Fallout from the Patrick Strudwick sting continues. Strudwick presented himself falsely as a client who desired to change his sexual orientation to two therapists, Paul Miller and Lesley Pilkington. Richard Cohen acolyte, Paul Miller apparently avoided sanctions from his professional medical body. Now Pilkington’s case is being decided by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP). In the UK, counsellors are not regulated directly by the government, but can become members of charity professional associations such as the BACP. I suspect Ms. Pilkington could still practice if she lost her standing in the BACP but it would cast a shadow over her.
If the news account is accurate, one can hear the reparative theory loud and clear:
Mrs Pilkington says her method of therapy – Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) – is legitimate and effective. The therapy is practised by a handful of psychotherapists in Britain.
Mrs Pilkington, whose 29-year-old son is homosexual, said she was motivated by a desire to help others. “He [my son] is heterosexual. He just has a homosexual problem,” she said last week.
Mrs Pilkington has accused Patrick Strudwick, the award-winning journalist who secretly taped her, of entrapment. On the tape, Mr Strudwick asks Mrs Pilkington if she views homosexuality as “a mental illness, an addiction or an antireligious phenomenon”. She replies: “It is all of that.”
And then…
“We say everybody is heterosexual but some people have a homosexual problem. Nobody is born gay. It is environmental; it is in the upbringing.”
The SOCE method involves behavioural, psychoanalytical and religious techniques. Homosexual men are sent on weekends away with heterosexual men to “encourage their masculinity” and “in time to develop healthy relationships with women”, said Mrs Pilkington.
Mrs. Pilkington, who has a gay son, sounds like a nice lady. Perhaps, she has helped people with other types of problems. However, on this issue, it sounds to me like she could use some assistance. It also sounds like her objectivity might be effected by her personal situation.
In any event, I am ambivilent about this situation. I agree that professional associations may intervene where false information and potentially harmful techniques are being offered. However, she was set up by the journalist who did not actually participate in counseling. Those opposing her might have a hard time proving actual harm to Mr. Strudwick. If other real clients who say they were harmed have come forward, I think that would change the deliberations.
Instead of removing her membership, the BACP could ask her to complete additional courses in sexuality and perhaps consult with religiously compatible therapists who do not use reparative therapy. Even if Mrs. Pilkington escapes penalty, as Paul Miller seems to have, the BACP could use the incident to advance a balanced position, such as this one from the APA.
Some clients are not educated about what constitutes “ethical” or effective therapy” or they may be too depressed or frightened to question what is being said to them. Many a vulnerable client has been taken in by an unethical therapist. Certainly, if the client has the insight to realize he’s not on the same page, he should walk away.
Ann# ~ Jan 21, 2011 at 12:22 am
“What responsibility does a patient have to walk away from someone they think is unethical or just not on the same page as they are?”
A lot. Why is that relevant?
So, so true. I never (maybe rarely) read about a positive from the gay community where it concerns Christians who disagree with their ideas on the sin of homosexuality. And I have had the good fortune of knowing some fantastic Christians (once I allowed myself to get to know them) who are truly walking the walk.
Neither do I. I respect their decision to do so. I also respect the “inner awareness or instinct” of those who decided to leave the ex-gay/post gay path. We all must live in accordance with our values. Life is unbearable doing anything else.
BTW; I applaud the decision of Canyon Ridge to distance themselves from Ssempa — and told them so personally. Whether they responded to outside pressure or their own inner guidance, it was the right thing to do. My correspondence with them was coridal and respectful — from and to. I have maintained regular contact with them and admire the many good things they seem to be doing to demonstrate grace, tolerance and humiity in their community.
Now lets move on to having compassion for fundamentalist dispensationalists!
They are imprisoned by their own terrifying end times philosophy which asserts that the world is in a hopelessly degrading trajectory and that only the holiness of the saints and the righteousness of the people generally is staying the hand of God’ Judgement.
Acting as a restraining influence, Dispensationalist Christians believe they are delaying Judgement by pushing the greater culture to embody morally all Judeo-Christian demands.
This, and not hatred, is the core fuel. That is not to say the outcome is not hateful.
Michael,
I don’t need to watch a video – what you tell me is good enough. I understand. It seems that in today’s society, that these things are not so much an issue as they once were. I see an acceptance and defense of gays now as I have never seen before. Perhaps through natural attrition, it will become a completely acceptable way to be and live – I just don’t know. I still do not want to diminish or discredit the inner awareness or instinct that some might have that, regardless of their desires or feelings, would guide them away from same gender sex.
Actually, in part it is. What was it? Canyon Creek or Canyon Ridge church there in Las Vegas? They were a community sponsor for an HIV-testing site…an example of ‘tolerance, grace and humility’. But that didn’t make the national gay news or become blog-fodder. It went unnoticed in the gay community at-large until the connection to Ssempa was discovered. Then it turned into very big news.
That’s the way of news…it’s the way of ALL news. The gay bloggers are going to shout the negative…shout about the ones who threaten them and those who quietly and consistently go about doing good, they aren’t talked about. I’m not placing blame. Christian news is the same. They pick up on the extreme…the part that threatens. That becomes news. I try to awaken Christians to the fact that this dynamic plays out in all of the media. I try to help them see their part in it and encourage them to repent. It’s time some folks on the gay side take their share of responsibility and culpability…for them to shout loudly “PHELPS isn’t typical of fundamental Christianity; they might not all be ‘gay-affirming congregations’ but there are many, many churches with attitudes of tolerance, grace and humility’ rather than dismissing all responsiblity by saying ‘that is not the fault of gay people’.
