Law to protect people from anti-gay therapy

[Pragma]

Oh my. I didn't say that you said "should." I meant, "Why might pursuing sexual orientation change efforts be desirable? Given the available evidence regarding lack of efficacy and for harm (not to mention how offensive--yes, I said it--the goal of turning gay folks into straight folks is), why should anyone develop new methods for doing so?"

And I didn't edit your words, or I would have inserted ellipses, as I have above. You linked the ideas of market and new research together through their immediate proximity.

I think if someone who is gay wants to seek an intervention, that is their choice. remember, not everyone agrees about choice vs. biology, or the legal approach of the mainstream queer movement.

Generally speaking, I am NOT for laws governing what people choose to do about social issues. This one is different to me, because I agree with the fact that harm is possible and that minors don't have a choice.

With regard to research, as Psychadelic alludes to up there - many interventions do cause harm (and there is evidence to suggest that). We rarely (if ever?) can prove it does 100% of the time - and as offensive as conversion therapy may sound, I doubt we can prove it is 100% harmful for everyone. It is a risk beneft ratio.

My entire point of even mentioning a different approach is because there is already an image out there of religious conservatives "praying the gay away" and shaming and such. I am sure that someone out there who advocates that sexual orientation is a choice could come up with a more empowerment-oriented intervention that might be seen as less offensive and harmful. Not saying I even agree with that - but why restrict exploration? You can't assume the approach is going to be the same, which is why I personally am open to listening to ideas. Then those ideas should go to an IRB before they are tested, if at all.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

This thread makes me think of an episode of the show "Taboo" that I saw. On that show one week there was a woman who felt that she was meant to be an amputee even though she had two healthy legs. She wanted one of her healthy legs removed so she could fulfill her dream of being an amputee. Guess what? Doctors thought it was unethical and wouldn’t do it. Could they have discussed ways to do it in the most effective manner? Would this have made it ethical?

I think there are striking similarities here.

Dr. E

 

[wigflip]

I think if someone who is gay wants to seek an intervention, that is their choice. remember, not everyone agrees about choice vs. biology, or the legal approach of the mainstream queer movement.

Do you mean the "mainstream gay and lesbian movement"? There are significant theoretical and strategic divisions between mainstream LGB movements/folks and queer-identified movements/folks. "Mainstream queer" is kind of an oxymoron. These are the same folks who are producing a critique of gay marriage as "assimilationist." By definition they are not mainstream.

My entire point of even mentioning a different approach is because there is already an image out there of religious conservatives "praying the gay away" and shaming and such. I am sure that someone out there who advocates that sexual orientation is a choice could come up with a more empowerment-oriented intervention that might be seen as less offensive and harmful. Not saying I even agree with that - but why restrict exploration? You can't assume the approach is going to be the same, which is why I personally am open to listening to ideas. Then those ideas should go to an IRB before they are tested, if at all.

But this idea of "someone" is naive and ungrounded. There are several major definable groups of folks who associate "sexual orientation" with some element of choice:

1. Academics, activists, and community members who identify as "queer" or queer allies, often informed by queer theory and contemporary gender theories

2. Academics, activists, and community members who identify same-sex sexuality and attraction as a) a sin and/or b) a pathology

Let's assume as given that a new "intervention" in this area would be pioneered by academic psychologists. Given that the topic is, as another member mentioned, highly politicized, who do you think is going to be willing to let their academic careers be defined by conducting research that will facilitate a break with the very population they are purporting to help? Not group #1. Even if we imagine, for a second, that a researcher (allegedly) devoid of political proclivities seeks to gamble their career on pursuing such an endeavor, what types of groups would fund such a study? Perhaps the same folks who backed Regenerus's "gay parenting" study?:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...y-study-scandal/legal-issues/2012/08/29/47670

 

[crim84]

I think if someone who is gay wants to seek an intervention, that is their choice. remember, not everyone agrees about choice vs. biology, or the legal approach of the mainstream queer movement.

Generally speaking, I am NOT for laws governing what people choose to do about social issues. This one is different to me, because I agree with the fact that harm is possible and that minors don't have a choice.

With regard to research, as Psychadelic alludes to up there - many interventions do cause harm (and there is evidence to suggest that). We rarely (if ever?) can prove it does 100% of the time - and as offensive as conversion therapy may sound, I doubt we can prove it is 100% harmful for everyone. It is a risk beneft ratio.

My entire point of even mentioning a different approach is because there is already an image out there of religious conservatives "praying the gay away" and shaming and such. I am sure that someone out there who advocates that sexual orientation is a choice could come up with a more empowerment-oriented intervention that might be seen as less offensive and harmful. Not saying I even agree with that - but why restrict exploration? You can't assume the approach is going to be the same, which is why I personally am open to listening to ideas. Then those ideas should go to an IRB before they are tested, if at all.

This is a good point. Any patient would be able to explore changing their sexuality with a therapist even if this law passed. But, they would not be able to seek "treatment" for homosexuality from a psychologist.

