Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Poses that turn me off
-Hands on the stomach: indigestion or constipation? Go figure
-Grabbing his privates: hey, it's not very elegant, you know
-Showing his cock,legs open:are you a simian, dear? Not very subtle
-Parading overbulging muscles: Pleeez! excess muscle can be as ugly as excess fat
-Exaggeratedly "dramatic" poses: give me a break!
-Overdone "macho" poses: you scare me so, girlie
-Vapid faces and smiles: dumber and dumber is not sexy
-Grabbing his privates: hey, it's not very elegant, you know
-Showing his cock,legs open:are you a simian, dear? Not very subtle
-Parading overbulging muscles: Pleeez! excess muscle can be as ugly as excess fat
-Exaggeratedly "dramatic" poses: give me a break!
-Overdone "macho" poses: you scare me so, girlie
-Vapid faces and smiles: dumber and dumber is not sexy
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
.jpg)
Monday, May 17, 2010
17 May international day against homophobia
Today is the International Day Against Homophobia. I encourage each and every person who reads this to support our friends in the GLBT community. Of course, if you're reading this post, then you're probably already doing just that.
Every little action helps. One single act of kindness or support may not elicit immediately recognizable changes, but that doesn't mean that it won't give someone food for thought and perhaps begin to open a closed mind.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Who's afraid of Gay Marriage?
He doesn't care about child prostitution
of famine and destitution
of war and terrorist carnage!
Beware of gay marriage!
The pope screams in outrage
He doesn't mind about pollution
devastating corruption
of AIDS and toxic sewage!
Beware of Gay marriage!
The Pope's shrill adage
He doesn't care about subprime speculation
about hate indoctrination
about nuclear escalation
Beware of Gay Marriage!
The pope's demented rage
Such awful brain wastage!
of famine and destitution
of war and terrorist carnage!
Beware of gay marriage!
The pope screams in outrage
He doesn't mind about pollution
devastating corruption
of AIDS and toxic sewage!
Beware of Gay marriage!
The Pope's shrill adage
He doesn't care about subprime speculation
about hate indoctrination
about nuclear escalation
Beware of Gay Marriage!
The pope's demented rage
Such awful brain wastage!
Ratzinger ‘is fast losing all his sense of moral priorities’, says Peter Tatchell
From The freethinker
BENEATH a report in The Times today that Ratzinger has again blasted gay marriage and abortion – saying they are “among the most insidious and dangerous challenges” to society – there is this delicious response from a reader, Susie Downer:
We delude ourselves if we think the silly old bloke in the frock and red slippers has a clue what’s going on in 2010. The insidious challenge to our society is out-of-touch, self-serving megalomaniacs who have never been married, in a relationship, become a parent, had to cook their own dinner or polish their own shoes. Go and join the dinosaurs, matey.
And in the body of the Times report, Peter Tatchell, of the gay rights group Outrage, said:
The Pope is fast losing all his sense of moral priorities. Compared to war, poverty and racism, gay marriage is a minor issue. It is not worthy of the Pope’s moral outrage. In a world filled with hate and violence, he should be encouraging love and commitment, not denouncing it.
The pimped-up old fart in papal regalia was speaking during his visit to Portugal, which is preparing to legalise same-sex partnerships. Gay marriage legislation was recently passed by the Portuguese parliament and is due to be signed into law next week by President Anibal Cavaco Silva, a conservative Catholic. Ninety per cent of Portuguese define themselves as Catholic but Portuguese society is increasingly secular, with well under a third saying they attend mass regularly.
Ratzinger also took the opportunity to criticise Catholics who are ashamed of their faith and too willing to “lend a hand to secularism.”
The Pope was speaking after a packed open air mass at the Marian shrine at Fatima, the Portuguese Lourdes, 120 kilometres north of Lisbon. The mass was attended by half a million people.
Meeting Catholic charity workers at the shrine, the Pope called for “defence of life” and “indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman” in response to what he described as the dangerous threats of gay marriage and abortion. He offered his thanks to those who helped people “wounded by the drama of abortion”.
His words will be studied in Britain where Catholics prepare for their own visit by the Pope in September. In the pre-election television debates, David Cameron said he disagreed with the Pope’s teaching on homosexuality. The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg indicated he agreed with Mr Cameron.
Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, accused Benedict of trying to interfere with the Portugal’s democratic will.
If the President of Portugal approves the law on gay marriage – and there is every indication that she will – it will represent a slap in the face for the Pope’s authority.
Trivia fans may be interested to know that, in 1952, Warner Bros released The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima, describing it as 'the motion picture that reaches deep inside you!'
Tony Green, spokesman for the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, which will be debating gay marriage and civil partnership at its annual conference in London tomorrow, said:
It is one thing to oppose gay marriage from religious convictions and another to make such a claim about it when you look at issues such as teenage pregnancy, sexual disease, drug abuse, world poverty and war. This is an appalling, unfounded and unjust claim. I do not really see on what basis he can say gay marriage is among the most dangerous challenges to society. It ignores real social evils the Church and others should be addressing with far greater urgency.
The mass at the shrine at Fatima marked the anniversary of the day in 1917 when three shepherd children reported seeing visions of the Virgin Mary as the sun “spun” in the sky.
They claimed the Madonna confided to them three secrets foretelling the Second World War, the conversion of Russia to Christianity and the attempt on the life of John Paul II in 1981.
John Paul believed the Virgin Mary helped save him from the attempted assassination, which took place on the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima.
In his homily at the shrine, Pope Benedict, dressed in white and gold vestments and sounding hoarse, said:
"We delude ourselves if we think that the prophetic mission of Fatima has come to an end"
Yes, Ratzinazi, you delude yourself oh, so well! But yyou're not deluding us. We know your kind will use all the fatima claptrap
every time you'll find it useful.
BENEATH a report in The Times today that Ratzinger has again blasted gay marriage and abortion – saying they are “among the most insidious and dangerous challenges” to society – there is this delicious response from a reader, Susie Downer:
We delude ourselves if we think the silly old bloke in the frock and red slippers has a clue what’s going on in 2010. The insidious challenge to our society is out-of-touch, self-serving megalomaniacs who have never been married, in a relationship, become a parent, had to cook their own dinner or polish their own shoes. Go and join the dinosaurs, matey.
And in the body of the Times report, Peter Tatchell, of the gay rights group Outrage, said:
The Pope is fast losing all his sense of moral priorities. Compared to war, poverty and racism, gay marriage is a minor issue. It is not worthy of the Pope’s moral outrage. In a world filled with hate and violence, he should be encouraging love and commitment, not denouncing it.
The pimped-up old fart in papal regalia was speaking during his visit to Portugal, which is preparing to legalise same-sex partnerships. Gay marriage legislation was recently passed by the Portuguese parliament and is due to be signed into law next week by President Anibal Cavaco Silva, a conservative Catholic. Ninety per cent of Portuguese define themselves as Catholic but Portuguese society is increasingly secular, with well under a third saying they attend mass regularly.
Ratzinger also took the opportunity to criticise Catholics who are ashamed of their faith and too willing to “lend a hand to secularism.”
The Pope was speaking after a packed open air mass at the Marian shrine at Fatima, the Portuguese Lourdes, 120 kilometres north of Lisbon. The mass was attended by half a million people.
Meeting Catholic charity workers at the shrine, the Pope called for “defence of life” and “indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman” in response to what he described as the dangerous threats of gay marriage and abortion. He offered his thanks to those who helped people “wounded by the drama of abortion”.
His words will be studied in Britain where Catholics prepare for their own visit by the Pope in September. In the pre-election television debates, David Cameron said he disagreed with the Pope’s teaching on homosexuality. The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg indicated he agreed with Mr Cameron.
Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, accused Benedict of trying to interfere with the Portugal’s democratic will.
If the President of Portugal approves the law on gay marriage – and there is every indication that she will – it will represent a slap in the face for the Pope’s authority.
Trivia fans may be interested to know that, in 1952, Warner Bros released The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima, describing it as 'the motion picture that reaches deep inside you!'
Tony Green, spokesman for the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, which will be debating gay marriage and civil partnership at its annual conference in London tomorrow, said:
It is one thing to oppose gay marriage from religious convictions and another to make such a claim about it when you look at issues such as teenage pregnancy, sexual disease, drug abuse, world poverty and war. This is an appalling, unfounded and unjust claim. I do not really see on what basis he can say gay marriage is among the most dangerous challenges to society. It ignores real social evils the Church and others should be addressing with far greater urgency.
