Researcher apologizes for study of gay therapy

[ringil]

Did you research this position at all? There have been several clues discovered through science. Homosexuality is caused by some variations in genes in the X chromosome. In women, these same variations confer big reproductive advantages, e.g. increased fertility. Moreover, there may be societal benefits for the presence of some homosexuals.

WEEELL, I actually agree with you that homosexuality is, generally, an inherent trait, not subject to being “switched” . There have been some findings of biological links to homosexuality but they are far from universal. We need more studies and better methods of examining brain function would go a long way to delving into sexual orientation, but really more importantly, into psychiatric illnesses that afflict millions of people.

Like heterosexuality, and any other psychological trait for that matter, homosexuality is the result of a complex interplay in the bio-psychosocial realms. It could be that science simply isn’t there yet in determining a more biological explanation regarding homosexuality. We really are at the tip of the ice-berg in our knowledge of the human brain and it’s workings.

As a prime example of our incomplete ability to determine biological causality the indicators of Schizophrenia can OFTEN be seen on MRI’s BUT not so on every patient. THe patterns of brain dysfuntion are not always completely homogenous from case to case.

I’m just warning you not to over apply what we do know about the biological aspects of homosexuality. There are some indicators of a biological causation of homosexuality but that’s not the whole picture at this point.

That being said, clinicians treating patients don’t need to know a straight biological causation in order to help folks. Reams of research studies have demonstrated the rather fixed and static state of homosexuality once established in adolescence- past the period of sexual experimentation that can happen in childhood.

If you are gay- it aint goin’ anywhere, so learn to live with it.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

New Scientist is non-peer reviewed, if you want to talk academics with me, cite academic articles. I mean that I need a Journal not a magazine that is run by respected Academics and published by a respected and reputable publisher, New Scientist doesn’t fulfil either of these.

I wasn’t citing new scientist as a definitive source. My intent was to make you realize the existence of certain ideas, and New Scientist is a sufficiently reputable source to do this. If you wish to pursue them further you may do so. The links in the New Scientist article primarily lead to scientific papers, so you might begin there.

You seem to misunderstand Academics, it’s a publish or perish business you either publish work or you lose your job as a lecturer/Professor (and then the chance of publishing any work, as the easiest funding & Publisher are no longer available). One of my Universities Anthropologists is to be released at the end of this year due to not publishing any work in the past 5/10 years (I can’t remember exactly, but he was subject to disciplinary a few years back), so I’ll ask you with this in mind… What will a researcher likely spend his time on, a controversial study that may or may not get published due to the controversy in the Study which means he loses 1) Money 2) Time, or spend his time on a study and paper that is ‘Safe’ and highly likely to get published gaining 1) Money 2) Security in their job for a few more years?

I currently work in academics. Studies do not get censored because they are controversial. If you are rigorous in your methodology, careful with your conclusions, and have a valuable topic, you will not have to worry about getting published.

 

[exnihilo]

Scientifically, thinking is just neurological activity in the brain so lets not muddy the waters with philosophical musings on the nature of the human mind. Attraction is brain activity as evident by the brain’s response to external stimuli.

This is not strictly a scientific issue. The researcher apologizes ‘to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy’. Wasted time is not a scientific concept nor is apologizing. Whatever is observed in the brain would have no meaning if it were not for people describing at the same time experiencing attraction. Attraction is not just brain activity.

Anxiety, depression, and a whole range of psychological phenomenon are also immaterial ‘things’. Do you seriously doubt whether we can accurately assess these to study them and determine whether mental health patients are safe to release into society?

Your personal inability to come up with ways to observe these does not mean that the methods devised by professionals are inadequate. Our verified gain in knowledge about these things have demonstrated that we have been able to observe these things accurately enough.

We aren’t going to get very far if we aren’t answering questions. I still don’t know how you would observe attraction, an immaterial thing.