 

[Pragma]

Do you mean the "mainstream gay and lesbian movement"? There are significant theoretical and strategic divisions between mainstream LGB movements/folks and queer-identified movements/folks. "Mainstream queer" is kind of an oxymoron. These are the same folks who are producing a critique of gay marriage as "assimilationist." By definition they are not mainstream.



But this idea of "someone" is naive and ungrounded. There are several major definable groups of folks who associate "sexual orientation" with some element of choice:

1. Academics, activists, and community members who identify as "queer" or queer allies, often informed by queer theory and contemporary gender theories

2. Academics, activists, and community members who identify same-sex sexuality and attraction as a) a sin and/or b) a pathology

Let's assume as given that a new "intervention" in this area would be pioneered by academic psychologists. Given that the topic is, as another member mentioned, highly politicized, who do you think is going to be willing to let their academic careers be defined by conducting research that will facilitate a break with the very population they are purporting to help? Not group #1. Even if we imagine, for a second, that a researcher (allegedly) devoid of political proclivities seeks to gamble their career on pursuing such an endeavor, what types of groups would fund such a study? Perhaps the same folks who backed Regenerus's "gay parenting" study?:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...y-study-scandal/legal-issues/2012/08/29/47670

Wow, my thoughts may be naive, but it has more to do with not entirely determining what can and cannot be researched than the likely groups with vested interest in the topic. I'd agree that someone would be taking significant risk to conduct such a study. But I am not saying they shouldn't be able to do it. That's about where my thought process ended on the matter.

I'm personally of the mind that there is a lot that we don't know about sexuality (or a lot that at least I don't know, for starters). People who are questioning already seek out information and experiences. Sometimes this involves seeing therapists to discuss gender identity, etc. One thing I wonder about is how those therapists are trained when someone is truly experiencing ambivalence about their identity. Is there an urge to "push" them in a particular direction? I would refer such clients due to my lack of expertise.

You seem more eager to debate this than I am. I just am not generally of the mind to place government-imposed limits on highly political issues. In this case, I support this law. But I guess that isn't going far enough for some people.

 

[futureapppsy2]

This is a good point. Any patient would be able to explore changing their sexuality with a therapist even if this law passed. But, they would not be able to seek "treatment" for homosexuality from a psychologist.

Actually, under the proposed law, wouldn't adults be able to seek the therapy, just not children?

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Well, what about sexual reassignment surgery, then?!

 

[Pragma]

Actually, under the proposed law, wouldn't adults be able to seek the therapy, just not children?

That is my understanding.

And to be clear, we are talking about therapy intended to convert someone who is gay into a heterosexual.

But as I mentioned in my last post, identity exploration that occurs in the context of more mainstream therapy is also an interesting area. I'd be curious to hear about what therapists that engage in these practices do and what the scope of their therapeutic interactions are.

 

[wigflip]

Of possible interest to people on this thread:

For folks interested in how science, research funding, politics, and sexual minority community members' advocacy can intersect, this documentary will soon be released.
http://surviveaplague.com/trailer

I actually just came back to post the above, but since I'm here...

I'm personally of the mind that there is a lot that we don't know about sexuality (or a lot that at least I don't know, for starters). People who are questioning already seek out information and experiences. Sometimes this involves seeing therapists to discuss gender identity, etc. One thing I wonder about is how those therapists are trained when someone is truly experiencing ambivalence about their identity. Is there an urge to "push" them in a particular direction? I would refer such clients due to my lack of expertise.

In this context you appear to mean "sexual identity"--is that what you meant? The ways in which sexual identity and gender identity are intertwined seems to be outside the scope of the discussion at the time of your post.

You seem more eager to debate this than I am.

 

[Pragma]

Of possible interest to people on this thread:

For folks interested in how science, research funding, politics, and sexual minority community members' advocacy can intersect, this documentary will soon be released.
http://surviveaplague.com/trailer

I actually just came back to post the above, but since I'm here...



In this context you appear to mean "sexual identity"--is that what you meant? The ways in which sexual identity and gender identity are intertwined seems to be outside the scope of the discussion at the time of your post.

You seem more eager to debate this than I am.

Yeah my bad. My cognitive schema must lump all things sexuality and gender related in one restricted area of my brain. Probably next to the "wank bank" as you called it long ago.

 

[crim84]

Actually, under the proposed law, wouldn't adults be able to seek the therapy, just not children?

Oops, you're absolutely right. The law only applies for minors under the age of 18. Sorry about that.

 

[Iwillheal]

I disagree with Doctor Eliza and Psycscientist who draw parallels between therapies than are intended to influence sexual orientation, and cancer or becoming an amputee. I'm actually shocked that anybody would make such ridiculous comparisons. Reminds me of Homer Simpsons ("Son, a woman is like a beer. They smell good, they look good, you'd step over your own mother just to get one! But you can't stop at one. You wanna drink another woman!")

