Effectiveness of reparative therapy

[Bennie_P]

Have I said therapy absolutely positively undeniably completely won’t work on anyone and everyone? No.

Have I said that mandating therapy is immoral? Yes. Have I said I don’t trust it? Yes. Have I said that my opinion is backed up by various medical organizations? Yes.

Has anyone here said that reparative therapy should be mandated?

What everyone that opposes your opinon has been saying is that the “Gay” Rights movement is wrong in thier stance that everyone that has SSA cannot change and it does more harm to try then not. This attitude does more harm then good for the individual w/SSA and society as a whole. The “Gay” rights movement by trying to re-enforce this idea is equal to mandating an individual into a lifestyle that is a virtual death sentence for the majority of those that act out on thier SSA. It was politcal force, under the guise of a false compassion of “equality”, without any medical or science data to back it up, that forced the MDA and APA to take a “enlighten” view of homosexuality. Which in essence has kept the medical, science and psychiatry fields close to a half a century behind in any real meaningful research. Talk about living in the dark ages.

 

[Sure]

When people say ‘you can’t go to heaven unless you get fixed’, as happens all too frequently, my statement about ‘good enough’ is entirely applicable.

Well, I have never said such a thing nor have I defended those who have.

 

[goofyjim]

And actually I am still not in complete agreement that it is a disorder(SSA that is). That continues to make it sound like it is something that needs to be fixed. It doesn’t. No amount of any psychological therapy would work. I have personally explored so many bs theories, none of which applied to me, that I had to conclude I was born with it making it pretty much immutable.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

In convenient list/timeline form, with references!

One that starts with the presumption that removing homosexuality from the list of disorders was appropriate despite a total lack of research to support that and in spite of continuing evidence that living a homosexual lifestyle was in fact detrimental to one’s overall health. Going through the quotes, all of the reasons ultimately point back to that political shift as to whether or not homosexuality should be considered “normal” as a reason for dismissing treating it as a disorder.

 

[goofyjim]

One that starts with the presumption that removing homosexuality from the list of disorders was appropriate despite a total lack of research to support that and in spite of continuing evidence that living a homosexual lifestyle was in fact detrimental to one’s overall health. Going through the quotes, all of the reasons ultimately point back to that political shift as to whether or not homosexuality should be considered “normal” as a reason for dismissing treating it as a disorder.

So what do you recommend? Putting the orientation alone back on the list of mental disorders and requiring treatment for anyone who mentions having it. I would have to stubbornly refuse such treatment.

 

[Riley259]

Keep in mind that the psychiatric community has also said that there is nothing harmful with actually practicing homosexuality, and has adopted much “softer” statements about whether a sexual attraction to children is disordered. The APA’s change from the long held opinion that homosexuality was sexually deviant behavior was changed in the absence of research to justify the change but in response to considerable political pressure to do so, much like the ACOG’s decision to redefine conception and pregnancy to open the door to the legal distribution of the low-dose birth control pill was made without any groundbreaking research on embryology to justify the change but when there was considerable political pressure to find a way for the “safer” low dose pills to be legally marketed despite their abortafacient properties. Many of the shifts in the position of the medical establishment regarding sexuality since the 1960s has been based on PC politics rather than medical fact, and in those instances, no, I don’t trust the reasons for the shifts.

You’re so right on about this.

 

[goofyjim]

The decision to remove homosexuality from the list of psychiatric disorders was appropriate. It does not bear on the moral code the Church upholds but simply states scientifically that these people, w/o medication, or any other treatment are able to function in society as any of the rest of us. That means while it may not be part of God’s plan it is still not a pscychiatric disorder. No political movement whatsoever.

 

[Sure]

And actually I am still not in complete agreement that it is a disorder(SSA that is). That continues to make it sound like it is something that needs to be fixed. It doesn’t. No amount of any psychological therapy would work. I have personally explored so many bs theories, none of which applied to me, that I had to conclude I was born with it making it pretty much immutable.

I suppose we could call it a disorder (or defect) that perhaps has no cure or remedy for most people. I wonder though, if some therapy could be beneficial for people who have slight attraction to the same sex and also attraction to the opposite sex.

By the way, I greatly admire your courage and your faith. You are a great example to others. You obviously have a cross to bear yet you are embracing it and showing others your love for Christ and His Church.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

So what do you recommend? Putting the orientation alone back on the list of mental disorders and requiring treatment for anyone who mentions having it. I would have to stubbornly refuse such treatment.

