SEE UPDATES BELOW…
Last week I blogged about a homosexuality conference in London hosted by the conservative Anglican Mainstream, and featuring Joseph Nicolosi, Jeff Satinover and Arthur Goldberg. One attendee was David Virtue who runs Virtueonline.com. His website is popular among conservative Anglicans. Virtue had much to say about the conference but one quote stood out. The quotes within this segment of Virtue’s article come from Nicolosi.
Nicolosi said he has been helping people to “increase their heterosexual potential” for 25 years, and puts his success rate among men at about two out of three. “75% of our clients are completely cured, the 25% who are not usually have other factors that are not brought into the counseling situation.”
“It is not the absent father, but the non-responsiveness of the father. It is when the father shuts downs and rejects the boy’s masculine striving and he shames the boy in his strivings to become a man. That boy will find some male to connect with. It is the negative experience of the father that destroys him and pushes him towards men who offer him homosexual sex as a way out.”
Something happened on the way from 2/3 to 75%. In either case, this is an astounding claim and represents an inflation from previous statements. In a NARTH conference report, Nicolosi is reported to have proposed that the change rate was 1/3.
Joseph Nicolosi gave the following counsel in closing the meeting: we should study the literature, obtain good training, get to know the arguments (from both sides), and be aware that research indicates about one-third of those who persevere in therapy for unwanted homosexual attractions are successful in making a significant change in behavior and identity and developing heterosexual responsiveness. Even if the change may not be complete, there is substantial improvement along with greater life satisfaction, better self-esteem and improved relationships with others.
UPDATE: Linda Nicolosi emailed this evening to say the 75% figure was a misquote. She said, “Joe has never made such a claim.” Earlier today, I checked the number with David Virtue who was in attendance and who interviewed Nicolosi here. Mr. Virtue confirmed that Nicolosi gave the 75% figure during his remarks in London. So at this time (late Monday night) there is some dispute about what is being claimed.
UPDATE (4/28/09) – David Virtue changed his article regarding the the claims of cure without notice. The current version is here. The paragraph in question has been changed to read:
Nicolosi said he has been helping people to “increase their heterosexual potential” for 25 years, and puts his success rate among men at about two out of three.
A .pdf of the original is here and a screen capture of the relevant section is here.
Debbie,
Don’t you ever tire of making bold – but false – statements?
Homosexuality is not a behavior. It is an orientation. Or, if you don’t like that word, then homosexuality is the experience of romantic, sexual, and affectional attraction to the same sex. A person who never ever engages in sexual behavior with another living soul can still experience homosexuality.
You know this. It isn’t a mystery. Nor have you not been informed.
Sexuality is not “unstable” for the overwhelming population. Nor is sexual, romantic and affectional attraction mutable for most gays or most straights.
It’s pointless arguing over those small percentages of highly motivated, deeply religious, strongly anti-gay same-sex attracted persons who claim to have experienced change in their attractions. One could as easily argue over Lena Horn or Michael Jackson. For heaven sake, I’m never sure if Lil Kim will show up on Dancing with the Stars as a white girl or a black girl from week to week.
Nonetheless, it is irrefutable that MOST gay people who try “change” therapy do not experience change and that it is only a very small percentage of persons who even think they have enough of a chance to “change” to even try.
There is no question that many – if not all – same-sex attracted persons experience their attractions so early in their life as to have been “born with” it, whether the actual onset was pre or post-natal. And these persons will continue to experience their attractions as directed towards the same-sex until the day they die.
To say that it is “unstable” is a contrary to what you know to be factual for the vast majority.
Rather than make baseless statements that you know are contrary to fact, why not contribute to the conversation with honesty and integrity?
Yes. And it is beyond question that left-handed people have more in common with right-handed people than not.
Until they reach for the scissors.
Oh, I’m sure you do see sexuality as a social construct. It fits your worldview. You don’t need to be sorry; I have no desire to change your “seeing”.
Actually…. I think I’ll go back to what I thought when I analyzed the first study that NARTH had on their website. In that one it was obvious that they managed to get all the bisexuals into mostly heterosexual functioning [although they did not give exact readings of just who was being ‘cured’]. And I think they managed to get 3 fully gay men in to mostly heterosexual functioning. I then went on to figure up their success rate among ‘fully gay’ men to fully heterosexual and it was something on the order of less than 1%.