Given the vast differences between the subjects, I can only see it as dumbed down attempt to get an emotional point across, as if others discussing the matter are so unable to grasp the logic to which they have access to but are unable to get across. It's fine to use these kinds of comparisons to, say, help a patient gain better insight into some irrational behavior I suppose. Though even then I rather think of more effective ways to get my point across. Which reminds me of an episode of Frasier:

Denise, when you have a tumor, what do you do? Do you sit it down and say, "Hey, tumor, let's get along, O.K.?" No, you take a knife and cut it out! Well, Denise, your mother is a tumor. My heart bleeds for you, because I have been there, and I know how hard it is to look at your own mother's face and say, "Bye-bye, you toxic harpy! You are not hurting me again!" But that is what you have to do.

 

[wigflip]

Well, iwillheal, this looks like a ripe area of investigation for your dissertation. Perhaps The Witherspoon Institute still has a few dollars to spare for research funding?

 

[wigflip]

If you had read my response, you would see that I was not talking specifically about therapies for sexual orientation (although that certainly falls under the category of "potentially harmful treatment"). I was saying that, as scientists, we should have a firm grasp of the science of psychological treatment and be able to suggest and implement the most effective treatments for our clients. I don't think we should ever offer harmful treatments, even if a client wants it. I also think that offering an ineffective treatment over something with a greater likelihood of helping the client just because the client prefers it is something we should avoid. I don't see how it's any different than any other healthcare professional refusing to deliver a harmful or pseudoscientific treatment.

Psyscientist:
I'm sorry, but I still can't understand what you're attempting to convey here. I think you would be much clearer if you included several quotations from primetime television.

For folks who are still interested in the CA bill, this will give you an idea of the rhetoric deployed by its opponents:

"Save California: Bill Limiting Ex-Gay Therapy is 'Locking Children into Homosexual Bondage'"
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...y-is-locking-children-into-homosexual-bondage

 

[Iwillheal]

If you had read my response, you would see that I was not talking specifically about therapies for sexual orientation (although that certainly falls under the category of "potentially harmful treatment&quot. I was saying that, as scientists, we should have a firm grasp of the science of psychological treatment and be able to suggest and implement the most effective treatments for our clients. I don't think we should ever offer harmful treatments, even if a client wants it. I also think that offering an ineffective treatment over something with a greater likelihood of helping the client just because the client prefers it is something we should avoid. I don't see how it's any different than any other healthcare professional refusing to deliver a harmful or pseudoscientific treatment.

Okay, I agree with this.

Wig, I am not who you think I am. But here's another quote from the very very very popular primetime television called Wigflip & Iwillheal:

Iwillheal: Wig, there is no...
Wigflip: Objection. The familiar cutening of my name implies we like each other.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Everyone: Please try to stay on topic and avoid personal, ad hominem remarks. Thanks.

 

[Iwillheal]

Isn't that what psychologists are trained to do? Familiarize themselves with the empirical literature and implement EBTs? And avoid doing harm?

I see what you're saying but when I said that I don't want to decide what's best for the client, what I meant to say is I want to provide the patient with various options and solutions and have the patient decide what they want to do. Obviously we do take some options off the table. Sometimes because they're not "functional" and sometimes because they are "harmful." And these two words in the quotation marks, they are the Achilles heel of psychotherapy. Pretty much every controversy in psychotherapy references these two words.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I disagree with Doctor Eliza and Psycscientist who draw parallels between therapies than are intended to influence sexual orientation, and cancer or becoming an amputee. I'm actually shocked that anybody would make such ridiculous comparisons. Reminds me of Homer Simpsons ("Son, a woman is like a beer. They smell good, they look good, you'd step over your own mother just to get one! But you can't stop at one. You wanna drink another woman!")

Given the vast differences between the subjects, I can only see it as dumbed down attempt to get an emotional point across, as if others discussing the matter are so unable to grasp the logic to which they have access to but are unable to get across. It's fine to use these kinds of comparisons to, say, help a patient gain better insight into some irrational behavior I suppose. Though even then I rather think of more effective ways to get my point across.do.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I stand by my comparison. It was not intended to be an exaggeration.

Dr. E

 

[crim84]

I disagree with Doctor Eliza and Psycscientist who draw parallels between therapies than are intended to influence sexual orientation, and cancer or becoming an amputee. I'm actually shocked that anybody would make such ridiculous comparisons. Reminds me of Homer Simpsons ("Son, a woman is like a beer. They smell good, they look good, you'd step over your own mother just to get one! But you can't stop at one. You wanna drink another woman!")

Given the vast differences between the subjects, I can only see it as dumbed down attempt to get an emotional point across, as if others discussing the matter are so unable to grasp the logic to which they have access to but are unable to get across. It's fine to use these kinds of comparisons to, say, help a patient gain better insight into some irrational behavior I suppose. Though even then I rather think of more effective ways to get my point across. Which reminds me of an episode of Frasier:

Denise, when you have a tumor, what do you do? Do you sit it down and say, "Hey, tumor, let's get along, O.K.?" No, you take a knife and cut it out! Well, Denise, your mother is a tumor. My heart bleeds for you, because I have been there, and I know how hard it is to look at your own mother's face and say, "Bye-bye, you toxic harpy! You are not hurting me again!" But that is what you have to do.

