If psychiatrists are treating homosexuality as a pathology they are doing it quietly. I've never heard of anyone other than Fundamentalist Christians who are doing it. This is one of the issues that derailed the Michele Bachmann campaign as her husband's clinic was rumored to be doing Reparative Therapy. It is more than an APA standard. We are talking about malpractice assaults that would be levied by third party advocates.
One issue that I think you are hitting has a lot of merit - the effects of sexual abuse on later sexual identification. A lot of men, especially who have been abused by a same sex perpetrator may have had a positive physical response to the event(s) and that response leads them to believe they must therefore be gay. As children they don't understand that sexual equipment does what it does when stimulated, it says nothing about ideational predisposition. If these young men have limited same sex role modeling and inadequate access to female sexual partners it is difficult for them to undue the effects that may now also be contaminated by same sex recurring fantasy. I agree, this is a tragic situation. We also know that some women orgasm during rape because the body does what it does. This can create a sado-masochistic tendency later. I think society underestimates the importance of heterosexual sex role modeling and related development. It takes a bit of work. The preponderance of single parenting and the devaluation of the masculine generally are leaving a lot of boys lost as to how to develop a heterosexual identity. Same with girls who are seeing some androgynous symbols all around them and being told it is bad to be too girly. I've never seen any studies on this. Maybe you have. I'd argue that the lack of research balance is an example of the symbiosis between progressive/postmodern academia and progressive government. As importantly, the discussion is typically reduced as if it is always about the smart secular progressives and the anti-intellectual religious Fundamentalists. Kevin Kevin : At least as I understand it, psychiatrists do, in fact, treat patients who wish to undo their homosexuality and become heterosexual ( again ). However, what exists is an informal modus vivendi to this effect, the official APA position is exactly what you say it is. One reason why a significant number of psychiatrists no longer belong to the APA and do not recognize the DSM as anything but a book of suggestions. From 1973 to about 1995 some 1/3rd of the members quit. Probably the exodus has ended now, but the damage was done. "Given present public opinion," you say that things are not likely to change. Therefore ? Do nothing ? Not the way I look at it. I have NEVER even had the chance to speak out on this issue in a public forum that matters. And have never found a publisher. Probably for the reasons you indicate. Therefore : All the more reason to try even harder. And when I get the chance my full intention is to raise all the hell that it is within me to raise and, to mix metaphors, to rub everyone's nose in it. You have no idea how strongly I feel about this issue. This is pure evil. It has got to be eliminated from American society. And I know who to depend upon : Nobody. Well, that is the way it is and while I do care, in another sense I really don't give a damn. I am perpetually angry about this, some days boiling over. This is a compete outrage. I have faced hostile crowds before, one on this issue at U of O a couple of years ago. Now I know what to expect and I won't have one hand tied behind my back as was the case then. And I am more and better informed than ever before. Billy ---------------------------------------------------------------- 11/13/2011 5:18:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Hello Billy: Anyone who practices reparative therapy is open for lawsuits and ethics/licensure violations. It doesn't matter which of the five major psychotherapy groups one belongs too, all are subject to the same best practice and do no harm standards. The DSM lists what conditions/behaviors are considered psychopathology, and thus amenable to medical treatment. Homosexuality is not considered a psychopathology (as you chronicled) and thus a practitioner cannot legitimately offer a treatment to "repair" it, even if a patient were to request such a treatment. Pedaphelia, sado-masochism, and paraphelias are considered psychopathology and thus OK for treatment. Homosexuality is not. Given the waves of change in society today I don't see that trend ever reversing. Having said that, I appreciate the courage you are displaying with respect to talking about this issue in real terms rather than PC niceties. Sexuality is a very complicated area. I do agree strongly with you that some of what is passing for normal sexual behavior today is psychopathological. I've also seen devastating effects on relationships from normalization, and easy access to pornography. Kevin Kevin : I cannot comment on family therapy since that is a profession about which my knowledge is close to non-existent. However, in terms of psychotherapy ( in any legitimate form ), it seems to me that