-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Survey 17% of UK therapists offer gay 'treatment'
- Thread starter Gaborn
- Start date
- Status
Dragona Akehi
Retired
Time to revoke some licences.
Escape Goat
Member
Good lord. You can condition any animal to not behave in some manner. Doesn't mean they aren't still gay /facepalm
I think there's two explanations for this and both of them should result in a doctor losing their license. Either the person believes homosexuality is a mental condition which is curable by therapy, which is clearly unsupported and reckless, or they're simply interested in convincing someone to pay them.
Some interesting bits from the report:
So... they tried to reorient them to heterosexuality because they were confused about their sexuality, rather than attempting them to figure it out?
And what's even worse, 28% of the therapists did absolutely no follow-up, and for the remainder, the median time of follow-up was 8 months.
Exactly what were they thinking?
An excellent idea.
The Conclusion said:
So... they tried to reorient them to heterosexuality because they were confused about their sexuality, rather than attempting them to figure it out?
Reasons said:
And what's even worse, 28% of the therapists did absolutely no follow-up, and for the remainder, the median time of follow-up was 8 months.
Exactly what were they thinking?
Dragona Akehi said:
An excellent idea.
Beer Monkey
Member
ninjarr said:
Supporting self-loathing?
ninjarr said:
How about another example: therapists offer religious "treatment" which means getting people to reject religion and belief in a god.
How would that make religious people feel (not that I care)? And who's to say that there aren't family members who would force people to get this "treatment"?
polyh3dron
Banned
ninjarr said:
There is no known way to reorient a person's sexuality, thus attempts to do so are irresponsible, at best.
The issue is not that they are being forced to do this, but that they go to a therapist for help, and what these therapists are doing could cause them more harm.
Like I said, I don't see what is wrong with it. If someone were being forced, I'd feel something is wrong with that, but I think attempting to change someone's sexuality from a nurture/psychological standpoint is possible.
Then again, I am of the understanding that homosexuality is not genetic, or at least not in the way it is painted, and that most of it is nurture, thus it is highly possible that conditioning could work.
Then again, I am of the understanding that homosexuality is not genetic, or at least not in the way it is painted, and that most of it is nurture, thus it is highly possible that conditioning could work.
ninjarr said:
Not... really. Homosexuality may not be fully genetic but a good portion of it is HORMONAL, and determined essentially at birth by the environment in the womb.
And the problem is that the therapist is in a position of trust and is influencing patients to do something that is generally considered harmful by the psychiatric community.
Tamanon said:
I picked religion simply because many would classify it as a mental illness, just as many would classify homosexuality as a mental illness. I didn't mean to imply that either one is (regardless of my actual views), and I also did not mean to imply that homosexuality is a choice.
A therapist offering to make you not black any more could be an aesthetic choice, so that's not a perfect analogy either.
While those videos were interesting, I don't think they really concluded much. The hormonal impacts are definitely worth noting and not something I was aware of, but they didn't have any basis for it being a genetic result, nor did they have any basis for it not being a result of social behavior...
Interesting though, thanks. Will look into it more.
The way I like to think about it is that people can be conditioned to see different things as beautiful (see cultural trends in tribes in Africa), and what they see as beautiful dictates their sexual attraction. Extending beauty beyond the conventional sense of aesthetics to include behavior, it seems only logical to see the huge relation that conditioning has with homosexuality.
Interesting though, thanks. Will look into it more.
Nurture does not imply choice. Just thought I'd clarify that I am not saying because it is not genetic it is a (conscious) choice, I don't think it is a (conscious) choice.
The way I like to think about it is that people can be conditioned to see different things as beautiful (see cultural trends in tribes in Africa), and what they see as beautiful dictates their sexual attraction. Extending beauty beyond the conventional sense of aesthetics to include behavior, it seems only logical to see the huge relation that conditioning has with homosexuality.
ninjarr said:
Sure they do. With twins there's no reason for one boy to be raised differently than another boy. You, by the way, haven't really presented anything to back up your opinion that it's due to upbringing, would you care to provide a source or two?