True. I belong to one. I am not saying gays bear no responsibility for the negative perception they have of Christians. We do tend to accentuate the negative at times — partly because that kind of “Christianity” is louder. (I believe David said they have a “bigger megaphone”.) We are often suspicious, angry and resentful based on past experience. And sometimes, gays are just looking for any example that proves the “hateful Christian” stereotype. It’s easy to do.
Sad. I have been guilty of this. But I have hope. I am changing. Things are changing. As time passes, I believe more Christian churches will exemplify tolerance, grace and humility. It’s what they are called by Christ to do. More gay Christians will come out and help to change the situation. More churches will be affirming. More moderate and loving Christians will encourage their brethren to pipe down. As they do, gays may change their tune as well, but it will take them longer to catch on to the new music.
I think this is true to some extent but lets not pretend that Christians haven’t given them a reason to should. Gay people have at the mercy of some incredible vitriol that has spilled from people and groups that call themselves Christian. Many Christians have demonized gay people, skewed research to their liking to further that demonization, and worked incredibly hard to undermine equal rights for gay people and families . I sympathize with why gay people may shout the negative, because, frankly, there’s plenty of negative to shout about when it comes to the Christian community, especially from some of the hate groups like AFA, etc.
That said, I know fully well there are plenty of wonderful Christians out there, and I’m not just talking about the more liberal ones. I happen to be friends with many Orthodox Christians who believe being a practicing gay is a sin, but nevertheless love and respect me. One couple who is closest to me even made me the godfather of their children. They also don’t work to undermine the rights gay people seek. I also know wonderful and loving people from conservative Evangelical groups who are also respectful when it comes to me. Warren is an excellent example of such an evangelical.
Thinking…
Absolutely – Anyone from any religious group who believes that what they are doing is the will of God but which hurts and harms other human beings is frightening. I know this is a stretch, and I most definitely do not mean to tie these types of Christians to this, but Islamic terrorists would be the extreme example.
I find it interesting that ideas like The Rapture and what some Dispensationalists believe didn’t come around until the 19th century. Ancient Christians did not hold these sorts of beliefs.
Believe it or not, I do. As you said, they are imprisoned by their fear.
It seems sometimes that many Christians just aren’t listening.
We say, “Your message hurts. You hate and reject us. You fear us. You say we won’t go to heaven. You want to deny us equal rights — basic human rights to employment, housing, health, marriage, etc. You want to criminalize us. You tell us we our love is counterfeit.
You say hateful, bigotted things about us and spread lies about us. You say we pose a danger to your kids. We want to destroy the family and civilization itself. Homosexuality is Evil. Dangerous. You insist that we are damaged goods, deserving of scorn or pity.”
And you respond defensively, “No we don’t. It’s unfair to say that we do”. Gays say Christianity is their enemy. And you say, “No we aren’t. There is no evidence that we are!”
Not listening. Not caring. Not really.
I am no longer in practice. But, if I had such a client, I would tell her it was indeed possible to follow her conservative faith and values, and to someday marry a man. I never would encourage a client to act against her own faith or values.
I believe I could help her to live in harmony with her values. However, I would inform her that I do not know how to actually change a person’s orientation from gay to straight. That I would never promise. I don’t think any good therapist should.
Back to context:
Strudwick sought her out. Strudwick identified himself as someone who was not finding satisfaction in the gay lifestyle and who desired ‘change’. We don’t find in the record provided by Strudwick what they discussed about change…it’s even possible since they only had two sessions that they didn’t get there yet. (Believe it or not, for many therapists session one is often devoted to inventory and fact-finding; goal-setting often doesn’t crystallize for a few sessions.
It can be assumed that Strudwick presented himself as someone who didn’t live in a cave…that he knew there were therapies available that would affirm his homosexuality…and yet, he sought her out. Again, if not living in a cave, they also likely touched on the fact that the discussion of change was ‘the road less travelled’ by dissatisfied gays. In short, Strudwick presented expectations that the offered therapy wouldn’t follow the status quo.
And the counselor responded honestly. As I cited in my middle of the night post, she said “We say everybody is heterosexual but some people have a homosexual problem. Nobody is born gay. It is environmental; it is in the upbringing.” Sure sounds like they were discussing the approach she’d be taking and she shared her views and those of her like-minded colleagues. She said “We say” rather than “Science says” or “everybody knows” or “the truth is”.
And, like it or not, although it’s true that environmental cause has no solid scientific base; it’s conversely true that it has no solid scientific challenge. It remains, much like ‘you’re born that way’, in the realm of theory. If a theory is presented to a client and is not presented as a scientific fact, is it worthy of censure? If a theory is unpopular, is it in the best interests of science to silence it…to quench it’s exploration?
That was the context here. Her words ‘We say” say that very clearly to anyone with ears to hear.
Ann
I think your comment above is very perceptive and true to the complex realities of life, as well as being ‘nicely balanced’ in its form and content.
Michael,
I have heard this more than I thought was possible. When a therapist interjects their own opinion and / or bias, all bets are off for the well being of a client. That is why I asked to what extent is a patient / client responsible for walking away. I have seen it both ways – therapists who tell clients that they cannot change and should accept their feelings and come out of the closet – and – therapists who tell clients they can and should change from gay to straight. In both scenarios, the client is left devastated because the therapist did not or would not listen and direct them accordingly, whether it is within the scope of their theraputic knowledge or to refer them to someone else.
