Texas and E-Gay Therapy

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Erg is right, everything you discuss is in the realm of pastoral counseling. Clearly outside the realm of psychology and its code of ethics. So, if people can still get this psuedotreatment done, why is it a problem if licensed psychologists cannot do it again?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Then go to a priest or similar clergy or pastoral counselor. It's NOT our scope, its unscientific, and it's against our ethics. What's your problem here? Plus, you have yet to answer my question about the reverse situation???

sorry, I missed your question earlier... I thought it was addressed in my last post as a matter of coincidence but I don't think the orientation of the person is relevant to my point (the answer to your question is, "yes") if a person wants a professional to help them with either not acting upon, or coping with feelings of guilt about, their desires....it should be legal for a professional to help them
 
That wasn't the question. Answer the question. As a MH professional, would YOU agree to do this?

Keep in mind the word, "professional" and what this means.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Lay off the hyperbole, I have been saying consenting adults seeking help. I'm not talking about locking children up

And for clarification, I don't necessarily think that a professional can make someone not have attraction to their gender. I certainly doubt a professional could stop me from being physically attracted to beautiful women. But if I was having trouble reconciling my religion with acting on those attractions, I would want to find someone who could help me with some coping mechanisms...handling feelings of guilt for attractions/not acting on desires that I found contrary to my beliefs etc...just like if I was a single adult straight christian male, I should be able to seek help to stay celibate until marriage if I am struggling with that.

(now drifting away from medical/political and into solely religious thoughts) I should also add for clarification that I don't think it is a sin for person to think their gender is attractive any more than I think it is a sin for someone to find the opposite gender attractive. I think the Bible is clear about lust and having sex outside of a religious marriage but I would place attraction as nothing more than a wiring/temptation issue, it is what we do with that attraction that places us in the realm of a sin.

The thing is, this (the bolded portion) is exactly what reparative therapy attempts to do. And it's harmful.

And I agree with erg--some of the issues you've brought up related to spirituality may be best addressed by a religious counselor. Can a psychologist discuss feelings related to things like personal identity, guilt, etc.? Sure. But as a psychologist, I'd have difficulty with trying to "help" an individual work toward never acting on same-sex desires because they thought that being gay and/or having sex with a same-sex partner (married or not) was a sin, or trying to somehow change their sexual desires and preference to be directed to opposite sex individuals. I'd also have difficulty working with a patient regarding the intricacies of any particular religion, in no small part because I don't profess to be an expert in that area. Help them figure out how to work through it on their own, though? Sure.
 
And I agree with erg--some of the issues you've brought up related to spirituality may be best addressed by a religious counselor. Can a psychologist discuss feelings related to things like personal identity, guilt, etc.? Sure. But as a psychologist, I'd have difficulty with trying to "help" an individual work toward never acting on same-sex desires because they thought that being gay and/or having sex with a same-sex partner (married or not) was a sin, or trying to somehow change their sexual desires and preference to be directed to opposite sex individuals. I'd also have difficulty working with a patient regarding the intricacies of any particular religion, in no small part because I don't profess to be an expert in that area. Help them figure out how to work through it on their own, though? Sure.

I think the reason that I'd want to be able to seek a real mental health professional. God bless them, but most people calling themselves pastoral counselors aren't really trained in anything. If I was facing a very serious conflict between what my physical attractions and my belief structure was, I would be in risk of a serious depression/anxiety period in my life. I wouldn't necessarily trust that risk to someone who simply "meant well" but didn't have the training to deal with serious depression.

I do have to say though, some of what people have called reparative therapy appears to be the mental health equivalent of medieval "bleeding" to cure the flu
 
Ok. So you want to see a MH "professional" that practices a therapy (reparative therapy) that independent, scientfic, peer reviewed research shows has poor outcomes and high risk of harm?! How is person doing suych a thing a MH "professional." Please explain that.

Does not "professional", by definition, require practice from a scientific evidence-base AND to minimize harm potential during treatment?
 
I think the reason that I'd want to be able to seek a real mental health professional. God bless them, but most people calling themselves pastoral counselors aren't really trained in anything. If I was facing a very serious conflict between what my physical attractions and my belief structure was, I would be in risk of a serious depression/anxiety period in my life. I wouldn't necessarily trust that risk to someone who simply "meant well" but didn't have the training to deal with serious depression.