Oh, and nobody is claiming homosexuality is 100% genetic either.
Spirit of Jazz
Banned
If people want to pay for it then what's the issue?
I think you are overestimating a parent's ability to control an environment, or perhaps underestimating the importance of small details in the environment during the first stages of development. For instance, in the case of the two twins with the G.I. Joes and the Dolls, sure the mother saw a difference and catered to it, but that small difference only grew as she allowed it to. Initially it was only a small difference and, as I am claiming, could probably be eliminated with proper conditioning (only buy the kid G.I. Joes, force him to engage in masculine activities, etc.). I am not saying that is right or wrong behavior to do as a parent, just saying it could have an affect.Gaborn said:
And yes, I understand nobody was claiming 100% genetis, just as I am not claiming 100% nurture (or 100% positive that it is anything 100% or 20% or what-have-you). I am however claiming that conditioning could be used to change sexual orientation, but I suppose I could be wrong, I don't like to claim I am certainly right about anything but matters regarding contradictions.
Spirit of Jazz said:
This was my main intention with my first post, but we've been distracted to another issue that was easily inferred by it.
Edit: I edited in one of my reasons I see it as mostly social a few posts ago. Hope you saw that. Was editing it in as you asked me to elaborate. I won't say I have any scientific basis for my claims, only what I think are logical deductions from other facts.
ninjarr said:
True, but that's the point. One of them ASKED for GI Joe, one of them ASKED for Beanie Babies. Do you think she forced them to ask it? And would it make a difference? Put it this way, do you honestly think if someone forced you to engage in feminine activities growing up you'd grow up gay? cause I don't. I'm as masculine as they come. I love football, basketball, baseball. Yet I'm gay. Other people I know are considerably more effeminate than I am and yet grew up happening to be straight. Sometimes there are signs like those boys where you can tell on average which way they'll turn out but it's possible both will be gay, both will be straight, or that the opposite twin you might "expect" will be gay.
And yes, I understand nobody was claiming 100% genetis, just as I am not claiming 100% nurture (or 100% positive that it is anything 100% or 20% or what-have-you). I am however claiming that conditioning could be used to change sexual orientation, but I suppose I could be wrong, I don't like to claim I am certainly right about anything but matters regarding contradictions.
Can you source that "conditioning" could change orientation?
ElectricBlue187
Member
17% of UK therapists like money better than morality
I don't know whether or not the feminine/masculine upbringing dictates homosexuality, in fact I do know that I doubt it does, at least I doubt it does exclusively. But I do bet that how someone is brought up does impact it, but in a very difficult to predict way. Someone that is forced to grow up masculine might react to that in one way and turn out straight. Another person might react to that and turn out gay. Why do they turn out this way? Because nurture is much bigger than that. Because people are much more maleable than that. Anyway, my main point goes even further than this, which is that, assuming it is partially genetic, despite being partially genetic it can still be conditioned against, as other behaviors are.
As far as my claims, no I cannot, I have not done extensive research in this field and do not wish to imply that I have. As a philosophical discussion I make that claim, with some understanding of the results conditioning can have on other similar matters (such as what society sees as "beautiful" or "attractive" in a human).
As far as my claims, no I cannot, I have not done extensive research in this field and do not wish to imply that I have. As a philosophical discussion I make that claim, with some understanding of the results conditioning can have on other similar matters (such as what society sees as "beautiful" or "attractive" in a human).
ninjarr said:
Sure, within a narrow prism society can shape sexual attractions, standards of beauty, but I don't think it's ever been really established that it can flip people. I think that really most humans tend towards bisexuality if anything, as evidenced by cultures like ancient Rome and Greece which promoted gay relationships and had a high number of people (well above the statistical average you'd generally expect) forming in addition to heterosexual relationships. To me something like THAT suggests that societal pressure to be straight may tend to make normally bisexual men only perform heterosexually and the statistical outliers (the 100% heterosexual and 100% homosexual) tend to only be noticed if society goes one way (not that society's ever gone totally gay)
I agree completely, and have some inclination to think that that tending towards bisexuality is due to a simpler mantra of reproduction, namely: fuck it. What I mean is, we are descendants of a single-gender life form. The dual-gender species that we have become is based on that, and I think it is highly unlikely that that simpler "fuck anything that moves" rule has been wiped out completely.