You’d have to go read some of my older posts to see why I know that, but I know for a fact that its well nigh impossible to require someone to get treatment for mental disorders, even ones that cause significantly more disruption to their daily lives and overall health (and even that of their family) than what is seems you are facing. So, yes to putting it back on the list of disorders, but the bit about “requiring treatment” seems to be a scare tactic type of response rather than something based on how that was treated while it was still considered a disorder or could reasonably expect to be teated as if it was placed back on the list. (In another parallel to the politics behind abortion, similar scare tactics are used about aggressively prosecuting mothers who sought one out if Roe was overturned, even though that was not done previously.)

The decision to remove homosexuality from the list of psychiatric disorders was appropriate. It does not bear on the moral code the Church upholds but simply states scientifically that these people, w/o medication, or any other treatment are able to function in society as any of the rest of us.

Except for their higher suicide rates, dramatically increased incidence of risk-taking behaviors (including substance abuse), on average shortened lifespans, and greater incidence of other psychiatric disorders than the general population. Sorry, but that is simply not an equivalent level of ability to function in society, but a diminished one.

That means while it may not be part of God’s plan it is still not a pscychiatric disorder. No political movement whatsoever.

So why was there no science presented behind the decision to take it off the list of disorders when the negative impacts of that lifestyle known then still remain unchallenged in peer review?

 

[Mirdath]

Has anyone here said that reparative therapy should be mandated?

It’s been said multiple times in this thread that ‘fixing’ homosexuality should be a moral imperative.

Ray_Scheel:

Except for their higher suicide rates, dramatically increased incidence of risk-taking behaviors (including substance abuse), on average shortened lifespans, and greater incidence of other psychiatric disorders than the general population. Sorry, but that is simply not an equivalent level of ability to function in society, but a diminished one.

None of which have been shown to be caused by homosexuality itself; the depression and suicide rates can be nicely accounted for by the attitude of much of society towards homosexuals. All these problems and more are also correlated with being black. Is it morally wrong to have dark skin?

 

[goofyjim]

You’d have to go read some of my older posts to see why I know that, but I know for a fact that its well nigh impossible to require someone to get treatment for mental disorders, even ones that cause significantly more disruption to their daily lives and overall health (and even that of their family) than what is seems you are facing. So, yes to putting it back on the list of disorders, but the bit about “requiring treatment” seems to be a scare tactic type of response rather than something based on how that was treated while it was still considered a disorder or could reasonably expect to be teated as if it was placed back on the list. (In another parallel to the politics behind abortion, similar scare tactics are used about aggressively prosecuting mothers who sought one out if Roe was overturned, even though that was not done previously.)

Does anyone ever consider that the suicide for a nonactive homosexual may be caused simply through a fear of people not accepting him for who he really is. I haven’t had sex but I haven’t lied to anyone either. I attempted suicide once but it was because I thought the world would not accept me. Well God does so it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks anymore. My consicence is clear. Homosexuality may be morally wrong with regard to the acts but religion should not require science to make something a psychiatric disorder. It’s a phenomenon that has existed and will always exist. They were trying shock treatment, lobotomies, medication. None of it could make a person change who they found attractive. It is best I agree to let the individual decide. He need only seek treatment if he is disturbed by it. I personally feel he shouldn’t be.

Except for their higher suicide rates, dramatically increased incidence of risk-taking behaviors (including substance abuse), on average shortened lifespans, and greater incidence of other psychiatric disorders than the general population. Sorry, but that is simply not an equivalent level of ability to function in society, but a diminished one.

So why was there no science presented behind the decision to take it off the list of disorders when the negative impacts of that lifestyle known then still remain unchallenged in peer review?

 

[goofyjim]

I am now bowing out of this thread. I have been falsely accused of provoking things by starting it. Thanks for judging the heart. I thought only the Lord could do that. I have stated my opinion based on personal experience. There is obviously no way a heterosexual can ever understand what it is like to be homosexual. So they take what they don’t understand and call it a psychiatric disorder. IT IS NOT. No psychiatrist can change what you feel inside. If they said it was morally wrong to eat chocolate ice cream and that iswhat you preferred noone could ever change your desire for chocolate ice cream. Homosexuals are just becomign the quick and easy scapegoat lately for all the world’s problems.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

No psychiatrist can change what you feel inside.

In my own experience with cognitive adjustment programs dealing with behavioral disordered or criminally minded thinking, I know this claim is not true as a rule, and I have seen no reason that sexually deviancies thinking would be significantly different. There certainly isn’t any science to that effect, all I see is a political push that sexual issues shouldn’t be treated the same as other significantly out of norm thinking patterns. Now, the cognitive approaches don’t work for all, but the reported success rates of reparative therapy for homosexually inclined thinking compares vary favorably to that of other thinking intervention approaches.

