes significant distress to the individual. Pedophilia, interesting, has been debated as a mental illness because pedophiles often feel no distress over their actions. Of course, sociopaths also feel little or no distress, so perhaps that’s too limiting.
“In many contemporary sexual education curricula, young boys and girls who listen carefully in health class will be schooled in the virtues of condoms. They may learn the mechanics and become involved in “safer sex”…Sadly, though, such programs rarely inform them that their emotional and sexual adjustment would be enhanced if they would wait”
What he is saying seems to sound pretty reasonable. Perhaps waiting to have sex increases the possiblity that one would experience love filled consenting sex, since this would allow for emotional maturity.
Well, whatever you feel about the appropriate age to begin sex, we should also remember that high school is a time to learn skills for life, not just for graduation. Even if you assume children will wait until marriage to have sex (a dubious assumption, to say the least), in a time when there are 6 BILLION humans on the planet, I think it is fair to say that most couples will use some form of contraception. Teaching high-schoolers about the various modes of contraception, their risks and benefits, would seem to be like teaching them geometry. They may not see the immediate use of the information, but they will need it when the time comes.
>But you attempt to verify the statement >as “pure BS” right off the bat without more >consideration. So either you are contradicting >yourself in stupid way, or you really are >capable of verifying the unverifiable>>(personally I think it’s the former).
Umm, no I don’t. Verification is different than evaluation. I can evaluate something and not verify it. That is what an opinion is. Verification means bringing factual evidence. I can say God does not exist. I can’t verify it, but I can give it as evaluation.
> It’s obvious that you define “love” in a very >immature, superficial way that is unenduring >and tied down with sex. The stereotypical >argument against gay marriage is that gay men >are just a bunch of sex addicts who can’t love, >and who whom are inherently incapable of >monogamy. Your definition of “love” >inadvertently lends credence to this view.
I did not say that is my definition. For your info, I said “many”, not myself. Also, I have been in a relationship for 12 years. Do not force a view on me that I do not take. First of all, why are you the one to say this “love” is immature or shallow. You are not the one involved. Second, I did not once say they could not love. I also did not say that they are sex addicts. Maybe you Nave are the one with the improper view of it all. You put all kinds of words in there I did not.
>How utterly fascinating. You might have heard >about something called AIDS. FYI, AIDS is an >STD, and STD’s are a very real threat, as >opposed to the pseudo-threats you pose about a >student being dissappointed that he didn’t get >enough ass in high school. C’mon man…seriously.
What are you talking about? You have some serious issues Nave—-pseudo-threats? I have no idea what you are talking about. You are assuming that I am talking about being super-promiscous and unsafe. I never said that. Yes, sexual disease is a problem–but you can be safe. THat does not mean that you should abstain. I have never had a sexual disease ever. I have been safe. To assume that having sex would lead automatically to a sexual disease is wrong. Lots of people have safe, responsible sex. You may have some issues with sex Nave, but don’t assume that I have to share the same niave view.
> But my personal view is that one should at >least be in love with the person they have sex >with. And it might be nice if this “love” was >something that was much deeper than a transient >feeling that dissappears after the sex act. And >because of this, I feel that Throckmorton is >right on the money on this issue.
You have this large personal attack on me and my post Nave. Then you talk about how you “feel” this is the proper viewpoint. You give no proof or logical imput about it. And there is nothing to back up your view of this. There is much anecdotal evidence to suggest the opposite. You call me and my view stupid throughout (which I never do–it is an evasion fallacy–an ad hominem) and do not provide any backup. You might look at your own viewpoint Nave.
TA, CPT Doom, thanks for the well thought out responses.
TA: I have to agree with Nave that abstinence should be given at least equal weight as condoms/safer sex in school settings, but I don’t believe it should be the only side presented.
Yeah I shoulda made my position a little clearer earlier. I believe as you do that they should be given equal weight. But somehow, safer sex greatly outweighs abstinence.
CPT Doom: “Teaching high-schoolers about the various modes of contraception, their risks and benefits, would seem to be like teaching them geometry. They may not see the immediate use of the information, but they will need it when the time comes.”
