Have you heard of a "Homosexual Therapist?"

[Terminal Blue]

People have not given me a good reason to why this bothers them. It's not your life. The best you have is that "it's unhealthy". Unless you're required to foot the bill for it, I find it rather hard to object to this.

You forget.. I have sex with men. Had my friends, family and the people around me been a little less understanding of that fact, had I not discovered a very loving and open community ready to accept me at the confusing points before and when I came out, I could well have been one of the poor people taken in by the unrealistic promises of people like this ****.

Yes, my life probably would be easier if I was straight, so yes, I am the target audience for this kind of crap. Fortunately, I don't think those difficulties my fault and I don't think I should have to do anything about it. This "therapist" wants to tell me I can, and that carries the assumption that I should. What kind of an idiot does not want an easier life?

My great fortune, and the thing this parasite seems to have missed in his own experience, is that I don't think having an easier life should mean not living my life. I want my life to be easier, I don't want to have to pay someone else to try and make it easier for me to live a lie (and probably to fail). It's not a fair choice, it's an insult and a confidence trick. I have every right to demand to be treated fairly on the basis of my sexuality, I have every right to live my life without regretting that I don't have the good fortune to be born straight, and this guy certainly doesn't have the right to make money off of me if, through no fault of my own, I do end up in that position of regret.

 

[orangeban]

snip

I'm starting to get the feeling that we're going in circles here and I don't think either one of us is likely to budge from our seperate stances on the matter. My message box is flooding and I'm getting rather bored with this thread. While I disagree with you it's been an interesting discussion. I bid you good day madame.

I was actually feeling exactly the same way ^//^ Glad to have this truly interesting discussion, I'm glad we're both good enough to let it end.

How neat that the debate you were having ended at the same time as the debate I was having. How lovely.

 

[orangeban]

Sorry, being thick here, are you agreeing with me or not? I'm not actually sure what a chemo is, but I realise that you may disagree with me because of our differing views on the nature of homosexuality (I say: Genentics, though you could supress it by choice, you say: subconcious decision)

I am disagreeing that it is a "dangerous solution that doesn't work anyway" by equating it to chemotherapy, a treatment for cancer. Someone may be dying of cancer, but by temporarily doing MORE damage to the body, they may in the long run be cured.

The same can be said of gays seeking this guy's guidance. They may be miserable being gay, but by doing more damage, as you put it, it may help them in the future to accept what they are or be happy with someone of the opposite sex.

Hmm, not convinced, your case works if they are a confused bisexual or straight person but I disagree that people 100% purely gay can change. Again though, fundamental belief difference, what can you do?

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

snip

Sorry, but I don't equate the development of fetishisms with sexuality. Call me stubborn but that's just not the same thing to me. I've said basically everything I want to in my previous posts and expressed a firm desire to be done with this thread as I don't think it's going anywhere and I doubt anyone is going to come away from this with an entirely new perspective. Now quit flooding my bloody inbox.

 

[AdeptaSororitas]

snip

I'm starting to get the feeling that we're going in circles here and I don't think either one of us is likely to budge from our seperate stances on the matter. My message box is flooding and I'm getting rather bored with this thread. While I disagree with you it's been an interesting discussion. I bid you good day madame.

I was actually feeling exactly the same way ^//^ Glad to have this truly interesting discussion, I'm glad we're both good enough to let it end.

How neat that the debate you were having ended at the same time as the debate I was having. How lovely.

Isn't it ^^ Civility is in the air. I love it.

 

[Jacco]

Isn't it ^^ Civility is in the air. I love it.

Especially around a debate topic like this one. I was half expecting a shit fest when I started the topic. THat is why I love the Escapist community.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Here's a picture that does a good job of explaining some of it:

Now it talks solely about sexual deviancies and perversions, but it can also be applied to sexual orientation in general.

If I'm reading right, that's pretty much taken wholesale from Freud.

You have to remember that while Freud certainly has a lot of uses, he'd very much consider homosexuality to be a perversion caused by sexual trauma. There is no 'natural love object' for him (at least for men, women actually have to forgo their 'natural love object' due to physical inadequacy and thus are permanently neurotic) except a heterosexual one. It's not a gay-friendly theory.

It's also clinically unprovable, in what ways is object selection demonstrably 'natural' and how can you tell when that natural object selection ends and neurosis begins? There is no perfect, non-neurotic human being for us to observe.

 

[Jacco]

Again though, fundamental belief difference, what can you do?

Agreed. At least we can recognize that.

 

[orangeban]

Snip the picture

That's pretty much taken wholesale from Freud.

You have to remember that while Freud certainly has a lot of uses, he'd very much consider homosexuality to be a perversion caused by sexual trauma. There is no 'natural love object' for him (at least for men, women actually have to forgo their 'natural love object' due to physical inadequacy and thus are permanently neurotic) except a heterosexual one. It's not a gay-friendly theory.