The mass at the shrine at Fatima marked the anniversary of the day in 1917 when three shepherd children reported seeing visions of the Virgin Mary as the sun “spun” in the sky.
They claimed the Madonna confided to them three secrets foretelling the Second World War, the conversion of Russia to Christianity and the attempt on the life of John Paul II in 1981.
John Paul believed the Virgin Mary helped save him from the attempted assassination, which took place on the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima.
In his homily at the shrine, Pope Benedict, dressed in white and gold vestments and sounding hoarse, said:
"We delude ourselves if we think that the prophetic mission of Fatima has come to an end"
Yes, Ratzinazi, you delude yourself oh, so well! But yyou're not deluding us. We know your kind will use all the fatima claptrap
every time you'll find it useful.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
.jpg)
.jpg)
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
The Pseudoscience of Religious-Based Sexual Re-orientation
Posted on September 12, 2006 by cfeagans
I try to keep my posts at least somewhat related to archaeology and anthropology, and I realize that this makes two posts in a row that deviate from that formula, but this is a topic that I had the opportunity to debate in another place recently, so I decided to edit the information that I had and represent it as a blog post. I hope someone will find the information informative.
************************
Several religious organizations exist that claim to offer the service of “re-orientating” homosexuals back to a heterosexual sexual orientation. This “therapy” variously referred to as “conversion therapy,” “reparative therapy,” or “reorientation therapy.”
Organizations that claim to offer “therapy” to re-orientate homosexuals include the International Healing Foundation (IHF), Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals (NARTH), and Exodus International among others. One of their premises is that homosexuality is a decision that can be a habit. And, as a habit, homosexuality can be broken and gays and lesbians can be therapeutically “cured” to re-orientate them back to the “norm.”
From the IHF website, they state, “[n]o one is born with same-sex attraction; [n]o one chooses to have same-sex attraction; [c]hanging from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation is possible!”
PFOX claims, “[n]o one is born gay. All scientific studies, including those by gay scientists, have not found any gay gene or gay brain center. Ex-gays are living proof that homosexual orientation is not fixed permanently.”
Exodus states that they “[uphold] heterosexuality as God’s creative intent for humanity, and subsequently views homosexual expression as outside of God’s will. [Exodus] cites homosexual tendencies as one of many disorders that beset fallen humanity.”
Empirical Evidence to Support the Claim of ‘Reorientation’ of Homosexuals?
Only a few studies have been conducted that even attempt to provide some empiricism with regard to the notion that gays can be ‘reorientated’ to heterosexual. Most notably was Spitzer (2003) who used self-reported informants to document at least some “minimal” change over 5 years. Pseudo-therapy groups like NARTH base much of their claims on the work of studies like Spitzer’s -and Spitzer is probably the most recent notable effort, but the pseudoscience of reparative therapy probably began with Moberly (1983), who used no study subjects at all! She based her entire book on her own opinions based on the ancient works of luminaries like Freud.
But it’s the work of Spitzer and others that NARTH would like to cite as valid reason to assume their premises are true. The primary outcome of Spitzer’s study was that, in general, some gay men and women can change their core behaviors and appear content to be heterosexual. The problem is that the very thing that a pseudoscience group like NARTH accuses gays of (pretending) is what may be happening in their ‘reorientations!’
Criticisms of ‘Reorientation’ and ‘Reparative’ Therapy of Homosexuals
The only thing that can really be said about NARTH and other reorientation groups (assuming that even some of their anecdotes are valid) is that they are successful in getting homosexuals (or bisexuals) to favor religious pretense over sexual orientation. After all: people kill for religion; die for religion; and fuck for religion. Why wouldn’t they switch genders of their sex-partners for religion?
In addition, as Carlson (2003) noted, “It may be possible that some of [Spitzer's] research participants might have a more fluid sexual orientation, such as bisexuality” (p. 427). Also, Spitzer’s investigation was heavily weighted toward highly religious Christian, Caucasian, middle-class individuals, thus ignoring the diversity of individuals who might seek conversion therapy. Overall, the research on conversion therapies is heavily weighted toward a homogeneous, predominantly White, male, Christian population. Shidlo and Schroeder’s (2002) participants were 90% male, 86% Caucasian, and of those who reported religious orientation, 89% Christian. Spitzer’s study was 97% Christian and 95% Caucasian and was predominantly middle-class and middle-aged.
