Warren Throckmorton recently posted excepts from an article by social psychologist Carol Tavris called Mind Games: Psychological Warfare Between Therapists and Scientists (The Chronicle of Higher Education, paid account only). The point was made that, by and large, therapists are not scientists. There is such a “split between the research and practice wings of psychology,” that much of what we came to think of as fact over the past decades — simply because therapists said it was — turned out not to be so. Here are some examples from the original quote:
- Low self-esteem causes aggressiveness, drug use, prejudice, and low achievement.
- Abused children almost inevitably become abusive parents, causing a “cycle of abuse.”
- Therapy is beneficial for most survivors of disasters, especially if intervention is rapid.
- Memory works like a tape recorder, clicking on at the moment of birth; memories can be accurately retrieved through hypnosis, dream analysis, or other therapeutic methods.
- Traumatic experiences, particularly of a sexual nature, are typically “repressed” from memory, or split off from consciousness through “dissociation.”
- The way that parents treat a child in the first five years (three years) (one year) (five minutes) of life is crucial to the child’s later intellectual and emotional success.
Often these types of claims originate as the idea of a therapist or therapists who, while attempting to avoid dissonance between their theory and the evidence, begin to seek out situations which will fit their theory, dismissing all others. They begin to see all situations in light of their theory and act accordingly, sometimes defending it vehemently in what can become a self-serving battle. This is the antithesis of the scientific method.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) insists that boys can become homosexual (actually, have “homosexual problems” since he doesn’t believe there is any such thing as a homosexual) if they don’t get enough attention from their fathers, or if they were abused as children. Further he insists that they do not trust men, and that upon learning to do so they will no longer have the alleged homosexual problem.
This sounds ready-made for the list of fallacies above, doesn’t it? And so should Richard Cohen’s “bioenergetics” and “holding therapy.” And indeed, there are more parallels. In 2000, ten-year-old Candice Newmaker died during something called a “rebirthing session” while therapists Connell Watkins and Julie Ponder attempted to treat her “reactive attachment disorder.” This cost her parents $7,000 and the life of their daughter. Two therapists went to jail, but further efforts to ban all forms of “restraint therapy” in Colorado were defeated by protests from therapists who favor it.
Here was my comment on Throckmorton’s blog:
Could we add to that list of things ultimately proven wrong the idea that one becomes homosexual because of a lack of trust in men, weak father, overpowering mother, et al? And are not reparative therapists protesting the banning of reparative therapy much like those who prevented the ban on all types of “restraint therapy” in Colorado?
Just because clients of RTs don’t die in their offices, doesn’t mean they are not harmed, perhaps even unto death by suicide. If even one such case can be shown, should we not demand a similar ban on reparative therapy and it’s many similar practices?
In Dr Chapman’s critique and subsequent discussion over the Exodus study by Drs Jones and Yarhouse, we see that even the best efforts by true believers in such things provided only a miserable smattering of data to suggest anyone can even approach truly changing their orientation. Previous studies lend even less viability to the notion.
And yet we hear things like “SSAD” (Same Sex Attraction Disorder) used as a diagnosis even though it does not exist in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV or any other professional literature. It is no more valid than Female Hysteria, and even that is one better by virtue of having once been considered a legitimate condition. At what point must therapists be required to adhere to accepted, scientific standards for treatment?
We should call attempts to change sexual orientation just what they are: religiously motivated behavior modification. People have the right to live their lives as they see fit, but they do not have the right to ask that snake oil be labeled as safe, effective, real medication and sold to others for disorders which do not exist. And those who profit from selling the snake oil — whether for money, power or fame — should be ashamed of themselves.
This is probably the best and most comprehensive argument against ex-gay therapy I have ever seen. It makes perfect sense. After going through a form of ex-gay therapy myself through a combination of some ex-gay teachings coupled with “re-birthing” through Valnn Dayne Spears “Empyrian Re-birthing” through his Regenesis Institute program he was creating. This false science definitely needs to be exposed for what it is.