I do have to say though, some of what people have called reparative therapy appears to be the mental health equivalent of medieval "bleeding" to cure the flu

I can certainly understand that, although there are definitely well-trained religious counselors. Additionally, there are probably psychologists who include religion/spirituality as a larger focus in their work.

And sure, a psychologist could help an individual working through the type of conflict you've mentioned. Although I don't know that any of them are going to (or at least should) help a patient somehow try not to have those desires. And yes, reparative therapy is a harmful treatment with no evidence base supporting its efficacy or utility. It's probably worse than someone offering re-birthing therapy.
 
I can certainly understand that, although there are definitely well-trained religious counselors. Additionally, there are probably psychologists who include religion/spirituality as a larger focus in their work.

And sure, a psychologist could help an individual working through the type of conflict you've mentioned. Although I don't know that any of them are going to (or at least should) help a patient somehow try not to have those desires. And yes, reparative therapy is a harmful treatment with no evidence base supporting its efficacy or utility. It's probably worse than someone offering re-birthing therapy.

I think those are fair points
 
The bottom line here is very simple, so lets not complicate it any further with libertarian nonsense. That not really a relevant factor here.

If a licensed MH professional would not attempt/refuse to change a heterosexual to homosexual citing the current scientific literture about sexual orientation/development/health, as well as risk of adverse outcomes and consequences, then obvioulsy, you cannot agree to do the reverse. It makes no scientific sense and is completely at odds with current understanding of the subject from both biologial and psychological science. So, if you do this, then by defintion, you are not practicing competently. If you are not practicing competently, then you are not really a "professional" who can (or should be) licesned to provide psycholgical services.
 
Lay off the hyperbole, I have been saying consenting adults seeking help. I'm not talking about locking children up

And for clarification, I don't necessarily think that a professional can make someone not have attraction to their gender. I certainly doubt a professional could stop me from being physically attracted to beautiful women. But if I was having trouble reconciling my religion with acting on those attractions, I would want to find someone who could help me with some coping mechanisms...handling feelings of guilt for attractions/not acting on desires that I found contrary to my beliefs etc...just like if I was a single adult straight christian male, I should be able to seek help to stay celibate until marriage if I am struggling with that.

(now drifting away from medical/political and into solely religious thoughts) I should also add for clarification that I don't think it is a sin for person to think their gender is attractive any more than I think it is a sin for someone to find the opposite gender attractive. I think the Bible is clear about lust and having sex outside of a religious marriage but I would place attraction as nothing more than a wiring/temptation issue, it is what we do with that attraction that places us in the realm of a sin.

Except that is what they do. Are you not familiar with the child kidnappings evangelical parents do to their gay children? They send them to conversion camps in 3rd world nations where they are abused to make them straight. What's a counselor going to do? He'll tell you that you're not gay, that you're simply wicked and basically make you hate yourself.

If you're having trouble reconciling your religion with your attractions, then find a new religion. And if that doesn't work, find a church that is accepting, because largely no matter what you do, you're still going to be attracted to what you like. Not having sex or participating is a whole different story and as others said, something you can ask a pastor help for. A trained psychologist is ethically going to tell you to be gay and that you should be healthy and happy ( Because p.s there's a huge correlation between risky and unhealthy practices with these reparative therapies or many other choices like hating who you are, ex. immigrants who don't like their parents culture are correlated with increased risky sex, etc.)

I believe Jesus said if you covet then you're already committing a sin. But he also said divorce is wrong and a whole bunch of things. But since we're not the Christian equivalent of a Shairah nation, we really don't need to ponder that interplay too much in our legal system. We need to ponder what actually works and is effective. *I forgot this is America, so this is only half true lol*
 
Ok. So you want to see a MH "professional" that practices a therapy (reparative therapy) that independent, scientfic, peer reviewed research shows has poor outcomes and high risk of harm?! How is person doing suych a thing a MH "professional." Please explain that.

Does not "professional", by definition, require practice from a scientific evidence-base AND to minimize harm potential during treatment?

People are rare to actually care about outcomes or anything of the sort. That's why people drowned suspected witches for 600 years.
 
People are rare to actually care about outcomes or anything of the sort. That's why people drowned suspected witches for 600 years.

Well, yea. Hence we have licensing boards to protect the public from unscientific assclowns disorting the scientific practice of psychology. Its not "illegal" to do it repartive therapy, and it shouldn't be. But you cant be a "psychologist" and do it.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Well, yea. Hence we have licensing boards to protect the public from unscientific assclowns disorting the scientific practice of psychology. Its not "illegal" to do it repartive therapy, and it shouldn't be. But you cant be a "psychologist" and do it.

