Have you heard of a "Homosexual Therapist?"

[Zyntoxic]

Freud claimed that all humans were born Bisexual...

I for one believe that what he says about problems from childhood can cause a difference in sexuality is partially true, I think that it is possible peoples sexuallity can change because of experiences or trauma, but I also believe that this is rather rare, I believe that most HBTQ-people are just born that way.

 

[Kargathia]

So essentially the guy is offering psychological guidance for closet heterosexuals, and the homosexual community is screaming foul because they've finally achieved the equal status they've been craving.

Maybe either one of us has misread what this is about? I understood it as being religious therapy to 'cure' homosexuality.

Thus leading me to conclude that said therapist is the only one who needs a cure.

The facts here are that he's offering therapy for people who consider themselves homosexual when they shouldn't. Granted, there are a hell of a lot less of them than there are closet homosexuals, but that doesn't mean they won't exist.

Whether he thinks homosexuality is a scourge put on gods earth to torment lawmakers and insecure teenagers is something that isn't mentioned anywhere - it at most is a reflex assumption by people too used to dealing with homophobics.

And seriously, do you think he'll be dragging in any gay-and-proud-of-it people, tie them down, and forcibly start brain washing them?

 

[Jacco]

The problem is that the whole perception that being gay is wrong, or that someone might experience homosexual tendancies, but not want to be gay, is what upsets their community, and I can see why.

Besides which, the whole idea of a therapist to cure someone of their sexuality - as if it's a disease - is abhorrent, to be perfectly honest.

He never said it was wrong or that it needed a cure. He in fact made it a point to say that- which I relayed. He only wants to help those that don't want to be gay. I've explained that many times now.

 

[Lt. Vinciti]

Wait...so because I hate my father with a rage unmatched...and have always been closer to my mother....I should be gay?

What the hell!

"Homosexual Therapist" sounds like some sorta church agent.

If we send out a normal man under our control and have him say he can help people who are having "gay feelings and urges"...we can promote happy Christian life styles.

I dont see being homosexual as some sorta plague...its a whatever you do....people dont condemn drinking and its considered a "disease"...to each his own.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I used to be gay, but underwent treatment. Now I'm perfectly happy dating women. I have a wonderful girlfriend, we have a great relationship.
I've started building model airplanes for a hobby and soon hope to move on to ships in a bottle.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You obviously don't believe any of the success stories you can look up from programs like this guy's...

Find me some.

Medical professionals with real titles and access to real knowledge (as opposed to bad 19th century sexology) have electrocuted (willing) people's brains and cut off (willing) people's balls and clitorises to try and realign their sexuality. If it was this easy, the results would be clearly published in journals where they can be peer reviewed by professionals and the methods compared and disseminated.

If so many people are being 'cured' by these programs, where is the hard evidence. Where are the transparent studies? Where are the case notes? Where is the accreditation? Where are the professional standards regulating these people's work? Why has the term 'homosexual therapist' not been protected?

Testimony is not enough. I can find plenty of testimony that taking sugar pills or random plant extracts will in fact make my penis larger and grant me superhuman virility and sexual stamina, it doesn't mean it's not a confidence trick, and it doesn't mean it's not deeply offensive to market such a confidence trick at people through, through no fault of their own, are socially discriminated against.

What you're really saying is that people who wants this guy's service are wrong to want it, shouldn't be allowed to get it, and must continue in the unhappy state they're in because it keeps your sexuality from feeling maligned or insulted.

I'm sorry. You seem to think we're talking about an actual medical procedure. Again, where is the evidence?

Medical professionals study at accredited institutions and are members of accrediting bodies. Quacks mail order their PhDs and invent titles like 'homosexual therapist'.

Medical professionals read journals and clinical research relevant to their field and can explain their medical opinions in terms of peer-reviewed evidence and guidelines established through peer reviewed evidence. Quacks use individual personal testimony.