True I agree. But I still believe that abstinence should be given equal weight. Remember, I’m not necessarily saying that it’s pointless to promote condoms, I’m instead saying that its pointless to promote condoms without looking at self control (looking into the concept of abstinence before meeting someone you love).
Hello Aaron!!
“Then you talk about how you “feel” this is the proper viewpoint. You give no proof or logical imput about it.”
In your own words Aaron, I was merely evaluating the viewpoint (note the word “feel”, indicating opinion). But apparently, you seem to believe that you’re the only one who has the right to judge a viewpoint as BS or not, and that nobody else has the right to give an opinion if they do not put forth scientific evidence.
“First of all, why are you the one to say this “love” is immature or shallow. You are not the one involved. Second, I did not once say they could not love. I also did not say that they are sex addicts. Maybe you Nave are the one with the improper view of it all. You put all kinds of words in there I did not.”
Do I have to be the one involved? First of all can you really tell me that a feeling is love if it only exists during sex, and disappears soon after? Plus I think you are being a little hasty. I never accused you of explicitly saying they were “sex addicts.” I only said that someone could use your definition in defense of the religious right’s stereotypes. Reread what I wrote in the previous post to you, then write it on the board 100 times. If anything, your putting words in my mouth.
“What are you talking about? You have some serious issues Nave—-pseudo-threats? I have no idea what you are talking about.”
This time Aaron, reread what YOU wrote in your previous post to me, then write it on the board 100 times. You say:
“It is also dangerous and irresponsible to suggest to students that waiting will make their lives better and more fulfilled…it is dangerous and irresponsible to suggest to students that waiting will make their lives better and more fulfilled. What happens when “abstenent” students wait and start to doubt what they were told?”
You are saying that is dangerous and responsible to tell a student to wait, because there is the possibility that the student might find that he really shouldn’t have waited, ends up “doubts” (as you say) and regrets, and perhaps dissappointment that he didn’t get some ass back in school. This can hardly be called a real threat in the face of something like AIDS. Therefore I call it a pseudo threat. Has this pseudo threat of yours ever killed any one? If so, show me the statistics. Also, it might be potentially dangerous if we FORCED all students to abstain against their will, but what I’m saying is that we should give equal weight to abstinence along with education about condom use. I’m asking for a more balanced view on the topic, as TA rightfully observed.
“There is much anecdotal evidence to suggest the opposite [to Throckmorton’s view].”
So? What about anecdotal evidence? There’s “anecdotal” evidence that the Lochness monster exists. There’s anecdotal evidence that aliens kidnap people and submit them to all sorts of horrible anal torture. There is anecdotal evidence that conservative christian marriages are the happiest, but then when we conduct a scientifically rigorous longitudinal study, we find the opposite to be true. Point is, anecdotal evidence is not scientifically rigorous enough in matters such as these.
Ricardo, what you say is all very true…but you missed an important nuance/distinction that I was putting forth.
“I say “can some people experience some degree of change?” The answer would be yes.”
Notice how I say “some” people and “some” degree of change. Point is, to prove my modest proposition, I would only have to find a small number of people who have experienced modest degrees of sexual orientation change to prove this. And I did.
I happen to be one of these people (no I didn’t undergo therapy), and I know a handful of others who have experienced varying degrees of sexual orientation change (these people were happily gay individuals who (seemingly against their will) slowly moved towards the center of the Kinsey scale.).
The fact that I exist proves my very modest proposition. Remember, I’m not saying that ALL people can experience SIGNIFICANT degrees of change. The key here is “some.”
Think of it this way: to prove the proposition that “some heterosexuals are pedophiles,” one does not necessarily need to be a scientist.
Hi CPT Doom, one other thing you said in your post piqued my interest (which is hard to do these days).
“The basic definition of mental illness appears to be if the problem interferes with the activities of daily living, or causes significant distress to the individual. Pedophilia, interesting, has been debated as a mental illness because pedophiles often feel no distress over their actions. Of course, sociopaths also feel little or no distress, so perhaps that’s too limiting.”
You’re very right when you say that the definition of a mental illness is very limiting.
