Treatment for Gay

[speaker-to-trolls]

"I see, so you've started fancying boys, yes?"

Therapists offer gay 'treatment'

Researchers say such treatment pathologises homosexuality
Therapists are still offering treatments for homosexuality despite there being no evidence that such methods work, research suggests.

A significant minority of mental health professionals had agreed to help at least one patient "reduce" their gay or lesbian feelings when asked to do so.

The survey, published in the journal BMC Psychiatry and conducted by London researchers, involved 1,400 therapists.

Many were acting with the "best of intentions", said the lead author.

Only 4% said they would attempt to change a client's sexual orientation, but when asked if they would help curb homosexual feelings some 17% - or one in six - said they had done so.

The incidence appeared to be as prevalent in recent years as decades earlier.

The conclusions of this research are a welcome reminder that what lesbian and gay people need is equal treatment by society, not misguided treatment by a minority of health professionals

Derek Munn
Stonewall

"Of course it's incumbent on a professional to assist a client who wants help, but this should be done using evidence-based therapies - exploring their distress and helping them to adjust to their situation," said Professor Michael King of University College London.

"We know now that efforts to change people's sexual orientation result in very little change and can cause immense harm.

"We found it very worrying that there was a significant minority who appeared to ignore this - even if they had all the right intentions."

'Right to treatment'

The Royal College of Psychiatrists says all homosexuals have "a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation".

FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME


More from Today programme

In the US, where there has been heated debate on the issue of "curing" homosexuality, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has urged all "ethical practitioners to refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation".

However there are organisations which campaign both for an individual's right to seek treatment and a professional's right to offer it.

They point to work by Robert Spitzer, a psychiatrist who lobbied for the removal of homosexuality from APA's list of mental illnesses but went on to suggest in a controversial 2001 study that therapy could bring about change in sexual orientation.

Researchers in the UK are launching a website to collect stories from around the world about such therapies.

They hope in this way to uncover stories from India, South America and China where little is known about the prevalence of such practices.

Derek Munn, of the gay rights campaign group Stonewall, said: "The conclusions of this research are a welcome reminder that what lesbian and gay people need is equal treatment by society, not misguided treatment by a minority of health professionals."

Now I don't want to give any kind of credence to the idea that homosexuality can or should be psychologically treated, but it seems to me that there is an interesting point about this 'protection' that the article says homosexuals are entitled to. Surely if someone wants to change an aspect of their personality, whether or not that aspect is considered by most people to be harmful, whether or not it can be changed, then they are entitled to try. Likewise the doctors who do this are entitled to offer the service, assuming they aren't knowingly lying about the effectiveness of their techniques, of course.

Note I am not saying there should not be an effort to make people aware there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that these treatments are largely considered not to work, only that people mustn't be coerced out of applying for or giving them. It's like homeopathic medicine; Nonsense, but you can't forbid people from using it.

[Lagmonster]

Although I know diddly about psychology, I have seen that you can convince people of just about anything; we can make lifelong celibrate priests out of some men and virtual slaves out of cult members, so there could be a certain percentage of the population who can be manipulated into believing that they're not gay (or at least, talking and acting hetero). If they're led to shame by fundie religious upbringing or community pressure, they're halfway to willful self-delusion about their sexuality already.

[Ilya Muromets]

Well, I do have a Bachelor's degree in Psychology. I know that doesn't qualify me as a professional psychologist, but what I've learned over the four years of such education has me thinking that any attempt to change sexual orientation is just plain harmful.

Hell, this was a topic actually discussed in depth during Social Psychology classes. One of the more common "therapies" (at least, in the Philippines. Not sure about the US, but Philippine psychology usually takes after American practices) involves the subject having to attend weekly conferences with a board of the "therapists" and detail any sexual activity he or she has done since the last conference. Such conferences are usually tantamount to police interrogations, and can be very invasive in terms of the questions asked. If the client did any sort of homosexual activity he/she would have to recount it in as detailed a manner as possible. Then he/she would be essentially lectured on having failed and would have to redouble their efforts at abstaining.