I do not deny that we can observe the physical responses to lots of emotions. Let’s take anxiety for one. We could observe sweating, faster pulse and other signs. But these signs by themselves are not anxiety. And these signs could be indications of other things. In fact many people go to the ER with what they think is a heart attack but is really just anxiety. In these cases anxiety is determined by ruling out physical problems and assuming because nothing physically bad is occurring that the source of the problem is mental. The fact that anxiety can be treated by talk therapy suggests that it is not, or at least not merely, a physical problem but an immaterial or mental problem.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not gay, but I will tell you what a gay friend of mine said.
That the idea of having therapy to change their sexual orientation feels the same to them as if I said to you, “You must now go to therapy so that you can transform into a homosexual, which is how you should feel. Don’t pay attention to your feelings you have for the opposite sex–we must change that.”
You would feel like the therapy presented to you is trying to go against all true fiber of your feelings and being.

They don’t consider the idea of this therapy “reparative” at all…because they don’t see or feel there is anything to repair! How they feel (most of them, at least, the ones I know) is that they were born with different feelings and sensibilities than a heterosexual–they remember feeling gay as early as their first memories–and that is the true them and it is unchangeable and they just want to live their lives as their true selves.

It wouldn’t occur to any of them to feel bad or uncomfortable about how they feel, if not for being told by some people that it is wrong and a “disordered” and it could send them to hell, etc.

A pedophile or porn addict could say the very same thing and be just as “right”. But manifestly, some homosexuals do want to be relieved of it if they can, and go to people in hope of being cured of it. Some addictions can be cured. In many instances, they can’t be. No one should be deprived of attempts at cure simply because it’s deemed politically incorrect to undertake it, and because it’s ASSUMED to be incurable. While it seems unlikely that pedophiles can be cured, even they should not be deprived of curative methods simply because it’s assumed to be incurable.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

A pedophile or porn addict could say the very same thing and be just as “right”. But manifestly, some homosexuals do want to be relieved of it if they can, and go to people in hope of being cured of it. Some addictions can be cured. In many instances, they can’t be. No one should be deprived of attempts at cure simply because it’s deemed politically incorrect to undertake it, and because it’s ASSUMED to be incurable. While it seems unlikely that pedophiles can be cured, even they should not be deprived of curative methods simply because it’s assumed to be incurable.

Except that pedophilia and and addictions are recognized as mental illnesses. Homosexuality no longer is.

Luna

 

[rlg94086]

Except that pedophilia and and addictions are recognized as mental illnesses. Homosexuality no longer is.

Luna

So, when pedophilia and/or addictions are no longer recognized as mental illnesses, as homosexuality was, then everything changes. Correct? You are making an argument that has nothing to do with whether or not treatment works.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would appreciate it if you used the quote function properly when quoting me. As soon as I learn how, I will. But for the time being, this will have to do.

Why there is evidence that pornography (like many enjoyable activities) changes the brain, and we do know that those who are already gay men will like to see porn involving men (and straight men porn involving women, etc.), there is not any evidence that the type of porn consumed will cause one to be gay, bi, or straight. Nor any to the contrary, either.

We do not have a comprehensive understanding of homosexuality, but there is strong evidence for genetic and non-genetic biological relations with homosexuality. Research is ongoing to better understand the nature of these relationship. However, there is not any credible evidence that one’s sexual orientation may be successfully directed prior to puberty or later changed.There are no definitive studies establishing that homosexuality is NOT determined by “nurture” rather than “nature”. There are some anecdotal studies purporting to establish it, but they are based on self-selected individuals.

It is true that if someone is already attracted by a fetish, the interest in that fetish may grow with exposure (for example, research has shown that those who are inclined to rape will be more likely to rape if they consume that kind of porn), but there’s no evidence that one would be attracted to something due to exposure if s/he was never attracted by it.
You’re assuming that the exposure is not presented in some kind of pleasurable way. Nobody is born with, say, a shoe fetish. But the theory is that somehow their sense of sex got “fixated” by some pleasurable or unpleasurable event that somehow became symbolized by shoes.

So, you are positing that there is some sort of conspiracy to not fund research for ideological reasons? Not a conspiracy. But there is a lot of pressure on psychologists not to buck the DSM, which is no surprise.