I hope that the major psychological organizations start to take these kinds of pseudo therapies to task through rigorous criticism.
It seems to me the whole scene is a mess. Re-birthing is done by New Warriors Training Adventures which is endorsed by Joe Kort and Clinton Anderson, GLB Officer at the APA as a support for gay affirmation. NWTA is also endorsed by Richard Cohen and Joe Nicolosi as a means of enhancing masculinity which is supposed to make gay men straight.
If the APA takes on fringe therapies in the ex-gay world, the organization better be prepared to take them on closer to home.
Rebirthing is *not* done by MKP. Warren, you have been told this through emial by the director of MKP ‘Carl Griesser’.
Warren, please stop promoting your lies on this blog especially after you have been told on 1/9/08 that MKP does not do rebirthing in an email to you specifically from Carl.
MKP is not a therapy or psychological weekend. It is an experience such as those you would find doing Body Electric, Landmark and other workshops you will find at Esalen and Omega Institute they are
Joe Kort
Joe – Could you explain why MKP Foundation advises local groups regarding compliance with laws regarding rebirthing?
If MKP does not do it or never did it (perhaps Mr. Griesser was saying they used to do it but don’t now), then why advise groups about it at all?
Men recently in NWTA say they were involved in it and I have seen documents describing how to conduct the birth canal process which is essentially the same thing as rebirthing.
Are you saying MKP does not condone or never did condone the birth canal process?
Warren,
I am not answering any of your questions as you do not listen anyway. You have already been told Rebirthing does not occur in MKP.
Do your homework and read what Rebirthing is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirthing-Breathwork
And most importantly, you have already been told time and time again that MKP is not associated with reparative therapy and does not do rebirthing.
And, just as an aside, I do IMAGO Relationship Therapy weekend workshops which, again, are not psychotherapy and we include a holding-nurturing exercise for the couples which is a form of rebirthing but is *not* rebirthing.
And no one turns lesbian or gay at these straight weekends I facilitate LOL!
The only reason I commented is to ensure your lies are not taken as truth.
Joe – Your link is not primarily about the rebirthing process we are discussing here. I am referring to the birth canal process which is referred to in the Wikipedia article as “unrelated techniques also called rebirthing.”
Since you are privy to my emails to Mr. Griesser, you will know that I asked him the same questions about the MKP Foundation reference and the birth canal process. I suspect you also know that he has yet to respond.
I amazed that you will call me a liar and then refuse to address the evidence I presented.
David,
I would suggest that the title of this thread is perhaps a bit more ambitious than the posting itself.
I think you provided a good case for why this form of therapy be avoided. But as for banning…. I don’t think that this was well supported.
Further, I would not like to see reparative therapy banned unless it can be proven to be harmful. To date, while there have been demonstrated that some who went through such therapy were harmed, neither the causal relationship nor an measurement of occurance has been proven.
Warren,
You have been told on 1/9/08 that MKP does not do rebirthing in an email to you specifically from Carl Griesser. That is the only answer to the question.
Joe Kort
Timothy,
Read more carefully:
Until then:
There was a time when “rebirthing” was also not proven harmful, much less deadly, but that changed, as I suspect it will for reparative therapy (given present knowledge).
Also, a point of clarification. I am pretty sure that the rebirthing Benjamin is referring to is not the rebirthing that is the birth canal process. Empyrean rebirthing is more of breathing technique, whereas the birth canal process requires a man to struggle through a group of men, emerge “reborn” and then be cuddled by another man in the group. This is essentially the process that is not legal when applied to children in Colorado and North Carolina after the tragic death of Candice Newmaker several years ago.
Carl Griesser just wrote to tell me that the birth canal process is used after all. Actually that answers the question. Perhaps Joe has not gotten that email yet.
Sorry David,
But I have not yet seen evidence that reorientation therapy CAUSED suicide in any individuals that would have not been present without reorientation therapy.