Mary
What people ‘want’, and what might be best for them, is often not the same thing. I have this problem in my job (as an educator): X may want to be a brain surgeon, but X’s academic profile and skills suggest that she/he would be better off aiming to be journalist.
Thinking about ‘faith and values’: should we necessarily always seek to follow OUR OWN values; might it sometimes be the case that there are other values that we have overlooked?
How many more times can this be said? If I seek out a gay affirming shrink and I think he/she is nuts I move on. He sought out a therapuetic model that he was set against from the get go. Duh.
If a lesbian identified person came walking into your office and she wanted to follow her conservative faith and values, and someday marry a man – would you tell her that is possible and could you help her?
You would not expect universal neutrality toward the behavior but instead a variety of views that have modified over time, and this is exactly what we see. It was never suggested that Christianity invented or were the first to have condemnations of same-sex behavior. The simple fact, however, is that the science of psychology began in the West.
And my partners more important thought is worth repeating:
That, David, is not what I said!
Emily,
No these people are not my god. I was just making reference to the fact that many turned their backs on Jesus becaue he kept company with sinners, tax collectors and such.. I’m just saying we should probably not judge others by the company they keep. We should take into consideration the people themselves. If read closeley you will see tht I did not support nor condemn NARTH or anyone in that comment.
Jayhuck?
Seriously – you didn’t that connection?
Major leaps pal. Major leaps of assumption there.
LOL – I’m not even sure what this means in this context. I am not saying I’m better than this woman, but she is a professional with a license. Having that license means she has to live by certain standards and ethics. If she said the things she did, and we have reason to believe she did, then she needs to be disciplined. Although I think revoking her license is extreme. I prefer the recommendations given by Warren.
Mary# ~ Jan 20, 2011 at 9:33 pm
“As well, you are certain that nothing she said was taken out of context, that nothing the fraudulent client did was unethical or skewed.”
I’m curious Mary. in what context is this:
acceptable to say, esp. for a therapist who deals with gays?
I think it takes a spiritual willingness to “forgive them for they know not what they do”. This is something I have trouble with. I have to admit it. It’s hard for me. I tend to hold grudges. 🙂
Speaking of Context: Well, for starters, she opens the statement not with ‘Science says’ but with ‘We say’.
Mary,
Yes I really do understand that! And to be honest, I don’t think the woman is a bad person, and I’m fairly certain she meant well. I don’t think she’s evil or wicked, just a little misguided. And I do think that Warren made some good suggestions regarding reprimanding her that don’t involve revoking her license.
For the record, I’m not completely happy with the way the journalist went about uncovering the story, but I do think it gave us a side of her and others we might not have seen had they known they were being “watched”
You didn’t bother me Mary, and I’m sorry if I come across as brusque! 🙂
Sorry I bothered you Jayhuck.
You do understand though that people can have different perspectives? That some will want a full knowledge of what was said before jumping onto a bandwagon of sorts? Kind of like – some people who read part of a book and think they have complete knowledge of the entire story?
Anyhow, I’ve got to move on from this. Take your time.
Mary# ~ Jan 21, 2011 at 1:09 am
“Ken,
I’d like to see a whole review of the tape recorded sessions.”
Are you saying you believe there is a context in which the statements are appropriate?
I find it revealing that you are making assumptions about the reporter (he is unethical, he misquoted Pilkington, quoted her out of context etc) based on no evidence whatsoever and yet when presented with evidence about Pilkington you continue to require even more evidence to be presented.
Yes, thank you for the acknowledgement!!! : )
Not all things are fought in the media. As well, you are certain that nothing she said was taken out of context, that nothing the fraudulent client did was unethical or skewed. I’m just sayin’ haven’t we been down the road so many times that it is time to break the cycle of assumption, guilt, blame, who is noble and who isn’t noble based on some sound bytes? (or is that bites?) Anyhow, I think you get the idea.
Jayhuck and Michael,
The notion of “restraining evil” is a strong calling for Dispensationalists; and it refers back to Sodom and Gomorrah where Abraham is bargaining with God about its destruction, “if there are 50 righteous…” Unfortunately, this projection of an angry God returning due to mounting evil (and destroying the world with fire) is inconsistent with the Covenant the God made after the Noah Flood (I will never do this again).
My line of thinking has its flaws: it does not explain Catholic or Mormon criticism of homosexuality (as they are not Dispensationalists).
But it does explain Evangelical Lutheran and Episcopal tolerance (neither of which are dispensationalist).
Ann,
That may be, but the journalist said plenty of damning things – she did and said things good counselors shouldn’t do. Even if we don’t have the whole story, her quotes, which she hasn’t refuted, are pretty awful coming from a therapist. She needs to be disciplined!
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!
Mary,
The woman said some incredibly damning things and she hasn’t refuted a single quote that was printed. What she said was bad, regardless! I’m not content with minimal knowledge, because I believe the rest of the story needs to be known. But what we do know is bad.
Jayhuck,
You show an amazing willingness to be content with minimal knowledge.
Michael,
Wow, this acknowledgement is very appreciated! Perhaps this is why the journalist tried to set up the therapist – I could be wrong, but it would explain it.
How would you advise someone to respond to these resentments when they did not personally create them?
They were direct quotes Mary – the quotes can stand on their own! Did you read what she said? Those things were bad. I can’t imagine a therapeutic context wher those things, or some of her actions, would ever be appropriate
What responsibility does a patient have to walk away from someone they think is unethical or just not on the same page as they are? Isn’t that why people go for second opinions?
should = shout
David,
I agree with you about biological design, but I think we take different viewpoints when it comes to homosexuality and that design, as do many biologists 🙂
As for religion and psychology, I would argue strongly that psychology and many other not-so-great aspects of society were strongly influenced by religion, even if they didn’t say so outright.