Well, it should be illegal for it to be done to minors since it meets most definitions of child abuse. Minors already have high suicide rates comparatively, LBGTQ minors much higher still, we don't need to raise those rates further with harmful procedures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well, it should be illegal for it to be done to minors since it meets most definitions of child abuse. Minors already have high suicide rates comparatively, LBGTQ minors much higher still, we don't need to raise those rates further with harmful procedures.

People will let children die if it helps them sleep at night faithful to the existence of their god.
 
Yeah...it not being illegal doesn't sit well with me. When things are harmful to a population or a society, these things cannot have the chance to fester and become validated. As a gay man, I find it very offensive to suggest that my sexuality, my husband can all vanish with the simple therapy. The common theme here is, we are still looking at LGBT people as being a disease to cure via therapy. Ask yourself how comfortable you would feel if I offered you ex-straight therapy to help people become gay? Black therapy to help blacks be more "white." These both are offensive things to remotely suggest let alone be serious about.
 
Last edited:
I agree, as you can see from my posts. And I too posed the reverse question...and that if we wouldn't do that, then we can do this.

Nevertheless, lots of things offered to the public are harmful yet legal (for adults), and thats fine. But its wholey inconsistent with your ethical obligations and duties as "mental health professional," no doubt.
 
Yeah...it not being illegal doesn't sit well with me. When things are harmful to a population or a society, these things cannot have the chance to fester and become validated. As a gay man, I find it very offensive to suggest that my sexuality, my husband can all vanish with the simple therapy. The common theme here is, we are still looking at LGBT people as being a disease to cure via therapy. Ask yourself how comfortable you would feel if I offered you ex-straight therapy to help people become gay? Black therapy to help blacks be more "white." These both are offensive things to remotely suggest let alone be serious about.

There's a children's book now that tells kids that it's better to tell gay families with kids to break up and be straight because homosex is bad.
 
There's a children's book now that tells kids that it's better to tell gay families with kids to break up and be straight because homosex is bad.

It's only bad if you don't know what you're doing.
 
Some of what sb is saying gets at what /used to be/ a pretty good ethical question; if religion and sexuality conflict, who are we to say that sexuality is more important? i.e., if a gay man says, "I want to get married and have kids and stay a part of my religion" then really it doesn't seem reasonable to try to talk him out of that. Millions of gay people have lived and died without ever having kissed a member of the same sex, so if he doesn't want to change his sexual orientation but does want to alter his behaviors, that's complicated.

But, it's really moot now, here, isn't it? 50 years ago being gay did mean, by and large, not having a family by any traditional means and probably being ostracized by your faith community. Is that really so true now? Every religion has LGBT-affirming groups, and gay people can have families (in some states it might be legally complex or expensive, but there are ways around anti-LGBT adoption laws). So, it seems irrational to say that a therapist should just go along with a LGB person coming in and saying "my faith and sexuality are completely incompatible." I'm sure the patient FEELS that way a lot of the time, and being an LGBT person of faith can be a complicated road, but really it's completely possible to reconcile those aspects of yourself. As others have said, it sure seems to me that sb is being selective in what he/she is considering reasonable to apply these supposed libertarian principles to.
 
I get the religion vs. sexuality conflict, although I would argue it's a civil rights conflict. My argument is that the APA is well within their rights to take away licensure from individuals performing this procedure. There is no supporting literature to its benefit and a good deal of literature pointing to the harm that is done by such procedures. We do not condone treatments that we know cause long-term harm in a significant number of people.
 
I get the religion vs. sexuality conflict, although I would argue it's a civil rights conflict. My argument is that the APA is well within their rights to take away licensure from individuals performing this procedure. There is no supporting literature to its benefit and a good deal of literature pointing to the harm that is done by such procedures. We do not condone treatments that we know cause long-term harm in a significant number of people.


I agree, a licensing board should revoke the licenses of someone like that. Just like a medical board should revoke the license of an aids denialist or of someone who tells his patients to buy his alternative medicine for their cancer and uses their suffering to make a buck.

I consider reparative therapy just that, people trying to offer a fake cure to someone who is seriously in pain over accepting themselves.
 
