Researcher apologizes for study of gay therapy

[EmperorNapoleon]

Translation:

Any research showing the opposite of what a lobbying group wants will be claimed to be to small a group ( ironic considering any samples would be tainted by the fact that there is no way to get an accurate gay baseline) or that any sample is contaminated with people who are not “gay” enough.

False. The research so far consists of unverified self-reporting with an unverified self-reported success rate of 0.4% (3 out of 800 subjects). Sample size is a fundamental methodological requirement in any scientific study; it has nothing to do with “lobbying groups.” The unverified self-reporting of 3 people is laughably insufficient to gage any potential success rate among millions.

In terms of bisexuals, you can’t use people who are already attracted to the opposite sex to study the effectiveness of “therapy” designed to attract people to the opposite sex. It has nothing to do with not being “gay enough”; it has everything to do with not being homosexual.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

New International Version (©1984)
Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."

How sad for that researcher. May God have mercy on him. Fortunately, there are other researchers who have not forsaken their press on for the Kingdom of God.

 

[MidnightSun12]

Our idiot, zero IQ society is against him!

Just to clarify, I feel that it is our society’s acceptance and tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle that is damaging gay teens today, not the research that the Dr. was “apologizing for”.

I don’t, in any way, subscribe to the liberal view that it is loving to allow other people to put their souls in grave danger.

 

[BernardM]

False. The research so far consists of unverified self-reporting with an unverified self-reported success rate of 0.4% (3 out of 800 subjects). Sample size is a fundamental methodological requirement in any scientific study; it has nothing to do with “lobbying groups.” The unverified self-reporting of 3 people is laughably insufficient to gage any potential success rate among millions.

It’s completely true, much like claims that gay men’s brains were similar to women. The sample is much to narrow and small to garner any conclusion. What was your degree in? Was in Political Science by any chance?

In terms of bisexuals, you can’t use people who are already attracted to the opposite sex to study the effectiveness of “therapy” designed to attract people to the opposite sex. It has nothing to do with not being “gay enough”; it has everything to do with not being homosexual.

No, you are narrowing the scope to support what you believe. What percentage of attraction to the same or opposite sex would be the cutoff point? How would you be able to determine this since any and all sexual research in this regard comes from peoples recollections and they could simply fabricate or lie bout any number of things? This is the entire problem with mush sciences like this there is no hard data that can be gathered it is simply state funded UFO or cryptology.

 

[exnihilo]

False. The research so far consists of unverified self-reporting with an unverified self-reported success rate of 0.4% (3 out of 800 subjects). Sample size is a fundamental methodological requirement in any scientific study; it has nothing to do with “lobbying groups.” The unverified self-reporting of 3 people is laughably insufficient to gage any potential success rate among millions.

Many studies have ridiculously small study groups. I say that only because if we are going to ignore studies based on small sample sizes then we’ll have to ignore a lot more studies than this. Of course that might be the right thing to do.

How would one verify self-reporting about attractions? I would say no one can ever verify anything someone says about their thoughts and feelings. That being the case all psychology and lots of so called scientific studies would be worthless if we have to exclude self-reporting.

In terms of bisexuals, you can’t use people who are already attracted to the opposite sex to study the effectiveness of “therapy” designed to attract people to the opposite sex. It has nothing to do with not being “gay enough”; it has everything to do with not being homosexual.

You are making an assumption in order to come to that conclusion. You are asserting that there are people who are entirely sexually attracted to men. How do you know that? You’ve excluded self reporting as a criteria for knowledge so you can’t know that. You may have such an experience yourself but you can not conclude from your experience that this is universal.

If we examine homosexuality from a strictly behavioral perspective, which we’d have to do if we exclude self-reporting of thoughts and feelings, then your criteria of attraction has no place. Attraction is something that exists in the mind of a person and can not be verified scientifically beyond self reporting.

So your objection would not have merit. There is no such thing as the homosexual unless we define that as a man who has sex with men. There is no reason to think that some men who have sex with men do not also have sex with women. And none of this could be known by researchers unless they follow a person around all day long and observe what the actually do e.g. who they have sex with.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s completely true, much like claims that gay men’s brains were similar to women. The sample is much to narrow and small to garner any conclusion. What was your degree in? Was in Political Science by any chance?