.
Needless to say that study no long is up on the NARTH site. But the 2/3rds of clients who achieve some semblance of heterosexual functioning cited here seems to remind me of that study and what I got from it. That being those gay men in the study who did not reach the “pinnacle” of fully heterosexual functioning were instead simply made to be confused into bisexuality by their therapy. I’m not sure that confusion is a proper goal for therapies.
.
Maybe it’s not right to tamper with mater naturalis.
Debbie,
– Gaydar doesn’t always work – by a long shot. I know this from experience
– ALL minorities are aware of differences between themselves and others and most minorities celebrate their differences while at the same time ask to be treated as equals.
– Why does a segment of straight people flaunt outrageous behaviors and affectations?
– Most gays blend in well – you probably don’t even see the majority of them.
– I could say that some differences within the straight community are very significant too.
– many blacks, and other minorities have lived successfully as Caucasian, and when you speak of “change”, know that that word is fraught with misunderstanding when it comes to gays, ex-gays and ex-ex-gays. No one can seem to adequately define it and everyone seems to have their own definition.
Jayhuck, there is clearly an awareness in the gay community of key differences and even a celebrating of them. Why does “gaydar” work? Why does a segment of both gay men and lesbians flaunt outrageous behaviors and affectations? Yes, many gays blend in well and even remain in the closet. Yet, most gays (and ex-gays) still can pick them out of a crowd. The differences are significant. Homosexuality (a behavior) has become gay (an identity). The problem remains that no one can confirm its source and it is unstable. So gaydom is unique in its minority status, unlike blacks or other racial minorities who are born, live and die as unchangeable minorities.
Jayhuck,
Go back and re-read what I wrote.
Mary,
I’ve never seen gay people tout the we-are-different banner! In housing, in marriage, in work, all they ask for is to be seen as equals, with the same rights and privileges. The same thing black people and other minorities ask for.
Timothy,
I would venture to say that there is more in common between people with SSA and OSA than not. It’s funny that gays are always pushing for the “we are different angle” (genetically, biologically etc…) and then compare themselves to black people who campaigned to be seen as just another human being. I doubt gays are really that different – as you say. I’m sorry but I see sexuality as a social contruct – both heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Evan,
Perhaps the better question is, why do YOU think that gay-affirmative is extreme?
Evan,
I find it interesting, although not very surprising, that you view the APA’s stance as extreme. I don’t see their stance that way at all. In what way is the APA extreme?
… fact that there are and have always been…
Mary
I’m not sure about the reason for the confusion. I say that some persons are same-sex attracted and some are not.
Now many anti-gays will claim that “there is no such thing as homosexuality” and “there is no such thing as a homosexual”.
My point is that there are two groups of people – those attracted to the same sex and those who experience no such attraction. Regardless of what one chooses to believe about mutibility or etiology or change, the fact remains that there are persons in the world who uniquely are attrated to – and only to – the same sex and whom will never be attracted to the opposite sex. They exist. You and I both know them.
If we define homosexuality as the condition of being sexually, romantically, and emotionally attracted to persons of the same sex – as is the accepted definition – then clearly we have persons who fit this definition. It is an inarguable fact that homosexuals – as so defined – exist. (Please note I’m not using “gay”, a word that implies a certain amount of self identity).
Arguments about whether it is a “social construct” like, say, Republicans or Southerners or optimists, ultimately run into the brick wall of reality about those persons who will never ever be anything other than homosexual, a fact that no matter of reshuffling of perspectives will overcome.
Some like to argue that the concept wasn’t developed until recently or that other thinkers agree with them or that such definitions are only self imposed. But they just can’t explain away the inarguable fact that they are and have always been persons who have attraction for the same sex and not for the opposite.
We could banish all language tomorrow that identified such persons, but they’d still be sitting there defying the reality of our effort. We could deny their existance, but it won’t make them not exist.
And it is my opinion that most efforts to deny the reality of the existence of homosexuality are really an effort to deny the existance of uniquely same-sex attracted people.
Timothy Kincaid,
See my reply to Lynn David above.
@Lynn David
Nicolosi may not be the first to deny that homosexuality exists (as a separate entity). There are three authors I know of who argued that homosexuality was a modern (medical) invention, and they’re/were all gay:
-French philosopher Michel Foucault in ‘The History of Sexuality’
-David M. Halperin in ‘One hundred years of homosexuality and other essays on Greek love’
-Jonathan Ned Katz in ‘The Invention of Heterosexuality’
Here you can find an excerpt from Katz’s book on the subject.