It's also clinically unprovable, in what ways is object selection demonstrably 'natural' and how can you tell when that natural object selection ends and neurosis begins?

The picture also says how one sexuality/"fetish" is correct, and anything else is wrong, which is not a good attitude I say.

 

[AdeptaSororitas]

Isn't it ^^ Civility is in the air. I love it.

Especially around a debate topic like this one. I was half expecting a shit fest when I started the topic. THat is why I love the Escapist community.

It's the only reason I started posting here ^^ Everyone is nice but not spineless.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

People are biologically born bisexual. Tendencies develop over time.

Therapists are born to charge for their ego. Their ego develops over time.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

snip

Don't quote me from this point forward I just wanted to say something. Look man, I'm sorry if I came across as rather cuntish in that last response it's that I've managed to get about 6/7 different people all quoting me about different sections of this argument, most of which I had already made a response to someone else that they glossed over and it was getting annoying. Again, I apologise, just want to move on from this thread.

 

[Bags159]

snip

He's a random guy with only personal anecdotes as his evidence. So no, he has no meat.

Quick question, OP. Green is my favorite color. Was this a conscious choice of mine, in your opinion?

Is your avatar Static Shock as a My Little Pony? Just curious.

No, but I can see the resemblance.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

snip

Sorry, but I don't equate the development of fetishisms with sexuality. Call me stubborn but that's just not the same thing to me. I've said basically everything I want to in my previous posts and expressed a firm desire to be done with this thread as I don't think it's going anywhere and I doubt anyone is going to come away from this with an entirely new perspective. Now quit flooding my bloody inbox.

Damn, apparently you didn't get my edit before posting. Sorry about sending (yet another) message into your inbox. I'm going to stop now and not bother discusing it anymore with you. Feel free to not respond to this.

Edit: Godsdamnit! Not again. If you read this, sorry for quoting you again.

Here's a picture that does a good job of explaining some of it:

Now it talks solely about sexual deviancies and perversions, but it can also be applied to sexual orientation in general.

That's pretty much taken wholesale from Freud.

You have to remember that while Freud certainly has a lot of uses, he'd very much consider homosexuality to be a perversion caused by sexual trauma. There is no 'natural love object' for him (at least for men, women actually have to forgo their 'natural love object' due to physical inadequacy and thus are permanently neurotic) except a heterosexual one. It's not a gay-friendly theory.

It's also clinically unprovable, in what ways is object selection demonstrably 'natural' and how can you tell when that natural object selection ends and neurosis begins? There is no perfect, non-neurotic human being for us to observe.

Snip the picture

That's pretty much taken wholesale from Freud.

You have to remember that while Freud certainly has a lot of uses, he'd very much consider homosexuality to be a perversion caused by sexual trauma. There is no 'natural love object' for him (at least for men, women actually have to forgo their 'natural love object' due to physical inadequacy and thus are permanently neurotic) except a heterosexual one. It's not a gay-friendly theory.

It's also clinically unprovable, in what ways is object selection demonstrably 'natural' and how can you tell when that natural object selection ends and neurosis begins?

The picture also says how one sexuality/"fetish" is correct, and anything else is wrong, which is not a good attitude I say.

Look, I know that reading the picture word for word is a good way to get misguided, but I use it to show the general idea. I'm basing my beliefs off the things we've learned about how people develop and change based on their experiences. It goes back to stuff like the Pavlov's Dogs where a stimulus that was once neutral is eventually turned into a stimulus that causing a reactionary response. I figure that this can be applied to people's sexuality.

For instance, due to mental association, it could be entirely possible for a person to learn to be aroused by a certain thing. Stuff like foot fetishes or masochism, which hardly seem like something that would be arousing, are "learned" due to feet or pain being mentally (at least on a subconscious level) associated with arousal. Reinforce this connection enough and the person would begin to develop said fetishes. Now I then say: why not apply it to sexual orientations in general? As I said in a previous post, I'm pansexual but I became it
after being heterosexual for most of my life. But due to learned responses from previously neutral stimuli, I began to find the male form attractive in certain ways. Note: these were not responses that I had been suppressing or ignoring all that time, I truly did not have them for males (only females).

I believe that you two have a similar view and won't dispute mine (I could be wrong though) but I just mean to elaborate on the point I was trying to convey so that you don't get the wrong impression (which you seem to have, understandably, due to how I worded my post). I don't agree with the pictures use of "neuroses and perversions" as they both carry a negative connotation. I just meant to use it to help illustrate the idea of learned responses due to stimuli.

 

[James Crook]

Sexually abused by his uncle? (not "sexually absurd" like it's written, thank you Autocorrect)
I'm glad it went okay for him and that he didn't become traumatized or something.

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

So, because I'm closer to my mother than my step-father, I'm going to be a lesbian? It doesn't make sense.