Speculation that this is the case in some individuals is not the same as evidence. I’m sure you agree.
It is difficult to identify a sole cause of suicide. Is it social pressures? Family pressures? Poor self esteem? Work? Illness? A failure to live up to one’s own understanding of Scripture?
Or can we say for certain that without participation in reorientation efforts that this individual would definitely have not made suicide efforts?
I think that there is inadequate information at this time to make such a strong assertion. Just because it is “obvious” or “clear to me” or “based on what I’ve seen” does not make it any more factual that that which Dr. Dobson finds to be obvious, clear to him, and based on what he’s seen.
Until there is better study-based information (and I fully support better study), I can’t in clear conscience advocate for banning reorientation therapy.
I believe it is worthless. I believe that in some instances it is harmful (while recognizing that some experience it as helpful).
But, unlike Dr. Dobson and the other advocates of reorientation therapy that I’ve run across, I don’t seek to impose my “beliefs” on others.
Timothy, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be:
If clear evidence of harm cannot be demonstrated, then education about ineffectiveness is certainly the way. You are rejecting something which isn’t there.
Actually, this brings up something that is germane to my post. In dealing with reparative therapy, are we talking about beliefs, as in therapists who claim a theory as fact, or are we talking about a professional therapy subject to scientific scrutiny and approval?
The entire point of this dispute over the APA and reparative therapy boils down to whether ones belief that something is true is good enough to make it so in a professional field which diagnoses and treats individuals.
To couch the professional decision to, or not to, sanction a therapy or procedure has devolved into one of imposing or not imposing beliefs on others.
Taking the risk of suffering a harmful side effect from Reparative (or other forms of Sexual Reorientation Therapy) might at least make some sense to some individuals if there was some convincing evidence that it was effective. Unfortunately, there is no convincing evidence that any form of Sexual Reorientation Therapy is effective.
Legitimate therapies should be safe and effective. Reparative and other forms of Reorientation Therapy haven’t been shown to meet either criteria.
and
Pardon my confusion. 😉
David,
The reason we are talking about “beliefs” is because that’s all there is to talk about. Dobson believes reorientation therapy is helpful. We believe it is likely harmful. Neither should be the basis for policy.
This therapy should be neither sanctioned nor banned until such action can be based on something other than speculation and assumption.
Nor is there adequate evidence that such therapy is either effective or non-effective (though I think Jones and Yarhouse’ prospective study goes a long way towards convincing me that such efforts are about as useful as chasing unicorns).
But frankly, that’s all we have at the moment.
So I agree that we make sure that all available information is presented and education is abundant. I totally support efforts to identify if there is indeed harm or, I suppose, benefit. But as for “banning”, I ain’t there yet.
We can disagree on this.
The post is intended to spur discussion and is titled fine, perhaps not perfect but fine. It does not say “Ban RT Now!” but gives a case for when banning it would be appropriate. People have died from rebirthing and yet a measure to ban all such practices was defeated by those therapists who “believe in it.” I think discussion about when RT should be banned is therefore relevant.
Yes, we are probably at about the same place rebirthing was a couple of decades ago, or even recovered memories. The latter never literally killed anyone (that I know of) but it directly attributed to the pain and suffering of many innocent people, families torn apart by false allegations of sexual abuse, laws extended so that such fictional abuse caused incarceration years later.
We have gone a long way to accommodate the beliefs of those who seek out RT, identifying with their pain, etc. There is no knee-jerk reaction here, but I think we need to refocus on the fact that this is a professional, therapeutic practice we are talking about. If it does not do what it is supposed to, it should be relegated to the same category as homeopathic elixirs. And if it harms, then it should be banned.
The objective of RT is to change the sexual orientation of an individual. The onus is not on us to prove it is ineffective, but on those who espouse it to prove it is. I have not seen such proof.
As we do on many things 😉
The question is a moot one. How would someone go about banning reparative therapy, anyway?