I think Eliza's analogy is a good one. The main point being that clinicians have to make decisions in the best interest of the patient based on empirical evidence, no matter what the patient wants. A healthy person who wants to have their leg amputated by a doctor has no right to such a procedure because the health risk is high and the benefit is small (or absent). For a psychologist, treating a gay person for sexual deviance has mental health risk and no empirically supported benefit to make the risk worth taking.

 

[cara susanna]

But then what about other therapies that are known to cause harm? Should we outlaw them, too?

 

[Pragma]

I think Eliza's analogy is a good one. The main point being that clinicians have to make decisions in the best interest of the patient based on empirical evidence, no matter what the patient wants. A healthy person who wants to have their leg amputated by a doctor has no right to such a procedure because the health risk is high and the benefit is small (or absent). For a psychologist, treating a gay person for sexual deviance has mental health risk and no empirically supported benefit to make the risk worth taking.

Well while I do agree with the essence of Dr. E's analogy, I do find it problematic. I mean, we are talking about someone's sexual orientation here - not a physical limb.

Experts still disagree about the nature of sexual preferences. Even available evidence for the "born this way" argument is not always consistent (e.g., genes, prenatal hormones/younger brother phenomenon). I think most people at least agree that sexual attraction falls on a continuum. Some people's sexual preferences change during their lifetime. Some people are bisexual. While it is quite possible that there is an underlying biological explanation for all of this - it is such a multivariate identity at this point to really be conclusive. Personally, I don't see how saying that sexual orientation is partially determined by biology and partially determined by environment/experience and preferences is really problematic. I see it as empowering and elegant.

So while I certainly am opposed to coercion into a potentially harmful treatment to change someone from gay to "acceptably hetero," I find it interesting that folks are so highly politicized about the issue that they don't seem to see how these views might be somewhat hypocritical. In Dr. E's analogy, comparing helping someone towards heterosexuality to chopping a leg off is a bit harsh. Perhaps there are some people out there that really are questioning or somewhere in the middle of a continuum. Perhaps for some people, a transition to a heterosexual lifestyle might be something they want. Even if that is a drastic minority of cases, it is farbeit from me to decide about someone else's sexuality. I would think the gay community would be sensitive to that idea and support people's choice about what they do and don't choose to do.

So the fact that these types of therapies have so far been likely to be harmful is one good argument against allowing these therapies to happen. But I think we need to separate that from the debate about etiology and the politics. I've witnessed a tendency to value homosexual over heterosexual, which I think is a natural part of Pride and recovering from so many years of oppression. But it shouldn't skew how people treat folks who are truly questioning.

What alternatives would people suggest for folks that are feeling some identity confusion with regard to their sexuality? Okay, so if this deliberate therapy is not recommended, what is? I think in the context of Dr. E's example, there is not room for this type of a question. Some physicians might worry about the ethics of that patient going home and cutting their leg off themself and hurting themselves even more. I also think we need to step away from the thinking that, in every case, shifting sexual preferences in a bad thing (like cutting your leg off would usually be). If someone has been living a gay lifestyle and is questioning themselves (and perhaps considering trying a heterosexual relationship), what level of support is available for that type of experimenting? Who should provide support if that experimenting causes emotional pain or confusion?

These are just my questions and are why I don't like the rigid thinking. It just stinks of politics interfering with the reality that sexuality is complicated and (quite likely) not the same for everyone.

I also agree with cara about the slippery slope issue. Can we decide on an absolute threshold of potential harm (maybe as an odds ratio) that needs to exist in order to outlaw a therapy?

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I think the idea of exploring and questioning cannot be lumped in with the idea of actively trying to change what someone knows to be true.

A person who is bisexual or homosexual and only wants to live a heterosexual lifestyle is welcome to do so regardless of what anyone else would like to tell them to do. The issue comes in when we start examining the role of psychologists in carrying out this decision. It is not the place of psychologists to provide services in this arena. If someone feels that it is unacceptable to act on their homosexual feelings, then they should seek the counsel of a religious leader.

For example, people can reason through whether they would like to be a smoker or not. A psychologist can even help them with this without an agenda (e.g., weighing the costs and benefits of smoking vs abstaining). Maybe the individual decides that smoking will be helpful to them in their lives (it helps them relieve stress, provides the opportunity for smoke breaks with peers, helps them keep their weight down). If they are over 18 then they have the legal right to make this choice. So is the psychologist then obligated to help them find strategies for being a smoker and maintaining this behavior? I don't think so.

Dr. E

 

[Pragma]

I think the idea of exploring and questioning cannot be lumped in with the idea of actively trying to change what someone knows to be true.

Okay, and I don't think coercive therapies (which I oppose) should be lumped together with things people choose voluntarily.