 

[Mirdath]

In my own experience with cognitive adjustment programs dealing with behavioral disordered or criminally minded thinking, I know this claim is not true as a rule, and I have seen no reason that sexually deviancies thinking would be significantly different. There certainly isn’t any science to that effect, all I see is a political push that sexual issues shouldn’t be treated the same as other significantly out of norm thinking patterns. Now, the cognitive approaches don’t work for all, but the reported success rates of reparative therapy for homosexually inclined thinking compares vary favorably to that of other thinking intervention approaches.

How effective is it really?

From ReligiousTolerance.org:

Dr. Nicolosi said that this form of therapy: “…can only be damaging if the agenda of the therapist supersedes that of the patient.” He claims that of the patients at the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, of which he is founding director,
-One third experience “significant improvement – they understand their homosexuality and have some sense of control.” However, they may engage in same-sex sexual behavior.
-Another third are “cured;” they refrain from same-sex behavior and the strength and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished, but not necessarily gone.
-The other third fail to change.

In other words, it can’t be truly ‘cured’ at all! And this from NARTH!

Nor are there any studies (that I know of, at least) showing that one can make heterosexuals gay. Wouldn’t that, if anything, show that therapy can change one’s sexual orientation? Why hasn’t it been done?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

How effective is it really?

From ReligiousTolerance.org:

In other words, it can’t be truly ‘cured’ at all! And this from NARTH!

There is no magic pill for any cognitive disfunction, it is a matter of taking what one can get in way of improvement while looking for either more effective ways to present an already effective approach or to develop new strategies for those not responding to the more successful methods. Psychology is still as much art as science. Outside of death, nothing will completely cure humans tendency to sin.

For a cognitive restructuring, a 30% return to restraining one’s behaviors to within the norm, and another 30% showing significant improvement, is generally considered a successful therapeutic approach. Those not responding fully of sufficiently would then be candidates for a more tailored approach. For other types of thinking disorders (particularly the criminal thinking patters I am most familiar with) this would be considered a very effective success rate, so why am I getting the feeling that you are thinking that anything less than 100% wouldn’t be good enough for something that just happens to be one of the PC sacred cows?

Nor are there any studies (that I know of, at least) showing that one can make heterosexuals gay. Wouldn’t that, if anything, show that therapy can change one’s sexual orientation? Why hasn’t it been done?

There is a well established MO of females with attractions to pubescent or teen girls to seek coaching position to gain access and authority to try to gain converts, and some of the NAMBLA materials have documented strategies known to work as well (if you can stomach reading them), so there is some evidence that the inclinations can be swung in the homosexual direction as well. Luckily the concept of “Do no harm” has maintained itself enough to prevent a deliberate intent to invoke deviant sexual inclination in subjects that are already normally inclined.

 

[goofyjim]

There is no magic pill for any cognitive disfunction, it is a matter of taking what one can get in way of improvement while looking for either more effective ways to present an already effective approach or to develop new strategies for those not responding to the more successful methods. Psychology is still as much art as science. Outside of death, nothing will completely cure humans tendency to sin.

For a cognitive restructuring, a 30% return to restraining one’s behaviors to within the norm, and another 30% showing significant improvement, is generally considered a successful therapeutic approach. Those not responding fully of sufficiently would then be candidates for a more tailored approach. For other types of thinking disorders (particularly the criminal thinking patters I am most familiar with) this would be considered a very effective success rate, so why am I getting the feeling that you are thinking that anything less than 100% wouldn’t be good enough for something that just happens to be one of the PC sacred cows?

There is a well established MO of females with attractions to pubescent or teen girls to seek coaching position to gain access and authority to try to gain converts, and some of the NAMBLA materials have documented strategies known to work as well (if you can stomach reading them), so there is some evidence that the inclinations can be swung in the homosexual direction as well. Luckily the concept of “Do no harm” has maintained itself enough to prevent a deliberate intent to invoke deviant sexual inclination in subjects that are already normally inclined.

Noone ever approached me to ask me to be SSA. I just was. I choose my faith over practicing sexual behavior but there is no reason to continue saying I am not normally inclined. For my nature I am normally inclined. Why are we treating this as some big evil in the world thatmust be eradicated? I read the same studies from NARTH as Mirdath and came to the conclusion that I can control my behavior but not my attractions. I think these NARTH studies back that up as justifiable. And why should anyone be expected to spend money on such when they don’t have it. No, I’m content.

 

[Mirdath]

For a cognitive restructuring, a 30% return to restraining one’s behaviors to within the norm, and another 30% showing significant improvement, is generally considered a successful therapeutic approach. Those not responding fully of sufficiently would then be candidates for a more tailored approach. For other types of thinking disorders (particularly the criminal thinking patters I am most familiar with) this would be considered a very effective success rate, so why am I getting the feeling that you are thinking that anything less than 100% wouldn’t be good enough for something that just happens to be one of the PC sacred cows?