The APA provides membership to those who meet its strict requirements regarding education, supervised training, internship, and so on. They also require so many hours of continuing education each period to maintain good standing. The APA then provides credentials certifying that its members meet these ongoing requirements.
The only power the APA has when it comes to telling therapists what to do is to is to censure members or expel practitioners from the organization, thus denying them this certification, as they did with Paul Cameron.
Many government agencies, mental health facilities, businesses, institutes of higher learning and so on require this certification in certain hiring positions. Yet many do not. And of course, a person could enter private practice where the only standards set are his or her own.
The APA might determine that RT is not appropriate or even an unethical practice for its members, yet this doesn’t ban RT for any who simply avoid becoming APA members in the first place.
Counseling is an open field. Anyone can print up business cards and hang a sign on their door saying they are a counselor. No qualifications of any kind are required. Consider that all pastors, priests and rabbis counsel members of their flock. Marriage counseling, family counseling, you name it. It’s part of their “job description.” Yet few have taken any academic courses in these areas.
The government can’t ban any type of counseling, including RT. Any two or more people can get together and discuss a topic of common interest. It’s a freedom of speech issue. And the state can’t ban anyone from holding a religious retreat to discuss church issues, such as homosexuality. That would be government interference in the practice of religion.
The attempted ban on birthing therapy was not defeated just by those few who practice this technique, but rather the whole profession who take a dim few of legislators making decisions about therapy practices about which they have little knowledge. Do we really want the legislature making medical decisions? I don’t think so.
As a result, all that agencies and organizations can do is issue warnings. In our country, people are free to be as stupid as they wish.
I think you raise several important points, Bill. For those who are not members of APA, I suspect that a stronger denouncement by the APA regarding RT would be cited in cases brought against psychologists or other mental health professionals who practice RT (if someone were to bring a charge against that mental health professional through the corresponding state licensing board). That is where the APA carries some weight as a large professional organization whose policies – while not carrying the weight of enforceable ethical standards – would still be considered aspirational for its members and likely referenced in professional hearings even for those who are not members. The burden of proof would likely fall on someone to explain why they choose to practice in ways that do not reflect those aspirations. Of course, there are also many people who provide services of one kind or another who are not licensed by a regulating board.
This is true, David. You cannot prove a negative with science, only a positive:They must prove RT IS effective.
The big problem lies, IMHO, in the droves of believers who claim RT has helped them. I don’t believe there are “hundreds of thousands” as Alan Chambers (selectively) states, But even if there are just 200 people who group and with a collective voice declare “RT has helped me!! I’M the PROOF!!” that will provide difficulty. I don’t mean “helped” as in “became heterosexual,” I mean other kinds, like celibacy, or “diminished homosexual thoughts,” or “slightly increased attraction to women,” etc.
Since we can’t control the type of advice or counseling others provide, including the “change is possible” mantra we may find so inept, the best approach is for us to provide the best advice and counseling to the contrary which reflect the realities of the world as we see it.
We may steam and fuss about reparative therapy, but the fact is we can do little directly about it. Endless criticism can have little effect on those who become entrenched in defending their positions against what they may perceive as an unwarranted attack.
A better approach for those in the counseling professions and others is to provide more positive options to the problems faced by those who would seek RT in the first place.
Grief counseling, for example, is not just to provide a shoulder to cry on, friends and family do that. Counseling involves bringing up the various changes that have occurred in the person’s life as a result of their lost, and discussing how the person will be able to adjust to these changes in a positive way.
We ought to understand that for reasons unknown, a portion of our population is born with an understanding of their sexuality which is different than that of the heterosexual majority. Like grief counseling which allows a person to accept their loss and successfully go on with their lives, proper counseling would allow those who find themselves in these situations to accept their innate sexuality and regardless, go on to live happy, healthy, prosperous lives.
We don’t necessarily have to disprove the “change is possible” meme. What we may also and more effectively do is to provide the resources which would allow those who are born non-heterosexual to be so successful in life that we demonstrate that change is not necessary.