 

[Pragma]

A person who is bisexual or homosexual and only wants to live a heterosexual lifestyle is welcome to do so regardless of what anyone else would like to tell them to do. The issue comes in when we start examining the role of psychologists in carrying out this decision. It is not the place of psychologists to provide services in this arena. If someone feels that it is unacceptable to act on their homosexual feelings, then they should seek the counsel of a religious leader.

But psychologists DO already help people explore their sexual identities, often on the path to identifying as gay. I agree that appropriate therapy probably shouldn't involve making the decision for them. But if someone came to their therapist and said 'Hey, I've been living a gay lifestyle for the last 15 years and I feel unsatisfied. I think I want to try a heterosexual relationship. can you help me?" then the therapist would be in an interesting situation. Because if you reverse the sexuality there and turn it to exploring the possibility that you are gay - that already happens.

 

[Pragma]

And folks, I recognize that there is a difference between "conversion" and "exploration" but it probably is not a complete difference. What techniques are used with identity exploration? Do they sometimes involve suppression of feelings to try new things?

I just have trouble with the idea that if I think I am gay, I can go talk to a psychologist about it, but if I've been gay and think I may be straight - I have to go talk to the clergy.

I think part of the problem is that people view conversion as devaluing something you are converting from. If I am exploring a new sexual identity, that is different than say, giving up smoking (which is valued as bad). Maybe I just have habitual sexual patterns and want to try something new, but those habits have been interfering with that exploration. This is the crux of the issue I think when people react to the idea negatively. Am I way off base in thinking about this type of possibility?

I am SO glad I am not a therapist!

 

[Doctor Eliza]

Maybe I just have habitual sexual patterns and want to try something new, but those habits have been interfering with that exploration. This is the crux of the issue I think when people react to the idea negatively. Am I way off base in thinking about this type of possibility? QUOTE]

I am not saying that people never/can't/shouldn't change their ideas about their sexual orientation and expression over time. Gay to straight, straight to gay. I am not saying that it is inappropriate for a therapist to help a patient in exploring their feelings on the topic.

I think your example is a little idiosyncratic though. If someone cannot control their sexual actions enough to explore other directions, I begin to wonder about issues that have nothing to do with sexual orientation, such as sexual addiction. I don't think that for most people heterosexual or homosexual behavior is a habit that they need to break.

Dr. E

 

[Pragma]

Maybe I just have habitual sexual patterns and want to try something new, but those habits have been interfering with that exploration. This is the crux of the issue I think when people react to the idea negatively. Am I way off base in thinking about this type of possibility? QUOTE]

I am not saying that people never/can't/shouldn't change their ideas about their sexual orientation and expression over time. Gay to straight, straight to gay. I am not saying that it is inappropriate for a therapist to help a patient in exploring their feelings on the topic.

I think your example is a little idiosyncratic though. If someone cannot control their sexual actions enough to explore other directions, I begin to wonder about issues that have nothing to do with sexual orientation, such as sexual addiction. I don't think that for most people heterosexual or homosexual behavior is a habit that they need to break.

Dr. E

Not a bad habit, but physiological/psychological associations. If my wife and I get really into role playing - is that going to interfere with non-role playing sex later? I don't know. There are sex therapists out there who probably can answer that.

Obviously there is a lot more to a relationship than just sex, but these are the kinds of questions some people go to therapists for, no?

 

[crim84]

I think the focal point of this argument centers around gay people voluntarily seeking treatment for homosexuality because they feel it's the right thing to do. Most adult cases are probably this kind. This type of situation has no beneficial treatment prescription, but some psychologists choose to treat it how they feel will be helpful. This kind of mental tinkering puts gay patients in a worse position than where they started--not only do they still have self-prosecuting thoughts because they still have gay attractions, but now they have all of these failed attempts at being heterosexual to deal with. You basically take the amount of guilt and self-prosecution that a gay person has and double it. What a horrible existence to live each day. I don't want anyone in our field to put people into this kind of mental turmoil.

 

[Iwillheal]

I think the focal point of this argument centers around gay people voluntarily seeking treatment for homosexuality because they feel it's the right thing to do. Most adult cases are probably this kind. This type of situation has no beneficial treatment prescription, but some psychologists choose to treat it how they feel will be helpful. This kind of mental tinkering puts gay patients in a worse position than where they started--not only do they still have self-prosecuting thoughts because they still have gay attractions, but now they have all of these failed attempts at being heterosexual to deal with. You basically take the amount of guilt and self-prosecution that a gay person has and double it. What a horrible existence to live each day. I don't want anyone in our field to put people into this kind of mental turmoil.

