Hmm, hadn’t thought too much about that. My answer is I don’t really know.
For the record, I do.
Did you read support for what was done to Turing in my post? Because I was going more for naked (if “civil”) contempt for it, and for the sort of mindset that says that extreme cases like it are acceptable (if–charitably–not desirable per se; in much the same way that unfortunate extreme ill effects from treating cancer are acceptable if not desirable).
Different things were tried with varying degrees of success. Studies of pscyhoanalysis show a success rate of between 19 and 44%. Studies of behavioral therapy show up to 63% success rate. Here is a link to a journal article discussing the various success rates among other things.
http://www.narth.com/docs/attemptstomodify.html
There is also an article by the same arthor in the Spring 2002 journal Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training which I have not been able to find a link to yet, except the abstract.
Yeah, NARTH isn’t too biased a source, is it?
:rolleyes:
Esprix
In fact, feelings of love don’t amount to much in a fundamentalist marriage. My father always told me that love was an action word, therefore any act of love is love, whether you are in the mood for it or not.
Sigh…the whole subject is depressing to me. I just spent a week with my Lesbian Aunt TM. She’s so convinced of the sinfulness of her relationship with her girlfriend, yet she can’t stop loving her. Its really weird how they go to this church that preaches against homosexuality as “just friends”. All I know is that she’s tried to stop being a lesbian and go out with guys and such and that she’s completely miserable when she’s in that phase. I wish she could be at peace with herself.
Drastic,
You quoted me as saying
“For the record, I don’t mind homophobes”
Maybe it’s my fault! Those words were indeed in my post, but do you seriously think that yanked from their context they fairly represent my opinion of homophobes?
Well, this is turning into a Who’s On First routine, isn’t it.
If you feel misrepresented, I apologize; I felt a little misrepresented myself, and did context-yanking to clarify in no uncertain terms where I stand when not deliberately dripping sarcasm.
Nonetheless, even unyanked, I find that sentence disturbing. I do mind evil–and it doesn’t matter if it’s not actively in my face or not. I posit that homophobia is only recently dwindling not because people are suddenly becoming more decent–I figure the percentage of decent people has probably been pretty much constant throughout human history–but because more people are more and more unwilling to let such things go unexamined. Even though examining them is, indeed, not a happy thing. Casting light on pathology isn’t happy–but it’s right. But I figure that’s another thread entirely, and not this one’s.
Puddleglum, I was under the impression that psychiatric counseling counted it a “success” when the patient was dealing on an even keel with the circumstances of his or her life, having rid or dealt with neuroses, psychoses, and such.
Based on that definition, working with a neurotic, self-loathing homosexual person and accomplishing the result of turning him/her into a self-accepting homosexual person would be a “success” under their definition.
On the other hand, turning someone into a person who feels guilt about his or her sexual orientation and instilling a desire to live celibately in order not to sin, would not be a success to a psychiatrist.
Obviously, the typical ex-gay ministry would read these two cases in exactly the reverse structure.
Are you seriously suggesting that pre-1971 therapies were able to “change” exclusively gay persons into happy, well-adjusted exclusively straight persons? And if this was indeed the case, why in the world, given the mindset of the time, would such therapies have been abandoned? (Note to gay posters: don’t read that as encouragement of “turning you straight” – merely an acknowledgement that the almost universal view prior to Stonewall was that homosexuality was “a mental aberration that needed to be cured” – which means that such therapies would be seen as ultimately beneficial to you, not merely by homophobic persons but by well-meaning straight persons of all sorts, as being to your ultimate benefit. The realization that neuroses and self-loathing in homosexuals was not the result of the homosexuality but of the impact of cultural homophobia on their self-image is one of those things that came too durn late, IMHO.)
Polycarp
You seem to know a whole lot more about the people mentioned in the study than I do. Nowhere in what I read does it describe the people studied as neurotic or self-loathing. Is there more information on the study at another site or are you generalizing from your own experience?
The psychogists and psychiatrists who conducted the studies were suggesting that the people mentioned became well adjusted and exclusively straight. After the APA declassified homosexuality as a disorder most research in this area was discontinued. I have even heard it asserted that some forms of therapy are harmful to those who undertake it. In such an atmosphere it is easy to see why such therapies would be abandoned.