What I would say to gays, lesbians and others is this: You deserve the best that life has to offer. Don’t be deterred by the “illegitimi” who would distract you on your way to success. Being true to oneself is an essential part of what it means to be human. Don’t let others steal your humanity away by following their advice to “change” or pretend to be something you’re not. “Living well is the best revenge.” it’s been said. Living successfully as you are is the best antidote to those who would make false claims that such is not possible.
When properly understood, our sexuality is meant to be a blessing, not a curse. This applies to gays, straights and everyone alike.
But Bill, the point of all religion is not to see the world as it is, but to see it as the promulgators of that faith prefer to believe it is. And they prefer to believe the myth of heterosexual hegemony, and the myth that this is G’s “sexual preference”, so to speak.
not to mention the belief that their particular set of religious beliefs is true in some sense, and that all other beliefs are false.
As I have often said, more nonsense has been written about the nature of homosexuality than any other subject– except, perhaps, the nature of G and his message to the world.
Congratulations Ben, you’ve just – again – belittled a majority of the people on the planet, including most of those we try to help. Your opinions are fine, but could you could cut down on the collateral damage and still address the issue?
Well, david, i have to disagree. I haven’t belittled the beliefs of the majority of the people on the planet– they are doing that fine all by themselves without me. (Ever hear a really good babtist denounce that ‘scarlet whore of babylon, aka the RC church? very funny!) The majority of the people on the planet also (apparently) believe that people like me shouldn’t or couldn’t exist, have rights, be left in peace, be entitled to the same chance of happiness that they insist on for themselves, etcetcetcetcetc.
What i have done is pointed out that if they cannot agree on the nature of G and his message to the world, trhen why should I believe that they suddenly have it right about gay people?
A couple of years ago, we had the spectacle of conservative Christian, Jewish, and Muslim clerics all banding together to denounce an upcoming gay pride celebration in Jerusalem, calling it “the spiritual rape of the Holy Land.” These religions cannot agree on the nature of God, or his message to the world, and the history of the Middle East is written in the blood of those caught in that disagreement. They do not band together to denounce terrorism in the streets of Jerusalem. But they can certainly agree on one thing: God really wants them to beat up on gay people, and he agrees whole-heartedly with their religious, political, and social agendas.
Though I do not believe that ANY religion has it right about G, I do not object to them believing it, nor would I insist that they give it up, nor would I do less than 100% oppose any effort to deprive religious people of their rights to believe what they will.
I merely wish that they would extend the same basic courtesy to gay people.
I have to add one further thought here. One of the things that I have to listen to is these ex-gay types going on and on about my sexual brokenness, my not-being-right-with-G, my “sinfulness”, my obstinacy in my sinfulness, my inherent evil, my agenda to destroy all that is good and hold, my danger to youth, the family, the military, the country, the world, G’s wrath, etcetctecetcetcetcetc.
Do you not think that they are perhaps, maybe, just a little………….
BELITTLING ME?
and my life, and my friends, and my family, and my sexuality, and my love, and my spirituality, and me needs, etcetcetcetcetcetc?
…not to mention:
Truth, justice, fairness, kindness, respect, compassion, understanding, and perhaps…
G himself?
“Congratulations Ben, you’ve just – again – belittled a majority of the people on the planet,”
Just to interject a little bit of fact…
Unless he just insulted Asians, no he didn’t. Asia makes up over half the population of the world.
While Christianity may be the largest collection of religions on the planet, they only make up 33% of religious beliefs, that is hardly a majority. A majority of the people on the planet, in fact, are non-christian. It may seem they are the majority because they are in the western and english-speaking world, but if an alien randomly plucked 30 people off the planet, only 10 or 11 of them would be Christians.
thanks, jason.
David, i misread a portion of your post. You said …”including most of those we try to help.” Maybe i’m being clueless here, but I did not attack anyone’s religious beliefs, other than the one that insists that Gay is bad, and they have God’s full hearted support in that.
