The claim that sexuality can be changed runs counter to over thirty years of research by the APA. This is an extraordinary claim. For evidence you present one preliminary study, using questionable methods and a decidedly biased sample? You don’t have extraordinary evidence; All you have is anecdotal evidence. That is, you have NO evidence.
Yes the 66% statistic is being misused. It is used to give a false sense of scientific accuracy to the “study”. I’ll just bet that there are those who “want to preclude this research”. The APA has already done such research. The page you linked to in your OP has this link at the bottom of the page: Get the Facts: Psychology in Daily Life…
Please take the time to see what research into so-called “conversion therapy” has shown by clicking on the above link.
Okay, so, puddleglum implies by this that whenever past questions have come up, he’s been impressed by the information and erudition applied to determining an answer. Therefore, in this case, we have two options:[list=1][li]Everybody on the SDMB has abandoned their intellects with regard to this particular question, orpuddleglum is stubbornly refusing to admit he’s on the wrong side of this one.[/list=1]Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.[/li][quote] (puddleglum again) I consider myself to be an expert in the field of my own sex life and would therefore feel myself qualified to characterize it and describe it in detail to an unlucky researcher should I so desire. … As I have quoted data that suggest that some homosexuals can change, it would not suprise me that some heterosexuals can change. After all, I have been arguing all along that sexual preference is not permanent for everyone and that it can change for some people.
[/quote]
Then you should be willing to conduct a little experiment.
Go rent some gay porn. Y’know, the movies with muscular Swedish men at remote tropical resorts, that sort of stuff. Go home, close your drapes, and put on the video(s). Attempt to become aroused. Work really, really hard at it. Masturbate if you like, as you watch the screen. Concentrate on enjoying the homosexual sex. Concentrate hard. Report your results after ten days.
Did you change?
Huh? Huh? Didja?
Until you conduct this experiment, I feel confident in ignoring any further assertions on your part regarding this issue.
I still haven’t heard anything resembling a rational explanation as to why anyone would want to change, except to avoid persecution from small-minded bigots like… um, in this forum, just small-minded bigots is fine.
People whose families will not have anything to do with them unless they become straight.
People who have been raised in a religious tradition wherein they have been told all of their lives that God hates them and they will most definately go to hell if they do not change.
Notice something? They’re all external causes.
Also, I feel that you’re mischaracterizing attitudes towards homosexuality. I’m not happy with being gay. I’m not unhappy with it. It’s simply part of who I am- one of the unalterable parts. To say that I’m happy or unhappy with my sexual orientation is, in my mind, like saying that I’m a little less that thrilled that my shoe size is a 7 1/2.
Two points regarding this statement. First off, is it a straw man? Is the point of view that sexual orientation cannot be changed by any methods whatsoever widely held?
It has been established by APA members that conversion therapies are far less effective and potentially much more damaging than other forms of therapy for those people dissatisfied with their sexual orientation. This is not the same as claiming that conversion is impossible.
That being said, even if this study does prove what puddleglum claims it does, it still isn’t particularly meaningful as it gives no evidence that conversion therapy is a more beneficial theraputic approach than other forms of therapy.
Secondly, this has been mentioned before but needs to be mentioned again. The criteria used for measuring sexual prefrence in this study are sadly lacking. I would have preferred it if the respondants had been made to fill out an inventory of sexual functioning; even better, if they had completed one many years ago when the conversion began, and continued to rank their sexual prefrences over the course of the therapy. A properly designed inventory could help determine where the subjects lie along a gay-bi-straight continuum, and could help to weed out any false positive answers they may be providing.
To puddleglum - do you remember from Psych class what a false positive is, and why they are so important?
I also have a few questions for you regarding the claims you have made about therapy. Upon what therapeutic model are you basing your assertions? Is the idea that a therapist should help the client achieve his or her goals merely your own opinion, or is it a position that is advocated by mental helath professionals?
… for the Canadian Mental Health Association’s statement regarding informed consent. I do not believe that your characterization of therapy is compatible with this statement. At the very least, I hope this link provides some good materials for discussion.
You will be pleased to know that there is a treatment for women with large feet developed by the Chinese called foot-binding. Of course, the practice is discouraged over there, since China is a fascist country. But there is no reason why you cannot change your shoe size if you desire. You should look into foot-binding.