Let me brainstorm. Some of the issues and questions I'm going to pose are going to have agreed upon answers, some won't, and some are only marginally related to the topic here:

Is sexual orientation changeable? If a therapist believes that a person is gay when the person believes she is straight, who is right? What about the opposite situation? Can people be a mix or is someone either 100% gay or straight? Are people allowed to experiment to "find" themselves? If studies showed that sexual orientation could be changed successfully (at least in a large enough cases), would it make it "okay" to try to change it? Is the very attempt to change it "wrong"? And what values are we alluding to when we are making these judgements? Is it wrong to want to change aspects of my physical body, my mind, and my life, to achieve a certain goal or live according to certain values or achieve certain goals? Is this really all about people's dislike of religion and religious beliefs and values? What is the core unchangeable identity and what is not? At what age is it shaped? Do we have objective reliable tests to prove this? Whose job is it to decide if something is "right"? Is it the therapist, APA, the patient, his/her family, religion, science, politics, culture, etc?

 

[Pragma]

I think the focal point of this argument centers around gay people voluntarily seeking treatment for homosexuality because they feel it's the right thing to do. Most adult cases are probably this kind. This type of situation has no beneficial treatment prescription, but some psychologists choose to treat it how they feel will be helpful. This kind of mental tinkering puts gay patients in a worse position than where they started--not only do they still have self-prosecuting thoughts because they still have gay attractions, but now they have all of these failed attempts at being heterosexual to deal with. You basically take the amount of guilt and self-prosecution that a gay person has and double it. What a horrible existence to live each day. I don't want anyone in our field to put people into this kind of mental turmoil.

I strongly disagree. I have never once met someone in this circumstance. I'd imagine that the number of people who are questioning their sexuality FAR outnumbers people who are seeking this kind of treatment for religious reasons.

But hey - I am probably very biased. I go to a liberal church. I've had females leading church services. I have attended gay weddings. I love it when people thrive and find their identities and quality relationships. If someone is exposed to a lot of the religious right nonsense, I suppose they might view the idea of going from gay to straight as ONLY due to that. I disagree very strongly, but maybe only because I had the benefit of having gay and bisexual friends in my life.

I'd be interested in data about why people seek counseling regarding their sexual orientation. How many do it because of religious reasons, and how many do it because they are questioning?

 

[crim84]

I strongly disagree. I have never once met someone in this circumstance. I'd imagine that the number of people who are questioning their sexuality FAR outnumbers people who are seeking this kind of treatment for religious reasons.

But hey - I am probably very biased. I go to a liberal church. I've had females leading church services. I have attended gay weddings. I love it when people thrive and find their identities and quality relationships. If someone is exposed to a lot of the religious right nonsense, I suppose they might view the idea of going from gay to straight as ONLY due to that. I disagree very strongly, but maybe only because I had the benefit of having gay and bisexual friends in my life.

I'd be interested in data about why people seek counseling regarding their sexual orientation. How many do it because of religious reasons, and how many do it because they are questioning?

Most people who seek conversion therapy do so for religious reasons, not for exploratory reasons.

Here's a study from Penn State on why people seek conversion therapy.http://m.tcp.sagepub.com/content/32/5/716.short

"we found a significant direct relationship between intrinsic religiosity and a pro- pensity to seek conversion therapy. Individuals with same-sex attractions who saw religion as a central organizing principle of their lives tended to view conversion therapy as a viable option. Additionally, individuals who held an intrinsic orientation to religion tended to possess internalized homo- negative attitudes. In fact, this study demonstrated that internalized homo- negativity may serve as a powerful and complete mediator of the relationship between intrinsic religiosity and propensity to seek conversion therapy. Indi- viduals who are intrinsically oriented toward religion and, more to the point, adopt homonegative beliefs are likely to have a propensity to seek conversion therapy. Conversely, individuals who are intrinsically oriented and do not adopt homonegative beliefs are not likely to have a propensity to seek conversion therapy."

 

[Azure1]

I really do not understand how there could possibly be a treatment for sexual orientation. Unless the person was bisexual in the first place, their physiology won't lie about their arousal.

Can you behaviorally condition someone to be sexually attracted to females or vice versa, and if so, can this really last long term?

Speaking from personal experience, I am gay and I don't think there would be anything in this world that would make me sexually attracted or aroused to females.

 

[crim84]

I really do not understand how there could possibly be a treatment for sexual orientation. Unless the person was bisexual in the first place, their physiology won't lie about their arousal.

Can you behaviorally condition someone to be sexually attracted to females or vice versa, and if so, can this really last long term?

Speaking from personal experience, I am gay and I don't think there would be anything in this world that would make me sexually attracted or aroused to females.

Everyone here would probably say the same thing about the sex they're not attracted to.

 

[Pragma]

Most people who seek conversion therapy do so for religious reasons, not for exploratory reasons.

Here's a study from Penn State on why people seek conversion therapy.http://m.tcp.sagepub.com/content/32/5/716.short

"we found a significant direct relationship between intrinsic religiosity and a pro- pensity to seek conversion therapy. Individuals with same-sex attractions who saw religion as a central organizing principle of their lives tended to view conversion therapy as a viable option. Additionally, individuals who held an intrinsic orientation to religion tended to possess internalized homo- negative attitudes. In fact, this study demonstrated that internalized homo- negativity may serve as a powerful and complete mediator of the relationship between intrinsic religiosity and propensity to seek conversion therapy. Indi- viduals who are intrinsically oriented toward religion and, more to the point, adopt homonegative beliefs are likely to have a propensity to seek conversion therapy. Conversely, individuals who are intrinsically oriented and do not adopt homonegative beliefs are not likely to have a propensity to seek conversion therapy."