Warren T
Press Alt 0153 and you get a trademark symbol (™).
Option Shift 2 for macintosh machines users.
Timothy,
You say that those who are gay and not gay are distinct different kinds of people. In what way – from your perspective?
Your words …(I hope I use the codes right)
David,
probably so. I kind of used it as a jumping board to my general dislike of the way I see the term used.
Mary,
I don’t understand your question
Timothy,
What exactly in your view is the difference between those of different sexual attractions?
@Timothy Kincaid,
You have made my use of Social Constructs applied to SSA as too particular…I applied it to Religion as well. My meaning in my post was clear…I don’t know why you would want to restrict it to imply devaluing of those with SSA.
Or they find an image of God that resonates with their worldview. That is not to say one cannot find God within the gay community. Or that He can’t find them, a more likely scenario.
What?
He can only get 2/3 to increase their heterosexual potential? With a term that vague, he should have 100% just by counting those who walk through the door.
Concerned
This presumes that “their faith” must, by definition, adhere to conservative Christianity’s teachings about homosexuality. I think that if is just as likely that a same-sex attracted person could adhere to their faith in Christ but – upon research, study, and a thorough examination of what it means to be a follower of Christ – come to quite different conclusions about God’s direction in their lives and His expectations surrounding their sexuality.
David
I’m always troubled by this term. It seems to be used primarily to dismiss terms and to divorce their meaning. In context of sexuality, I see it most often used to suggest that there is no such thing as a sexual orientation but that this is just an artificial social identity, little more than a club.
However, beneath all the dismissive talk, the underlying fact remains: some persons are same-sex attracted and some are not. There is a measurable and unique distinction that separates these two classes of persons and such a distinction deserves a name.
Debbie
That is likely true.
But it is also true that many stay in the gay community because they find God there.
S and S used such a broad term for ‘reorientation’ that it cannot be applied to the Nicolosi model…CANNOT.
Nicolosi’s model has never been assessed for harm.
Glad you clarified that Evan. Reorientation therapy or conversion therapy is the proper term.
Nice little TM — How did you do that?
By ‘sexual identity therapy’ I mean any type of psychotherapy aimed at producing changes in sexual orientation. Conversion therapy would be a more fitting term, not to be confused with Warren Throckmorton’s SIT™.
Debbie Thurman wrote
Maybe acceptance shouldn’t have been a matter of here and there. People could have made their choices staying here, if they hadn’t been bullied into making “the right ones”. I appreciate that you are trying to reach out to them.
concerned & Warren,
Interesting exchange of views…
David B
I wasn’t implying that Nicolosi’s motivation is pecuniary. I think he is motivated by the work he does, that is, he believes in what he is doing, even when he be wrong.
We’ve been over this issue: Narth is the product of APA’s gay-affirmative stance, one extreme creating the other. I argued once that religious-based or -motivated groups are the only ones dealing with sexual identity problems in an organised manner because religion, especially Christian denominations, provided the last flag bearers of morality standards in the fractured Western world. Unfortunately, it’s the same moralising reflex that put a banner in the hands of homophobic people using religious slogans…
On the money issue. I might be wrong about this, but it looks like this whole field of sexual identity therapy is turning into a niche… It’s like the record industry taking over the days of hippie enthusiasm. Now it’s about selling CDs, books, therapy by phone sessions, weekends, and whatnot. I imagine there is some envy steaming up here and there… ‘What is that guy putting out now, a new book? He doesn’t have one iota of science to back up his claims!’ (No one really has, because studies based on clients’ self-reports may only record attempts at reducing their cognitive dissonance after paying a lot of money to see some results.) So, there was a bit of irony in my message, for that matter.
David,
Social construct – agreed. Nonetheless it does not make one more meaningful or more or less important/valuable. It just looks funny when trying that argument on the other foot and calling it an appropriate fit regardless of the poilitcal energy that supports one idea over another.
@ Lynn David,
Good catch on the change in quotes…
@ Concerned,
No kidding: you seem bright and capable, how about writing an article critiquing the other side?