I didn’t say there was. I don’t think there is any “gay gene” any more than I think there is a “straight gene.” Things like inborn personality traits aren’t caused by a single gene anyway. Inborn traits such as personality traits are generally influenced by a ton of genes and by many hormones during prenatal development (where most research is being done now with homosexuality). It doesn’t need to be attributable to a particular gene or to genetics at all to be innate.**I agree that many things are affected by genes. That does not mean that homosexuality is “nature” vs “nurture”. **

I haven’t found anything in the John Jay Report that mentions homosexuality or suggests anything about homosexuality. If you disagree, then explain what in the JJR mentions or suggests anything about homosexuality so we can discuss its relevance. It, and related parts of the study aren’t the easiest in the world to access. It has been awhile, but I’ll give it a shot again. In the meantime, there are other published works that are easily googled.

Please reference some study that backs up the incredible claim you made that:

“It has also been established that most homosexuals have had sexual contact with underage members of their gender.”
Oh, this for instance. biblebelievers.com/Cameron3.html. Don’t just dismiss it because it’s a Christian source. The documentation is as good as just about anything else you’ll read.

From wikipedia: “In the United States, the abuse was primarily sexual in nature and involved mostly boys between the ages of 11 and 17.” We are still dealing with hebophilia and ephebophilia, which, for the sake of this discussion, are similar enough to full-blown pedophilia. Just like with pedophilia, there can be offenders against adolescents who don’t have an adult sexual orientation (straight, bi, or gay), or do have an adult sexual orientation but the gender of the victim isn’t necessarily indicative of whether they are straight, bi, or gay. It might be the conventional wisdom to say that having sex with teenage boys is no different from pedophilia in not being gender-specific, but I don’t see the proof of it.

It may seem counter-intuitive to you, but studies have shown that homosexuals are no more likely to abuse minors. Would you care to actually look at them instead of just going off what seems intuitive to you? Provide them if you have them. But refer again to the above source.

I’m not just talking about pedophilia when I say, “A lot of abuse has little to do with sex, and more of an unhealthy need to dominate.” There are cases where that even applies to adults. Sure. Never said it didn’t.

Did you think that maybe the PhDs who have dedicated their life to studying this have a better understanding than you do of pedophilia/hebophilia/ephebophilia as well as what motivates an abuser? Let me answer this way. I know psychologists and psychiatrists who will privately admit, for example, that homosexuality is a mental order, but they won’t fight the DSM and get dumped on by their peers by saying it in a public venue.

But when you brought it up, you weren’t saying that most minors have sex with other minors, you were saying that most homosexual have had sex with minors in the context of speculating that homosexuality (without saying the same for heterosexuality) may develop in a way akin to crack addiction: People can “imprint” any number of ways, but it does appear than in the absence of any influence to imprint in a perverse way, people don’t.

Would you say the same thing about heterosexuality? **All creatures that have sex at all, are heterosexual if they have access to individuals of the opposite gender. There is no particular reason to think humans are different in that respect. **

 

[tomarin]

I feel sorry for any teen growing up in our society today.

I second that.

 

[tomarin]

Sound Catholic practice is to help Gay folks lead chaste lives, not to “change” their sexuality.

(shortened by Tomarin)

I tend to feel that would be more realistic as well.

 

[Biblepoe]

We aren’t going to get very far if we aren’t answering questions. I still don’t know how you would observe attraction, an immaterial thing.

Before I address the remainder of your post, an argument that includes statements like “I don’t know,” and comes up with conclusions other than “I don’t know,” are committing a logical fallacy called an “Argument from Ignorance,” or sometimes also called, “Argument from Personal Incredulity.”

I do not deny that we can observe the physical responses to lots of emotions. Let’s take anxiety for one. We could observe sweating, faster pulse and other signs. But these signs by themselves are not anxiety.

They may not necessarily be signs of anxiety. However, researchers have found ways of measuring these things that controls for other possibilities (such as a heart attack) effectively enough to conduct studies about anxiety and make good decisions.