Assumptions Made by re-orientation Groups like NARTH
Religious re-orientation groups assume that the causes of homosexuality are known and that homosexuality is unnatural, mentally unhealthy, and sinful and should be changed (Morrow and Beckstead 2004) Each of these is pseudoscientific when applied to the field of mental health.
Methodological problems with studies like Spitzer’s
(a) results were based on restricted, self-selected samples that represent a socially stigmatized population and thus capitalized on participants’ vested interests to manage self-impressions, promote their values and lifestyles, over report successes, and underreport failures;
(b) outcomes are ambiguous because participants’ idiosyncratic conceptualizations of sexual orientation, identity, attraction, and desire were not analyzed and research variables were not well conceptualized;
(c) some studies neglected to use fantasy and arousal to indicate sexual orientation;
(d) some results were based on therapists’ subjective impressions;
(e) comparison or control groups were not used;
(f) long-term, objective outcome results are unavailable; and
(g) dynamic factors, such as time, maturation, and contextual factors, were not analyzed to account for participants’ changes in sexuality and identity development process. Thus, the research base that supports the effectiveness of sexual reorientation is void of systematic, well-established methodologies that are needed to obtain valid scientific results (Wainberg et al. 2003 [Morrow and Beckstead 2004]).
In addition, O’Donohue and Plaud (1994) reviewed the evidence for learning and unlearning of sexual arousal responses and concluded that the empirical support for the conditioning or reconditioning of sexual arousal is weak. Barbaree, Bogaert, and Seto (1995) also concluded that substantive changes in the direction of one’s underlying sexual orientation might be difficult or impossible to achieve once established.
Tozer & Hayes (2004) further note that ‘reorientation’ therapy lacks empirical validation and also suggest that the main focus is to provide derisive messages about same-sex attractions. They found that most who seek “conversion therapy” are do so as an “expression of introjected messages about unacceptable aspects of homosexuality and an extension of one’s being in the early stages of gay or lesbian identity development.”
——————–
The “work” that groups like NARTH claim to do *is* pseudoscience since they base it on false premises and assumptions. Moreover, they use bad science and refuse to acknowledge the lack of empirical data to support their premises and assumptions. In doing so, they wrap their supernatural beliefs in a thin veil of “scientific-sounding” terminology and misquoted research of others.
If gays want to pretend to be heterosexual to fit into their other social groups and cults, I’ve no problem with that. That’s their prerogative. The response here, in this post, is to refute the unsubstantiated claims of NARTH et al, which are based on false premises and assumptions – an endeavor that can be called fraud.
What’s the Real Motivation for Re-Orientation?
Perhaps there are gays that are dissatisfied with their sexual orientation. I’m sure there are. Another flaw in Spitzer’s research, which I have not discussed yet, is that it doesn’t fully take into consideration the dissatisfaction that may exist in his study group because of the stigma and pressure that may be applied by their social group. In short, they may be victims of gay-bashing, homophobic bigots who belittle homosexuality because of religious superstitions with hate-filled rhetoric. In Shidlo and Schroeder’s sample (2002), they found that of the gays that went through so-called ‘reorientation therapy’ did so because of homophobic attitudes toward them. Among their sample were individuals who had initially sought therapy for depression and anxiety only to be instructed to attend ‘conversion therapy.’
Some participants were motivated to pursue treatment with the hope of saving their heterosexual marriage and keeping their children. Others entered conversion therapy through force and coercion. For example, some students in religious universities were told that noncompliance with the mandated treatment would be followed by academic expulsion or the termination of financial aid. One participant reported the following:
I am being forced to be in therapy [by a large religious university]. I sit there and agree with what he [the therapist] has to say to avoid confrontation. He is pushing me to marry a woman. My goal is basically just to graduate. (Shidlo and Schroeder 2002).
Of the 87% of the sample they studied (a full 176 individuals) reported that they failed to ‘convert’ back to a heterosexual identity. Only 13% perceived themselves as successful. Of that 13% (26 individuals), 6 refused to put a self-label on their sexual identity and 3 of this 6 were celibate!