Esprix
As I have pointed out repeatedly, I have not made any generalizations based on this study. If you read my link to social research text you would find out that such research seeks to be descriptive and not generalizable. DrMatrix
The methods used in this research were entirely appropriate to the questions being asked. The conclusions reached were entirely based on evidence. The statistic used is an accurate description of the results and not attempt to generalize. The page you linked to does not include any research on it. Asmodean
If people are being forced to attend these therapies one would expect that those in charge of these groups could be charged with kidnapping,false imprisonment, or making terroristic threat. Since this seems not to be the case a reasonable assumption is that people are not being forced to attend. Cervaise
I have provided documentary evidence from a Cornell professor to back up my contentions. The field of social research methodology is not one of general interest so I can understand why people specifically trained in it would not understand certain aspects.
As to your experiment, though I am sure that it has provided you with countless hours of entertainment, I do not think there is anything worth knowing that could be proven by it.
The reasons for the desire to change were not included in the article I read. To speculate in the absence of this data would just be guess work. Andygirl
Though I am sure that there are people who seek to change for the reasons you mentioned, it does not follow that these are the only reasons. They may be the reasons you have encountered but as many have already pointed out you can not generalize from anecdotal information. Pryhro
Apparently the idea that sexual orientation can not be changed by any means is held, I don’t know how widely. This study is not meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is quite narrow in its scope. The methodologies you mentioned would be very informative. I hope that the response this researcher has recieved does not intimidate other researchers away from this area.
I do remember why false positives are important, I also assume that a Columbia professor would also and take this into account.
My view of therapy comes from the perspective of client-centered therapy which I feel is the most respectful of the dignity of the client and from reality therapy which I consider the most effective.
The above quote from your link seems to support my view of therapy rather than contradict it.
First, we have the unwilling: people who are being forced to go to them by family or “friends”, either through substituted consent (for underage victims) or without consent (kidnapping).
Second, we have people who are being pressured, usually by their religious community or their family, that they cannot be gay, since being gay is an offense against God and humanity. These people voluntarily submit to these programs usually out of religious conviction, but occasionally out of a desire to avoid the social stigma associated with being gay.
I didn’t have to look very far. Do you recognize these words?
“Can gays go straight? Science says yes”
Fish in a barrel.
Your use of the word gays in this context is a generalization. Not to mention your use of the word science. If you meant it otherwise you should have expressed it differently. I’m really at a loss for how you can continue to pursue this. Do you read any of what you type before you click “submit reply”?
It’s a shame you don’t know as much about rhetoric as you do about, um, oh wait, never mind.
You may wish to revisit your assumptions after reviewing this link. I’m sure there are other cases (I recall one from Michigan a few years back, but I can’t find it on the net) out there as well.
KellyM
What evidence do you have that your categories are exhaustive?
If people are being kidnapped, they should press charges. Kidnapping should not be a part of any therapy.
People have been prosecuted. The problem, my dear limpet, with your pet study is that reputable scientists will recognize it to be little better than rewarmed sewage, but irreputable ones (the ones who engage in kidnapping) will use it as “proof” that their approaches work. The publication of this study – especially publication bypassing peer review – will encourage these unethical “therapists” in their misguided belief that their unlawful and unethical acts are appropriate.
There are persons who claim to be therapists who believe that all gay people are insane and that all gay people want to be straight.
It is my conclusion that Dr. Spitzer’s study adds nothing of merit to the realm of scientific discourse, while simultaneously increasing the likelihood of harmful actions taking place. As such, publishing it was a net moral wrong, and Dr. Spitzer – and you – should live up to that fact.
Oh, and to tie back into my prior comment about gender dysphoria: there are a lot of wags out there who insist that gender dysphoria should be treated entirely by therapy highly similar to the “conversion therapies” you are advocating for so strongly. However, the conclusion of the therapists who actually work in this field is that such therapy is much less likely to be effective and (when the conditions in the Standards of Care are met) that other treatment approaches offer a better opportunity for success.
The situation for the treatment of gender dysphoria is analogous to the situation for the treatment of dystonic homosexuality: while “conversion” is a remote possibility, years of clinical research support that conversion is far less likely to be successful than other approaches, and as such therapists should not recommend conversion as a therapeutic method. The conclusion that “an unknown, but almost certainly small, fraction of gays may be able to live vaguely satisfactory lives after conversion therapy” does not alter the parameters of therapeutic recommendation: conversion remains a poor choice of therapeutic approaches (accomodation having a much better chance for success).