Medical professionals must balance the weight of medical opinion against the self-perception of the patient, especially in psychology and therapy. They must account for the wishes of their patient, but must ultimately act in accordance with what has been medically proven to get the best results. Quacks work by making unrealistic promises with no clinical weight behind them and pandering to the self-perception of patients. A patient who can give positive testimony is a success story.

Put it this way. If the vast weight of open, transparent clinical evidence is against something, and one guy claims to have discovered an incredibly simple and easy miracle method which the vast majority of the medical profession has overlooked (and yet hasn't published it in a journal or allowed it to be subjected it to any kind of peer review) then take a moment to weigh up the possibilities. Remember, if it sounds too good to be true..

As for their 'unhappy' state. Their unhappy state does not come from them being gay, it comes from discrimination which is already in many cases illegal and already contrary to principles of a fair and democratic society. An accredited psychiatrist or therapist would understand that and would treat the trauma and negative self-perception which was actually causing the person to be unhappy, not offer unrealistic solutions to problems which aren't actually problems.

If a surgeon gave a gastric band to an anorexic, they would be struck off the medical register. What this guy is doing would not be tolerated in physical medicine. Why should it be tolerated in psychiatric medicine?

 

[Terminal Blue]

Then again, that might just be the world through my eyes.

It's not. That's the Kinsey scale. It's been a basic tenet of sexuality research for a good long time. It's only when you start to question what actually determines a person's sexuality for the purposes of measuring that it becomes problematic.

But for arousal and generalizing about object choice for the purposes of doing research, it's a good system and has never really been surpassed.

You're in pretty good hands there.

 

[Rin Little]

A guy like this came to my college before to give a presentation, what made it worse was that he did have the religious ramrod stuck up his ass. All the members of the GSA on campus went to go and pretty much slam this guy and none of us did because they guy was so pathetic and couldn't back up any of the polite arguments we or anyone else presented.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

If people aren't born gay, and if it's not a conscious choice, then what IS it? You can't have your cake and eat it too, pal, you have to choose where you stand.

It's called psychological development, what the OP is trying to say is that he/she/Cthulhu does not believe there is a gay gene that predispositions a person to be attracted the same sex. Instead they subscribe to the idea one sexuality is a developmental process that is created during the formative years of a person's life. That certain experiences, or lack there of, are what determine if a person is gay or straight. In layman's terms it means that you cannot be born gay. That one's attraction to men or women is determined the same way that any other attraction is. (ex: A dislike of loud noises, or a bondage fetish) That being gay is part of a person's personality and is rooted deep within their subconscious just like any personality trait, not their genetics.

You can't choose it, and you can't change it.

In case you're wondering, yes, I subscribe to this idea as well. Mainly because the claim that being gay is genetic is preposterous. If being gay were a matter of genetics then you would end up with entire family trees showing a disposition towards homosexuality. No, I don't think it's something to be cured; that's just as preposterous as it being genetic.(and an insult to sane thought to boot) I don't see anything wrong homosexuality, and I find it hard to fathom why what gender someone fancies matters at all. Surprisingly I was raised as a Catholic and I take huge issue with the anti-gay stance of the church. It literally contradicts everything I was taught in those agonizingly boring catechism classes every week as a child. I rant though, the disagreements I have with my religion are better suited for a different topic.

Well while I see your point, I still have to disagree with you. Being "born gay" and it being "genetic" are not the same thing- it IS perfectly possible to be born with inherent traits that are NOT received from your parents. My brother, for example, is allergic to cats, but he's the only person in our (extensive) family to have this problem. One of my 3 uncles (the youngest of my grandmother's 5 children) is the only person in our family to suffer from asthma. And if you think tha's not proof enough, it's perfectly possible for a child to be born autistic or with ADHD with no records of those in their family tree either.

On a milder note, I can't really agree with some of your other examples either. I don't like loud noises either, I tend to react in a startled and defensive manner to sudden bursts of noise. I also have a strong aversion to being touched by other people, generally avoiding it apart from shaking hands (or foreplay). Obvious sign that I was physically, sexually and emotionally abused as a child, right? Except that I can tell you now, with 100% honesty, that I wasn't. That's just the way I am. To quote Lady Gaga, I was just born this way.