Damn, EchoKitty beat me to it. “To what?” you say. To the point that it seems some (many?) people against homosexuality want to simplify the “problem” of homosexuality to one of merely being born in the wrong body - mistaken gender, as it were. A “fix” for said problem would simply be to turn the homosexual male into a female, and vice versa.
Somehow, I don’t think that’s the case. While it’s probably true that some homosexuals want to be a different gender, I doubt you could say that for the majority. My friend Matt, while enjoying the company of other males, enjoys his own masculinity, identifies himself as a man, and probably likes it that way (I realize I’m speaking for him, but I’ve never gotten a hint of “Damn, Amy, how is that menstruation thing? I’d give my left nut to be a woman” from him, ever.). I’m guessing one might be able to say the same things of our friends Matt, Exprix, and others here too - they like men (or women, as the case may be), but they also like being men (again, or women). While the struggles homosexuals face are many and varied, and probably does include gender questioning, I doubt too many would choose to become another gender. I doubt it would magically solve their difficulties.
It’s truly too bad that so many staunch fundamentalists and people against homosexuality are so quick to judge and condemn. I realize that some cases, these people genuinely want to do good - they genuinely want to correct what they see as damnable actions to save the soul of another. What I wish they would do is (to sound very icky) “let go and let God.” That is, let God judge. You see it as a sin, fine. But it’s not your job to correct that sin. You couldn’t, anyway. That’s the individual’s and God’s job. It’s not even your job to point out the “sin” of homosexuality - I assure you that s/he’s heard it already. How amazing would it be if the fundies would simply treat homosexuals with kindness, invite their participation, and not judge (as they don’t want to be judged by others)? I know, pipe dreams.
Perhaps the OP shouldn’t be “what should homosexuals do?” but rather, what should others do? Treat homosexuals with respect and realize that it’s the person, not the sexual orientation that’s important, or continue to be divisive and exclusive and hateful. Which is the bigger sin?
Snicks
And that’s as good as it gets for conversion therapy, as measured by people who desperately want it to work. You take gays who are really miserable with being gay, who really would choose to be straight if you could just choose it, and there are still huge failure rates, as measured however they measure them.
Needless to say, the success rates would probably approach zero with gays who weren’t so desirous of changing their orientation. Like the joke says, the light bulb has to want to change.
So that leaves celibacy, faking it, or living an honest life as a gay person. Faking it is obviously out, despite the Onion article: in the West, at least, the demand that gays not be gays comes overwhelmingly from Christians, and servants of the Lord have no business recommending that anyone live a fundamentally dishonest life. And AFATC, living an honest, open gay life is wrong. So that, as His4Ever has pointed out, leaves celibacy.
But the problem with this has always been obvious. Even among those Christian denominations that have made a place for a permanent celibate life (Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism), the call to celibacy has always been a calling that each individual receives, or not.
But the notion that all gays are called to be celibate turns this on its head. It turns a sacred calling into the spiritual equivalent of one of those Moonie mass marriages.
And for those denominations, encompassing essentially all of fundamentalist Christianity, that regard celibacy practically as an aberration, the notion that they would send gays en masse down this spiritual path that they themselves have little regard for, strikes me as the rankest hypocrisy.
In short, we have here an intellectual cul-de-sac for those who believe that gays, as a group, should live lives free of gay relationships. The only way out is to give up that belief.
I, for one, have no desire to be a female. Gay or not, I’m totally male, and wouldn’t have it any other way.
Not just homosexuality. Fundamentalism is a religion dedicated entirely to the condemnation of the decent, the innocent and the beautiful of the world.
Clearly, since the problem is not the gay people, but the disreputable sexuality-nazis who want to stamp out anyone who isn’t just like them. (“Yeah, and once we’re done with the fags, the papists is next!”)
Kirk
Posting an article from NARTH, an evil, gay-hating, bigotted organization, is hardly proof of anything. I have a pamphlet from David Duke about the “evils of Judaism.” It was published. Does that make it reputable and a reasonable source for information?
Show evidence from a reputable organization, if you’re going to show “evidence” at all, please.
Kirk
What’s your point? Turing was prosecuted on charges of ‘performing unnatural homosexual acts’ simply because there are no specific laws against ‘being a homosexual’; he was gay, admitted it and was arrested, after that the police found some suitable charges to throw at him.
As I said, I can’t see that it makes a huge heap of difference in Turing’s case.
I nested those quotes the wrong way, sorry (they are still in order).