This is the only study that I know of that bothers to attempt a quantitative look at so-called ‘conversion therapy.’ Clearly, such ‘therapies’ are problematic. Not only do psuedoscientific groups like NARTH fail to consider such data or discuss it with their consumers, but they flat out refuse to conduct any meaningful research of their own. Instead, they rely on one of the hallmark indicators of pseudoscience: anecdotal testimony.
Shidlo & Schroeder conclude with:
We found evidence that many consumers of failed sexual orientation therapies experienced them as harmful. Areas of perceived psychological harm included depression, suicidality, and self-esteem. In the case of aversive conditioning and covert sensitization, harm included intrusive flashback-like negative imagery that was associated with serious long-term sexual dysfunction. Areas of perceived social harm included impairment in intimate and nonintimate relationships. Some religious participants also reported experiencing spiritual harm as a result of religious therapy.
We found that some participants also reported feeling helped. For a minority (4%), conversion therapy provided help in shifting their sexual orientation. Others (9%) found help in HBM techniques and were content with being celibate or else accepted an ongoing struggle to contain their same-sex desire. Participants also reported other therapeutic benefits, including an increased sense of belonging, improved insight, improved self-esteem, improved communication skills, and relief from talking about sexuality for the first time. Surprisingly, some participants who failed to change reported that their failure had been a needed proof, which freed them to embrace their gay/lesbian identity with less guilt.
In the very same issue (October 2003) of Archives of Sexual Behavior in which Spitzer published, there were many sound criticisms of his work along with some support. In addition, Spitzer himself said (2003):
Are the participants’ self-reports of change, by-and large, credible or are they biased because of self-deception, exaggeration, or even lying? This critical issue deserves careful examination in light of the participants’ and their spouses’ high motivation to provide data supporting the value of efforts to change sexual orientation.
The only thing Spitzer demonstrated is that, given sufficient motivation, gays can at least pretend to change their sexual orientation. In his methodology, Spitzer reveals that his sample included individuals who self-reported with at least a rank of 60 with 0 being completely heterosexual and 100 being completely homosexual.
What!? 60!? So his cut-off for “gay” is someone who thinks they’re attracted to the same sex more often than not? Where is the control for the anxiety driven, depressed man or woman that is simply scared of their androgenous thoughts and occasional curiosity about the same sex? Why didn’t Spitzer study so-called ex-gays who were once completely homosexual?
Finally, the homosexual re-orientation movement was discredited by the American Psychological Association (APA) on August 11, 2006:
For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversation therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
Source
References:
Barbaree, H. E., Bogaert, A. F., & Seto, M. C. (1995). Sexual reorientation therapy for pedophiles: Practices and controversies. In L. D. & R. D. McAnulty (Eds.), The psychology of sexual orientation, behavior, and identity: A handbookGreenwood.
Carlson, H. M. (2003). A methodological critique of Spitzer’s research on reparative therapy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 425-427.
Haldeman, D. C. (2001). Therapeutic antidotes: Helping gay and bisexualmen recover from conversion therapies. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3-4), 117-130.
Moberly, Elizabeth (1983) Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. Cambridge: James Clarke Company. (pp. 357-383).Westport, CT:
Morrow, Susan L.; Beckstead, A. Lee (2004). Conversion Therapies for Same-Sex Attracted Clients in Religious Conflict: Context, Predisposing Factors, Experiences, and Implications for Therapy. The Counseling Psychologist, 32 (5), 641-650.
O’Donohue, W., & Plaud, J. J. (1994). The conditioning of human sexual arousal. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 321-344.
Shidlo, A., and Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 249-259.
Spitzer, R. L. (2003). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 subjects reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 403-417.
Tozer, E. E. & Hayes, J. A. (2004). Why do individuals seek conversion therapy? The role of religiosity, internalized homonegativity, and identity development. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(5), 716-740.
Wainberg, M. L., Bux, B., Carballo-Dieguez, A., Dowsett, G.W., Dugan, T., Forstein, M., et al. (2003). Science and the Nuremberg Code: A question of ethics and harm. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 455-457.