I’m under the opinion that it is impossible to scientifically “prove” that something is a mental illness. I believe that though science can help, the final say is always societal/philosophical. After all, if a 7 year old boy “enjoys” having sex with his 57 year old uncle? What would we say? Can we scientifically prove that this situation is harmful? What if there’s no outward signs of harm and the boy appears to be psychologically well adjusted? On what grounds can we say that this would be a “bad,” or mentally disordered situation?
I’m not supporting pedophilia (I’m against it actually on philosophical/moral grounds). I’m just throwing out a situation to illustrate my point.
Nave
I think Simon LeVay described it best concerning the concept of mental illness. Scientific evidence is only used to identify and measure objective psychological phenomina. Science does not say if something is a pathology or not, medicine does as a subjective interpretation of the evidence science brings us.
uh oh, I didn’t properly close my italic tag. Mike, can you replace the last tag with </em> ?
Thanx
>In your own words Aaron, I was merely >evaluating the viewpoint (note the word “feel”, >indicating opinion). But apparently, you seem >to believe that you’re the only one who has the >right to judge a viewpoint as BS or not, and >that nobody else has the right to give an >opinion if they do not put forth scientific >evidence.
Never said that. I acknowledged it was opinion. You said it was some sort of “verification”. Reread and write 100 times. Hello? My whole point is that we are basing stuff not on evidence, but on hasty generalizations and assumptions.
>Do I have to be the one involved?
Honestly, yes. To assume, based only on your own experience, that it applies to all is a fallacy. To some, love and marriage may enhance, but we cannot apply it to all.
>First of all can you really tell me that a >feeling is love if it only exists during sex, >and disappears soon after?
Yes, for some people.
>Plus I think you are being a little hasty. I >never accused you of explicitly saying they >were “sex addicts.”
Reread your own writing. You are also the one with tons of fallacies and hasty generalizations.
>I only said that someone could use your >definition in defense of the religious right’s >stereotypes.
And the point is? So what? If they are wrong and fallacious, they are wrong and fallacious. Reread your own writing.
>You are saying that is dangerous and >responsible to tell a student to wait, because >there is the possibility that the student might >find that he really shouldn’t have waited, ends >up “doubts” (as you say) and regrets, and >perhaps dissappointment that he didn’t get some >ass back in school. This can hardly be called a >real threat in the face of something like AIDS.
First of all, my problem is saying that everyone should wait and that it improves or enhances. It does not for all and should not be taught as such. I have little problem teaching monogamy or responsibility or waiting for sexual disease reasons, but not because it is necessarily “better”. THere is no way that can be proved. It is not better for everyone. Maybe that is something that should be left to parents and churches. Abstenance is a religious viewpoint (almost all the groups that work with the schools are Protestant according to the education program I work with–93%. That is religous, and a certain brand of religion.) European schools teach responsability instead. Most European students have sex outside of marriage, but they tend to do it later (late teens), avoid sexual diseases, and avoid pregnancy. They do not teach abstinence, but they have better results by far.
>Therefore I call it a pseudo threat. Has this >pseudo threat of yours ever killed any one? If >so, show me the statistics. Also, it might be >potentially dangerous if we FORCED all students >to abstain against their will, but what I’m >saying is that we should give equal weight to >abstinence along with education about condom >use. I’m asking for a more balanced view on the >topic, as TA rightfully observed.
I am still not sure why. Most studies currently tend to suggest abstinence programs are collosal failures. And yes, violence and suicide have occured because of irrational views of sex taught in the schools and homes. Let’s see–gay students have a high suicide rate–why? Anyhow, sex does not lead to death or AIDS. Irresponsible sex may lead to disease–but that is why we should teach responsible sex.
>So? What about anecdotal evidence? >There’s “anecdotal” evidence that the Lochness >monster exists. There’s anecdotal evidence that >aliens kidnap people and submit them to all >sorts of horrible anal torture. There is >anecdotal evidence that conservative christian >marriages are the happiest, but then when we >conduct a scientifically rigorous longitudinal >study, we find the opposite to be true. Point >is, anecdotal evidence is not scientifically >rigorous enough in matters such as these.