@ Ken,
Are you 100% certain of his actions? If so, can you shed some light on the incident?
Fg68ht,
I’m not going to get into speculations about theories or research interpretationsof same sex attraction.
I can say that my therapist has alwyas asked what my belief on the religious and physical aspects were before moving forward. And honestly, I think thats a good thing to do to 1) protect the therapist against unscrupulous people who are only looking to get a counselor into trouble and 2) for the sake of the client to check in and see where they are at.
ken: I don’t know everything Strudwick did but he apparently lied about what he wanted and who he was. If he had gone there and said I am skeptical of what you do, how can you help me (still pretending to be a client) and she still said all of those things and tried to coerce him into changing, then I would have a different take on it.
In Britain the therapists are not licensed by the state and apparently they can practice like pastoral counselors with no conflict. He said he wanted a religious approach and that is what she offered. Now, I disagree that reparative therapy is a religious approach; I think most of it is provably false and thus not suitable for any practitioners, let alone religious ones. So on one hand, I think she followed what she was told was his value position but used a provably false therapy imposed on that value position. I think she needs instruction on sexual orientation so she can more ethically work with people who have the same value position that she does.
The other thing I don’t know is to what degree the ethics complaint relates to homosexual behavior as a moral issue. If the BACP say counselors cannot work with clients to life in contrast with their SSA then I think that will be a religious liberty problem. If they say counselors may not present false and misleading information to their clients then I think they will probably suspend her membership for a period while she gets some training.
Warren,
I disagree with your characterization that Strudwick “set her up.” That implies Strudwick said (or did) things to get her behave in ways she normally wouldn’t. I’ve seen nothing to indicate he did that. He simply went in under cover to report on her (and others) therapy methods.
If she asked him about his beliefs and thoughts on his own origins of his sexuality and he moved in the direction that he was not born that way – then she is off the hook. She was just moving in the direction as directed by the client.
Mary – I think this is partly right. She apparently told him he was gay because of his upbringing. There is no strong evidence for this and as such she was providing an unscientific belief. However, if he told her he wanted a religious framework on his actions, she could have accommodated that without giving him false information.
In other word, to me, the issue was not that he wanted to avoid homosexual behavior and she worked with him toward that end. The issue was that she provided him with a narrative that is not based in fact. She did not need to do the latter to do the former.
and a gloriole from some conservative. 🙂
Could this help? I have little hope. There is so much faith (not only religion) behind. And so much: Homosexuality is all times and for everyone and in every situation bad. To few are like you. I think you are a rarity.
The 4 longer stories in the press since 2005 was always undercover. (Mark Benjamin: My gay therapy session, Turning off gays, Getting straight with God, True confessions; Patrick Strudwick: The ex-gay files: The bizarre world of gay-to-straight conversion; Ted Cox: What Happened When I Went Undercover at a Christian Gay-to-Straight Conversion Camp; Brandon Kirby: The straight jacket ) And it show, that you say you are a homosexual and want to turn straight, the threatment and the supposed causes are the same for everyone. Might he be truly straight or gay.A real client has mostly to deal with himself for a longer time. In we have few ex-gays. In Germany they called Peterson Toscano to have one wo speaks. The “Zwischenraum” has some documents, but they deal mostly to give her client a place for beeing gay and have their christian faith. We hat one anonymus Ex-Ex-Gay in Germany with harm, wehre umbrella “Wuestenstrom” say they can not figure out that this can be true and nobody have shourly said what he belief. The Problem is, that the organisation sues gladly. They also communicaty not with me, because they would better help in the time their clients, our views are to different and they had nothing to warrant against me.And harm… i.e. Gonzales said, that Nicolosi helped him in some cases. But the reparative-thing don’t work for him. He breaked up after one year. He had also no gay friends before. When someone is longer in this and he has hope, he feels no harm. A critical point is when he lose hope, when he see he can not reach the target what he wish (and i think this is mostly to be straight.). And after then the harm is not always clear. Toscano summarized it in Ex-Gay Harm–Let Me Count the Ways. The reparative therapy implements views, i.e. that the cause of the homosexuality is the bad upbringing or sexual abuse. It connect this close. And some deal with this then. And Pilkington also implemets “antireligious phenomenon”. Less faith, more homosexuality. And she want only to help.And i know not much cases that a psychotherapeuthic client had said: I have harm because of the therapeut. Mostly it is in other medical disciplines. And also there: i.e. Ryke Geerd Hamer is also a “faith”-thing. He loose his approbation not because clients “lement” harm. He loose it because there was human death, friends and other family members and other medics. One child with cancer was treated from other medics against the will of the parents with justice authorization.Today is not my best time, it is some confuse, but i hope the readers can take some hints.
Agreed.
Warren# ~ Jan 18, 2011 at 11:53 am
“He said he wanted a religious approach and that is what she offered.”
Actually Warren, I think you got that backwards. According to Pilkington:
“I told him I only work using a Christian biblical framework and he said that was exactly what he wanted.”
She told him, and he agreed to it. She didn’t adjust her method because he said he wanted a religious approach.
Now I don’t have a problem with a therapist who incorporates religion into therapy (ex. encouraging a religious patient to pray for strength) as long as the therapist is sticking to sound scientific principles. Based on what I’ve read, Pilkington was not using sound principles.