I try to keep my posts at least somewhat related to archaeology and anthropology, and I realize that this makes two posts in a row that deviate from that formula, but this is a topic that I had the opportunity to debate in another place recently, so I decided to edit the information that I had and represent it as a blog post. I hope someone will find the information informative.
************************
Several religious organizations exist that claim to offer the service of “re-orientating” homosexuals back to a heterosexual sexual orientation. This “therapy” variously referred to as “conversion therapy,” “reparative therapy,” or “reorientation therapy.”
Organizations that claim to offer “therapy” to re-orientate homosexuals include the International Healing Foundation (IHF), Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals (NARTH), and Exodus International among others. One of their premises is that homosexuality is a decision that can be a habit. And, as a habit, homosexuality can be broken and gays and lesbians can be therapeutically “cured” to re-orientate them back to the “norm.”
From the IHF website, they state, “[n]o one is born with same-sex attraction; [n]o one chooses to have same-sex attraction; [c]hanging from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation is possible!”
PFOX claims, “[n]o one is born gay. All scientific studies, including those by gay scientists, have not found any gay gene or gay brain center. Ex-gays are living proof that homosexual orientation is not fixed permanently.”
Exodus states that they “[uphold] heterosexuality as God’s creative intent for humanity, and subsequently views homosexual expression as outside of God’s will. [Exodus] cites homosexual tendencies as one of many disorders that beset fallen humanity.”
Empirical Evidence to Support the Claim of ‘Reorientation’ of Homosexuals?
Only a few studies have been conducted that even attempt to provide some empiricism with regard to the notion that gays can be ‘reorientated’ to heterosexual. Most notably was Spitzer (2003) who used self-reported informants to document at least some “minimal” change over 5 years. Pseudo-therapy groups like NARTH base much of their claims on the work of studies like Spitzer’s -and Spitzer is probably the most recent notable effort, but the pseudoscience of reparative therapy probably began with Moberly (1983), who used no study subjects at all! She based her entire book on her own opinions based on the ancient works of luminaries like Freud.
But it’s the work of Spitzer and others that NARTH would like to cite as valid reason to assume their premises are true. The primary outcome of Spitzer’s study was that, in general, some gay men and women can change their core behaviors and appear content to be heterosexual. The problem is that the very thing that a pseudoscience group like NARTH accuses gays of (pretending) is what may be happening in their ‘reorientations!’
Criticisms of ‘Reorientation’ and ‘Reparative’ Therapy of Homosexuals
The only thing that can really be said about NARTH and other reorientation groups (assuming that even some of their anecdotes are valid) is that they are successful in getting homosexuals (or bisexuals) to favor religious pretense over sexual orientation. After all: people kill for religion; die for religion; and fuck for religion. Why wouldn’t they switch genders of their sex-partners for religion?
In addition, as Carlson (2003) noted, “It may be possible that some of [Spitzer's] research participants might have a more fluid sexual orientation, such as bisexuality” (p. 427). Also, Spitzer’s investigation was heavily weighted toward highly religious Christian, Caucasian, middle-class individuals, thus ignoring the diversity of individuals who might seek conversion therapy. Overall, the research on conversion therapies is heavily weighted toward a homogeneous, predominantly White, male, Christian population. Shidlo and Schroeder’s (2002) participants were 90% male, 86% Caucasian, and of those who reported religious orientation, 89% Christian. Spitzer’s study was 97% Christian and 95% Caucasian and was predominantly middle-class and middle-aged.
Assumptions Made by re-orientation Groups like NARTH
Religious re-orientation groups assume that the causes of homosexuality are known and that homosexuality is unnatural, mentally unhealthy, and sinful and should be changed (Morrow and Beckstead 2004) Each of these is pseudoscientific when applied to the field of mental health.
Methodological problems with studies like Spitzer’s
(a) results were based on restricted, self-selected samples that represent a socially stigmatized population and thus capitalized on participants’ vested interests to manage self-impressions, promote their values and lifestyles, over report successes, and underreport failures;
(b) outcomes are ambiguous because participants’ idiosyncratic conceptualizations of sexual orientation, identity, attraction, and desire were not analyzed and research variables were not well conceptualized;
(c) some studies neglected to use fantasy and arousal to indicate sexual orientation;
(d) some results were based on therapists’ subjective impressions;
(e) comparison or control groups were not used;
(f) long-term, objective outcome results are unavailable; and
(g) dynamic factors, such as time, maturation, and contextual factors, were not analyzed to account for participants’ changes in sexuality and identity development process. Thus, the research base that supports the effectiveness of sexual reorientation is void of systematic, well-established methodologies that are needed to obtain valid scientific results (Wainberg et al. 2003 [Morrow and Beckstead 2004]).