It’s a similar deal with sexual orientation. Sexual orientation used to be measured by invasively measuring the blood flow in the genital area. Now it can be assessed much less invasively by closely tracking a person’s eyes for subtle movements and differences in reaction during showing him/her non-pornographic images of people he/she may or may not be attracted to. Just like anxiety, they didn’t simply assume the actions are due to what they were trying to measure, they did carefully set up studies with controls.

 

[Biblepoe]

Nor any to the contrary, either.

those who don’t buy the claim that exposure to porn causes one to be straight/bi/gay aren’t those ones who need to produce evidence. The burden of proof is always on those who make the claim.

If you think that porn exposure causes one to become straight/bi/gay, you are the one who needs to produce evidence.

There are no definitive studies establishing that homosexuality is NOT determined by “nurture” rather than “nature”. There are some anecdotal studies purporting to establish it, but they are based on self-selected individuals.

But those who claim it is caused somewhat by nurture have to come up with evidence. Those who don’t buy the nurture argument don’t have to prove that it isn’t caused by nurture unless they claim that is isn’t. Unless and until we have actual evidence instead of anecdotes, we should not assume that it is caused by nurture.

You’re assuming that the exposure is not presented in some kind of pleasurable way.

No, I’m saying someone isn’t going to find it attracting unless s/he is already attracted to it to some extent.

Your argumentation above might work if you were talking about someone who is already bisexual but starts leaning a little more straight or gay.

Oh, this for instance.biblebelievers.com/Cameron3.html. Don’t just dismiss it because it’s a Christian source. The documentation is as good as just about anything else you’ll read.

First of all, I was looking for original research (as opposed to summary of other people’s work) that is good enough to pass peer-review and be published in a journal. I took a look at what you linked anyways.

The first thing I noticed was that the author was Paul Cameron. Generally I don’t pay much attention to who the author is, but since Paul Cameron has widely been known for misrepresenting the findings of studies he summarizes and for using terrible methodology in the studies he conducts and has printed in obscure journals, I’m just going to ask you to cite any particular reference use in the article you linked to that you believe demonstrates that, “It has also been established that most homosexuals have had sexual contact with underage members of their gender.”

If the author has been discredited as a person who uses pseudoscience to forward an agenda, I’m not going to go through an entire work that he wrote because that would likely be a waste of time.

It might be the conventional wisdom to say that having sex with teenage boys is no different from pedophilia in not being gender-specific, but I don’t see the proof of it.

if I give you studies (actually original research that passed peer-review and got published in credible journals) would you change your mind?

Provide them if you have them.

OK. I’ll provide the references to some studies one at a time that show that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than others and/or the gender of the adult is not necessarily indicative of the adult sexual orientation of the abuser. I’ll start with the following study:

Groth, A.N., Hobson, W.F., & Gary, T.S. (1982). The child molester: Clinical observations. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 1 (1/2), 129-144.

The study can be viewed here. A summary of the study found here said that it “Studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child [with 40% of the victims being male]. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as “fixated;” 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that “in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women…There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males…” (p.180).”

So 40% of the victims were male, but they did not find any of the perpetrators to have a homosexual adult orientation.

Let me answer this way. I know psychologists and psychiatrists who will privately admit, for example, that homosexuality is a mental order, but they won’t fight the DSM and get dumped on by their peers by saying it in a public venue.

First, there will always be quacks, even ones with PhDs, who don’t agree with the overwhelming majority of their peers. It’s generally a good thing that these people will be heavily criticized by their peers because criticism is partly how scientific communities weed out bad ideas.

Secondly, it’s possible for people to consider something a disorder not because it causes practical problems, but instead because it’s against their personal values.

All creatures that have sex at all, are heterosexual if they have access to individuals of the opposite gender. There is no particular reason to think humans are different in that respect.

There are obviously individuals who are not attracted to the opposite sex, so there are some people who are different in that respect and are not heterosexual.

 

[ringil]

Drug junkyism

Drug junkyism??? wut?

 

[wisecath]

Drug junkyism??? wut?