You can just imagine the kind of repeated humiliation that "treatment" would entail? Imagine talking about screwing your partner, having to describe everything, to a group of people who then proceed to tear into you for what you did. That's the kind of thing that destroys self-esteem and fosters feelings of being seriously flawed or even inferior to other people. In essence, such treatment (and I loathe to call it that) is pretty much long-term enforced self-denial and repression via an essentially guilt-based method. I don't see any way this can be recommended to anyone, even if they are "entitled to try."

EDIT: And this is the treatment style that's ostensibly "scientific" and "objective." Bring in the tendency for some such treatment to be offered by organizations with fundamentalist religious leanings, and then you have something already guilt-inducing and humiliating in itself being backed by people known for stressing personal guilt and failings.

[Oskuro]

Would this be as offensive if people wanted to "cure" heterosexuality?

I agree that the idea that homosexuality is not wrong at all should be promoted, but people still have the right to make informed choices regarding their lifestyle, no matter what their motivation is.

This article has the stink of sesationalism about it.

[Shroom Man 777]

That sounds like a giftbag of all sorts of neuroses and psychoses.

It doesn't sound humane, to scrutinize aspects of people like that, to "treat" them, as it were. It's tantamount to no longer treating them as people, but as something less. Something diseased.

Which is very frightening, and opens a whole case full of cans of worms.

[Kanastrous]

it seems to me that there is an interesting point about this 'protection' that the article says homosexuals are entitled to. Surely if someone wants to change an aspect of their personality, whether or not that aspect is considered by most people to be harmful, whether or not it can be changed, then they are entitled to try. Likewise the doctors who do this are entitled to offer the service, assuming they aren't knowingly lying about the effectiveness of their techniques, of course.

I don't know if therapists are bound by the principle of First, do no harm applied by physicians, but if there's evidence that the 'treatments' are harmful and/or pointless then there may be some professional standard by which offering them would be improper.

If someone comes to a surgeon with an amputation fetish and wants a healthy leg removed, no matter how effective the surgeon's technique and no matter how sincere the patient's desire for surgery it's considered unethical to oblige. I'm not sure there's a good reason why pointless and potentially harmful psychological treatment should be encouraged or protected any more than pointless and potentially harmful medical treatment.

[Darth Wong]

Well, I do have a Bachelor's degree in Psychology. I know that doesn't qualify me as a professional psychologist, but what I've learned over the four years of such education has me thinking that any attempt to change sexual orientation is just plain harmful.

Hell, this was a topic actually discussed in depth during Social Psychology classes. One of the more common "therapies" (at least, in the Philippines. Not sure about the US, but Philippine psychology usually takes after American practices) involves the subject having to attend weekly conferences with a board of the "therapists" and detail any sexual activity he or she has done since the last conference. Such conferences are usually tantamount to police interrogations, and can be very invasive in terms of the questions asked. If the client did any sort of homosexual activity he/she would have to recount it in as detailed a manner as possible. Then he/she would be essentially lectured on having failed and would have to redouble their efforts at abstaining.

Mind you, the kind of person who would voluntarily sign up for this kind of "treatment" must want to be treated that way, in the hopes that it will cure his "sickness". If someone does not feel he is doing anything wrong, then he would presumably not sign up for such treatment in the first place.

You can just imagine the kind of repeated humiliation that "treatment" would entail? Imagine talking about screwing your partner, having to describe everything, to a group of people who then proceed to tear into you for what you did. That's the kind of thing that destroys self-esteem and fosters feelings of being seriously flawed or even inferior to other people. In essence, such treatment (and I loathe to call it that) is pretty much long-term enforced self-denial and repression via an essentially guilt-based method. I don't see any way this can be recommended to anyone, even if they are "entitled to try."

Again though, it only works because the person already feels that what he's doing is wrong and has a guilt complex over it. If a psychologist grilled me in a private session about explicit details on my sex life with my wife, I'd probably first ask him why the fuck it's any of his business. If I did eventually give up those details and he tried to make me feel bad about it, I'd just fire back at him that he's obviously got issues himself, since I'm not doing anything wrong and I've probably got a better sex life than he does. This entire scenario you describe is based upon the subject's pre-existing guilt and shame over his actions. Take those away and the guy will just walk away, or flip them the finger and then walk away.