In all discriptions from clients i read, the rare which have discriptions of the beginnings of rep-ther-sessions, there are allways the questions about abuse and/or relationship to the father.German Nicolosi-follower Vonholdt: There is no evidence of the gay-gene. But there are many indicators about dysfunctional family and trauma, most absent fathers. [others as the “most” never descibed] It compares not-evidence with believed indicators. Indicators, that are blieved true for everyone.
How can i make new lines and breaks? I worked before with HTML-br-tag, but it seams that it works only in the preview.
Mary# ~ Jan 18, 2011 at 11:45 am
“Are you 100% certain of his actions? If so, can you shed some light on the incident?”
I’m familiar with the articles Warren referenced (and a couple of others, which didn’t include any new info).
Strudwick posed as someone who wanted to change his orientation in order to find out what happens in these therapy sessions. From the article he wrote he has a bias against conversion therapy, but I saw nothing to indicate he “set up” Pilkington (i.e. got her to say or do something she wouldn’t normally do in such a session.)
Eddy# ~ Jan 19, 2011 at 8:01 pm
And just who suggested “complete and total heterosexuality”? Whether you called it that or “raging heterosexuality” it is still a straw man argument.
“Not sure what you mean by ‘convert’? He represented himself as believing as she did. ”
No, he presented himself as a gay client wishing to become straight. And I mean convert from gay to straight.
“And I would suspect that, as she asked her questions, he’d be assessing where she was heading with them and he’d answer that with answers designed to lead her”
Really, and just how did he lead her into claiming that troubled births or freemasonary lead to homosexuality? Or any of the other misleading and unscientific claims she made.
And from the quotes given (admittedly not a complete picture), it was Pilkington who was leading him in order to fit her narrative about sexual orientation.
seriously, Mary? these people are now the equivalent of your God? They are now righteous people and martyrs thanks to godless heathens (or worse yet, JEWS) who refuse to “see the light”?
Nobody has answered my question about why gayness is seen as inherently a “problem” that humans have to deal with rather than an incidental characteristic. (the exception being religious reasons, natch.)
Ann,
Very well put Ann! I agree with you here 🙂
Yes Eddy – I got that. That is what I was talking about. Completely unproven and unsubstantiated nonsense!
From Nicolosi – yet another quote that just begs to be laughed at. I mean, c’mon! Do these people really say these things? And if they do, do people really buy into this stuff? That’s truly frightening.
I don’t remember Jesus running around lying about others, abusing others scholarship, and being asked to speak by known hate groups. Maybe that’s in a different Bible.
Yes, thank you for recognizing such. It’s just not right for everyone. Some people are fine with it – some are not. Why is that a problem for people to accept?
Regardless of everything else, these people have aligned themselves with NARTH. For goodness sake, this group has done nothing but undermine itself by aligning itself with charlatans and misusing other people’s research. We should at the very least judge them by the company they keep.
Ann,
Yes, for a small percentage of gay people, it is their orientation that is the problem, and these people deserve getting whatever help they need in coming to terms with their orientation or learning to live a celibate life in accordance with their values. But just because people make statements like the one you quoted doesn’t mean they aren’t happy with who they are overall.
Stephen,
Have you been able to locate any information to back up your claim that Narth is a religious organization that believes the only cure is to pray away the gay?
considering the biggest utilization of NARTH’s “research” and “science” comes from places like Exodus (religious), JONAH (religious), Courage (religious) and Evergreen (religious), and that Nicolosi himself espouses that “the opposite of homosexuality is holiness,” well.. draw your own conclusions.
Given the choice I would still want to be gay. It’s how I know myself best and it’s such an intricate part of my being – falling in love with women – that I would never want to lose it or to become asexual either.
The reporter did very well to expose her. Let her open a church if she wants to pray. All this trash from NARTH, etc is pitiful. And people around here write about it as if it’s something new. This garbage didn’t work in the 40s, the 50s, the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, or whenever else men and women couldn’t deal with the feeling of social outcast that has been foisted upon us. Trying to talk away the gay – as was popular once – kept most of NYC’s psychiatrists in business for many years. They had a lot of the same ‘theories’ as NARTH: distant father, too-protective mother, sexual abuse, etc. If I sound scornful it’s because I am. However, people can do what they want with their lives, good luck to them, I hope they find some happiness. I only mind that this nonsense has been weaponized by those who make their livings trying to stop GLBT people enjoying their civil rights, peacefully, in private: Maggie Gallagher, Bryan Fischer, et al. NARTH gives them cover; ‘reparative therapy’ lets them seem rational. Let them beware in the UK and keep these leeches out.
I also like what Professor Michael King said about this woman’s unorthodox practices:
@ Mary,
There are some who visit this site, some gay affirmative visitors, who are rigid and stereotypical in their understanding of those who do not wish to build an identity around their SSA.
They perceive the phenomenon as oppressive to the person and they are pejorative in their criticism of it.
They demonstrate their disgust, much like Fischer, with phrases like “pray the gay away,” maybe you can think of some others.
Mary# ~ Jan 19, 2011 at 10:29 am
“I’m waiting for a full report.”
What “full report” are you waiting for? If you know of any more detailed information about the sessions Strudwick had with Pilkington that is forthcoming, I’d be very interested in hearing about it.
“it seems to me that instead of waiting for a full report you are bending over backwards to support the fraudulent client and attack the therapist.”
I do support the use of under cover investigation (what you refer to as a “fraudulent client”) and I see nothing wrong with Strudwick doing that in order to learn what happens in the therapy sessions.
I did take exception to Warren’s use of the term “set-up” and made it clear why I did.