Is not NARTH’s therapy tailored to the individual already? If not, what good can it hope to do? Psychological therapy is a highly individual thing – what works for one person may or may not work for another, and any reputable psychologist will know this and practice accordingly.

I am not saying 99% is not good enough – I’m saying NARTH’s methodology has a roughly 0% rate of ‘cure’. Pavlov had a better success rate! Stalin did! Outright brainwashing and torture are more effective than ‘reparative therapy’! Should we send ‘deviants’ to be tortured and brainwashed? It’ll at least get things done!

There is a well established MO of females with attractions to pubescent or teen girls to seek coaching position to gain access and authority to try to gain converts, and some of the NAMBLA materials have documented strategies known to work as well (if you can stomach reading them), so there is some evidence that the inclinations can be swung in the homosexual direction as well.

Cite please.

Luckily the concept of “Do no harm” has maintained itself enough to prevent a deliberate intent to invoke deviant sexual inclination in subjects that are already normally inclined.

Are you so sure that invoking heterosexual inclinations in subjects inclined in other ways does not violate the Hippocratic Oath?

Don’t be.

 

[blessedtoo]

I am now bowing out of this thread. I have been falsely accused of provoking things by starting it.

No Jim. I did not accuse. I asked. But you never really read what I or others post. You have your ideas set in stone, and that stone is the huge boulder sitting on your shoulder. No matter how it’s phrase or rephrased, no matter how much love, compassion and prayer accompanies the words, you never really see what some of us are trying to say. To me, that’s a tragedy.

There is obviously no way a heterosexual can ever understand what it is like to be homosexual.

And you also know from my testimony, as well as a few others on CAF, that we are speaking from our personal experience with SSA as well. So that doesn’t fly, my friend.

So they take what they don’t understand and call it a psychiatric disorder.

My position has never been that SSA is a psychiatric disorder and you know that. Yet you keep repeating the same old canard. At least 10 different times I have provided definitions of the Catholic understanding of disorder. On this thread alone it has been thoroughly fleshed out. People have testified about their own disordered desires and impulses. Yet, you don’t accept this.

The only reason I confront this issue with you is that for as long as I’ve been reading your posts (2 years now) they are almost always angry and defensive. You consistently side with the “victimized” homosexual community while proclaiming your chastity. You have stated that if all the disease associated with homosexual behavior was cured, you would consider it okay to indulge in these acts. You have said that if society were to fully accept homosexuality, you might be able to have a loving relationship with another of your gender.

I confront this issue with you because I believe you are missing out on a fuller and richer experience of chastity and the joy that comes when you no longer identify your entire being with SSA.

Maybe we’ve come to the end of the line and the only thing left for me to do is keep you in my prayers.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Noone ever approached me to ask me to be SSA. I just was.

My statements about that were directed entirely to Mirdath’s doubt regarding whether there was research showing it was possible to swing someone towards SSA so as to suggest that swinging someone away was also unlikely. However, that there are such examples of moving someone to SSA by those with foul motives does serve as an effective example that at least some people can be conditioned to switch.

I choose my faith over practicing sexual behavior but there is no reason to continue saying I am not normally inclined. For my nature I am normally inclined. Why are we treating this as some big evil in the world that must be eradicated?

By nature, all of us are weak and are called to draw ourselves and others to positions of greater spiritual strength.

I read the same studies from NARTH as Mirdath and came to the conclusion that I can control my behavior but not my attractions. I think these NARTH studies back that up as justifiable. And why should anyone be expected to spend money on such when they don’t have it. No, I’m content.

Some people have the same attractions you do but are not content. Why should they be discouraged from a therapy that has a significant rate (as therapies of this sort go) of helping them develop tools to move past that?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Cite please.

The NAMBLA stuff keeps moving as their servers get locked down, I haven’t hunted it up recently and am not about to store a copy locally.

As far as the female lesbians using their position as a coach to get access, I am personally aware of four cases of that, each with multiple victims, and have heard about it several other times. There was also considerable descriptions of instances of that kind of coaching in the scandal within the Church with the very similar cases of early teen altar boys being groomed. This MO is relatively well known.

Are you so sure that invoking heterosexual inclinations in subjects inclined in other ways does not violate the Hippocratic Oath?

Don’t be.

Since I’ve been pretty direct in my thinking that such treatment could not be forced on the unwilling with any hope of success, your responses are starting to sound like you think that those with SSA tendencies should be denied whatever tools are available to help them even if they want to change. Is your trouble with the particular methods used by NARTH, or with seeking ways in general to help those who want to eliminate SSA tendencies to do so? I’m having trouble telling, so perhaps you could clarify your position on that.