You are wrong. I teach at a college and teach logic and empiricism. Empirical thought relies on anecdotal evidence and other types of evidence. However, that was my point all along. Just because some people may think love enhances their sexual relationships, others say it doesn’t. I am trying to get away from these assumptions and supposed absolutes–they aren’t absolute. Why should we teach that waiting until marriage will enhance a sex life when many would say also that that is not true? Nave, I respect that you may need that, but not everyone does. I do not want my children being taught “ideals” that may not be realistic for everyone. Sex ed should teach about disease,pregnancy, orientation, etc. (facts), but it should not force religious or enhancement issues on children. Facts always work–saying not having sex means no disease is a fact. But saying your life will be enhanced by not having sex until a certain point is disengenous and does not apply to all.
Nave, just before this gets out of control, and I do not want to make this seem as if I hate you or anything, so I apologize if the rhetoric seemed strong. All I am trying to say is that we should not elevate abstinence as preferred any more than we should elevate sexual activity as preferred. It should be morally neutral in the classroom. Marriage is a contract, but it does not make sex or worse in general. It depends on those involved and their beliefs.
Hi Xeno, hope things are going well. By the way, is “Xeno” Greek for “Aaron?” =)
I say: “Plus I think you are being a little hasty. I never accused you of explicitly saying they were “sex addicts.” ”
You reply: “Reread your own writing. You are also the one with tons of fallacies and hasty generalizations.”
So, I will not only reread what I wrote, but reprint it:
“The stereotypical argument against gay marriage is that gay men are just a bunch of sex addicts who can’t love, and who whom are inherently incapable of monogamy. Your definition of “love” inadvertently lends credence to this view.”
It is clear I never accused Aaron of “explicity” gay-bashing here. I’m saying that there exists a stereotypical argument, and Aaron’s definition of love lends credence to it.
“First of all, my problem is saying that everyone should wait and that it improves or enhances. It does not for all and should not be taught as such.”
Your moving away from my argument. My whole point is that abstinence, or some sort of sexual educational philosophy that goes deeper than mere “condom mechanics” should be given equal weight. It doesn’t necessarily need to be taught as “THE WAY,” but it should certainly be given more attention than it has been. Get it?
“I have little problem teaching monogamy or responsibility or waiting for sexual disease reasons, but not because it is necessarily “better”.”
I’m confused. Not necessarily better than what? Not necessarily better than merely teaching condom mechanics? Being sexually responsible involves a lot more than merely knowing how to put on a condom?
“Violence and suicide have occured because of irrational views of sex taught in the schools and homes. Let’s see–gay students have a high suicide rate–why? Anyhow, sex does not lead to death or AIDS. Irresponsible sex may lead to disease–but that is why we should teach responsible sex.”
You mischaraterize Aaron’s original argument. Read what he has to say. He was SPECIFICALLY saying that teaching abstinence might be dangerous. It might fail yes, but is it, as he says, “extremely dangerous?” What evidence is he relying on? Also, Aaron and I were specifically talking about abstinence. So you interjecting that little bit on sexual orientation is beside the point and an annoyance.
“Anyhow, sex does not lead to death or AIDS. Irresponsible sex may lead to disease–but that is why we should teach responsible sex.”
And, as I’ve said 20034 times before, teaching responsible sex involves alot more than teaching the mechanics (condom usage, etc.). Kids should be encouraged to wait until they feel that they are ready.
“You are wrong. I teach at a college and teach logic and empiricism.”
And your point is?
“Empirical thought relies on anecdotal evidence and other types of evidence.”
You are right. But, you are talking about something altogether different from I. Empirical thought relies on being empirical, and this might involve listening to personal anecodtal stories. But my point is, mere anecdotal evidence is not good enough to generate general scientific claims. Suppose we wanted to find out if conservative Christians were really as successful at marriage as they say they are. Merely listening to a couple of “stories” or anecdotes regarding successful conservatives would not allow us to make any general scientific claims. To be scientifically rigourous, we would need to design a study with a large random sample comparing conservative christians to other faith groups, drawing from different demographics, with appropriate controls. And, you would create some sort of multiple choice survey for the subjects to fill out. In this particular case, the questions might involve things like “how happy are you?” or “how many times have you been divorced?” etc. etc. In fact, such a study has already been done. Read my previous posts for the results if you wish.
This is not relying on simple anecdotal evidence or any sort of personal vignettes.
