I should add, too, that I know children of abusive parents or lonely/geeky kids are particularly vulnerable to all sorts of manipulative influences.

Cults, alcohol & drugs, “boyfriends” that are using her, unethical therapists etc etc… and for some, being vulnerable to the easy, simple message that you’re miserable and life’s out of control because you’re gay because you’re Dad didn’t say Hi often enough (or drop you on your head often enough when you when a “bouncing” baby).

Such people are easy prey, sadly –but how to protect them, if this means imposing, is not so easy to answer.

(PS — don’t know if you’ve caught this over at XGW, but apparently Nicolosi forwarded only 9 people to Spitzer. Nine, from his “over 400”. Even allowing for lost contacts etc, this sounds like Spitzer’s best guess of “about 3%” really having a flexible sexuality is not too out of line. Drescher’s own work, and conversations, have indicated likewise. Hmmm.)

To be vulnerable to RT etc you’d have to have “something” in your history for them to latch onto. (assuming you weren’t the type open to complete revision and installing of a false history). You know, the usual sterotypes — of which James and Gareth were the best examples. I didn’t say they were exgay, at all.

There’s a reason RT sounds like a pile of horse doo to most gay men and women (and why it therefore has no appeal whatsoever). Because nothing in its assumptions match their history.

But there ARE ALSO some gay men and women who do have histories of abusive parents or lonely/geeky childhoods etc. Some of them would be vulnerable to an RT/exgay message that this was the “cause” of their sexuality — even without any evidence that this was the case.

I thought you’d know all this stuff??? 🙂

My point is to show how condescending and exploitative it is to guess someone’s life based on a theory.

And I hope you also include your “plastic brain” beliefs and how this enables gay-to-straight…?

My point is to show how condescending and exploitative it is to guess someone’s life based on a theory. I am mainly aiming at conservatives who have pet theories about homosexuality. More broadly, I am aiming at reductionism, whether it be about sexuality or eating problems and whether it be biological reductionism or environmental reductionism.

And on that, I’d pick James and Gareth as the most vulnerable.

James and Gareth were not ex-gay so I am not sure what you mean unless you mean that since they weren’t gay you pegged them correctly.

Or were you trying to pick the non-heterosexuals? Not reading the question is a good way to fail Warren’s exams 🙂

In fact it was the expert that was wrong most of the time… interesting.

(I know, it’s soooo tiresome…)

Anyone of the daughters could have an eating disorder. If you go on broad stats — they probably all do (as with so many women).

But then again, I don’t think specific triggers are required either. Being weird or fearful about food, not taking pleasure in it, eating too little or too much all count as disordered ideas about food IMO. A part of modern Western culture, sadly.

And before you critize me… if I had too pick just the one: Jill, for the moment. Sarah in the longer term.

Oh, that’s two. Sorry.

(I cannot see a trigger with Jen, and she seems both active and achieving well enough. This should add up to enough self-confidence… but maybe she sees something different in the mirror)