Some of what sb is saying gets at what /used to be/ a pretty good ethical question; if religion and sexuality conflict, who are we to say that sexuality is more important? i.e., if a gay man says, "I want to get married and have kids and stay a part of my religion" then really it doesn't seem reasonable to try to talk him out of that. Millions of gay people have lived and died without ever having kissed a member of the same sex, so if he doesn't want to change his sexual orientation but does want to alter his behaviors, that's complicated.

But, it's really moot now, here, isn't it? 50 years ago being gay did mean, by and large, not having a family by any traditional means and probably being ostracized by your faith community. Is that really so true now? Every religion has LGBT-affirming groups, and gay people can have families (in some states it might be legally complex or expensive, but there are ways around anti-LGBT adoption laws). So, it seems irrational to say that a therapist should just go along with a LGB person coming in and saying "my faith and sexuality are completely incompatible." I'm sure the patient FEELS that way a lot of the time, and being an LGBT person of faith can be a complicated road, but really it's completely possible to reconcile those aspects of yourself. As others have said, it sure seems to me that sb is being selective in what he/she is considering reasonable to apply these supposed libertarian principles to.

It's a good question, and I agree with your take on it as stated here. This is one of those areas where the values of the therapist may be a bit more visible. That is, in my case, because I don't view being gay as "wrong," I would not be able to help a patient alter their behavior in a way that would be driven by this view (e.g., trying to "act less gay"). Then again, there's also research backing up the idea that trying to force this shift in sexual orientation (ala reparative therapy) can be harmful. To liken it to one of erg's examples, it'd be like if I had a black patient come in and say that they'd found a religion that told them being black is wrong, and this coincides with the views of some of their friends and family, so they now want to not be black/"act less black."
 
Then again, there's also research backing up the idea that trying to force this shift in sexual orientation (ala reparative therapy) can be harmful. To liken it to one of erg's examples, it'd be like if I had a black patient come in and say that they'd found a religion that told them being black is wrong, and this coincides with the views of some of their friends and family, so they now want to not be black/"act less black."

The point of the dilemma though, is that what if the patient is NOT trying to alter sexual orientation? What if the request is just to adjust to marrying a person of the other sex, being ok with that, and functioning sexually enough to have children without any hope or desire to eliminate or change the same-sex attractions?

But, again, I'd say even that is moot now, here, as LGB people can get married and adopt kids (more or less easily depending on where you live...) and thinking that it's not is maybe more internalized homophobia than it is a well-thought-out desire.
 
The point of the dilemma though, is that what if the patient is NOT trying to alter sexual orientation? What if the request is just to adjust to marrying a person of the other sex, being ok with that, and functioning sexually enough to have children without any hope or desire to eliminate or change the same-sex attractions?

But, again, I'd say even that is moot now, here, as LGB people can get married and adopt kids (more or less easily depending on where you live...) and thinking that it's not is maybe more internalized homophobia than it is a well-thought-out desire.


Isn't it unethical to tell a patient to bring harm to another member of their life? I mean essentially you're blocking their partner from having a realized life of love and sex.
 
Isn't it unethical to tell a patient to bring harm to another member of their life? I mean essentially you're blocking their partner from having a realized life of love and sex.

I'm assuming it's a mutual agreement of which everyone involved is aware (i.e., both parties are aware the one person is gay/lesbian). Good ethical dilemmas don't have backdoors. ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well, people do get this done. Yes, the discussion remains important on all fronts.

I know a number of people who were on growth hormones as children because they would have been small (sub 5' small, not 2' tall)
 
I'm assuming it's a mutual agreement of which everyone involved is aware (i.e., both parties are aware the one person is gay/lesbian). Good ethical dilemmas don't have backdoors. ;-)

I don't think many women want to be in a relationship with a guy who either needs to think about guys while he's doing her.

It reminds me of this gay flick called "you should meet my son". Which is where a gay son decides to start dating an ex lesbian and they both end up great friends and not together anymore because his mother comes to terms with him being gay and wants him to be happy.
 
I know a number of people who were on growth hormones as children because they would have been small (sub 5' small, not 2' tall)

That's usually became they have disorders like turners where if they are not given gf their guts either won't function or will protrude out of them.

Even then I think people should learn to be comfortable with their bodies and less about what others care.
 
That's usually became they have disorders like turners where if they are not given gf their guts either won't function or will protrude out of them.