You didn’t reply to my whole comment. Don’t like copying & pasting but this is what I wrote. Please read & then reply-Drug junkyism repair therapy as told by me has high failures, but we don’t reject it because it fails alot of the time. How many people take up gay/lesbian conduct because of sex abuse, especially homosexual rape in youth How many of the people who said they changed to straight sexuality were homosexually raped in youth Why 1 takes part in gay/lesbian conduct is same as why 1 gets cancer. Some get cancer because they eat poorly, are exposed to carcinogens & then some get cancer because of bad genes. Any thoughts, because if gay/lesbian sexual conduct for some is inborn (though they haven’t conclusively proved it’s inborn), then it would be a birth defect.

 

[ringil]

You didn’t reply to my whole comment. Don’t like copying & pasting but this is what I wrote. Please read & then reply-Drug junkyism repair therapy as told by me has high failures, but we don’t reject it because it fails alot of the time. How many people take up gay/lesbian conduct because of sex abuse, especially homosexual rape in youth How many of the people who said they changed to straight sexuality were homosexually raped in youth Why 1 takes part in gay/lesbian conduct is same as why 1 gets cancer. Some get cancer because they eat poorly, are exposed to carcinogens & then some get cancer because of bad genes. Any thoughts, because if gay/lesbian sexual conduct for some is inborn (though they haven’t conclusively proved it’s inborn), then it would be a birth defect.

I’ve just never heard the term “drug junkyism”. It’s a humorous expression is all.

Doctor: “So what brings you into the clinic today?”
Patient: “Oh Doctor, I’m afraid that I suffer from drug junkyism.”

I just can’t stop laughing about it. . . . It must be me. . .

 

[Ridgerunner]

I guess it all depends on how you view homosexuality.
To me, to say it in the same breathe as pedophilia–something that is against the law and hurts little children–or as an illness or addiction that can be “cured”–makes no sense at all is quite offensive to the person in question.

So then, we are coming from completely different perspectives on it. I can’t see how the two perspectives will ever agree or meet halfway on this, tho I wish it was possible.

When I say that the gay friends I have don’t think it is something to “repair”…it is not out of “political correctness” on their or my part…it is because, I repeat, their sexuality to them feels deeply instilled in them–just as heterosexuality is to you.

I don’t think anyone is depriving anyone of seeking a “cure”, as you put it (are they???)…but some people do want to deprive gay people of their natural instincts and ability to get married.

Do you actually have a gay friend who wants to be “cured”?

There most definitely are those who want to prevent attempts at cure of homosexuality.

I do not personally have a homosexual friend who wants to be cured. But there are some even on here who have said they were cured. Possibly they would be the ones to talk to about why they wanted it and how they did it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

those who don’t buy the claim that exposure to porn causes one to be straight/bi/gay aren’t those ones who need to produce evidence. The burden of proof is always on those who make the claim. Since I never claimed that, I’ll leave the task to someone who does, if someone does.

But those who claim it is caused somewhat by nurture have to come up with evidence. Those who don’t buy the nurture argument don’t have to prove that it isn’t caused by nurture unless they claim that is isn’t. **At present, there is no reliable evidence that it’s caused by nature either. Perhaps until we know for sure, it would be better not to expose children to it, right? **

No, I’m saying someone isn’t going to find it attracting unless s/he is already attracted to it to some extent. **How can you say that? Who on earth is born with a foot or shoe or corset fetish? Might want to read up on it, really. **

Your argumentation above might work if you were talking about someone who is already bisexual but starts leaning a little more straight or gay. **It’s also possible, isn’t it, that young people can identify sexual pleasure with some particular thing and pursue it to addiction? Isn’t that pretty much what is said about porn addiction and paraphilia? **

The first thing I noticed was that the author was Paul Cameron. Generally I don’t pay much attention to who the author is, but since Paul Cameron has widely been known for misrepresenting the findings of studies he summarizes and for using terrible methodology in the studies he conducts and has printed in obscure journals, I’m just going to ask you to cite any particular reference use in the article you linked to that you believe demonstrates that, “It has also been established that most homosexuals have had sexual contact with underage members of their gender.” **Well, if you don’t like the man, argue against his argument. **

If the author has been discredited as a person who uses pseudoscience to forward an agenda, I’m not going to go through an entire work that he wrote because that would likely be a waste of time. So, you didn’t read it.

if I give you studies (actually original research that passed peer-review and got published in credible journals) would you change your mind? I don’t know. But I don’t think you have ever understood what I was saying from the first. My position was that WE DON’T KNOW whether the brain activity differences between heterosexual males and homosexual males are inherent or acquired. Since that’s my point, deal with that if you want to and can.

