Psychologists reject "gay therapy". Two newpapers report it differently.

Great Debates
21

Since newspapers are supposed to report, and at least 95% of the press release is about changing sexual orientation, leading with anything else wouldn’t seem proper to me, unless there is an alternate agenda. However much we know gay therapy is bullshit, the APA saying so is significant, just as it was significant when they said homosexuality was not a mental disorder, something else we knew.

I didn’t get at all that they said it was beneficial to reject sexual impulses. They did say that conflicts with religious beliefs should be addressed, but they didn’t say how. That might be a solution for some, but they didn’t seem to advise any particular solution.

BTW, I admit my guess was wrong, now I’ve read the release.

22

I suspect also that the average person was not going to wade through 83 papers, while a clear statement that gay therapy is bullshit would be better ammunition for someone whose parents, say, try to drag him to someone who is supposed to make him or her change.

If the APA thought the religion counseling was the most important thing coming from the study, they’d make it the headline, right?

I wonder if the religious counseling part is to help those now that the recommended strategy from their church, change, is no longer valid. But that’s another guess.

23

The WSJ article is on a page in the paper titled “Currents.” It is not, as the AP article is, a brief summary of the overall findings of the new report – essentially, reprinting the APA’s press release. It’s a story that explores more deeply a particular, rather unexpected aspect of that report, placing it in the context of different therapeutic approaches to homosexuality in the religious community.

I think that an experienced newspaper reader (preferably one without a phobic reaction to the name “Rupert Murdoch”) would immediately perceive the differing purposes of these articles. The WSJ article isn’t hiding anything, and anyone who actually reads the whole thing will not only learn everything that is in the AP article, but a great deal more besides. If you’re not going to read the whole thing, however, then I guess another news source would be better for you.

24

I argue with this characterization only on the grounds that a phobia is an irrational hatred or fear of someone or something.

25

This is the part that I find factually incorrect. “Being gay,” i.e. sexual orientation, is defined sexual attraction or desire, not by sexual behavior. The evangelical counselor acknowledges that he can’t change someone’s attraction or desires - he can counsel someone to be celibate or to engage only in heterosexual behavior.

The APA’s report stated that for some people, celibacy may be an appropriate way to reconcile the conflict between sexual orientation and religious affiliation. The report does not suggest that someone who chooses to abstain from sexual activity is no longer homosexual (or heterosexual, for that matter).

It’s factually incorrect to claim that someone becomes “not gay” by being celibate, and that’s what disturbs me about the WSJ’s take on the APA report.

26

So, I got in touch with the editor I know at the WSJ. He doesn’t edit that section, I guess, because he only read the article after I pointed it out. He thought the article title and sub-heading was pretty vague, attributable to the nuanced approach that the APA is taking. He agrees that it’s fair criticism of the second headline (apparently known as the “deck”) and he invited me to get in touch with the writer. I don’t think he looked at it all that closely – seems really busy today.

The writer’s e-mail address is right under the article. Someone here could do a better job of sending a note to the her, and I only have access to work e-mail right now and I don’t really want to send it from here. Jayjay? Voyager? You’re both better writers than I am.

27

Going by just what was posted, it seems the 2 articles are wildly different in content. I would not be able to tell they were reporting on the same thing.

28

I think if you actually read the second article you might be able to figure it out.

29

I think we did see that - but the articles were presented as if both were news articles, not one news and one a feature. If the news report in the WSJ emphasized the major finding, then I don’t have a problem at all with another article discussing a side issue in more detail. Whatever I might feel about how the article is slanted, running it isn’t an issue.

Basically, the title of this thread says “reported” - but the WSJ article isn’t really meant to report the story. So I’m okay with it.

30

And if you actually read the second article AND the APA statement, you’d figure out that the WSJ article is largely misleading and in several instances flatly wrong.

Given the way it is misleading and erroneous and the venue it is published in, it’s hard not to see an agenda at work.

31

Could you specify what is “flatly wrong” in the WSJ article?

32

I’m very skeptical of gay conversion therapy, but I’m also skeptical of all therapy. It’s my understanding that studies of the effectiveness of therapy in general have not tended to show effectiveness (beyond the “sympathetic listener” aspect). So what I wonder is: is there any reason to believe that gay therapy is less effective than therapy in general, or is the ineffectiveness simply the result of the general problem with therapy as a whole - that aspects of personality, including but not limited to sexual orientation, tend to be either inherent (genetic) or at least very deep rooted, and extremely difficult to change?

33

Upon reading the three links, I have to assume the WSJ is talking about a different announcement from the APA, as none of what they talk about is in the announcement linked above. I can’t find anything that matches the substance of the WSJ article under press releases, but that does not mean it’s not there.