No offense, but an "internet sample" is not exactly something you can make absolute statements about.

And the timing with Penn State is not the best...

 

[Goodluckchuck]

Two things:

1.) Cara Susana and Pragma....for the love of god don't you have work to do? Love the enthusiasm but there are so many other cool things in the world besides SDN.

2.) I am heterosexual and underwent a gay conversion therapy and it worked wonders! Such an amazing therapeutic and scientifically sound process!!!!

No offense, but an "internet sample" is not exactly something you can make absolute statements about.

And the timing with Penn State is not the best...

 

[crim84]

No offense, but an "internet sample" is not exactly something you can make absolute statements about.

And the timing with Penn State is not the best...

If you prefer anecdotes, every gay person I have known who wanted to be straight told me homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Iwillheal]

If you prefer anecdotes, every gay person I have known who wanted to be straight told me homosexuality is a sin.

I don't doubt that many gay people living in certain more traditional places or in more conservative religious communities feel that they need to change in order to be accepted or even just survive.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I strongly disagree. I have never once met someone in this circumstance. I'd imagine that the number of people who are questioning their sexuality FAR outnumbers people who are seeking this kind of treatment for religious reasons.

But if you wanted to explore, why would you seek conversion therapy and not regular therapy? Conversion therapy has a stated goal and a desired outcome. i don't think that even people who practice this sort of "therapy" would argue on that point.

Dr. E

 

[Pragma]

If you prefer anecdotes, every gay person I have known who wanted to be straight told me homosexuality is a sin.

Yeah I know that there are some folks out there who hold that belief. I guess my own bias is evident in that my bisexual friends don't seem to feel that way at all - and did share with me the difficulty they felt due to the ambivalence and thoughts/feelings towards both men and women. Neither of those women that I know probably would be the types to seek therapy though. It is just that I never meet those people saying it is a sin.

 

[Pragma]

But if you wanted to explore, why would you seek conversion therapy and not regular therapy? Conversion therapy has a stated goal and a desired outcome. i don't think that even people who practice this sort of "therapy" would argue on that point.

Dr. E

As I noted earlier in the thread, I am interested in the subtle similarities/differences between these two types of therapies.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

Yeah I know that there are some folks out there who hold that belief. I guess my own bias is evident in that my bisexual friends don't seem to feel that way at all - and did share with me the difficulty they felt due to the ambivalence and thoughts/feelings towards both men and women. Neither of those women that I know probably would be the types to seek therapy though. It is just that I never meet those people saying it is a sin.

Probably because many people who are homosexual and believe it to be a sin are in the closet.

Dr. E

 

[Doctor Eliza]

As I noted earlier in the thread, I am interested in the subtle similarities/differences between these two types of therapies.

I don't understand why you think the differences are subtle? If you want to convert religions do you go to a priest and ask him to help you decide if you might be Jewish or do you ask him to help you become Catholic? Even the terminology suggests the desired outcome.

Dr. E

 

[Pragma]

I don't understand why you think the differences are subtle? If you want to convert religions do you go to a priest and ask him to help you decide if you might be Jewish or do you ask him to help you become Catholic? Even the terminology suggests the desired outcome.

Dr. E

I am not going to retype the entire post I made earlier asking people to explain to me the differences. Does "regular" therapy sometimes involve suppressing feelings when it is someone on their path from straight to gay? etc etc...

 

[Pragma]

But psychologists DO already help people explore their sexual identities, often on the path to identifying as gay. I agree that appropriate therapy probably shouldn't involve making the decision for them. But if someone came to their therapist and said 'Hey, I've been living a gay lifestyle for the last 15 years and I feel unsatisfied. I think I want to try a heterosexual relationship. can you help me?" then the therapist would be in an interesting situation. Because if you reverse the sexuality there and turn it to exploring the possibility that you are gay - that already happens.

And folks, I recognize that there is a difference between "conversion" and "exploration" but it probably is not a complete difference. What techniques are used with identity exploration? Do they sometimes involve suppression of feelings to try new things?

I just have trouble with the idea that if I think I am gay, I can go talk to a psychologist about it, but if I've been gay and think I may be straight - I have to go talk to the clergy.

I think part of the problem is that people view conversion as devaluing something you are converting from. If I am exploring a new sexual identity, that is different than say, giving up smoking (which is valued as bad). Maybe I just have habitual sexual patterns and want to try something new, but those habits have been interfering with that exploration. This is the crux of the issue I think when people react to the idea negatively. Am I way off base in thinking about this type of possibility?

I am SO glad I am not a therapist!

Probably because many people who are homosexual and believe it to be a sin are in the closet.