@ Warren,
When you talk about the reparative therapists you know, aren’t we mostly talking about Joe…there are several others in NARTH with similar focus and energy…
And are we being specific in our definition of reparative therapy…or are we using the broad definition of Shidlo and Schroeder?
@ Mary,
The analogy of the deaf seems more appropriate (although I am sure it has it’s flaws also) merely for the social science theory and political energy that has arisen in support of the “culture” of the non-hearing…
It is a similar support system to the GLBT community…
Social Constructions are helpful in many ways, but they can be completely unrelated to truth…Religion is a social construction, also.
Social Constructions can also engage with various portions of the truth…
Warren,
Having said what I said previously, I do not agree fully with the use of the extreme methods that may be implied by the article above for everyone. My only issue is when the extreme theories or ideas on the opposite side are being ignored I recognize a destructive polarizition in place that only harms those who find themselves in the middle. I would contend that, as in so many case in the scientific realm, these kinds of polarizations do much more harm than they do good and if they continue the truth is lost.
@concerned:
I don’t agree that “for decades the gay affirming therapist could not accept that there were bisexual people.” “Ex-gays are really bisexual” is one of the common statements that gay affirming therapists used to combat claims of sexual reorientation. One has not changed, but chosen sides was and is a common argument against sexual orientation change.
RE: this statement – “…or that the only way to overcome the difficulty one has between issues of faith and their SSA was to give up their faith” may have more truth to it. In the ACA, I have worked for years to get a hearing for religious worldview being on par with sexual orientation affirmation. I think the APA is hearing these concerns and in 2006 passed a resolution respecting religious worldview as a diversity variable. Progress has been made on that point precisely by focusing on religion as a diversity variable and not by promoting reparative therapy.
Your argument seems to be, one side plays fast and loose with the facts so it is ok if our side does it too. I disagree completely. For one thing, as an informed person, I evaluate the information on all sides and come down as close to the facts as I can. I have seen both sides fudge the facts and stretch the truth.
Warren,
Why is it that you attack reparative therapy of applying their theory to all gays when for decades the gay affirming therapist could not accept that there were bisexual people or that the only way to overcome the difficulty one has between issues of faith and their SSA was to give up their faith. There are so many hippocracies in your stance against reparative therapy while ignoring the politics of gay therapists.
@Lynn David:
See the update. I am going to look for the video of the meeting but I am hoping David Virtue will clarify why he changed it (Virtue got it wrong or Nicolosi got it wrong and wanted to correct his speech).
Debbie – I have a post today which addresses the different populations issue. My quarrel with reparative therapist is not that they are always wrong; they probably are not always wrong. However, my quarrel is that everything looks like a nail since all they have is a hammer. They apply the theory to all gays and consequently may help some (maybe a third, who really knows), but do nothing for (or harm) some of the others.
It is the blind men and the elephant parable come to life. Most non-reparatives are willing to acknowledge this.
I can feel this Nicolosi thing coming round to where it inevitably arrives whenever the topic of “change” comes up. There is the nature camp and the nurture camp, and never the twain shall meet, it seems. And there is hair-splitting over terms that really don’t matter. This is science at its best? A lot of egos pitted against one another. Meanwhile, the same problems persist.
In my women’s SSA group, we never discuss where our attractions may have come from. We don’t care. We know we can never be sure. We know we have a fallen nature that accounts for many ills. To that extent, I am in the nature camp. Of course we also have some nurture issues. Some have been abused and had poor relationships with parents.
We have had shame from not being able to reconcile our desires with our faith. We have felt rejection from knowing our churches would almost always reject us if we came forward and asked for help. But we also know that when we sincerely seek Christ and realize what justification means, we are assured of our worth. We can all exhale and just be. There’s great freedom even in that. My counselor allowed that for me, and we do it in our recovery groups if we’re doing it right. I was never pushed. I was pointed in the direction of Christ and loved.
Some of us knew we had to taste the forbidden fruit so we would not live out our lives with the “what if.” Only by going there and realizing that wanting is not the same as having can we come to a different place and desire wholeness. We have to stop trying to bargain with God.
Many stay in the gay community because of the acceptance there. Quite understandable. And I can’t go and pluck them out or guilt them into wanting to leave. How cruel would that be? I can’t offer them the same acceptance in the Christian community. Sad but true. It is only those who are seeking something else I can meet halfway. All the others I have to leave in God’s hands, loving them as they are. They’ve had enough doors slammed in their faces.