I want to help those people, too. That’s is why I said “What i have done is pointed out that if they cannot agree on the nature of G and his message to the world, then why should I believe that they suddenly have it right about gay people?”
Why should I? Why should anyone?
It is not going to help many of the people you say you want to help by supporting the belief that they can whole-heartedly embrace the anti-gay position of some religious organizations that they might choose to belong to, and not, perhaps, pay a price for it with no guarantee of a return on the investment.
If someone wants to buy the anti-gay package–John H comes to mind– and he is happy doing that, if he feels right, and fulfilled– then i have no objection, even though I think he’s totally, but sincerely, mistaken.
But if someone else spends years of his life, unhappy, miserable, unfulfilled–f’r’instance, Peterson Toscano (whom I don’t know) comes to mind– then maybe that person would be better served (both in his faith and in his life) to find a community of believers who affirm that which is best in him, instead of turning him into a sick, sinful, and broken perversion. .
From what I can tell, that doesn’t serve the person or the faith, given the heavy preoccupation of conservative religion with what gets my genitalia going. He can choose differently
And I would submit that it doesn’t serve G, either.
When I came to this realization myself not too long ago a weight lifted off of me. No one can know all the truth about God. Sure, there are those that claim to know because they shake their Bibles and claim Scripture is all the truth they need. But there is much of God that not only we don’t understand but do not know. To claim to know all truth is blasphemous. God tells us our ways are not his ways. Nor are his thoughts are thoughts.
And for me that is where faith comes in. 😉
Thank you, Ken. My point exactly.
How very true. If faiths are to unite it should be for the benefit of all, not for only a portion of the whole. But I see a trend in all faith communities in that they are stearing away from the issues their founders found as the upmost important (loving your neighbor, feeding the poor, etc.) . Instead, they are focusing on us gays in such a fever that it is sickening. If homosexuality is such a grave sin as these certain faith communities believe, it is amazing that in the 2000 years of the Christian Church history alone, very few writings exists discussing it … and when it is discussed (at least in the Catholic Church writings) it usually deals with the necessity for monks to maintain their vow of celibacy. How could have “the world’s greatest sin” eluded the Church for 2000 years?
“How could have “the world’s greatest sin” eluded the Church for 2000 years?”
Not only that, but to have enjoyed times of support or at least—indifference. During Shakespeare’s time it was not unheard of for two men to be lovers — it was just expected that they still find a wife and have some kids as well. Shakespeare himself had a male lover to whom he wrote half his sonnets.
How did it not end up in the 10 Commandments if it was such a threat? Thou shalt not kill, make graven images, have any other gods, covet, etc big picture stuff, how did such a horrible thing as homosexuality fall through the cracks? How did Jesus manage to miss bringing it up? He went on and on about how we should love our fellow man, why didn’t he qualify that with in what ways we couldn’t love our fellow man(or woman)? Why do we have to look at vague versus that turn on whatever you presume to be the definition of “abomination” or another word that could either be “homosexual”, “male prostitute”, “male bed” or something else entirely?
Alrighty then…
Dr. T is once again sorta circumspect around the more trivial aspects of the entire issue. Be that as it may, so we can keep interpreting and re-interpreting what the Bible or Christians want to believe and act on as instructed to do.
Few of us aren’t raised with some kind of strong religious teachings in our homes and families. It’s almost impossible to avoid such a thing from our early years.
So, the oft repeated verse is that homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity.
And one wonders…or at least I would…what is Christianity compatible with?
I know that homosexuality, and the homosexual perso is compatible with compassion, intelligence, physical prowess, courage and commitment and many other positive aspects that can be enhanced and influenced in anyone.
So what ARE Christians really concerned with in people whether Christian or not, gay or not.
Intelligence, compassion and courage and talent….? Or can Christianity itself be consistent and forthright and capable of flexibility with human progression in social norms, not just emotional norms?