EDIT: And this is the treatment style that's ostensibly "scientific" and "objective." Bring in the tendency for some such treatment to be offered by organizations with fundamentalist religious leanings, and then you have something already guilt-inducing and humiliating in itself being backed by people known for stressing personal guilt and failings.

I have to imagine that the majority of people taking this "treatment" are already religious to begin with, hence their guilt and shame.

[Kanastrous]

Well, is it responsible to do things that feed their mania?

[General Zod]

It's kind of sad that bullshit like this can still be taken seriously. Wasn't there a study conducted by the US government in the 70s or 80s to find proof that homosexuality was somehow harmful and wrong, specifically biased against homosexuality from the get-go and the researchers found absolutely nothing indicating such?

[Darth Wong]

Well, is it responsible to do things that feed their mania?

I wouldn't do it myself, but I just don't think we should overstate what's happening here. It's not as if there's a shortage of religious authorities who will perform the same service and then use the resulting funds to pay for more political advocacy activities.

[ray245]

Would this be as offensive if people wanted to "cure" heterosexuality?

I agree that the idea that homosexuality is not wrong at all should be promoted, but people still have the right to make informed choices regarding their lifestyle, no matter what their motivation is.

This article has the stink of sesationalism about it.

If people can promote homosexuality on the assumption that people's sexual preference can be changed, then people can promote heterosexuality.

Trying to promote and spread this lifestyle is basically the same as any person trying to spread religion, and a person's sexual preferences can be easily indoctrinated into a sexual preferences based on his or her parents or guardian's wishes.

And in most cases, due to more people being homophobic than heterophobic(does this word even exist?) , homosexuals will be at a even larger disadvantage if the promotion of your sexual preference is allowed.

Although in my opinion, trying to cure homosexuality is just as bad as you trying to cure heterosexuality. Hell, just because an African American may be treated badly by racist does not mean that he or she can't be racist towards whites.

[Kanastrous]

I agree that the idea that homosexuality is not wrong at all should be promoted, but people still have the right to make informed choices regarding their lifestyle, no matter what their motivation is.

How is choosing snake-oil abusive pie-in-the-sky remedies informed?

[General Zod]

If people can promote homosexuality on the assumption that people's sexual preference can be changed, then people can promote heterosexuality. >snip<

I suggest you re-read his post. He's not suggesting that homosexuality itself be promoted. He's suggesting that the idea that homosexuality is not harmful be promoted.

[Kanastrous]

Can we please junk this idiotic term, sexual preference?

Preference makes it sound as though there was some period of deliberation, during which the person *decided* which gender they'd 'prefer' to find attractive...

[Knife]

I say go for it, then can all the licenses of the shrinks doing it under ethics violations. Suppressing basic human natures will cause MORE harm than a continuation of percieved cultural taboo and they fucking know it as professionals. They are treating a disease not recognized as a disease by their own Association, so let that Association tank their careers.

[Darth Wong]

Can we please junk this idiotic term, sexual preference?

Preference makes it sound as though there was some period of deliberation, during which the person *decided* which gender they'd 'prefer' to find attractive...

What the fuck are you talking about? Preference is precisely the correct term. Heterosexual people prefer opposite-sex partners, while homosexuals prefer same-sex partners.

[Kanastrous]

Can we please junk this idiotic term, sexual preference?

Preference makes it sound as though there was some period of deliberation, during which the person *decided* which gender they'd 'prefer' to find attractive...

What the fuck are you talking about? Preference is precisely the correct term. Heterosexual people prefer opposite-sex partners, while homosexuals prefer same-sex partners.

Courtesy of Merriam-Webster...

1 a: the act of preferring : the state of being preferred b: the power or opportunity of choosing

No one has power or opportunity to choose their sexual nature. Well, all right, I have been unable to find proof that they are; if someone points me to proof on the matter, I'll sure look at it.

2: one that is preferred

Not relevant, if one accepts that one arrives at which is 'preferred' by the 'power or opportunity of choosing' in 1 b.

3: the act, fact, or principle of giving advantages to some over others

See #2

4: priority in the right to demand and receive satisfaction of an obligation

Not relevant.