Dr. E

I don't argue against that SOME religious communities make homosexuality out to be a sin. But do we have to deteriorate our own thoughts to an either/or level? As professionals, I don't see how we can completely stay out of sexuality, as you previously noted. I also don't see how operationalizing the differences between conversion and "exploration" is problematic for the sake of professional discussion.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I don't argue against that SOME religious communities make homosexuality out to be a sin. But do we have to deteriorate our own thoughts to an either/or level? As professionals, I don't see how we can completely stay out of sexuality, as you previously noted. I also don't see how operationalizing the differences between conversion and "exploration" is problematic for the sake of professional discussion.

I agree that it is important to operationalize the differences, However, at points you seem to be suggesting that a "therapist" or organization that practices conversion therapy can adequately help with exploration. If you have a desired outcome to the process you cannot help with exploration.

I'll admit that this can happen in the other direction too. Unfortunately, I think that there are therapists who will think that anyone with some feelings of attraction to the same sex must be homosexual and therefore their therapy is aimed at getting the person to "admit" that they are gay. This is also wrong.

I think you are focusing on what you imagine to be some similarities in the process, but what I am focusing on is the overall goal of the intervention.

Dr. E

 

[Pragma]

I agree that it is important to operationalize the differences, However, at points you seem to be suggesting that a "therapist" or organization that practices conversion therapy can adequately help with exploration. If you have a desired outcome to the process you cannot help with exploration.

I'll admit that this can happen in the other direction too. Unfortunately, I think that there are therapists who will think that anyone with some feelings of attraction to the same sex must be homosexual and therefore their therapy is aimed at getting the person to "admit" that they are gay. This is also wrong.

I think you are focusing on what you imagine to be some similarities in the process, but what I am focusing on is the overall goal of the intervention.

Dr. E

I am not advocating conversion at all. I am just asking to what extent psychologists already delve into sexual identity matters, and to what extent is it appropriate for them to help someone who is questioning.

Thanks for admitting that many therapists have that particular bias. I think therapists often get their own political beliefs tied up in what they are doing.

 

[cara susanna]

Two things:

1.) Cara Susana and Pragma....for the love of god don't you have work to do? Love the enthusiasm but there are so many other cool things in the world besides SDN.

How long exactly do you think it takes me to write these posts?

 

[KillerDiller]

As I noted earlier in the thread, I am interested in the subtle similarities/differences between these two types of therapies.

I realize this doesn't represent scientific data. However, for the few clients I've seen who have come in questioning their sexual orientation or sexual identity, I respond with supportive therapy--lots of reflections and unconditional positive regard--as well as mindfulness exercises to help them increase their awareness of their thoughts, emotions, and bodily signals. I do not in any way encourage them to resist responding to those signals in order to try sexual activity with a same/opposite sex partner. Considering that I think of myself as a behaviorist, I would be surprised if the latter approach is the go-to method for counselors seeing clients with this issue. Consequently, it seems to me that therapy for questioning clients and conversion therapy look different.

You could also think of it along the MI stages of change theory. Questioning clients are in the contemplative stage, ambivalent about the change of accepting a particular orientation. Conversion therapy would take place at the action stage, after a client has made the decision that they do not want to accept a particular orientation, and instead want to change their feelings/thoughts/behaviors. From this perspective, I think the analogies in this thread of psychologists being asked to help clients achieve unhealthy patterns are pretty apt.

 

[KillerDiller]

How long exactly do you think it takes me to write these posts?

I think Goodluckchuck may have had you confused with some of the other posters on this thread.

 

[Pragma]

I realize this doesn't represent scientific data. However, for the few clients I've seen who have come in questioning their sexual orientation or sexual identity, I respond with supportive therapy--lots of reflections and unconditional positive regard--as well as mindfulness exercises to help them increase their awareness of their thoughts, emotions, and bodily signals. I do not in any way encourage them to resist responding to those signals in order to try sexual activity with a same/opposite sex partner. Considering that I think of myself as a behaviorist, I would be surprised if the latter approach is the go-to method for counselors seeing clients with this issue. Consequently, it seems to me that therapy for questioning clients and conversion therapy look different.

You could also think of it along the MI stages of change theory. Questioning clients are in the contemplative stage, ambivalent about the change of accepting a particular orientation. Conversion therapy would take place at the action stage, after a client has made the decision that they do not want to accept a particular orientation, and instead want to change their feelings/thoughts/behaviors. From this perspective, I think the analogies in this thread of psychologists being asked to help clients achieve unhealthy patterns are pretty apt.

Interesting and thanks for the reflection. I really don't know enough about it, so I wondered if things like suppressing feelings would be involved in exploration.

Of course the philosophy should be for clients to come to their own conclusions. Outside of a specific conversion intervention, it sounds like there are folks who do therapy involving exploring sexuality and identity, and I have a hard time believing that the therapist's own biases might not influence their guidance to some extent. So as to Dr. E's point that therapists shouldn't be involved with this arena period, I disagree, because I think there is a place for this type of therapy. I just think it is important to be consistent about how we apply our values, particularly when it comes to limiting service provision.