Lastly, Xeno, hopefully you can figure out how to turn off your italics before posting as Aaron. What are you trying to pull? You must think I’m stupid. It’s obvious, based on the tone/grammar/logic of your post that it wasn’t from Aaron.
You made it clear that you don’t hate me. I personally don’t care if you do or not. I would’ve enjoyed debating with you further. You make a lot of good points. But after what you just pulled…end of discussion.
Xeno, I’m horribly horribly sorry for accusing you of masquerading as Aaron. I will admit it. I’m an idiot. After all, my own post came out in italics.
I was just incredibly suspicious because you were the last one who posted, and you mentioned how you accidentally turned on your italics.
Couple this with the fact that Aaron’s latest post seemd to have dramatic differences both in terms of grammar, tone, and personality, I was more than a little suspicious.
I still don’t believe that it was the original Aaron who responded. The tone just doesn’t feel right, but again, my sincerest apologies for hastily accusing you of masquerading.
Hopefully will not harbor ill will towards me in the face of this apology.
sincerely,
Nave
On the other hand, we can look at regional statistics. These show that states where conservative Christians are a majority of the population tend to exhibit a higher divorce rate than areas where other religions or no religion dominates. IE: Texas has a higher divorce rate than Massachusetts. We can also look at other instances. Like literacy: conservative Christianity tends to flourish in areas where illiteracy is high. It does not do well among literate folks. IE: Arkansas where Pentacostalts are nearly a majority of the population has an illiteracy rate approaching one fourth of all adults.
It is not for nothing that America’s Best Christian, Betty Bowers, praises Alabama as ‘the True Christian Paradise’. Apparently conservative Christianity is connected with high rates of illiteracy, huge income disparities, a large underclass and rampant disease.
I think we have to be careful about saying that “conservative Christianity” is directly connected with these things, in and of itself. The manner in which religion interacts with culture is often more broad and less individualised. This is the limitation of regional statistics.
It’s possible that there may be, for example, conservative churches in Massachusetts, where they may be a minority, whose members are well-educated, and who enjoy generally lower rates of divorce even than their less conservative church-going counterparts there. In Melbourne (in a mostly non-Christian country, Australia) congregations who would identify themselves as Evangelical vary widely – some are dominated by highly-paid working professionals (medics, tax lawyers, etc.), while others are dominated by lower-paid tradespeople and labourers. The “growth determinant” of such denominations may be more dependent on existing attendants and basic spiritual-community priorities than it is on whether the teaching there is “conservative” or “liberal”.
The trends in states like Arkansas may reflect not individual faith, or even corporate faith in the sense of a group or community, but the imposition of particular dominating religious values on the general culture, and their interaction with a more universal and widespread materialism. For example, do the number of households in which TV programmes like “Desperate Housewives” are viewed actually differ between Arkansas and Massachusetts?
Abstinence Pledgers Risk STDs, Study Claims
By MATT APUZZO, AP
[Moderator’s note: Reposting of copyrighted material is not permitted. So I have deleted the article that Aaron helpfully posted. I could not find the article online via Google, so here is a link to a similar article published today in The Washington Post.]
I am sorry about that. I am so used to doing that on an academic site (educational places allow it) that I forgot. The article I posted is here.
I think this backs up my point that abstinence-based educations are problematic and dangerous.
[Moderator’s note: Thanks, Aaron. Btw, I took the liberty of making your hyperlink clickable. Commenters are not obligated to do provide live links — I don’t mind doing the coding for commenters who aren’t comfortable with HTML.]
What really grates me most about the abstinence till marriage idea is the fact that it probably isn’t a workable idea in a world were puberty and marriage is so far separated. They basically are asking people to be abstinate for more than ten years. Since people are expect to graduate high school, go to college, get a job and then get married(assuming they didn’t go off to graduate school in which case it could be longer). My parents and grandparents were married at 18 but this is no longer a culture where a marriage of 18 years olds is considered a good idea.
When daughters are married off ASAP then I will buy it. But in a world where the average girl starts menstruating at 13 and gets married for the first time at 25, I don’t think so. Even the Virgin Mary didn’t have to wait as long for a husband as the average girl. If she was like a woman of her times she probably had her first children before age 20.