OK. I’ll provide the references to some studies one at a time that show that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than others and/or the gender of the adult is not necessarily indicative of the adult sexual orientation of the abuser. I’ll start with the following study:

Groth, A.N., Hobson, W.F., & Gary, T.S. (1982). The child molester: Clinical observations. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 1 (1/2), 129-144.

The study can be viewed here. A summary of the study found here said that it “Studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child [with 40% of the victims being male]. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as “fixated;” 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that “in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women…There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males…” (p.180).”
All totally irrelevant to what I was saying. Totally. Never did I say that PEDOPHILES are exclusively, or even necessarily homosexual. (Though one might question the results of incarcerated peoples’ self-reporting) But interestingly, you might have also discovered that a huge percentage of persons incarcerated for child sexual abuse were sexually abused themselves as children. Imprinting, perhaps? If that’s the case for pedophiles, can you really say it’s not possible that some kind of early homosexual “experience” did not influence people who became homosexuals or “bisexuals”? I don’t think you can.
So 40% of the victims were male, but they did not find any of the perpetrators to have a homosexual adult orientation.

First, there will always be quacks, even ones with PhDs, who don’t agree with the overwhelming majority of their peers. It’s generally a good thing that these people will be heavily criticized by their peers because criticism is partly how scientific communities weed out bad ideas. And this very attitude of intimidation is what prevents honest studies that are NOT politically correct from being done. You proved my point with your own attitude.

Secondly, it’s possible for people to consider something a disorder not because it causes practical problems, but instead because it’s against their personal values. **Of course. Who ever said otherwise? **

There are obviously individuals who are not attracted to the opposite sex, so there are some people who are different in that respect and are not heterosexual. **Yes, there are people who are homosexual. I think we know that. **

 

[TarkanAttila]

Who wants to prevent attempts at a so-called cure?
Who?

Anyone who’s been brainwashed into thinking that being gay is part of the natural order of things.

Right.

And if all the human race were gay, we woulda died out at the first generation and the Neanderthals would have succeeded us.

 

[ringil]

There most definitely are those who want to prevent attempts at cure of homosexuality.

There is no “cure” of homosexuality. Attempts to engage in such activities are not recognized psycho-therapeutic practice, have been shown to be inneffective at best, and harmful at worst, and are unethical. This same standpoint is taken by the licensing boards of Psychiatry, Psychology, Social Work, Counseling, Marriage and Family Counseling, Licensed Addictions Counseling, and any other licensing body allowing for the independent and insurable practice of psychotherapy.

No health insurance company in the US will reimburse a clinician engaging in such activities.

Any licensed therapist engaging in such activity is practicing unethically and is subject to professional suspension or permanent loss of licensure. Any licensed professional knowing that another professional is practicing in this way must report them or would face disciplinary action as well.

 

[wisecath]

While repair therapy to treat gayism/lesbianism often fails, it’s best to impose celibacy on gays/lesbians until they perfect repair therapy. Gay/lesbian sexual conduct is worthless & useless-comparable to crack junkyism. They must make it crime to do sex changes because transexuals are the worst. People who are transexuals are bad people as they maim themselves to become what they’re not-they are even worse than the gays/lesbians. Both transexuality & gay/lesbian sexual behaviors are anti-social.

 

[rlg94086]

Exactly.
Bless you for saying all this.
(but I’m sure some will think those above–the health insurances companies, therapists, counselors and licensing boards–are the ones trying to “prevent” a cure…)

Certainly, a “cure” may be possible, once the genesis of same sex attraction is determined. Whether it is a genetic, hormonal or psychological genesis, there will be a way to treat it. First, however, you have to recognize that it is a disordered desire. That recognition is what many, Catholics included, are trying to “prevent.”