And I pointed out Pilkington made unscientific claims about sexual orientation and it is inappropriate to base a therapy on such unsound principles (btw, I was not the only person here to point that out).
Mary# ~ Jan 19, 2011 at 11:07 am
” ” Not even Pilkington has claimed he mis-reported the sessions”
LOL!!! After misrepresenting himself and having a goal of “catching” the therapist. Okee dokee?””
Do you have a cite where Pilkington claims Strudwick mis-represented what happened in the sessions?
Love that motivates someone to want to understand something is fine, but when that “love” motivates someone to want to understand a phenomenon, which isn’t a disease, in order to change that part of the person to make them the way you feel they should be, is something else entirely.
I’m sure there was a better way to phrase that 🙂
There is a reason people go undercover to uncover stories Ann! If the person had done this, been upfront, there is a real possibility she wouldn’t have been genuine or honest but instead realized he was a journalist and done her best to present herself in as good a light as possible – shifting things around to make her look better.
This sounds unscrupulous to me. However, besides the article, do you have any inside information that could give more insight into the actual series of events, discourse, representations?
So far, we have a partial sketch and a man who misrepresented himself.
Ken,
Only partially so…and that is the problem.
Some parents focus on “cures” generally which are esoteric and of limited scientific utility…yet they focus.
In part because they believe the larger scientific community is missing important possibilities.
This is true of all human suffering (real and perceived) to which parents seek remedies (necessary and superfluous).
Ann# ~ Jan 19, 2011 at 11:06 am
“Please read my comment dated 1/18 @1:11 and see if that answers your question. If not, let me know and I will try to articulate more and better. ”
That post is what prompted my question. You made accusations/insinuations about Strudwick (esp. claims about his intentions/motivations prior to the start of his investigation). I’m asking what evidence you have to support those claims.
From the chronic mental illness thread:
Ann# ~ Jan 17, 2011 at 4:37 pm
“Do you suppose his reporting is biased then if he was looking for something negative? I am wondering if a client went to her for therapy for their unwanted attractions and was sincere in their resolve to abstain from same gender sex, if he/she would have reported differently.”
Strudwick tape-recorded the sessions, and Pilkington isn’t claiming his article mis-represents what happened in the sessions. And what I take issue with are the incorrect claims Pilkington made about sexual orientation (and which form the basis of her therapy).
Referring to men?
I’m sorry, I meant NEW and PROFOUND to say – LOL
Ah, Jayhuck, but I did. I cited where undercover reporting did not have to include lying…where you simply report what you witness…when the reporter gets involved in the story, setting up a story line, etc. that can cross over into ‘baiting’. And for the umpteenth time, we are simply saying that we’d like to hear his words (to examine for baiting and the like) before passing judgement. You choose to judge before that.
No I didn’t miss your definition. You’ve obviously missed the distinction I made between those who do their posing silently…they simply mix into a group, attend a meeting or gathering…as opposed to those who invent a story, engage in dialogue with the one they are exposing, make up more stuff in the process. To the extent that they speak and engage in interaction, they are at risk of coloring the results. And I don’t have a huge problem with that as long as they report their words too so that their objectivity (or, conversely, their coloring) can be weighed along with the rest of the report.
It’s very frustrating when you speak what amount to generalizations with such conviction.
Haven’t people attended open meetings of groups like Focus on the Family undercover?
Haven’t a few people over the years ‘snuck in’ to Exodus gatherings?
Couldn’t a person mix with Fred Phelps assembled protestors and listen more than talk?
Heck, a person could even do an undercover report on AA by figuring out where group members gather for coffee after the meeting and manage to get seated at a nearby table.
Those are a few for starters. Sorry that you couldn’t even imagine any.
She chooses to align herself with NARTH! I have good reason
The one question Ken posed and that Eddy and others seem to refuse to be able to answer directly, is whether or not “undercover reporting is unethical and unprofessional” All sorts of discussions seem to be erupting around this idea but no one is attacking it directly
Let us not forget this woman and her followers align themselves with NARTH! An organization that has all but discredited itself. It has misused data and research, it has been chastised by the people who have done said research, it aligns itself with actual hate groups, and it uses outdated theories and rhetoric! LOL – but surely she has something NEW to say! OY
If you keep going, I will re-post those quotes, happily!
I can’t imagine any scenario where anyone going undercover wouldn’t be forced to lie
Back to OUR context. My point about the word ‘infiltration’ was in response to Ken’s suggestion that perhaps Strudwick went in as a sincere client who then exposed what he heard. But he didn’t. He infiltrated…went undercover…had an agenda when he went in…and several of us have suggested that that is enough to warrant hearing the entire tapes before reacting to sound bites.
‘Sound bites’, you say? ‘The statements are damning enough in themselves.’ Ah, but this discussion started with the insinuation that her ‘bad science’ was that she stated that the cause of homosexuality was environmental…but, it appears that she didn’t, it appears that she said ‘We say that’ the cause is environmental.
Just curious. What makes my approach balanced and her approach worthy of censure. Or is it your suggestion that the views that I have that align with hers are worthy of censure? After all, “I strongly believe that the roots of homosexuality are indeed environmental AND, except for the birth trauma, the questions she asked are the questions I would ask.”
One of the most educated and familiar faces regarding this issue, Warren, even believes she may need some education! But YOU, for some reason, do not! I wonder … oh wait, I don’t – LOL
That latter part is entirely untrue Eddy. You have angered me many times, You’ve called me out at times I needed to be called out, I don’t agree with you on several issues, but I DO think you are a well-reasoned, articulate person. We both have our biases, that’s a given, yet I do think you make an attempt at a balanced approach.