I think at our base we are all probably bisexual, but we are socially shaped toward certain sexualities because it promotes certain behaviors which are advantageous to the success (and future existence of) societies. From this standpoint, it only makes sense that most of it is nurture. But again, what my main claim was about was not what makes someone gay, but what can make someone straight, and I think conditioning can do it. The mind is an incredibly powerful tool.
I am not however claiming that any conditioning techniques we are aware of can do it, just that it can be done with conditioning.
Edit: Another interesting thing that I think is that bisexuality today has become a fad amongst the youth generation, only further my claim that a lot of it is nurture/social. It is becoming trendy to be bisexual in certain cliques.
I think at our base we are all probably bisexual, but we are socially shaped toward certain sexualities because it promotes certain behaviors which are advantageous to the success (and future existence of) societies. From this standpoint, it only makes sense that most of it is nurture. But again, what my main claim was about was not what makes someone gay, but what can make someone straight, and I think conditioning can do it. The mind is an incredibly powerful tool.
I am not however claiming that any conditioning techniques we are aware of can do it, just that it can be done with conditioning.
Edit: Another interesting thing that I think is that bisexuality today has become a fad amongst the youth generation, only further my claim that a lot of it is nurture/social. It is becoming trendy to be bisexual in certain cliques.
ninjarr said:
I think Nurture is an overused term and really too politically charged for a discussion on homosexuality. People that are gay simply are, there is no statistically demonstrable relationship between it and what social conservatives imply (distant father, overprotective mother, ec)
ninjarr said:
No, I understand, and I like civil discussion, I'm just saying that you should be a little more careful. Frankly you're a junior and people are understandably touchy when you're dealing with subjects like this, Juniors have probably been banned for less. Just keep in mind that nature and nurture also happen to be culture war buzz words and you should be more careful with them.
ninjarr said:
I think that there are some important things to note. Most important, I think, is that you have no real basis for your belief that it is possible to change someone's sexuality from a nurture/pyschological standpoint. There has never been a proven instance of a person changing from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. There have been people who claimed that they have changed - and who still show no arousal towards members of the opposite sex, who fantasize about same-sex encounters to become aroused during heterosexual sex (if they are not celibate), etc., but nothing concrete.
And I think that the numerous physiological and quantitative differences between gay and straight brains (especially gay men and straight men) in the aggregate shows that even if environment is more responsible than biology, it ends up causing actual differences in biology.
Lich_King said:
I think the main difference between those two is that you can have success with changing handedness - so the negative effects associated with the attempts are different.
When changing handedness, you can have moderate success with it. The problem is mainly that the primary side effects are various learning difficulties and stuttering, because handedness is set in very early and connected to a number of other things (such as speech development) other than what hand you use.
When changing homosexuality, no one has shown a method that works. The negative consequences with attempting to changing homosexuality don't have as much to do with things like, "The homosexual's brain is wired somewhat differently than a heterosexual's brain, so changing his orientation negatively affects other things for him," because we simply aren't able to make that change. The negative side has more to do with the fact that people who actually want to change tend to be very desperate to do so, because they are unsatisfied with their homosexuality. Because it is impossible for them to change, the best thing to do for them is try to bring them to terms with what they are. Promising to help them change, knowing full well that they don't have a chance, is irresponsibly setting them up for more depression or suicide.
- Status