Jason,
I can agree with your assessment, but I think you miss the point. If we hold up marriage (or civil unions, as the case may be) as the best situation for a serious relationship between two people, then the question from the people who promote abstinence before marriage is, “If you’re having sex, why aren’t you getting married?” That is, if a relationship is serious enough that there is sex involved, shouldn’t there be some kind of DTR (Define The Relationship) talk going on? Note: I’m not proposing that just because two people who have only known eachother for a couple of months have physical urges for eachother that they should suddenly decide to marry. This would probably be a recipe for disaster (and perhaps one explanation for the rate of divorce among some conservative Christians). But it’s also not the same as asking someone to be celibate for a huge period of time (like 10 or more years).
Obviously some would disagree on the grounds that sex doesn’t necessarily mean that a relationship is serious but, in the worldview of those promoting abstinence before marriage, it does. To them, your argument suggests that sex is something to just have fun with until it becomes convenient to marry (after you’ve got your career on track, etc.).
Trevize, is that a nickname based on the character Golan Trevize in the Foundation series?
Aaron | March 19, 2005 07:56 PM
Hint for posting future links: don’t put any punctuation immediately after the link. I copied the link to the address bar, but the period immediately after the link also copied and resulted in an error.
BTW, regarding Aaron’s link, it’s fairly well known that abstinence-before-marriage is a fraud. The kids interpret “abstinence” as being “abstinence from penile/vaginal sex” and so they often engage in oral and/or anal sex. It’s no mystery. And/or they marry early and divorce early. That’s another reason why the divorce rate in the religiously-conservative states is much higher than it is in the “blue” states.
Oh, and, possibly, one last (although maybe not last) point. Throckmorton’s complaints about not being reappointed to one of Magellan’s advisory board will make it highly doubtful that any other health care insurer (Magellan isn’t a provider it is an insurer) will ever appoint someone who is in a similar situation as Throckmorton to an advisory board. Why would they not do so? They would not want to have any controversy when the individual is de-appointed. They might even disband all advisory boards. It is far from clear why an obscure instructor at an obscure college got himself appointed to an advisory board of an insurer in the first place. But it is fairly evident that no insurer will do so in the future.
If Throckmorton’s mau-mauing–which is what this is–gets himself re-appointed, he will have won a pyrrhic victory.
Oh, and by the way. Just how much was Throckmorton pulling in from this gig with Magellan?
>If we hold up marriage (or civil unions, as the >case may be) as the best situation for a >serious relationship between two people
The interesting thing is that they do not even address the gay thing at all in these programs. Gay students are also told the exact same thing–no sex unless you get married (and these program leaders know that gays can’t do that). It is very unrealistic for gay students.
Also, I have read that another abstinence program problem is that there is a rise in underage marriages so that the kids can have sex. The divorce rate also rises because the marriages don’t tend to last. Also, students who marry before graduation tend to have lower incomes and do not continue their education. as I have stated before, I belonged to a religion that really hypes marriage. Among the unmarried males, marriage tends to only be seen as a license to sex. That is all the young males tend to talk about.
Xeno,
Yeah it is. I’m not a huge fan of that character, but I used to enjoy Asimov’s fictional works when I was a kid.
Raj, that ridiculous technicality is actually used by an enormous number of adolescents (whether in favour or abstinence or not) just to preserve their “virginity”. Many who have engaged in oral or anal sex will still call themselves virgins!
I think a big thing that may help with divorce is to have more pre-marriage counselling, so that people can work it out if they’re only really getting married so they can have sex. Aaron, the situation you describe sounds terrible, and suggests that, rather than finding its natural place in marriage, sex has become the main event, with marriage merely a license for it.
Marriage is the responsible thing to do with a relationship, not the best situation for a relationship. Standing before a judge or a pastor does nothing to improve the relationship. It just redefines it.
There are lots of situations where marriage makes sense and there are situations where it does not. A widower might not be ready to marry again. A young person in college is often in no position to marry. A divorcee might not want to be married again.
I do agree there needs to be some define the relationship talk before the sex but I am not quite sure that always means marriage. Marriage should be about sharing dreams, working together and supporting each other not a stamp of approval of sex between people.