Besides, I can't help but find your statement

"If being gay were a matter of genetics then you would end up with entire family trees showing a disposition towards homosexuality.

amusing because if there's ONE thing you can say about homosexuality, it's that your'e not very likely to inherit it from your gay parents.

 

[Call Me Arizona]

It's insulting because it reminds most of the LGBTQ community of the classification of our sexuality as a "disease" or "disorder" something bad to be avoided and if possible, CURED. Considering most credible psychological and sociological organizations say conversion therapy is bullshit, I'm going to have to go with them. That and the MANY "ex-ex gays" and my own experiences as a pansexual male.

For clarification of people who would misconstrue my statements as being a call for this guy to be shut down, it is no such thing, as long as people want to do it and he's not being funded by the state, I could care less.

 

[Guestyman]

Actually, last I check, repressing sexuality does cause harm according to mast psychologists.

In all cases, 100%, repressing sexuality causes harm? I... don't buy that. Not for all cases anyway.

He's not claiming that it's for everyone. If he were, you all would be in the right. He's giving another option to people who want it. We allow adults to engage in self-destructive behavior every single day. And yet it's this that you guys are stuck on.

Yes, the LGBT community. It becomes the business of everyone else when it supports homophobic views

WHY? It's a person's private life! You cannot have it both ways. Either private behavior can be other people's business, or it cannot be. Why does this bother you? Because it's a view you don't agree with?

The reason it bothers people is because him claiming that homosexuality can be changed is wrong. It is deluding, homosexuality is not a choice. Can't be bothered to link it because I'm lazy but most major psychological institutes agree. By encouraging the view that it can be changed, it lends credability to homophobic arguments based on that idea.

But that still is not your business. Which is what people forget!

This isn't some "send off your kid to pray away the gay" camp. This is two or more adults making a choice. Hear that: They are consenting adults. We've no business in what they do.

Actually, no. I'm going to use an analogy here: The right to medical privacy is fundamental to our values as a western society, yes? But these laws have exceptions in cases where not breaching someone's medical privacy can lead to them causing lasting harm to themselves or others.

We have similar moral exceptions for the "consenting adults can do whatever they like" maxim. So-called "Ex-Gay therapy" is denounced by the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association as harmful to the psychological health and well being of the person undergoing it and can lead to depression and suicide. Therefore there is a signifcant risk of harm to ones self and others when undergoing ex-gay therapy and therefore your rights as an individual to do whatever you like with fellow consenting adults are able to be circumvented with full moral justification.

 

[Oracle144]

It bugs me when people keep treating sexuality as a binary thing. It makes so much more sense (as in, it accounts for all the people who are exceptions-to-the-rule, which there are an awful lot of) if you view sexuality as a spectrum.

Some people are extreme-straight, and could never be attracted to the same sex. Some people are extreme-gay and could never be attracted to the opposite sex. But most people are somewhere in between.

In the dead center of the spectrum are people comfortable with both genders and we call that bisexual. But some people just have leanings one way or the other. Someone might prefer the same sex but still find the opposite sex attractive in rare situations. Or vice versa.

Lumping people into binary categories just doesn't work. It isn't a question of just gay or straight.

So, I suspect that this "therapist" was somewhere in the middle. He started noticing his attraction to the same sex, and it freaked him out, so he convinced himself that it was all because of various things in his childhood. Conveniently, he also finds women attractive, so he just "chose" to embrace his opposite-sex feelings and ignore his same-sex ones.

 

[KeyMaster45]

On a milder note, I can't really agree with some of your other examples either. I don't like loud noises either, I tend to react in a startled and defensive manner to sudden bursts of noise. I also have a strong aversion to being touched by other people, generally avoiding it apart from shaking hands (or foreplay). Obvious sign that I was physically, sexually and emotionally abused as a child, right? Except that I can tell you now, with 100% honesty, that I wasn't. That's just the way I am. To quote Lady Gaga, I was just born this way.