No, you are narrowing the scope to support what you believe. What percentage of attraction to the same or opposite sex would be the cutoff point? How would you be able to determine this since any and all sexual research in this regard comes from peoples recollections and they could simply fabricate or lie bout any number of things? This is the entire problem with mush sciences like this there is no hard data that can be gathered it is simply state funded UFO or cryptology.

Any neuropsychologist will tell you that exposure to drugs causes brain changes. The brain develops receptors for the drug, and the brain “learns” to feed those receptors. They will tell you as well that this propensity varies a great deal among individuals. One person might snort cocaine occasionally for years without becoming addicted, while another will become hopelessly addicted with the first snort.

There is a similar phenomenon with alcohol, though a significant part of its physiological response is different from that with drugs.

Both propensities are innate. In both situations, it is very difficult to overcome the addiction depending on the degree of innate propensities of the individual. One person might “kick the habit” without all that much difficulty, while it might become virtually impossible for another. For example, the more receptors one’s brain develops for, say, cocaine, the less likely is that person to kick the habit.

But regardless, the exposure is necessary for the addiction to occur. No matter how strong one’s propensity is to develop receptors to cocaine, one never becomes addicted to cocaine if one is never exposed to it. The same is true of all drugs, and it’s true of alcohol.

It is becoming recognized that there is such a thing as “porn addiction”. Indisputably it causes a combined psychological/physical response that isn’t well understood. Why can one person view porn and not get addicted to it, while another becomes almost hopelessly addicted? Nobody knows for sure, but it isn’t preposterous to suppose that brain structure (which includes peculiarities of chemistry) may be at least part of the answer. But certainly, if one is never exposed to porn, one does not get the addiction.

SSA may be no different in effect, though its mechanics and psych aspects may be different. It has been established that most homosexuals’ homosexual activity began very early in life. It has also been established that most homosexuals have had sexual contact with underage members of their gender. One might speculate that this particular addiction is not entirely like any other. There may, indeed, be an innate propensity to an “overreaction” to homosexual contacts or other exposure in the same way that some peoples’ brains “overreact” to cocaine or alcohol or porn. And it might be just as intractable as, say, crack addiction, but just as avoidable.

If so, this society’s increasing romanticization of homosexuality is precisely as wrong a thing to do as the romanticization of drugs was in the 1970s and as the ongoing romanticization of visual and printed pornography is now and has been for quite some time.

But, in line with what a previous poster opined, the chances of that being studied is pretty much nil, though studies on porn addiction are not, in effect, banned in the field, and might ultimately lead to a greater understanding of homosexuality.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Use to be that 40 some years ago homosexuality was a mental disorder. And I think that it could be in my observations (although I know I know, there are some great gay people in our society). But if a mental health professional were to explore that premise further it would be career suicide in today’s climate.

josephnicolosi.com/

I have helped many men reduce their unwanted same-sex attractions, so that they lose their compelling, life-disrupting power, and assisted them in exploring and developing their heterosexual potential.

In 1992, I and two psychiatrists organized a professional association called NARTH-- the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (see the website www.narth.com). Today, NARTH has over 1000 members around the world.

On the NARTH website, see “What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the American Psychological Association’s Claims on Homosexuality.” This paper examines over 100 years of professional and scientific literature on the subject of sexual-orientation change, offering a strong case that for at least some people, sexual orientation can be modified.
© 2009 Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic • All rights reserved. • 16633 Ventura Blvd Encino, CA 91436 • (818) 789-6944‎

 

[manualman]

Absolutley. You are correct that we find this line of research threatening and profoundly dangerous. Read some the recent articles in the news about pastors telling their congregations that parents should ‘beat the gay out’ of their children or that gays should be marched into concentration camps and left to die. There are elements in our society which are extremely hostile and would not hesitate to force people into undergoing some such procedure or “therapy.” Something similar to the eugenics programs of the United States and Nazi Germany come to mind. There are serious moral questions that are introduced if it is ever proven that sexual orientation can be changed.

You make good points sometimes and have demonstrated that you have better reasoning skills than this post reflects. You can’t see how this post reflects EXACTLY the sort of behavior and attitude you decry? (just in the opposite polarity)

I find it hard to believe that people can honestly assert that a culture and society is incapable of condemning a behavior while honoring the dignity of those people who are inclined to engage in it. The inevitable result of moral repudiation of an action is violence and killing of those who do it? Really?