Even then I think people should learn to be comfortable with their bodies and less about what others care.

that wasn't the case with my friends, but I totally agree with your second sentiment
 
Tricky situations indeed: I am a very progressive person, LGBT civil rights advocate, so it really saddens me to have these formalities involved. Maybe I don't possess the clinical aptitude yet to discern these situations, I know it would be very very difficult for me to do so if/when I do learn. I am a pretty outspoken person when it comes to topics on LGBT rights or any minority civil rights in general. I often wonder if I chose the right profession to get into, maybe I should have went off to social work to do social advocacy work. I like to think I am more than just a gay guy :p.
 
that wasn't the case with my friends, but I totally agree with your second sentiment

And I think that we should care more about what is important. Whether a guy is good and just, as opposed to what they are.
 
Tricky situations indeed: I am a very progressive person, LGBT civil rights advocate, so it really saddens me to have these formalities involved. Maybe I don't possess the clinical aptitude yet to discern these situations, I know it would be very very difficult for me to do so if/when I do learn. I am a pretty outspoken person when it comes to topics on LGBT rights or any minority civil rights in general. I often wonder if I chose the right profession to get into, maybe I should have went off to social work to do social advocacy work. I like to think I am more than just a gay guy :p.

We will always be nothing more than gay guys..


- an adaptation of Freud's comment: to them we will always just be Jews.
 
I don't think many women want to be in a relationship with a guy who either needs to think about guys while he's doing her.


Bozett, F. W. (1982), HETEROGENOUS COUPLES IN HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES: GAY MEN AND STRAIGHT WOMEN. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 8: 81–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1982.tb01424.x

Coleman, E. (1982). Bisexual and Gay Men in Heterosexual Marriage. Journal of Homosexuality, 7, 93-103.

Among many more. Though many are older (in accord with that I said that this is mostly an issue that has passed as same-sex marriage and adoption are more possible).


The concept is not passed, though. Bisexual persons who want monogamous relationships have to deal with similar issues too.
 
Bozett, F. W. (1982), HETEROGENOUS COUPLES IN HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES: GAY MEN AND STRAIGHT WOMEN. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 8: 81–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1982.tb01424.x

Coleman, E. (1982). Bisexual and Gay Men in Heterosexual Marriage. Journal of Homosexuality, 7, 93-103.

Among many more. Though many are older (in accord with that I said that this is mostly an issue that has passed as same-sex marriage and adoption are more possible).


The concept is not passed, though. Bisexual persons who want monogamous relationships have to deal with similar issues too.

Lit on sexuality from the 80s may be as valid as aids research 10 years before it was diagnosed. Pretty much useless.

But anywho, bisexuality complicates things and very few bisexuals are having extramaritals because they feel unsatisifed.
 
Lit on sexuality from the 80s may be as valid as aids research 10 years before it was diagnosed. Pretty much useless.

You should read complete posts and threads rather than reading parts and assuming/making up the rest.

My original post on this was that serious ethical dilemmas occurred decades ago related to LGB persons who desired families and children, and involvement in their faith groups, and saw this as incompatible with pursing the relationships that they actually wanted. But, as I stated, those factors are probably now largely moot as same-sex marriage and adoption (or other options for reproducing) are now much more viable and LGBT-affirming faith groups exist, and the suggestion that a therapist would need to just go along with the patient's desire (to change sexual orientation or resign themselves to an unsatisfying life) is not reasonable.

But anywho, bisexuality complicates things and very few bisexuals are having extramaritals because they feel unsatisifed.

Again, not anywhere near what I said. Bisexual persons who desire monogamous relationships do have to navigate the related area of being happy and satisfied while not having everything that might enjoy sexually.
 
You should read complete posts and threads rather than reading parts and assuming/making up the rest.

My original post on this was that serious ethical dilemmas occurred decades ago related to LGB persons who desired families and children, and involvement in their faith groups, and saw this as incompatible with pursing the relationships that they actually wanted. But, as I stated, those factors are probably now largely moot as same-sex marriage and adoption (or other options for reproducing) are now much more viable and LGBT-affirming faith groups exist, and the suggestion that a therapist would need to just go along with the patient's desire (to change sexual orientation or resign themselves to an unsatisfying life) is not reasonable.



Again, not anywhere near what I said. Bisexual persons who desire monogamous relationships do have to navigate the related area of being happy and satisfied while not having everything that might enjoy sexually.


Alright I kinda jumped the gun there.
 