homosexuals should receive therapy upon request. They certainly need it --desperately. I would imagine that in family therapy the situation is very different. That is another world, and as I understand it, children may be included. But about homosexuality, there is an entire ( fairly large and well organized ) group called NARTH, National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which specifically deals with homosexual treatments that reverse the "orientation" of those with this pathology. The main problem with NARTH is that ,as a guess, about 1/4th are religious hard cases, like Jeffrey Satinover, MD. He sure knows the physiological side of the issue but cannot refrain in his writings from what I will uncharitably call "Bible thumping." The obvious majority in NARTH consists of non-religious or not-very-religious professionals, mostly psychoanalysts. I have some of their publications and they are all first rate. These are the kinds of people who ought to be reachable in terms of actually mobilizing for political action. Not easily, not at all, psychoanalysts, by their nature, usually stay out of politics, but their wealth of knowledge on relevant issues is extremely valuable. Billy ----------------------------------------------------------- dated 11/13/2011 [email protected] writes: Hello Billy: I'm new to this forum and doing a lot of reading and catching up. I may not have received the list of Amendments before. I just finished reading the brief on Homosexuality. Quite clear indeed. The issue is heating up in Family Therapy right now because our ethical guidelines prohibit discriminating against any person who seeks therapy. Some religious MFT's believe they should not be required to treat a gay or lesbian client. As a libertarian-inspired therapist I believe no independent professional should be required to treat anyone against his will. The American Psychological Association recently passed a pro-gay marriage ethical statement. AAMFT remains neutral but the handwriting seems to be on the wall. By the way I did not tell anyone they should read my book. I don't speak in those terms. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to offer ideas for consideration and to read others' thoughts in an exchange of opinions. Kevin Kevin : What is my rationale ? I would have thought that the Amendment spelled it all out. What part of the Amendment is unclear ? Or did you read it ? I guess not. We should read you book, and I have already read parts of it, but no need to read anyone else's writings ? Anyway, the following, below, is from the "truth Amendment," and makes the point that, to re-use the Confucian adage, "a lie told 1000 times is easier to believe than the truth told once." For pedophilia occurs at astronomical rates among homosexuals compared with heterosexuals regardless of pro-homosexual propaganda to the contrary. Best stats I know about put the number of boy rapes at between 40 % and 50 % as many as rapes of girls. That is, roughly 2 % of the population, male homosexuals, commit about half as many sex crimes as 48 % of the population, male heterosexuals. The incidence level is close to 15 times that of heterosexuals, in any case a magnitude greater. Yes, not all male homosexuals are pedophiles, but no-one who is informed puts the figure are less than 20 % or 25 %. What if one out of four or five heterosexual males raped young girls ? But since this is about young boys, well, who cares... Until all hell breaks loose. I'd say that with this level of incidence it is fair enough to characterize homosexuality among males as linked to pedophilia. Not to even count the fact that the rate is probably higher and the related fact that pedophilia plays a major role in homosexual 'culture.' We have --about this and about MANY other matters on the subject of homosexuality-- been lied to year in and year out by the media, by homosexuals or their supporters, and by dupes of homosexuals in business and government. Guess what ? I will take my one truth any day before I believe even one of their 1000 lies. I am also dismayed beyond belief at the ineffectiveness and bad judgement of Evangelicals on this issue, who do oppose homosexuality but who seem to have willfully chosen the stupidest strategy available, who make little effort to become informed, and who in any case put this at or near the bottom on their list of priorities. And then they wonder why their children are raped. After all, everything else is more important, especially money. Besides, it would mean the necessity to have a backbone when the popular culture has been mostly won over to the homosexual viewpoint, and that is out of the question if you want to get ahead in life. Much better to put bank accounts first, waaay first. My view is that there is no alternative but to completely forget about Evangelicals on this issue, they are not about to do one damned thing that matters. I sincerely am disgusted at their failures in this area. Disgusted and angry. Billy ------------------------------------------------------------------ Right to Truth Included in "outcome" is the principle that consensus is no substitute