34

I don’t think you understand the point. The Pennsylvania psychologist is not telling them “I will make you straight” or even “You won’t be gay anymore.” What he is saying, to patients who believe that acting on the homosexuality is sinful, is that they might be happier leading a life of celibacy. This is not a particularly revolutionary claim; one of the cardinal principles of the therapy is that the patient should be made better off by therapy.

Now you and I might not put much stock in religion and might not understand why these gay men don’t just jettison the religious beliefs. But, they don’t, and they’re unhappy, and it is a good thing that there are practitioners who can help them live a life in accordance with their beliefs–lives that you or I would not like for ourselves, but which doesn’t seem to be unduly self-destructive to the extent that we should be able to override their autonomy.

This is oft-forgotten point on the SDMB, that people can have beliefs, values, and practices that differ from the dominant beliefs, values, and practices of this board’s members without that necessarily being evidence of wickedness or stupidity.

35

I meant that had I hypothetically been someone who scanned only briefly through both articles, I would have been mislead into thinking that these 2 articles covered different subjects.

36

If the second article was the primary news report on the APA statement, it would be badly misleading. If it were a companion article or feature to the actual news report, it might highlight someone we think is a dunce, but it is not misleading.

37

OK. Just read through the full WSJ article. The OP’s excerpt is woefully inadequate.

The WSJ clearly takes a different tack, though, IMO, they botched the story. The story should have been:

  • Therapists have been trying to tell people they can make them “not gay”
  • The APA has reviewed much research and says that’s BS
  • However, for some patients, their religious identity is far more central to their personality than is their sexual identity.
  • For this small group, the APA says it may be OK for therapists to work with them so that the patients (a) accept that they are gay (b) accept that there’s nothing sinful about those feelings © but also realize that, if their faith is SO important to them and it doesn’t allow for same-sex activity, that they consider leading an asexual life

The advice isn’t THAT kooky–it’s no different than the advice you might give a Priest or Nun or someone else who has taken religious vows of celibacy. But the WSJ completely blubbered up the article. For some reason, I imagine the writer turning in one article, and then his editor figuring out how to recast it to emphasize the “rejecting gay impulses” angle above all else (all else, including clarity of writing).

38

First, the title: “A New Therapy on Faith and Sexual Identity.” The APA is not describing a new therapy. It is reviewing evidence, clarifying an official position and providing guidance to mental health professionals.

More crucially, these statements from the WSJ:
“Psychological Association Revises Treatment Guidelines to Allow Counselors to Help Clients Reject Their Same-Sex Attractions”

“But in a striking departure, the American Psychological Association said Wednesday that it is ethical – and can be beneficial – for counselors to help some clients reject gay or lesbian attractions.”

The idea that the APA is suggesting anyone reject homosexuality or same-sex attractions is false. See, for example, these quotes from the APA paper:

“Some religious individuals may wish to resolve the tension between values and sexual orientation by choosing celibacy (sexual abstinence), which in some faiths, but not all, may be a virtuous path (Olson, 2007).
[…]
Licensed mental health providers may approach such a situation by neither rejecting nor promoting celibacy but attempting to understand how this outcome is part of the process of exploration, sexual self-awareness, and understanding of core values and goals.” (p. 61)

“The goal of treatment is for the client to explore possible life paths that address the reality of their sexual orientation while considering the possibilities for a religiously and spiritually meaningful and rewarding life. Such psychotherapy can enhance clients’ search for meaning, significance, and a relationship with the sacred in their lives (e.g., Pargament & Maloney, 2005). Such an approach would focus on increasing positive religious coping, understanding religious motivations, integrating religious and sexual orientation identities, and reframing sexual orientation identities to reduce or eliminate self-stigma.” (p. 87)

“Rather, therapy that increases the client’s ability to cope, understand, acknowledge, and integrate sexual orientation concerns into a self-chosen life is the measured approach.” (p. 88)

Eliminating self-stigma is inconsistent with rejecting same-sex attractions.

39

Your understanding is completely at odds with the empirical evidence. The effectiveness of therapy may vary by the type of problem being presented, but for many types of difficulties, therapy has been repeatedly shown to be effective (e.g. depression, anxiety, oppositional defiant disorder, autism, and so forth). Cognitive behavioral therapies go far beyond simply listening.

40

I’m aware of that. But having a sympathetic listener is also effective for many issues such as most of those you name, so the question is whether therapy is effective beyond that.

I don’t know how many studies have directly compared the two, though I recall having encountered this claim over the years. In looking around a bit now, I did notice that several summaries of studies of the effectiveness of therapy contain the striking claim that no type of therapy is more effective than any other type of therapy, which strongly suggests that it’s not the specific therapeutic approach (which varies between therapies) that’s effective, but the mere fact of being in therapy or the common aspect of them, i.e. a sympathetic listener.

Some cites:

True, no doubt, but the question is whether what they do beyond simply listening is effective.

See also: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/health/experts+debunk+cbt+myth/2319202