Again, not anywhere near what I said. Bisexual persons who desire monogamous relationships do have to navigate the related area of being happy and satisfied while not having everything that might enjoy sexually.

I feel like I'm misreading you, because we typically tend to agree on things. I identify as bi, and to me this reads too close to a lot of (honestly offensive) myths I've heard about bisexuality and monogamy. You're right that being bi and monogamous means not "having everything that [you] might enjoy sexually". But so does being straight and monogamous, or gay and monogamous... Because if you're in a relationship with a real human person who you love and respect, you're not going to get everything you might enjoy sexually all of the time. For couples who are particularly sexually compatible, both partners will get a lot of what they want a lot of the time... But it's not always going to happen, and generally my sense (whether you're gay, bi, or straight) is that you find things you do enjoy with the person you're committed to, such that "not having everything you might enjoy sexually" becomes pretty meaningless.

And hey, to be honest, even being non-monogamous often means have to deal with not having everything you might enjoy sexually, for various reasons that come with being human. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I feel like I'm misreading you, because we typically tend to agree on things. I identify as bi, and to me this reads too close to a lot of (honestly offensive) myths I've heard about bisexuality and monogamy. You're right that being bi and monogamous means not "having everything that [you] might enjoy sexually". But so does being straight and monogamous, or gay and monogamous... Because if you're in a relationship with a real human person who you love and respect, you're not going to get everything you might enjoy sexually all of the time. For couples who are particularly sexually compatible, both partners will get a lot of what they want a lot of the time... But it's always going to happen, and generally my sense (whether you're gay, bi, or straight) is that you find things you do enjoy with the person you're committed to, such that "not having everything you might enjoy sexually" becomes pretty meaningless.

And hey, to be honest, even being non-monogamous often means have to deal with not having everything you might enjoy sexually, for various reasons that come with being human. :)

I agree, this is how my marriage works. Both of us are focused on developing our careers together. Our "saying" is, whatever we do, we do it together, has worked great for 5 years and is wonderful.
 
I feel like I'm misreading you, because we typically tend to agree on things. I identify as bi, and to me this reads too close to a lot of (honestly offensive) myths I've heard about bisexuality and monogamy. You're right that being bi and monogamous means not "having everything that [you] might enjoy sexually". But so does being straight and monogamous, or gay and monogamous... Because if you're in a relationship with a real human person who you love and respect, you're not going to get everything you might enjoy sexually all of the time. For couples who are particularly sexually compatible, both partners will get a lot of what they want a lot of the time... But it's always going to happen, and generally my sense (whether you're gay, bi, or straight) is that you find things you do enjoy with the person you're committed to, such that "not having everything you might enjoy sexually" becomes pretty meaningless.

And hey, to be honest, even being non-monogamous often means have to deal with not having everything you might enjoy sexually, for various reasons that come with being human. :)

That's personally what I've read as well. I feel like it implies that my boyfriend is unfulfilled because I'm a dude.
 
I feel like I'm misreading you, because we typically tend to agree on things. I identify as bi, and to me this reads too close to a lot of (honestly offensive) myths I've heard about bisexuality and monogamy. You're right that being bi and monogamous means not "having everything that [you] might enjoy sexually". But so does being straight and monogamous, or gay and monogamous... Because if you're in a relationship with a real human person who you love and respect, you're not going to get everything you might enjoy sexually all of the time. For couples who are particularly sexually compatible, both partners will get a lot of what they want a lot of the time... But it's always going to happen, and generally my sense (whether you're gay, bi, or straight) is that you find things you do enjoy with the person you're committed to, such that "not having everything you might enjoy sexually" becomes pretty meaningless.

And hey, to be honest, even being non-monogamous often means have to deal with not having everything you might enjoy sexually, for various reasons that come with being human. :)

I just meant a specific case of not having everything you want/desire sexually, germane to this topic, that could be discussed in therapy. Yes, this is something everyone deals with for sure, but I was trying to get at how it can be loaded (as the discussion about LG and reparative therapy is loaded).

Edit: Oh, yeah, I see that I worded my point poorly above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Bozett, F. W. (1982), HETEROGENOUS COUPLES IN HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES: GAY MEN AND STRAIGHT WOMEN. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 8: 81–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1982.tb01424.x

Coleman, E. (1982). Bisexual and Gay Men in Heterosexual Marriage. Journal of Homosexuality, 7, 93-103.