This therapist on the other hand, is a different story. Granted I know her less than I do you.
I think we will all know more as the trial proceeds. I’m certain more information will come out then.
I can’t imagine you could fault a professional with a license for what some journalist says –
Actually, I can, but it usually has to do with the use of medical terminology!
The word INFILTRATE was used in the very definition/description for Undercover Journalism. Does this mean that ALL undercover journalists must infiltrate? And if they do, are they always infiltrating “enemy camps”? Maybe so! I don’t think you CAN say there can BE undercover work without infiltration. So where does that leave us?
Michael –
I like your comment. It implies (correctly, I would say) that ‘real choices’ are, more often than not, about what one DOES, rather than ‘what one IS’.
Although the ‘official view’ (NOT subscribed to by all Catholic Christians, myself included, I would add!) of the Catholic Church is that same-sex sexual activity is always ‘disordered’. HOWEVER, the Church is at great pains to point out that a ‘homosexual person’ is not his/herself ‘intrinsically disordered’ any more than is anyone else. There is a profound wisdom in this apparent contradiction.
That LGBT persons are in no way ‘less intrinsically worthwhile human beings’ than heterosexual persons must be an axiom that undergirds the work of any therapist, whatever ‘values’ they might subscribe to when it comes to ‘lifestyle choices’. It should also be an axiom for every Christian, of course.
On the specific issue of ‘orientation change’, I am very sceptical indeed; ‘lifestyle change’ is not the same thing.
Ken,
No matter I ( me Mary ) write, you are going to argue. And this is ( I don’t know) humorous or just an addiction. Take care.
Mary# ~ Jan 21, 2011 at 10:06 pm
“If I seek out a gay affirming shrink and I think he/she is nuts I move on. He sought out a therapuetic model that he was set against from the get go.”
Strudwick wasn’t interested in changing his orientation. He went under cover to report on conversion therapists. Do you really not understand what that means?
And how do you know he was “set against from the get go”?
An excellent question Ken! One that no one seems willing to answer!
I am aware of Strudick’s stop conversation therapy group, which he started after he investigated the practice. Again, you are simply attempting to attack the author rather than address the issues he raised.
Now it may very well be the Strudick hates conversion therapy and went gunning for these therapist. However, even if (not saying it is) that were true, you still haven’t presented any evidence that he lied about or took out of context what the therapists said (or otherwise mis-lead about what happened in the sessions)
Eddy,
You are forgetting one thing in your analysis of what Strudwick wrote, he wrote his article after he met with the therapists. And it is quite possible (and I think highly probable) that meeting with these therapists negatively effected his attitudes towards this therapy. It certainly effected him personally and he said so in his article:
So no Eddy, neither you nor Mary know what his intentions or biases where before he met with the therapists. What you, Mary, and Ann are doing is attacking the author based on your own prejudices, rather than address the issue he brought up, which was expose how these therapists were using unscientific and unethical methods.
LOL! WE have been screaming that it was unethical! Are your ears plugged up somehow?
BTW: Not ALL undercover reporting requires the reporter to lie; a lot of times they are simply undercover…reporting what they see happening with real people with real stories.
Ann# ~ Jan 22, 2011 at 2:12 pm
“He went in with the intention of exposing her according to his own biases – not our’s. Prior to meeting her, he knew he had no intention of benefiting from anything she might have said, therefore he scrutinized until he found something he could try to use against her.”
Really, again I ask how you have determined his intentions when he started this investigation? Why isn’t it possible that he is an investigative reporter who went under cover and fairly and accurately reported what he observed? And yes. under cover investigations mean a person will have to lie about his identity and intentions. Are you saying under cover reporting is unprofessional and unethical?
The only evidence I’ve seen of unethical and unprofessional behaviour is on the part of the therapists investigated.
I would hear them in a different light. I would not expect everyone to agree with my interpretations for my own life.
Ken,
He went in with the intention of exposing her according to his own biases – not our’s. Prior to meeting her, he knew he had no intention of benefiting from anything she might have said, therefore he scrutinized until he found something he could try to use against her. Eddy and Mary have presented very logical responses to be considered regarding another way to evaluate what happened. This reminds me of when a journalist outed a minister when he saw him at a self help group that was meant to be anonymous. Deceit is unbecoming and very unprofessional. The therapist might not have used words that you found acceptable, however, to another person who is sincere about their resolve to explore another perspective on their unwanted same gender attractions, they might have heard them in a completely different light. The journalist had a choice to be professional and ethical – he chose not to be. How and why would I believe anything he had to say?
Ken–
What does the word ‘infiltrated’ mean to you? Why would a happy and ‘out’ gay person seek out change therapy?
It is so amusing that when others suggested that we needed to know more before judging, you claimed we didn’t…that all the evidence was there. And now, when we present evidence from Strudwick’s written words, you sing a different tune.
LOL. All the arguments up til now were that Strudwick had the right to be deceptive in order to expose her. Suddenly you (and you alone) try to make it sound like Strudwick was sincere in the first place. Sorry, dude, that stuff doesn’t sell.
That speaks volumes! I think we all know what your beliefs are Eddy. I don’t have respect for all your views Eddy, obviously, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have respect for some, and that doesn’t mean that I dislike everything you write – OR that I disagree with it for that matter. Good grief
Is it so much to ask without being accussed of taking sides to see the whole transcript or better yet hear the entire recording?
Funny, how those who want to be fair are actually suggesting that we use partial information to make a decision and conclude someone’s intent.