5: orientation 2b <sexual preference>

I suggest that this definition made it in by virtue of popular usage, which is the bum's way to get anything listed in a dictionary: popular usage does not accuracy promote or guarantee. That fact that common usage put this in the book doesn't make it a correct description of what people experience.

synonyms see choice

There it is: 'Preference' is synonymous with 'choice.' Unless there's proof in hand that people's sexual nature is a matter of choice, 'preference' isn't the word to use.

[Darth Wong]

Clearly, you do not understand the distinction between preferring a same-sex partner and preferring to be the kind of person who prefers a same-sex partner. A homosexual prefers same-sex partners; that is his nature. That does not mean he chose to be a homosexual in the first place, which is the way you're interpreting it. And you can't dismiss the concept of instinctive preference by simply declaring any related forms of the word definition to be "irrelevant".

Babies naturally "prefer" sweet foods; does this mean it is not instinctive? According to your bizarre definition, it does. In fact, according to your bizarre definition it is an inherent contradiction to say that anyone ever "naturally prefers" anything.

[Kanastrous]

Clearly, you do not understand the distinction between preferring a same-sex partner and preferring to be the kind of person who prefers a same-sex partner.

Both constructions suggest that there's a choice in the matter. Which is - to the best of my knowledge - not a well-supported position.

'Preferring a same-sex partner' suggests that (for a homosexual person) there's some degree of choice involved, ie the opposite-sex partner is still some kind of possibility. Do heterosexual people 'prefer' opposite-sex partners? No, they are attracted solely to opposite-sex partners; same-sex partners are not a possibility and are therefore not on the menu, to be 'preferred' or 'not preferred' over the opposite sex. Same for homosexual people: members of the opposite sex are not on the menu at all and are therefore not a matter of preference or lack thereof.

As for 'preferring to be the kind of person who prefers as same-sex partner' I think we agree that there is no choice involved there, at all, right?

As for babies preferring sweet foods, they prefer sweet foods over other items that are likewise food. Non-food items don't count: I'm suggesting that for a gay person members of the opposite sex are basically "non-food" type items that don't play into preference because they are outside the category of what's being sought at all.

[Darth Wong]

Once again, do you think the term "natural preference" is an oxymoron?

[Kanastrous]

Once again, do you think the term "natural preference" is an oxymoron?

No, but I think it's a poor and misleading term when applied to sexual behavior, particularly the topic we're on.

[Superman]

No, but I think it's a poor and misleading term when applied to sexual behavior, particularly the topic we're on.

Ok, I'm a straight male. Why is it misleading to say that I prefer sex with women over men? I don't want to have sex with men at all, but that doesn't make my initial statement any less true.

[Darth Wong]

Once again, do you think the term "natural preference" is an oxymoron?

No, but I think it's a poor and misleading term when applied to sexual behavior, particularly the topic we're on.

Nice backpedal. According to your previous statement, there is no such thing as a natural preference, because the word "preference" is intrinsically defined as a high-level conscious choice.

[Kanastrous]

No, but I think it's a poor and misleading term when applied to sexual behavior, particularly the topic we're on.

Ok, I'm a straight male. Why is it misleading to say that I prefer sex with women over men? I don't want to have sex with men at all, but that doesn't make my initial statement any less true.

I think use of the word preference is misleading because it suggests that out of two categories, there is any possibility that you would choose one as opposed to the other. If you happen to be 100% hetero, and therefore uninterested in sex with men, describing your configuration as a 'preference' makes as much sense as mentioning that when it comes to choice of a drink, your preference is for water instead of battery acid. Does battery acid even belong in the same category as water, when a human being is talking about things to drink? Do women even belong in the same category as men, when a gay man is thinking about a sex partner? I don't think so; in order to meaningfully prefer one thing over another, both have to be actual options. Preferring sweet food to sour food is a meaningful comparison; both are in the category of food. Preferring blondes to brunettes is a meaningful comparison; both are in the category of women. Preferring horseshoes to caviar is meaningless if we're talking about taste in food because horseshoes are not food and therefore not even in the category being discussed. I'm suggesting that for a gay man 'preferring' men to women is equally meaningless because woman aren't even in the category of potential bedmates for a 100% gay man, at all.

[Darth Wong]

Wow. Your definition of the word "preference" becomes more convoluted by the minute. Why can't you just admit you fucked up on this one?