In my opinion, a therapist should not counsel a patient to undertake a course of therapy which is unlikely to yield satisfactory results unless all other options (including no therapy at all) are no more likely to yield satisfactory results. A therapist must (is legally required to) disclose to a patient the likelihood of satisfactory results of a therapeutic approach as well as the likelihood of satisfactory results from meaningful alternatives, including no action but not including alternatives which are less likely to be satisfactory than no action. The therapist must also advise the patient of the risks of all alternatives offered.
Given the research to date and the constraints of ethical practice, I do not believe that a therapist can properly counsel a patient to undertake conversion therapy without evidence that the patient’s desire not to be gay is so intractable as not to be altered at all. At the very least, conversion therapy should not be considered until after extensive therapy to identify the source of the reason the patient does not wish to be gay and to identify why the patient is unwilling or unable to accomodate to being gay (which is the recommended approach for dystonic homosexuality, based on decades of clinical research). The therapist’s goal is to “improve the quality of the patient’s life”, not to “service the patient’s superficial desires”. Dr. Spitzer’s study adds nothing to this analysis; the meager conclusions it offers do not alter the obligations of the therapist one whit.
If people are being forced to attend these therapies one would expect that those in charge of these groups could be charged with kidnapping,false imprisonment, or making terroristic threat. Since this seems not to be the case a reasonable assumption is that people are not being forced to attend.*
If the people being forced into these therapies are the children of the people forcing them (not to mention the emotional and psychological abuse they must suffer at the hands of said parents, since they’re not “good enough” because they’re gay or lesbian), do you really think it’s reasonable that these children will bring up charges against these quacks? Or their parents? Plus, as KellyM points out, it is societal and religious pressues that make these people unhappy with themselves, nothing inherently internal. Should these people bring charges against the church? Society?
Don’t you think this would have been a critical element to the study? Further evidence Dr. Spitzer’s “research” is flawed from the start.
Once again we’re all asking - why? Why do you care? Thank you for taking pity on us poor, poor homosexuals, but with friends like you… :rolleyes:
We, however (that would be thinking, rational adults) assume nothing, and by doing so have found all the flaws in this study - the ones you keep ignoring.
I don’t think any of us have gotten a satisfactory response from you regarding the second study mentioned in this thread. Since you hold Spitzer’s study in such high regard, how do you account for the drastic difference in the second study?
Exactly what I was trying to say, but you said it wholeheartedly better - thank you, Kelly. Pity it’s going to fall on deaf ears.
First of all, I would like to make a point regarding the interpretation of this study.
Does this study say something about conversion therapy? puddleglum, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is your interpretation of the results. For years, people have said that conversion therapy is impossible. Now, there are a small number of cases where it appears to have worked. What is special about the therapies that worked? What can this tell us about the learned behavior aspects of human sexuality?
Alternatively, does this study say something about the subjects who claimed that conversion therapy worked? Well, there’s the possibility of false reporting, but since that’s the least interesting conjecture I’ll ignore that for now. There’s the possibility of confused sexuality. Perhaps the survey participants are naturally bisexual, or perhaps they sought a counselor after only a few isolated homosexual thoughts (perfectly normal in most heterosexuals). Perhaps these subjects represent a previously unknown minority who are truly sexually polymorphic, able to change their sexual preference much more easily than others. Perhaps the high level of motivation they share is how they were able to change. Or, perhaps the high level of motivation has led to an advanced state of denial.
Given the information that I currently have regarding this study, I’d have to say that there’s no way of saying. Both of these interpretations of the results seem equally valid.
I don’t know how widely either. If you could cite a source which actually makes this claim it would be very much appreciated.
Hopefully any future researchers into this area will study the criticism directed towards this study, and design their own studies so that any problems with this one will be avoided in theirs. This is actually a pretty common ocurrence in psychology. Psych researchers don’t intimidate easily… those that do never make it past their second year statistics courses.
But his methods for dealing with false positives are not detailed anywhere in the article which you originally linked to. Since you remembered false positives, I will assume that you also remember why documentation of methodology is also very important. Without said documentation, the only evidence we have against the presence of false positive reporting is basically a genetic fallacy, and that I’m afraid simply isn’t scientific.