I'm somewhat confused by what he means by "unwanted gay feelings".

You may be gay, but you don't want to be gay.


OT: Hey, I can appreciate that since it doesn't seem like it's some retarded scary anti-gay thing like "Pray The Gay Away" but insted it's just a therapist who would like to talk to people about their feelings.

Sure, it might not work at all and he himself might've just gone through a phase.

Then again, maybe it's legit and it could help a lot of people.

I don't see how it hurts anyone, apart from maybe incidentally creating some anti-gay material.

 

[Syzygy23]

So, because I'm closer to my mother than my step-father, I'm going to be a lesbian? It doesn't make sense.

I'm somewhat confused by what he means by "unwanted gay feelings".

maybe sometimes people y'know, want to be something other than what they are maybe?

I think the gay community, or those sympathetic to the cause hate him for the implications of his therapy: homosexuality is curable. Also, I have heard of tons of "straight trainers" and "gay counseling"; there are numerous organizations (mostly religious) that offer camps and rehabilitation center for those stricken with the gay.

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.

I don't agree with people when they say that they shouldn't be condemned for their belief in god, at it is just that, their belief. I think that belief in god designates lower intelligence. Because a belief in god predicates everything on that entity; yes, laws of physics can still co-exist with god as it supposedly created them or whatever. But belief in god shows a level of certainty--audacity--that I'm just not willing to forgive. It shows a level of ignorance regarding epistemology that I am simply not willing to look past. So, yeah, while I won't condemn you for your belief in god, I will, no matter what you do, hold you with some degree of contempt. Not that you should care, though.

Showing contempt of those who do believe in God(s) shows that YOU care for some reason or another, which according to the chain of logic following what you believe (or disbelieve) you should care even less than those of us who do believe in God(s)
No God = no afterlife, which means everything we do in this life is completely pointless and irrelevant to everything and anything. Therefore, it doesn't matter what ANYONE does, it doesn't matter if they believe in one thing or another, since it doesn't actually affect their inevitable conclusion, or yours for that matter. Why would you feel contempt for believers unless their belief somehow affected you in some way? It doesn't, so why should you still feel contempt?

I can only conclude it's because you like being a dick and inflating your own ego by pretending to be smarter than others. I should know, I used to subscribe to your creed as well.

 

[WolfThomas]

Meh, sexuality isn't is a binary things or hell even a spectrum, it's vast and unique for everyone, with all sorts of quirk and fetishes (minor to major). There's a reason most Doctors will ask if men have sex with men instead of if they're homosexual.

"It's not gay if you're giving it"
"It's not gay if it's a transexual"
"It's not gay if you're both straight" etc

 

[justnotcricket]

Ultimately it doesn't really matter - so long as he isn't cendemning homosexuality, or trying to force people who are happily homosexual to 'convert' to heterosexuality, he's harmless. He might even help a few people who are confused and unhappy to sort out their feelings.

Does he actually state that he *always* helps people to 'get rid' of homosexual tendencies? Or does he just help them with their sexual identity crisis, no matter what the outcome (i.e. regardless of whether they accept or deny their homosexual inclinations)?

I don't know - he seems harmless to me. I think the gay community are overreacting to this guy; he doesn't seem like their biggest enemy, to be honest.

 

[Damien Granz]

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.

People do get sexually confused as their hormones and all come out, and some people will try or fantasize about things they won't really end up liking; that doesn't make them gay, or straight or.. anything.

However, the problem with him is that, people that are homosexual just are. They don't choose it, they can't choose not to be, it doesn't matter if you don't believe born the way, because genetics, and environmental factors unlocking genetic code that would otherwise be dormant, do make a large play (how large, and if they're an all or nothing thing is open to debate), and if you don't want to 'believe' that, then that's too bad for you.

While maybe he was confused about his experiences and hormones same as everybody else and discovered he was heterosexual, or maybe he's bisexual, or maybe he's homosexual anyways and just denies it[footnote]Homosexual people ARE physically capable of having sex with a person of the sex the don't like, in the same way that heterosexual people can, they're just not physically capable of deriving the same pleasure out of it in the same way that heterosexual people don't get any from the wrong sex. I'm not saying this is likely, but it's not impossible.[/footnote], none of that matters because a different person that IS actually homosexual trying to take his advice is going to end up in a terrible set of circumstances and greatly harmed.

And that's why the LGBT community is against his message, because it harms people, whether nor not he realizes it, or whether or not you want to 'believe' it does.

Frankly, it would be similar to some bisexual deciding there was too much overpopulation, and that he felt guilty about his heterosexual desires and decided that because he be satisfied with the same sex, that he should open a camp to force heterosexuals to 'convert' to homosexuality. It'd be ridiculous, and it'd just harm a lot of people, because heterosexuality isn't any more your choice than homosexuality would had been.