There is a high degree of spirituality or religiosity in the gay community. Many are church rejects, but their spiritual needs are still there. That’s why science ultimately falls flat. And to the extent the church hitches its wagon to science and humanistic psychology, it has lost the battle. It is completely understandable why the gay Christian community organized. But that created a whole new area of prejudice for gay Christians.
By the way, Nicolosi may be doing little more than focusing on gay men (he does not work with women) who have been severely rejected and shamed by their fathers either before or after realizing they were SSA. That’s just one subset and his work should be couched in those terms if that’s what it is. I’m sure reparative therapy can help such men to some extent.
Virtue has changed his article from saying this:
To saying just this…..
Now that is strange. Because what it does is practically do nothing. Virtue is still saying that Nicolosi’s success rate among men (however Nicolosi understands “success”) is 67%. That is still very high. I assumed that the 75% rate would have included women (who I sheepishly assume are easier to change because they’re more naturally bisexual – so if a homosexual doesn’ t exist, does a bisexual then not exist, seems only logical….).
I guess your call to Virtue got him thinking…. might have had a call from Nicolosi also. Sounds like collusion to me. Virtue claim’s 75% is true….. Nicolosi says…..
.
Hmmm…..
Well …. seems now that both Nicolosi (I think as per the Virtue article) and Satinover (See: Ekklesia) say that there is no such thing as sexual orientation, or rather homosexuality. They’re pretty sure heterosexuality still exists though….
.
Although they associate that way of thinking with their therapy, it may ultimately be a political move on their part. While an ex-gay may exist, they are trying to say I don’t exist.
All – Note the update from Linda Nicolosi at the end of the post.
I have not heard directly from Joe Nicolosi but as noted David Virtue said Nicolosi said that quote. There is a video of the conference so confirming the quote may have to come from that.
So David??
So deaf children should not experiment with hearing either – if that is what they want?
So if you are legless – so legless you shall remain because that’s the way you are and if you are deaf then soundless you shall have your world because that is the way you are?
C’mon? Sounds like eugenics in reverse. You are not allowed to improve your senses because if God made man to fly he would have given man wings? Now what sounds backwards here?
A transgender can manipulate his/her body but a man or woman cannot change thier mind? Change their behavior?
@ Lynn David,
good catch.
Tim,
would a better analogy be the argument currently debated in Deaf Schools?
Rather than amputee…a lame analogy!
What the Catholic Medical Association claims….
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0039.html
.
2) Same sex attraction as a symptom:: Individuals experience same-sex attractions for different reasons. While there are similarities in the patterns of development, each individual has a unique, personal history. In the histories of persons who experience same-sex attraction, one frequently finds one or more of the following:
You’d think they’d at least quote Nicolosi or Socarides.
Nicolosi has previously made the error of using the word “cured.” I have corrected him once myself, immediately after he used the same descriptor in 2006 (?).
Mary,
I probably should have avoided comparing attractions to deformity… but I’ll run with the analogy anyway.
Yes. Like you, my “leg” is different from that of most people in the population. And I too am going on through life with some minor inconveniences and perhaps even an occasional limping.
But as long as we are both being honest with ourselves and others then I don’t much care that the type of prosthetic you chose is different from mine.
Yes, Ann. I mean a religion or philosophy other than Christianity. One therapist was a Buddhist, and had no qualms about bringing her religion into her practice, for example.
TK,
Sort of akin to telling the legless man or woman that they have to accept that they have one less leg and claim that and be proud. But like you – I’ll try out prosthetics both bionic and regenerative types. Though they won’t be my original leg or be like any other person’s leg – it will be how I WALK through life and not determined by some other person’s limitations of such. I call that success!
In their Exodus study, Jones and Yarhouse came up with a success rate (change) of about 11% or 15% (depending on how you measure the sample).
And even their definition of “change” was not what most people would define as “cured”. They still experienced sex dreams or wandering eyes or other forms of temptation – at least occassionally. And that doesn’t even take into consideration that the results were self-reported (one “success” later said that he’d never experienced change of any sort).
That’s the problem with “change”-based or cure-based therapy. You either have to redefine words or admit a startlingly low rate of success (sometimes both).
If your goal, however, is specifically related to your desire to live in a specific way regardless of the direction of your attractions, then you can decide if the result is worth the work and, if so, find satisfaction in the measurable realities of daily living.