I can attest, from my own family’s not so distant past that many Christians can be very brutal to get their way. Depending on which target they are more likely to get away with doing so.
RT is representative of the kind of mind and consciousness constraints that is similar to what black children were exposed to during the Jim Crow era.
In fact, DOCTOR Benjamin Clark and his wife did research on the damage that racism had on the psyche of black children.
Gay children show similar damage and struggles consistent with living under a social standard that taught them they were INCAPABLE of normal intergration, and keeping them from it was for their own good.
Of course, making black children feel responsible for the racism they were yoked with.
Gay folks are similarly held accountable for anti gay sentiment. And the assertion of Christian authority and supremacy is as persistent as white authority and supremacy was to blacks.
The point being, that Christian belief most commonly prefer that gay adults live like children. With no hope of forming adult romantic bonds, not raising children, not marrying nor having the social power to vote or participate in their own political lives.
A similar issue blacks have faced. I know, I know…skin isn’t CONDUCT.
However, conduct doesn’t matter among a prejudiced majority.
Christians are claiming religious privilege over homosexuals and becoming more assertive and strident in that effort nowadays and exclusively against homosexuals.
RT is the equivalent of a black adult being told that the racism they are confronted with will be eased as long as they don’t do anything to offend the white people around them by giving into white authority and not challenging it on any level and that whatever that authority says about blacks in general is correct.
The problem with that is….a person never knows what and in what way they WILL offend and the offense taken can manifest into anything extremely threatening.
I suppose my point is, whatever is consistent with rationalizing prejudice as opposed to JUSTIFYING it, THAT is what Christians are responsible for and making those distinctions.
All I’m seeing is rationalizing RT, but far from justifying it. And a good deal of cowardice regarding allowing homosexuality to have a normal course and integration without religious intervention.
I would think it would be important to interested parties to know what would happen if gay children were exposed to POSITIVE reinforcement.
Those who support RT over and over assert that gay people need it….but don’t seem to care or are concerned to examine if that’s true or not.
I already confronted Dr. Nicolosi about that, among other things…and he never answered me either.
Ya know, Dr. Throckmorton….you guy’s NON ANSWERS are very telling about you.
I think as a black woman, I know how exhausting it is to explain who you are to prejudiced people.
What I DON’T and WON’T accept is validating and going along with whatever those prejudices are so that someone can be comfortable with me.
That’s not about manners and politeness, that’s about dishonesty.
And above all else, Christans are losing credibility in this arena because honesty is so far from their agenda.
BTW…I asked Nicolosi about the fact that black children are raised in single mother homes way above the average for children of other ethnicities-and there isn’t a higher incidence of BLACK homosexuality, especially among black boys that Nicolosi hasn’t bothered to discern.
Nor lesbianism among black girls.
And he hasn’t explained homosexuality in the Asian community, especially among Chinese Americans who definitively have patriarchal, strong father figures and male favoritism in the family.
On that alone he couldn’t be bothered to answer my question, on a NATIONAL radio broadcast where it was his job to answer.
Everytime I see him go on and on about homosexuality being a ‘problem’, the real deal is that it’s a problem for straight people like him.
And some of us know full well, it’s not a problem at all to whom it most matters to.
Being a size ten woman is a problem for the modeling industry.
But why should it be? And there wouldn’t be anorexia if the image of what a woman is supposed to look like wasn’t so distorted in a glamorous arena.
RT smells. And Nicolosi distorts what homosexuality is. And love anorexia is being sold as a healthy way to live.
Seriously, somebody has some EXPLAINING to do!
“SOMEONE HAS SOME ‘SPLAINING TO DO.” Says Ricky to Lucy. It’s a simple recipe.
1) take one ideological commitment that Gay is bad.
2) Add the exploitation of an old prejudice which, like other prejudices, has very little to do with reality.
3) Add some serious addiction to money, power, influence which come in the same package as the explopitation.