I will note that the original study conducted by this professor may well document a method for determining false positives. However, this is not mentioned in the article originally linked to. So, until information regarding this is unearthed, I submit to puddleglum that it is inappropriate to summarily dismiss the possibility that respondants to this survey provided false positive answers.
I also need to make a point about bias. It is possible for this survey to be biased without nessecarily impling that the researcher is, himself, biased. Even experienced researchers and good upstanding human beings can be misled ocassionally. That’s one of the reasons why study design is so important, and so difficult. It’s also a reason why detailed knowledge of this study’s methodology would be so useful.
If you could find a better source regarding this study, puddleglum, especially one which details the methodology well, it would be appreciated. Until then, I hope you will agree with me, there is a whole lot about this case that neither one of us can say with certainty.
Now, on to my objections regarding your characterization of therapy…
I believe that the above scenario is dealt with adequately by the following lines from the CMHA web site:
I think that my main objection to the way therapy is portrayed in your posts is the passive role of the therapist, and the importance placed upon the client’s wishes. After reading a bit on reality therapy I can understand your POV better. However, I still have a few objections.
By a psychiatric model, the patient is there because of a problem. The therapist is there to advise a course of action. If the patient does not wish to follow the proposed course, the patient is free to not consent to treatment. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assert that any psychiatrist should first advocate the method of treatment which has the best track record and the highest likelihood of improving the patient’s life. Given what is currently known about conversion therapy, I cannot see how any psychiatrist could ethically agree to do this for a depressed or otherwise unhealthy patient.
I suppose there is a difference between clinical psychology and cosmetic therapy, though. Given a private therapist, if a client wished to recieve help in changing their sexual preference, I suppose that would be entirely permissable. Provided, of course, that the therapist informed the patient up front about the low chance of success, the risk of making the problem worse, and the potential benefits of other forms of therapy.
I agree with you that consent to treatment ultimately rests with the patient. I disagree with you that therapists deciding upon a method of treatment which is likely to alleviate the symptoms suffered by the patient constitutes imposing “their own goals and values on the client”.
If a psychiatrist does not offer conversion therapy to a homosexual patient, that psychiatrist is not deciding the patient’s sexuality.
This study may or may not provide evidence that conversion of sexual preference is possible. What it does not show is that this is a valuable theraputic strategy. Previous studies which have shown conversion therapy to be potentially dangerous have not been invalidated by this study.
The difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation? Sexual acts are simply that, the act of sex with a person, be it between two men, two women or a man and a women. Sexual orientation is how you experience your greatest emotional, physical & spiritual satisfaction. A homosexual orientation is when a person experiences all of those satisfactions with a person of the same sex. A straight orientation is when a person experiences those satisfaction with the opposite sex. And most importantly, a bisexual orientation is when a person can experience those satisfactions to some degree with BOTH sexes.
That sexual expression is not simply gay or straight? There’s a whole spectrum of experience going from having only gay experience to only straight experiences to everything in between. The Kinsey scale is often used to demonstrate this. It’s a linear scale going from 0 to 6. A person at 0 has exclusively heterosexual experiences. A person at 6 has exclusively homosexual experiences. In positions 1 thru 5 you have various experiences with both sexes.
Homosexuality in and of itself doesn’t cause depression, anxiety and the host of other maladies that are often attributed to it. What does cause these maladies are people’s PERCEPTION of homosexuality. It’s been labeled as a sickness, a sin, against God and given just about every other negative expression in the book. From my understanding, a therapist shows a person that negative perceptions of homosexuality are causing their problems, NOT the homosexuality itself. Since homosexuality isn’t causing the problem, there’s no need to change it or become straight.
Another major flaw with this study; it ignores bisexuality completely! This study gives no indication that they detirmined the sexual orientation of the subjects BEFORE they underwent conversion therapy. How do they know that all the subjects were gay? Was there any independent confirmation of this? I want to tie this in with what I said above about sexual orientation. Given the way society often views and confuses sexual acts with orientation, it’s probably very likely that many of these subjects were confused bisexual rather than true homosexuals.
The difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation? Sexual acts are simply that, the act of sex with a person, be it between two men, two women or a man and a women. Sexual orientation is how you experience your greatest emotional, physical & spiritual satisfaction. A homosexual orientation is when a person experiences all of those satisfactions with a person of the same sex. A straight orientation is when a person experiences those satisfaction with the opposite sex. And most importantly, a bisexual orientation is when a person can experience those satisfactions to some degree with BOTH sexes.
That sexual expression is not simply gay or straight? There’s a whole spectrum of experience going from having only gay experience to only straight experiences to everything in between. The Kinsey scale is often used to demonstrate this. It’s a linear scale going from 0 to 6. A person at 0 has exclusively heterosexual experiences. A person at 6 has exclusively homosexual experiences. In positions 1 thru 5 you have various experiences with both sexes.
Homosexuality in and of itself doesn’t cause depression, anxiety and the host of other maladies that are often attributed to it. What does cause these maladies are people’s PERCEPTION of homosexuality. It’s been labeled as a sickness, a sin, against God and given just about every other negative expression in the book. From my understanding, a therapist shows a person that negative perceptions of homosexuality are causing their problems, NOT the homosexuality itself. Since homosexuality isn’t causing the problem, there’s no need to change it or become straight.
Another major flaw with this study; it ignores bisexuality completely! This study gives no indication that they detirmined the sexual orientation of the subjects BEFORE they underwent conversion therapy. How do they know that all the subjects were gay? Was there any independent confirmation of this? I want to tie this in with what I said above about sexual orientation. Given the way society often views and confuses sexual acts with orientation, it’s probably very likely that many of these subjects were confused bisexual rather than true homosexuals.
Because it is my belief that an over 5 page thread smacks of self indulgence this will be my final post to this thread. If anyone would like to start a seperate thread on any of this issues raised in this one please go ahead. KellyM
I find it far likelier that good psychologists and psychiatrists will be spurred on by this study and reevaluate their attitudes in this area in light of this study. This will mean more study in this area and more quality therapists offering this service to their clients who seek it. When this happens the unethical practitioners will be abandoned as people seek better alternatives. The therapist should discuss alternatives and success rates but ultimately it is the client who should decide because he is the one who has to live with the results. Esprix
Of course societal and religous pressure may be the most visible reasons for seeking to change to straight, but what evidence is there that these are the only ones? I found a longer article about this study and it says
My interest in seeing more research be done is that I beleive that psychology can help people. If people are helped than we can all live in a better, happier society.
The reasons for the different outcomes found in the second study could be many but the most likely is different criteria for selecting participants. MattMcl
No, it is saying that when a client visits a therapist he does not surrender his basic human right to control his own life. Pyrrho
This study does raise numerous questions which further research could answer. To propose new questions for future research is one of the goals of qualititative research.
As to how wide the idea that sexual orientation can not be changed is here is a quote from the human rights campaign.
Psych researchers may not intimidate easily but most are not used to getting hate mail as the Dr Spitzer has.
I find the psychiatric model not as helpful in this instance because I do not feel that wanting to be straight is a disease to be cured but a goal to be worked towards.
Here is the link to the longer article I found: http://www.narth.com/docs/spitzer2.html
Here is an article that has information on the effect of various therapies and a guideline for ethical treatment. http://www.narth.com/docs/attemptstomodify.html
Lastly, I would like to everyone who has participated for what has been a succesful and fun thread.
Read: “Your arguments have merit, but I am too close-minded to listen, so I’m sticking my fingers in my ears and running away now.” Talk about famous last words. :rolleyes:
A better, happier, heterosexual society, no doubt.
Even if anyone did have the misguided notion that you knew what you were talking about, quoting NARTH, absolutely the most biased research around save Exodus, just dropped you off the radar, bub. Buh-bye, and don’t let the door smack you on the way out.
I know these things because I have done research on many of the “ex-gay” sites. I have read accounts and interviews and spoken to many ex-ex-gays. I’ve been researching therapy out of curiosity as well as for a play that I am writing for over a year now.
I can’t help but think that there would be few posters that know more about conversion therapy than I do.
I’ve done a lot more than watch But I’m a Cheerleader, puddleglum. You might want to be aware that most of the people debating you know quite a bit more about this subject than you do.
By the way, quoting NARTH is a lot like quoting godhatesfags.com. Out of all of the therapy sites out there, they are one of the most hostile.