Why do you immediately jump to abuse as a reason for why you would dislike something? I dislike loud noises because I was drug to a very loud NSync concert as a child. I don't like being touched by other people because my mother's a pharmacist and she was very thorough about making sure she didn't transmit germs from the various sick people she saw all day. If you're implying that I said homosexuality is a result of some kind of abuse check my post again, I never said that. What I did say is this.

Instead they subscribe to the idea one sexuality is a developmental process that is created during the formative years of a person's life. That certain experiences, or lack there of, are what determine if a person is gay or straight. In layman's terms it means that you cannot be born gay. That one's attraction to men or women is determined the same way that any other attraction is. (ex: A dislike of loud noises, or a bondage fetish) That being gay is part of a person's personality and is rooted deep within their subconscious just like any personality trait, not their genetics.

Any number of variables could contribute to someone's sexuality, and yes sadly abuse can be one of them. The same is true for many other personal traits.

Besides, I can't help but find your statement

"If being gay were a matter of genetics then you would end up with entire family trees showing a disposition towards homosexuality.

amusing because if there's ONE thing you can say about homosexuality, it's that your'e not very likely to inherit it from your gay parents.

Which is exactly why I don't believe it's genetic. To say it's genetic in the sense of asthma not running in the family and then a child pops up with it, is to call homosexuality a genetic mutation. An abnormality, and I find such a statement to be just as bad as those who call it unnatural. It implies that homosexuality is a medical condition, that there would in fact be something medically wrong with everyone who identifies with the homosexual orientation. I think that such a notion actually spits in the face of everything the gay rights movement has been fighting for.

I'm starting to ramble though and my attention is divided with the new episode of Futurama. I will say before I go that if science ever identifies "the gay gene" then I will reevaluate my stance to one of "holy shit that a nasty Pandora's box of bigotry that opens up".

 

[DarthFennec]

I was driving home earlier and listening to the radio and the host was interviewing a guy who called himself a "Homosexual therapist." as I listened, he explained that when he was younger, he harbored "homosexual thoughts and feelings" and simly assumed he was gay. As the years went on and he got further into his schooling, he began to examine himself and came to realize that many of this thoughts and feelings came from various incidences during his childhood, such as being sexually absurd by an uncle, being closer to his mother instead of his father, etc. When he dealt with these issues, he found his homosexual tendencies disappeared and he's not been happily married for 30 years with 3 kids. As a result, he councils people who have unwanted gay feelings and helps them through any issues he they have that may be behind it.

To be fair, he did make a point to say that he is in no way condemning homosexuality and for people who choose to accept it and live that lifestyle, more power to them. His mission is to help those that do not want to be gay. And curiously, for that, he is reviled by the gay community. According to his own testimony, he has been described by them as the number one enemy of the gay movement (which I could believe).

It makes sense to me. I've never really bought into the argument that people are born homosexual. I don't think people are born anything other than human. That being said, I see homosexuality as a personal thing. What they do in their personal lives doesn't concern me and i don't think they should be condemned for it just like I shouldn't be condemned for my belief in God.


Do you think there is any meat to what he says? What are your feelings on this matter?

Yeah, that's bullshit. He had some gay thoughts and feelings when he was younger? I had the same thing happen to me. It happens to a lot of people, actually. It's called being bi-curious.

I have plenty of gay friends. They were born with it, it's obvious by the way they act and by what they tell me about their past. If you don't buy that, you should try being gay for a while. Just try it and see. Tell me what happens.

I'm a straight man, and I've had one gay relationship, when I went through my bi-curious phase. I was in love with the guy. I was 100% sure. Right up until we had sex the first time. And then I realized that I've been tricking myself. Why? Why had I thought I was gay? Why was I having those thoughts if it wasn't actually true? Simple: because of past experiences that lead up to that point. Just like with this `therapist' guy you're talking about.