It’s like having an amputated leg. You can quote scripture and lay claim to your blessing and speak in faith and afirm God’s Will and pray with conviction that God will grow your leg back. You can even point to testimonies of those who tell of God’s divine healing.
Or you can pray that God gives you strength and put in a lot of physical therapy and learn to walk and enjoy a full life with a prosthetic leg.
Having been raised in a family that very devoutly believed in devine healing… I’d go with the prosthetic.
Unless, of course, it’s on CNN
Since a change in identity (ie “I no longer identify with homosexuality, I identify with Christ”) is the definition of “change”, I’m always amused that there is ever anything less that 100% success rate.
As for Nicolosi’s numbers, I guess that 75% is really no better or worse than 2/3 or 1/3 or 82.648% when you’re making up numbers and using words without definition.
They can’t pay you enough money to take on all the slurs…
Besides, living in LA means a chunk of the dough gets eaten up by cost of living stuff.
David Blakeslee,
The slurs definitely take a toll and unfortunately can turn a once optimistic and open attude/demeanor into what is perceived as bitter and prone to exaggeration. I don’t agree this is the right response, however I can see how it happened – it is human nature.
Basically?
Reductionism in all forms, even your question, oversimplifies the human condition…
Regarding “Broken”…but it is a song I like of Dylan’s; keeps my expectations in line.
So…. uh…. you’re basically saying reality doesn’t matter in psychoanalysis?
BTW…. broken does not of necessity equate to fallen.
Problems:
1. 75%
2. “Cured”
@ Evan…
It is hard for me to imagine that there is much money in Reparative Therapy…no more than any other (low six figures at most).
A couple of books…not widely read and never prescribed by Graduate Schools…
He is a feisty Sicilian (I think), who is prone to exaggeration, but loves a good fight…especially as an underdog.
The payoff is in the uproar and bucking the system and fighting for a worthy cause…I doubt it is the money. They can’t pay you enough money to take on all the slurs…
Besides, living in LA means a chunk of the dough gets eaten up by cost of living stuff.
Freud was on coke; what’s Nicolosi on with his 75% cured gays?
Maybe he’s making too much money…
and have had varying degrees of non-Christian spirituality woven into my therapy
Debbie Thurman,
When you say “non-Christian spirituality”, do you mean another religion?
So do I. I have had both good and bad experiences in the mental health system, and have had varying degrees of non-Christian spirituality woven into my therapy. Some of it was harmless, some of it ethically questionable.
I do find it so ironic that so many Christians buy into reparative therapy which is a neo-psychoanalytic approach claiming to be based in research.
I have observed that desperate people do desperate things – navigating one’s way to understand and respond to unwanted desires is daunting in today’s world with limited information and so many biased opinions. I can see how anyone who has been told there is no hope other than to identify as gay and live openly as a gay individual would welcome anything that counters this mindset. It seems that the individual and their personal and reasonable desires has been lost in within a battlefield.
I think your “Catholic Natural Law” audience for Joe is a good idea.
Referring to some Christian Therapists as “neo-psychoanalytic” strikes me as a wierd, borrowing of neo-conservative…
Psychoanalytic theory borrows from the Greek, tripartate man and it’s original idea of ID was an easy adaptation (although a distortion) of man’s fallen nature….
It’s like Christians borrowed from psychology rather than thinking things through.
Warren…I knew you would wince!
NOW: Listen to Bob:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMWcgtB-Fkw&feature=related
(Ignore the harmonica playing dude).
@David Blakeslee:
David – You cut me to the quick to make me the center of that sandwich.
There is feminist therapy, Buddhist therapy, LDS therapy, Chrisitan counseling, etc. If Joe called what he did Catholic Natural Law Therapy and promoted it primarily to that audience, I am not sure there would be the same reaction. However, he promotes a Catholic-Christian view of homosexuality and calls it scientific. It is the claim of being research and scientifically based to a lay audience which has little ability to evaluate it all that seems troubling to me.
My far right Christian critics accuse me of erring on the side of neutrality.
If Buddhists are allowed to have their therapy impacted directly by their spiritual beliefs…It seems reasonable to allow Byrd, Throckmorton, Nicolosi and others to use their religious beliefs as a framework as well….
Coersion is key.
Buddhists will err on the side of neutrality (due to their spiritual beliefs)…
The trio above will err on the side of activity.