Do you beat your kids and send them to concentration camps if they develop a habit of lying to you? Are people suggesting that smokers be sterilized so that they don’t pass on their weakness? Have you heard of anybody dragging a drunk to death behind a pickup truck because the killer found his drinking so revolting? Granted these are deeply imperfect analogies, but they demonstrate that society IS capable of morally disapproving of an action without dehumanizing those who do it.

I don’t dispute that there are conservatives that are abusive in the way they treat homosexual persons. But the source of this abuse is NOT their moral code that repudiates gay behavior or suspects that it is environmental/conditioned instead of genetic. That kind of behavior arises out of the fallen human tendency to exaggerate the sins of THEM so as to not have to feel guilty about the sins of US. (I’m a sinner, but at least I’m not one of THOSE sinners…) Christianity already contains repudiations of that kind of thinking from Jesus’ own mouth. We just need to do a better job of reminding ourselves and our peers.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Come on, Manualman, surely you must recognize the principle of Psychological Projection here.

In other words, you must beat your wife, because I beat mine.

Of course, I’m not even married.

 

[manualman]

I don’t do principles with that many syllables.

It would be funny if it weren’t scary where the logic of his post leads. If society inevitably does violence to those who refuse to conform, then he must conclude that concentration camps and re-education centers are in the future for stubbornly “retrograde christians”… I don’t believe it has to come to that either.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

No, you are narrowing the scope to support what you believe.

No, the scope is narrow because that is what the study requires. The “therapy” alleges that it can change exclusive attraction to the same sex to exclusive attraction to the opposite sex (from homosexual to heterosexual). Including persons who were already attracted to the same sex prior to “treatment” does nothing to validate the effectiveness of the “therapy.”

What percentage of attraction to the same or opposite sex would be the cutoff point?

Homosexuality is the exclusive attraction to the same sex and heterosexuality is the exclusive attraction to the opposite sex so that would be it.

How would you be able to determine this since any and all sexual research in this regard comes from peoples recollections and they could simply fabricate or lie bout any number of things?.

There have been a number of neurological studies of sexually aroused men which demonstrate that different regions of the brain become active in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. FMRI scanning can be used to independently verify the sexual orientation of the subjects before and after “treatment.”

Many studies have ridiculously small study groups. I say that only because if we are going to ignore studies based on small sample sizes then we’ll have to ignore a lot more studies than this. Of course that might be the right thing to do.

Generally, any study involving a small sample-size must be duplicated on a larger scale to verify its results. It also depends on whether or not there is any scientific validation. You can’t just take a handful of phone surveys and claim them to be scientific proof of something.

How would one verify self-reporting about attractions? I would say no one can ever verify anything someone says about their thoughts and feelings. That being the case all psychology and lots of so called scientific studies would be worthless if we have to exclude self-reporting.

Self-reporting can serve as a foundation for a hypothesis but thats about it. In terms of verifying attractions; FMRI scanning can do that.

You are making an assumption in order to come to that conclusion. You are asserting that there are people who are entirely sexually attracted to men. How do you know that?

That is how homosexuality is defined.

If we examine homosexuality from a strictly behavioral perspective, which we’d have to do if we exclude self-reporting of thoughts and feelings, then your criteria of attraction has no place. Attraction is something that exists in the mind of a person and can not be verified scientifically beyond self reporting.

We already know that different regions are the brain are active during sexual arousal in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. Sexual orientation is not behavioral and can be verified scientifically via FMRI testing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

We already know that different regions are the brain are active during sexual arousal in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. Sexual orientation is not behavioral and can be verified scientifically via FMRI testing.

Lots of things can change brain function, including the desire to do it. normandoidge.com/normandoidge.com/MAIN.html

What is not established is whether those differences you mention are caused by innate homosexuality caused by something else, or whether the practice of homosexuality induces those changes.

 

[Julia_Mae]

FMRI testing would prove, one way or the other, whether sexual orientation can be changed.

How would it prove that?

 

[sw85]

I’m not familiar with Spitzer’s work, but the claim that “there is no way to judge the credibility of [participants’] accounts” amounts to a “fatal flaw” is a pretty brazen one. If it is then virtually all of psychological research is useless. Everyone understands that biased responding is at least potentially a problem, but no one imagines it invalidates every work using, for instance, self-report measures.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

How would it prove that?