Basically, unless I'm shown evidence that this guy was actually in a gay physical relationship for a while, I call shenanigans. He's just fooling himself, and everyone else who believes him.

 

[Filiecs]

Personally, I kind of like this guy.
In my opinion the way you are raised until puberty determines most of your sexual attractions, although there could be a gene that influences it.
Frankly though, I don't think it matters that much. I say that you can't choose what you are initially attracted but you can choose to change that attraction.
For example, I came out straight but if I wanted to I could make myself gay and make myself enjoy being gay. The thing is that I enjoy being straight so I don't want to try and become gay. The kind of people this guy treats are the few people who get boners for men but don't want to be gay. People like these can go two ways. They can either make themselves happy being gay or they can make themselves get boners for girls. They can go either way they choose to.

So basically i'm saying that most people who get attracted to a certain sex will like their attraction. However, for people who DON'T like the sex they get boners for can go either way and be happy.

Although I don't know which one is harder to change, I know they can both be changed through sheer willpower.

 

[Terminal Blue]

In my opinion the way you are raised until puberty determines most of your sexual attractions, although there could be a gene that influences it.

If this was true there would be observable rules, would there not? Like what this guy is saying, that being too close to your opposite-gender parent increases the chance of you being gay. You could do a trial to test those rules, and although you'd have to leave some room for the discrepancies of self reporting you should be able to come out with good results if what you're saying is true.

There are hundreds of such trials, none with any consistent and accredited success rate. You can't say that someone's sexuality is mutable right up to puberty, because no observable phenomena seem to influence it. Moreover, many people already feel attractions to other people before puberty. There's not this beautiful innocent state of childhood which disappears when you turn 13.

To give a general overview, most people who posit a psychoanalytic origin for object selection put it much earlier. The seeds are there before the child can speak, possibly even before it can walk. At that point you can induce sexual trauma to force the child to repress its object selection, but it's just repression (repression which inevitably happens to some extent, but repression which will never be complete and will never 'work'. You still get married straight men in their 50s who still fantasize about being dressed in a nappy and inevitably feel guilty and horrible about it). People carry their pasts with them, even if they don't consciously remember them. You can't just beat the past out of them altogether, you can only force them to inadequately repress it.

So yeah, if you traumatize someone enough you can 'change their sexual orientation'. You can change just about anything about someone with sufficient trauma. The issue is that you do so through inducing neurosis, and neurosis (while inevitable sometimes) can be very damaging to people.

People who don't like their sexual orientation are already, by definition, neurotic. They are the results of failed attempts to repress their object selection which may have an unclear cause but certainly came from somewhere (and not from having a dodgy relationship with your daddy). It's not an equal and fair choice, it's a choice between reinforcing that repression with more trauma to try and make it complete (newsflash, it never will be, that's not how repression works) or you can try and undo the person's neurosis to make them feel less inadequate. Guess which is medically advisable?

Repression is necessary to a degree in order to make people able to operate in society, but it's like surgery. It's not something you induce or work to reinforce trivially. Feeding someone's neurosis to change something which isn't actually socially unacceptable anyway is like giving someone unnecessary surgery. You don't tell an anorexic that actually they're right and they just need to shed more pounds in order to be happy and look like a supermodel, you try and discover why are so unhappy with their body and you try to overcome that neurosis. The former is unecessary, psychologically harmful and of course may physically kill them. The latter is treatment. While repressing someone's sexuality won't kill them, it works by reinforcing pre-existing guilt and misery which was already ruining the person's life. Do you think that's a good idea?

The only people who would say it is a good idea are those who either think homosexuality is socially unacceptable or that it doesn't really exist and is actually just a neurotic failure to achieve 'normal' heterosexuality induced by childhood trauma. I don't think I even need to give counter-arguments to those positions, in fact I didn't even think the latter existed any more until this wankstain decided gay people just need to bond with their daddies better.