Among many more. Though many are older (in accord with that I said that this is mostly an issue that has passed as same-sex marriage and adoption are more possible).


The concept is not passed, though. Bisexual persons who want monogamous relationships have to deal with similar issues too.

Actually, I just saw a recruitment notice for a study on "mixed orientation" marriages the other day, so there is some research still being conducted on this. although I agree that it's probably less common than it was in prior decades.
 
Obviously the proposal is just a platitude for the purpose of maintaining the good ol' boys' status quo within the conservative party. It mentions nothing about attempting to overstep federal, ethical, or even state guidelines for licensing and existing licensed professionals. I don't know Texas state law, and wouldn't be surprised if it allows licensing for those who practice 'reparative therapy,' but I also doubt this was meant to circumvent or combat federal or ethical rules. It seems fairly clear to me to be a way of allowing the people who don't advertise that they aren't licensed and additionally call themselves counselors/therapists/psychologists to engage in this behavior when an adult of free will asks them to do so, and/or proactively promote their 'treatment.'

Of course, this is all assuming that there is equal advertising and public awareness of the actual results of and ethical/licensing standards with respect to such practices. Maybe there is, but all of it is soaked in political pissing matches that detract from the actual points of each side. So, this platitude seems to be paradoxically both understandably defensive of individual rights, but in a context where that isn't so much a defensive move as it is an attempt to get people with different opinions to shut up.

In any event, though I morally, personally, and professionally in NO way support this point of view, platform, and/or all of what it implies about human existence, from a political and logical standpoint, I have no problem with the proposed state platform. As sb247 has emphasized, even if you may not agree with it, people should be allowed the free will to make whatever decisions they want to make with respect to both receiving and administering such 'treatment.' Likewise, I have the right to find it abhorrent and actively try and deter people away from it.

But that free will does not trump everything else on earth. If you also want to make the decision to be a licensed professional (something to which you are not entitled solely because you have jumped through the right hoops and/or because you agree with the ethics of the field), you're going to have to accept that your desire to be a licensed psychological professional stomps out some of your other free will, if you want to promote reparative crap. In other words, your desire to be and/or remain a licensed professional and be regarded as such necessarily translates to you needing to make the decision to fulfill the obligations presented by the position--this includes upholding the ethics of the field. Even if you think gay people are disgusting personally and wish reparative therapy was mandated, you are professionally obligated (by your decision to become a psychologist) to actively advise against reparative therapy in order to keep people out of harm's way. Any failure to do so (including maintaining a neutral advisory stance) is a failure to do your job, end of story. I don't like having to tell people to pray if they're of faith and that would be a normal practice for them, because I believe it to be promoting false hope and perpetrating a delusion, but it doesn't matter what I think--if someone tells me that prayer is something that has helped them time and again, I have to respect that.

Think of it as similar to being a mandated reporter--even if you were beaten bloody as a child and have no personal problem with hitting your kids, not only do you still have to report any degree of child abuse, you should be held responsible for any and every sequelae of your failure to report.

Basically: often in life, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Simple as that.
 
This is completely unrelated to your post but: Dale Gribble! I love Dale :)

"You know, we all hear a lot about colleges, but have any of you ever actually *seen* one?"
 
I was torn between Dale and Dr. Penguin, as I love them both equally, but then saw your avatar and wanted to let you have that glory. :)

Apropos, "What kind of lefty hootenanny is this?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Wow! Very heated debate. Don't know how I missed getting in on it. For me, I resolve a lot of these ethical dilemmas by focusing on what the patient wants. If a patient was to come with me and want reparative therapy, I would help him or her explore their reasoning behind that just like any other issue. If it was a serious thought on their part, I would explain that it would be harmful and not effective so we wouldn't be able to work on that. I have worked with a variety of LGBT patients and surprisingly enough (facetiously said), they have the same struggles as the rest of my patients with a couple of issues that are the result of their own experiences as a minority. I have my own political beliefs and support same-sex marriage, but it is not for me to force that onto my patients. My focus is on helping them find their own stance and reconciling their own sexuality and political beliefs and spiritual beliefs with as little bias or influence as I can.
 
I was torn between Dale and Dr. Penguin, as I love them both equally, but then saw your avatar and wanted to let you have that glory. :)

Apropos, "What kind of lefty hootenanny is this?"
Pocket sand! Though the real Dale Gribble would never use his name online, Rusty Shuckleford! ;)

Okay, back on topic now....
 
Top