Psychology is broken….
It is not a religion…although Jung tried to make it so; Skinner and Freud felt it was superstitious. Psychology was demonstrably hostile to religion (SEE DSM III examples of mental illness).
Oddly there are many current psychotherapists that are borrowing heavily from Buddhism with not professional repercussions…
NARTH exists partially due to this longstanding hostility…
BOB DYLAN:
Everything Is Broken
Broken lines, broken strings,
Broken threads, broken springs,
Broken idols, broken heads,
People sleeping in broken beds.
Ain’t no use jiving
Ain’t no use joking
Everything is broken.
Broken bottles, broken plates,
Broken switches, broken gates,
Broken dishes, broken parts,
Streets are filled with broken hearts.
Broken words never meant to be spoken,
Everything is broken.
Seem like every time you stop and turn around
Something else just hit the ground
Broken cutters, broken saws,
Broken buckles, broken laws,
Broken bodies, broken bones,
Broken voices on broken phones.
Take a deep breath, feel like you’re chokin’,
Everything is broken.
Every time you leave and go off someplace
Things fall to pieces in my face
Broken hands on broken ploughs,
Broken treaties, broken vows,
Broken pipes, broken tools,
People bending broken rules.
Hound dog howling, bull frog croaking,
Everything is broken.
Copyright ©1989 Special Rider Music
Heck, we could call all psychotherapy reparative therapy of some sort, as David already pointed out. But how much therapy is directed specifically toward affecting a change in homosexual desires? And it has to be the desire and not just the behavior changing, otherwise, it’s just cognitive behavioral therapy.
When I consider the underpinnings of spiritual help (“the ministry of reconciliation”) and those of therapy, it’s as if one is from Mars and the other Venus, so different are their modus operendi. A change grounded in the belief that we all live in a fallen world (that is so crooked, it can never be made straight, as King Solomon said) is entirely different from a change grounded in the belief that we are basically good, rational beings who just need to be tweaked in the right way.
Psychology is just another religion, “the opiate of the masses.”
Debbie – I do not share your pessimism of mental health care but am sympathetic to the direction of the criticism.
I do find it so ironic that so many Christians buy into reparative therapy which is a neo-psychoanalytic approach claiming to be based in research.
Joseph Nicolosi claims not to help people become more able to offset their homosexual desires, not act on them, that is. He rather says that he “cures” them. He says he can cure 75%. This probably is grounds for an ethics violation of making public statements which cannot be verified.
When will his peers publicly censor him as Mr. Blakelee suggests?
Probably never.
Ann,
You are right and whether someone else deam this change to be sufficient is really no one elses business. Those who cannot accept that there is choice in this matter and that it is not all in our genetic makeup will never be satisfied anyway, so in the end I think it comes down to whether the client feels their life is better lived after the therapy than it was before they came into therapy. I too would question the success rates that are stated here, but if there is success for anyone I do not think anyone else has the right to negate that or to try to take away the opportunity to try to change.
I don’t think anyone has to change toward heterosexuality to have their therapy deemed successful – a change in how they percieve and respond to the unwanted desires, is what makes it successful.
IF … Nicolosi is talking about men who come to him with clearly articulated daddy problems and IF … he is working exclusively with those kinds of SSA men, he might be able to make such a claim. Though I can’t account for the variable in percentages from two-thirds to three-fourths. Those are big ifs, of course.
I literally just this minute finished reading Andrew Marin’s book, “Love Is an Orientation.” Honestly, the entire therapeutic field now looks trite to me.
My former shrink claims he had a 90-plus percent success rate with his depressed patients. I am one of those successes, but I guarantee you he was not the only reason. So, what else may be going on with those men Nicolosi claims to be “curing”? And how long have they been followed to see if they remain “cured”?
How can anyone not be skeptical of such a claim? Maybe Nicolosi has a decent track record of working with a narrowly defined subset of SSA men. But the implication in Virtue’s reporting on whatever that success may be is that it is possible for up to 75 percent of SSA men to change toward heterosexuality from therapeutic intervention. No way is that true. It’s not true for ANY problem.
Nicolosi undermines support that other professional’s would give him through his restricted theoretical foundation, anecdotal examples and, likely, exaggerated results.
Other professionals at Narth need to publicly correct him…the internal correction process has never worked.