As previously mentioned, FMRI scanning reveals that different regions in the brain are active during sexual arousal among homosexual men than heterosexual men. Conducting FMRI testing on the subjects before and after the “treatment” would prove definitively whether there was any change in sexual orientation.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As previously mentioned, FMRI scanning reveals that different regions in the brain are active during sexual arousal among homosexual men than heterosexual men. Conducting FMRI testing on the subjects before and after the “treatment” would prove definitively whether there was any change in sexual orientation.

But would it? Remember that neurotransmitters created in the brain to accommodate drugs do not go away, ever. The practice itself alters the brain. That is not limited to drug or alcohol addictions. Many things can alter the way the brain functions, as the book I cited establishes. Would a “homosexual” pattern on an FMRI prove anything other than that the person was once addicted to homosexual behavior, whether the person had changed in his orientation or not?

Pornography certainly has brain-altering effects. Are we really ready to conclude that homosexual experience does not? drjudithreisman.com/archives/2005/12/senate_subcommi.html

But nobody is going to study the subject. They could never get funding and would be instantly condemned and cast out by their peers if they did, so powerful is the incessant romanticizing of homosexuality in this society at present.

Unfortunately, that very romanticizing (like the romanticizing of porn, alcohol, cigarettes or drugs) may have adverse effects on the young. But nobody cares about that.

 

[exnihilo]

That is how homosexuality is defined.

Then homosexuality can not be scientifically proven to even exist. You can not prove attractions by science if self reporting does not count as evidence. Attractions are feelings or urges or whatever you want to call them. But any word you use describes a mental activity. All you can do is observe behavior. So homosexuality would have to be defined as having sex with a person of the same sex.

We already know that different regions are the brain are active during sexual arousal in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. Sexual orientation is not behavioral and can be verified scientifically via FMRI testing.

There is no reason to believe the brain is the source of feelings or urges. The brain is the organ in which thinking occurs, but it is not the source of thinking. The mind, an immaterial thing, is the source of thinking. The brain merely reflects that thinking. Observing activity in the brain after a thought is to be expected. But an attraction is not brain activity. The only way you can say an attraction is even related to brain activity is to accept as true the self reported thoughts and feelings, which you have said are unreliable and do not count as evidence, and associate them with observations of brain activity. So by your rules you have ruled out scans as meaning anything.

 

[Biblepoe]

Many studies have ridiculously small study groups. I say that only because if we are going to ignore studies based on small sample sizes then we’ll have to ignore a lot more studies than this. Of course that might be the right thing to do.

A lot of studies, especially pilot studies, are excluded because of a small sample size. That is a good thing.

I would say no one can ever verify anything someone says about their thoughts and feelings. That being the case all psychology and lots of so called scientific studies would be worthless if we have to exclude self-reporting.

There are a good number of studies that are rejected because they rely on self reporting (these are generally not excluded when the intent is to study the person’s perception). Also, there are so many studies that don’t require self-reporting.

Attraction is something that exists in the mind of a person and can not be verified scientifically beyond self reporting.

Attraction can be verified without relying on self reporting. Mental hospitals have ways of telling whether someone who has served time in jail for child molestation is attracted or still attracted to children without relying on self-reporting.

 

[Biblepoe]

SSA may be no different [from drug addiction] in effect, though its mechanics and psych aspects may be different.

That’s just speculation.

It has been established that most homosexuals’ homosexual activity began very early in life.

If there are any published, scientific, and peer reviewed studies that show that homosexuals begin sexual activity earlier in life, I’d be interested in knowing what those studies are.

It has also been established that most homosexuals have had sexual contact with underage members of their gender.

No it has not. There are many studies that show that there is no reason to conclude that homosexuals are more likely to have sexual contact those who are underage.

It is also noteworthy that the sex of the victim of child sexual abuse is not necessarily indicative of whether the abuser is gay, bisexual, or straight. In other words, a man who molests a boy may be gay, but he may also be straight, bisexual, or none of the above (meaning, not attracted to adults at all).

 

[GaryTaylor]

What age? Sort of has the cart and horse reversed IMHO. Perhaps all these scans and studys ought to be done at the age of reason.

For example how does one conclude predetermined behavior at the age of 16-25? Is it genetic? How does it occur from the get-go?

I don’t know on an individual basis, just saying.

To say ex-sex offenders show a specific behavior, an addict may relapse, a career criminal may commit a crime seems like logic not science. Being at point B isn’t rocket science. Its how one went from point A to B where the research is, and better yet whats “likely” to occur for certain from point A.

Lets face it we have a lot of work to do with all behavior.