for objective truth. That is, even a "sea change" in opinion generally may mean nothing if conclusions were reached based on faulty "information," or on one or another form of dishonesty. This Amendment is intended to help make truthfulness normative in American society more than has often been the case in the past. by penalizing falsehoods. Showing indifference to public lying is dysfunctional to all of society. Honest errors shall be protected by law in all cases where those concerned can show that they have carried out serious research or investigation to seek to verify their contentions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/12/2011 3:57:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Hi Billy: Your beliefs about homosexuality are new to me. What is your rationale? I have a psychological lens, having worked with many over the years in psychotherapy. Most people make a distinction between homosexuality and pedophelia. Kevin Here is the difficulty : In many cases "government intervention" IS government. In 1787 Madison advocated federal legislative powers that would have allowed the Congress to nullify laws passed in the states. Reason ? Among other things because he wanted to see slavery abolished and did not think there was any other way to do so. Eventually the 14th Amendment did the job. That Amendment was a case of Government Intervention writ large. Similarly, child labor laws intervened in the market. It also is government intervention when Congress passes laws that limit pollution, establish safety regulations, or prohibit poll taxes. You can almost ask, "what isn't government intervention" when speaking of Acts of Congress. For that matter, most Executive Orders are also government interventions, as are most Supreme Court decisions. Thus we get a libertarian case against government intervention and the phrase is conveniently undefined. Or we get an argument about a government intervention that went bad, forgetting all opposite effects for the good. Yet all laws and Constitutional Amendments, or almost all , consist of interventions. Which the father of the Constitution himself, James Madison favored on principle. That is, as an Originalist, it is impossible for me to ignore the main author of the Constitution and his intentions, which, while hardly about everything, regardless favored government intervention as a Good. Something happens and a lot of people are upset. They demand that government should act, viz, intervene, This is November 12, 2011. There is one helluva scandal at Penn State University. It seems as if a football coach named Sandusky has been molesting and raping young boys. Joe Paterno was informed about this and did almost nothing about it and retained the services of Sandusky for 7 years after the first report came to his attention. What should government do ? Nothing and simply let this play out in criminal court ? How about eliminating the problem ? How about treating homosexuality for what it is, a mental illness deserving legal prohibition and mandatory treatment so that this dysfunctional behavior in brought under control ? My project, "A Radical Centrist Vision for the Future," consisting of 100 suggested constitutional Amendments, includes several in the area of social values. The entire project was sent to everyone on this list, plus a good number of other people. The Amendments concerning social values are included in the following material, featuring an Amendment to re-criminalize homosexuality . The argument is psychoanalytic, and generally based on science and scholarly research findings. It is anything but an argument from tradition or religious authority. What actions that are less than this can possibly bring the criminality which is intrinsic to homosexuality to a halt ? How many more Catholic Church type scandals do we need ? Now we have a big one in NCAA sports. Where will it go next ? But there are other social / values issues which also cry out for government intervention, such as child pornography and the need to enforce anti-Communist prohibitions in America. Sure, there is a new consensus on issues such as homosexuality. So what ? The only question that matters is whether this consensus is for the good or whether the whole rationale behind it is fallacious and has the effect of destroying our society. It is as obvious as anything gets that this new consensus is a consensus from hell and needs to be completely discredited. It is unpopular to make the effort ? Yes it is. But it is immoral in the extreme not to make the effort and seriously try to change the consensus and to oppose everyone who now is in cahoots with it. Just how does anyone think that scandals like the Catholic Church and Penn State come about ? These scandals happen all over the country every day, somewhere, at lesser scale --in local schools, in the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, among Congressmen, and you name it-- precisely because of the nature of homosexuality itself. It is time to become actually informed on the issue and do something about it. Billy -- -- Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