In addition, O’Donohue and Plaud (1994) reviewed the evidence for learning and unlearning of sexual arousal responses and concluded that the empirical support for the conditioning or reconditioning of sexual arousal is weak. Barbaree, Bogaert, and Seto (1995) also concluded that substantive changes in the direction of one’s underlying sexual orientation might be difficult or impossible to achieve once established.
Tozer & Hayes (2004) further note that ‘reorientation’ therapy lacks empirical validation and also suggest that the main focus is to provide derisive messages about same-sex attractions. They found that most who seek “conversion therapy” are do so as an “expression of introjected messages about unacceptable aspects of homosexuality and an extension of one’s being in the early stages of gay or lesbian identity development.”
——————–
The “work” that groups like NARTH claim to do *is* pseudoscience since they base it on false premises and assumptions. Moreover, they use bad science and refuse to acknowledge the lack of empirical data to support their premises and assumptions. In doing so, they wrap their supernatural beliefs in a thin veil of “scientific-sounding” terminology and misquoted research of others.
If gays want to pretend to be heterosexual to fit into their other social groups and cults, I’ve no problem with that. That’s their prerogative. The response here, in this post, is to refute the unsubstantiated claims of NARTH et al, which are based on false premises and assumptions – an endeavor that can be called fraud.
What’s the Real Motivation for Re-Orientation?
Perhaps there are gays that are dissatisfied with their sexual orientation. I’m sure there are. Another flaw in Spitzer’s research, which I have not discussed yet, is that it doesn’t fully take into consideration the dissatisfaction that may exist in his study group because of the stigma and pressure that may be applied by their social group. In short, they may be victims of gay-bashing, homophobic bigots who belittle homosexuality because of religious superstitions with hate-filled rhetoric. In Shidlo and Schroeder’s sample (2002), they found that of the gays that went through so-called ‘reorientation therapy’ did so because of homophobic attitudes toward them. Among their sample were individuals who had initially sought therapy for depression and anxiety only to be instructed to attend ‘conversion therapy.’
Some participants were motivated to pursue treatment with the hope of saving their heterosexual marriage and keeping their children. Others entered conversion therapy through force and coercion. For example, some students in religious universities were told that noncompliance with the mandated treatment would be followed by academic expulsion or the termination of financial aid. One participant reported the following:
I am being forced to be in therapy [by a large religious university]. I sit there and agree with what he [the therapist] has to say to avoid confrontation. He is pushing me to marry a woman. My goal is basically just to graduate. (Shidlo and Schroeder 2002).
Of the 87% of the sample they studied (a full 176 individuals) reported that they failed to ‘convert’ back to a heterosexual identity. Only 13% perceived themselves as successful. Of that 13% (26 individuals), 6 refused to put a self-label on their sexual identity and 3 of this 6 were celibate!
This is the only study that I know of that bothers to attempt a quantitative look at so-called ‘conversion therapy.’ Clearly, such ‘therapies’ are problematic. Not only do psuedoscientific groups like NARTH fail to consider such data or discuss it with their consumers, but they flat out refuse to conduct any meaningful research of their own. Instead, they rely on one of the hallmark indicators of pseudoscience: anecdotal testimony.
Shidlo & Schroeder conclude with:
We found evidence that many consumers of failed sexual orientation therapies experienced them as harmful. Areas of perceived psychological harm included depression, suicidality, and self-esteem. In the case of aversive conditioning and covert sensitization, harm included intrusive flashback-like negative imagery that was associated with serious long-term sexual dysfunction. Areas of perceived social harm included impairment in intimate and nonintimate relationships. Some religious participants also reported experiencing spiritual harm as a result of religious therapy.