4) mix well with some mis-applications of seriously misunderstood or deliberately mis-interpreted scripture
5) Leaven with serious personal, but usually unacknowledged, issues that need to be worked out, but preferably, not on oneself.
6) Add a big ol dollop of self-righteousness.
7) Place in a cold oven, along with the other half-baked, ignorant, and hate-filled theories of human behavior and sexuality.
8) sprinkle heavily with fear, especially if it helps generate power, influence, and money.
And there you have it–reparative therapy.
Or as i prefer to think of it, the three-teated whore of homophobia.
damn, I forgot my punchline:
the three-teated whore of homophobia. she always promises a good time to all concerned, but you never know what you’ll catch if you sleep with her.
lol Ben, “8” plus “)” equals 8) on the board. maybe use periods next time 8) 🙂 😉 😀
Hey folks, I have another question. Why do Dr. Throckmorton, Alan Chambers and Nicolosi treat me like I’m stupid. Or that what I say is beneath answering or commenting on?
And I’m sure you all remember DL Foster and his outright ridicule of me.
Any takers on their behavior towards me?
And please, if you think it’s because I struck a nerve, let me know.
I live to gadfly!
There must be hard research about the associated/caused harm of RT before banning it. Period. This is science we’re talking about.
Ephilei said: “There must be hard research about the associated/caused harm of RT before banning it. Period. This is science we’re talking about.”
This statement is either naive or ingenuous. Since I joined the APA over thirty years ago, the APA and other interested organizations have attempted to persuade those who conduct reparative and other such “therapies” to subject their treatments to “hard” research as you call it, all to no avail.
For example, a colleague who worked with me in the clinic in Chattanooga had some new ideas on how to improve our drug addiction program. To test his hypothesis, we randomly assigned new participants into two groups. After approval, he ran the group using his new approach, while I ran the group using what was considered the best available methods at the time. An independent professional who didn’t know which group any person belonged to assessed their progress. We used these results to evaluated the treatment changes he proposed.
While little overall difference was found, we discovered that his approach produced better results for those who were more likely to do drugs when alone, than those who did drugs with others, at parties, and so on. So some valuable information was gained.
To examine the efficacy of “reparative therapy,” a similar study needs to be run. Those who complain that their same sex attractions are a problem in living their lives would be randomly assigned to a group lead by a practitioner of reparative therapy, and a group led by a professional who deals with this problem in accordance with APA guidelines.
Regular assessments by an independent diagnostician would allow a valid comparison to be made with regard to many aspects of these treatments: improvements in psychological and behavioral functioning, possible harm done, and so forth.
Yet, NEVER, EVER in over thirty years has ANY practitioner of reparative or any such treatments consented to participate in valid scientific research which would provide credibility to what they are doing. They always come up with “privacy” concerns, “confidentiality” agreements, blah, blah, blah, as invalid reasons why this research is not possible. Yet these would apply to our drug addicts, too, yet we were able to conduct our research.
We felt it desirable to test the efficacy of a few basic changes in our treatment for addicts. We were concerned that these changes be beneficial, not harmful to our clients. Yet reparative and other treatments designed to effect sexual orientation have a long history of doing harm in their wake. So much so that the American Psychiatric Association has clearly declared such attempts to be unethical, for this and several other reasons.
It’s not long in the counseling profession before we run into a client who has been psychologically harmed by attempts at sexual orientation change. Then we are engaged in many sessions attempting to undo the damage done by those who are not influenced by ethical restraint.
So any time I hear someone say that there is no “scientific” proof that reparative therapy is harmful, I grit my teeth in anger, since evidence of harm is abundant to anyone who works in the field. Those who resort to this claim are often the very ones who have spent a lifetime preventing valid scientific research from taking place.
Honesty, integrity and a sense of responsibility to those whom they advise, seem as foreign as ethical considerations when it comes to those who would promote reparative therapy to those who are gay.
How about it, Warren? Are you wiling to put your therapy practices to the test?