Mangetout, this is a strange thing to dig your teeth into. I made a small correction of a factual error. You may be right that practically there is no difference, I wholly sympathise with that view point. I just don’t think we should round the edges off pointy truths.
I am reminded that when the UK “liberalized” the laws on homosexuality it became “legal” for consenting adults (21+) to practice their homosexuality in private (there has been recent more meaningful liberalization).
“Private” here would exclude hotel rooms and a large class of other accomodation types, and amounts to a locked room in a locked house. Also there could only be two participants.
At the time one could not be prosecuted on the evidence of an accomplice alone!
So you see, before the liberalization people conducting homosexual affairs behind locked doors with one other person were practically unprosecutable. And afterwards? Was there any real difference? I don’t think so, to all intents and purposes there was no liberalization, but you try telling the guys who write the rule books.
Since we are making small corrections I shall point out that there can only be two people present during gay sex i.e. for it to be illegal the extra people do not even have to be taking part, they just have to be there. Even following the recent equalisation of the age of consent I think this law is still in place. This makes the filming of gay porn films illegal, for example ( though I am not aware of any prosecutions being made under this law).
Kirkland, much as I like you, I asked people to keep this civil at the beginning of this thread. Saying, “Fundamentalism is a religion dedicated entirely to the condemnation of the decent, the innocent and the beautiful of the world.” doesn’t fit my criteria for civil. I know this is a painful topic, but please, take it easy.
Getting back to what Snickers and Kirkland said about changing sex, I run into a few problems there.
[ul][li]Despite the fact that I have several traits which American society considers male, I find it much easier to imagine myself as a homosexual than a man. I am, for the record every bit as straight as I am female.[/li][li]It may be lack of exposure, ignorance, or just plain prejudice, but I have a much harder time with changing genders than I do homosexuality. I don’t understand how one can be wrong and the other can be right.[/li][li]As I understand things, the process of changing genders is time-consuming and expensive. It sounds like it would be difficult to hold down a job while undergoing it. Who would pay for this?[/li][/ul]
Getting back to the issue of celibacy, I’ve been celibate for years. To me, it’s not a particularly big deal. However, if I go to a function to which I’m expected to bring a date, the expectation is I’ll turn up with a man. If I turned up with a woman, based on what I’ve heard from gay friends of mine, I might still be accused of “flaunting my homosexuality” by those who disapprove of it, regardless of what we did or did not do afterwards.
CJ
Sorry to have siezed on this; Perhaps I seem to have read more into your position than was actually there in the context of the wider set of comments in your first post to this thread, here’s what you seemed(to me) to be saying (my perceptions in italics):
Turing was convicted of performing “unnatuaral” (homosexual) acts, and NOT of being a homosexual.…and this makes enough of a difference to warrant mentioning it.
Turing “elected” to have the “treatment” as part of his sentence.…and this somehow makes it more justifiable.
Citation please if you want to link this directly with his suicide (I’m sure it added to his general pissed-offness).…A causal link seems tenuous or unlikely.
As I say, these were only my perceptions based on what I am able to understand by reading alone; I offer my sincere apologies if I have misunderstood your position.
For the record, does anyone know exactly what the evidence against Turing was presented?
Turing was convicted based on testimony by a man he had picked up in a bar who subsequently stayed with him a few nights. The same young gentleman stole some cash and a few objects from Turing’s house. Turing filed a complaint with the police who proceeded to apprehend said young man.
The police officers grew ‘suspicious’ of the circumstances around Turing’s relationship to this man and when pressed on the point he admitted that in fact they had enjoyed sexual relations. The officers then proceeded to question Turing who confirmed the young man’s story as truthful. I can’t remember the lead officer’s name, but I wish the damned pox on him and surely hope that he fries for ever in the Hell that His4ever, Jersey Diamond and Joe_Cool believe that Turing and myself will be meeting up in one day.
Turing never contested the charge and was convicted of buggery. His security clearances with MI5 and MI6 were revoked even before the trial, thus robbing him of an essential part of his research material as well as part of his livelihood in cryptography. He was sentenced to prison, but given the possibility of a more lenient sentence if he would enter ‘treatment’ for his homosexuality. As noted before the hormones and therapy that he went through broke him down emotionally and physically to the point where he couldn’t take it anymore and on June 7 1954 he killed himself by eating an apple laced with cyanide.
Sparc