We found that some participants also reported feeling helped. For a minority (4%), conversion therapy provided help in shifting their sexual orientation. Others (9%) found help in HBM techniques and were content with being celibate or else accepted an ongoing struggle to contain their same-sex desire. Participants also reported other therapeutic benefits, including an increased sense of belonging, improved insight, improved self-esteem, improved communication skills, and relief from talking about sexuality for the first time. Surprisingly, some participants who failed to change reported that their failure had been a needed proof, which freed them to embrace their gay/lesbian identity with less guilt.
In the very same issue (October 2003) of Archives of Sexual Behavior in which Spitzer published, there were many sound criticisms of his work along with some support. In addition, Spitzer himself said (2003):
Are the participants’ self-reports of change, by-and large, credible or are they biased because of self-deception, exaggeration, or even lying? This critical issue deserves careful examination in light of the participants’ and their spouses’ high motivation to provide data supporting the value of efforts to change sexual orientation.
The only thing Spitzer demonstrated is that, given sufficient motivation, gays can at least pretend to change their sexual orientation. In his methodology, Spitzer reveals that his sample included individuals who self-reported with at least a rank of 60 with 0 being completely heterosexual and 100 being completely homosexual.
What!? 60!? So his cut-off for “gay” is someone who thinks they’re attracted to the same sex more often than not? Where is the control for the anxiety driven, depressed man or woman that is simply scared of their androgenous thoughts and occasional curiosity about the same sex? Why didn’t Spitzer study so-called ex-gays who were once completely homosexual?
Finally, the homosexual re-orientation movement was discredited by the American Psychological Association (APA) on August 11, 2006:
For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversation therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
Source
References:
Barbaree, H. E., Bogaert, A. F., & Seto, M. C. (1995). Sexual reorientation therapy for pedophiles: Practices and controversies. In L. D. & R. D. McAnulty (Eds.), The psychology of sexual orientation, behavior, and identity: A handbookGreenwood.
Carlson, H. M. (2003). A methodological critique of Spitzer’s research on reparative therapy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 425-427.
Haldeman, D. C. (2001). Therapeutic antidotes: Helping gay and bisexualmen recover from conversion therapies. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3-4), 117-130.
Moberly, Elizabeth (1983) Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. Cambridge: James Clarke Company. (pp. 357-383).Westport, CT:
Morrow, Susan L.; Beckstead, A. Lee (2004). Conversion Therapies for Same-Sex Attracted Clients in Religious Conflict: Context, Predisposing Factors, Experiences, and Implications for Therapy. The Counseling Psychologist, 32 (5), 641-650.
O’Donohue, W., & Plaud, J. J. (1994). The conditioning of human sexual arousal. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 321-344.
Shidlo, A., and Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 249-259.
Spitzer, R. L. (2003). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 subjects reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 403-417.
Tozer, E. E. & Hayes, J. A. (2004). Why do individuals seek conversion therapy? The role of religiosity, internalized homonegativity, and identity development. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(5), 716-740.
Wainberg, M. L., Bux, B., Carballo-Dieguez, A., Dowsett, G.W., Dugan, T., Forstein, M., et al. (2003). Science and the Nuremberg Code: A question of ethics and harm. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 455-457.
f.jpg)
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Veteran anti-gay Baptist campaigner hired a male prostitute – to ‘carry his baggage’
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Ensure Sexual Orientation is NOT a Factor in Vetting Supreme Court Nominee
Ensure Sexual Orientation is NOT a Factor in Vetting Supreme Court Nominee
President Obama is tasked with choosing his second Supreme Court nominee, this time replacing Justice John Stevens. The court pick is always contentious because both sides of the political spectrum worry about the ideological positions of the nominee. The far right is pressuring Obama not to choose any potential judge who may be LGBT, they believe that queer sexual orientation should disqualify a potential candidate.
Sign the petition urging Obama to make sure sexual orientation is not a factor in his decision pick for the Supreme Court.
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/NotAFactor
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
President Obama is tasked with choosing his second Supreme Court nominee, this time replacing Justice John Stevens. The court pick is always contentious because both sides of the political spectrum worry about the ideological positions of the nominee. The far right is pressuring Obama not to choose any potential judge who may be LGBT, they believe that queer sexual orientation should disqualify a potential candidate.
Sign the petition urging Obama to make sure sexual orientation is not a factor in his decision pick for the Supreme Court.
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/NotAFactor
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
.jpg)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)