We know the “reporters” intent. He tells us. Thus far we that’s what we know.
LOL! Trial? Trial? Please go back to the main post. Great Britain has no national entity similar to our APA. She belongs to an organization that is more like a ‘fellowship’. No fines. No prison time. The worst I think they can do is cancel her membership!
And no, you’re wrong when you say you have respect for my views. I broke my several month silence to get involved in this thread because I strongly believe that the roots of homosexuality are indeed environmental AND, except for the birth trauma, the questions she asked are the questions I would ask.
Others on this thread have referenced their unanswered questions, so I’ll repeat mine that haven’t yet been answered.
This first one is a direct question that I’ve asked at least twice. Can anyone come up with an example of when the word ‘infiltration’ has been used when it wasn’t referring to an enemy or adversary?
The second wasn’t stated as directly so I’ll do it now. She said “We say” when she spoke of the causes of homosexuality being environmental. Does this still qualify as ‘bad science’? Is it permissable/excusable for a professional therapist to explore a theory that is yet unproven? If not, why not?
Noted that they are ‘posing’. Ken kept suggesting that we were out of line—that perhaps he went with clear intent and then discovered how bad they were.
My apologies: I had been getting rebuttals from both of you and I now realize that you and Ken are arguing different arguments.
And, to be clear, Strudwick may have had the right to infiltrate. HOWEVER, he did go in with an agenda and that agenda may have prompted him to do some ‘leading’ of his own. My latest comments have ALL been tied to wanting to hear the whole tape…Strudwick’s side too…to gain context and to hear whether he stepped over any boundaries…whether he did any leading. I get totally that you think she’s a quack but I also know that you don’t have high regard for me either. That leads me to think that just maybe you’re fallible. The issue is (for me) whether she presented her unproven theories as actual scientific fact. Doesn’t sound like she did so I’m not quite sure what all the brouhaha is about.
I can’t imagine that you’re supporting suppression of thought or speech. And yet, the dynamics of this debate lead me to believe that that is the ultimate goal.
My point with the above posts is to show that it doesn’t appear to be uncommon to use the word when talking about going undercover or when discussing undercover journalism
From the ‘online dictionary’
INFILTRATE (Strudwick’s own word for what he did)
.
Note ‘esp.’ in the first paragraph, it means ‘especially’.
Note ‘and with’ in the second paragraph. Not ‘sometimes accompanied by’…’And with”! If you aren’t trying to confirm what I’ve been saying, please make yourself clear.
I did a Google search of the words: journalist, undercover and infiltrate and found many articles talking about how undercover journalists infiltrated this or that…
Michael,
Well, heterosexism comes to mind off the bat…and fits nicely with other “isms.”
I “guess” that your argument associated with fear of survival rings true…tribal paternalistic cultures would have incredible difficulty understanding the value of homosexual coupling; and might coerce ambivalent or homosexual males into heterosexual mating through rituals, shame and intimidation.
Finally, the issue of “identity” (individualism) is a very late phenomenon in human culture. I think Judeo-Christian culture arrives at the cusp of this change…I don’t know how to complete this though, maybe you can help, but prior to identity, conformity was the highest value.
Please don’t accuse me of dancing until I have done so. I was waiting to see if you wanted to dance :). Thanks for joining me.
I’m sure we can. Maybe we can start by dealing with Michael’s questions.
Wish we could find some common ground.
Only recently David, not historically, and now it appears only the more liberal Christians are the ones primarily displaying these attitudes when it comes to gay people.
Ann:
I should add that I know (and respect) that there are some people who insist that they had an “inner awarenes” or “spiritual sense” or “personal knowledge” that gay was not right for them.
I remain very puzzled as to how they can be sure that this experience was not culturally or religiously induced — or at least significantly influences by these pressures. That said, I accept that this is how they experience their internal reality.
Michael,
I just looked up the word “instinct” and think it is worthy of consideration to understand this inner awareness. What do you think?
sorry – the word should be epiphany
No I didn’t miss your definition. You’ve obviously missed the distinction I made between those who do their posing silently…they simply mix into a group, attend a meeting or gathering…as opposed to those who invent a story, engage in dialogue with the one they are exposing, make up more stuff in the process. To the extent that they speak and engage in interaction, they are at risk of coloring the results. And I don’t have a huge problem with that as long as they report their words too so that their objectivity (or, conversely, their coloring) can be weighed along with the rest of the report.
It’s very frustrating when you speak what amount to generalizations with such conviction.
Haven’t people attended open meetings of groups like Focus on the Family undercover?
Haven’t a few people over the years ‘snuck in’ to Exodus gatherings?
Couldn’t a person mix with Fred Phelps assembled protestors and listen more than talk?
Heck, a person could even do an undercover report on AA by figuring out where group members gather for coffee after the meeting and manage to get seated at a nearby table.
Those are a few for starters. Sorry that you couldn’t even imagine any.
She chooses to align herself with NARTH! I have good reason
I can’t imagine any scenario where anyone going undercover wouldn’t be forced to lie
Eddy,
Perhaps you missed the definition of Undercover Journalism above?
Ah, Jayhuck, but I did. I cited where undercover reporting did not have to include lying…where you simply report what you witness…when the reporter gets involved in the story, setting up a story line, etc. that can cross over into ‘baiting’. And for the umpteenth time, we are simply saying that we’d like to hear his words (to examine for baiting and the like) before passing judgement. You choose to judge before that.
Eddy,
Perhaps you missed the definition of Undercover Journalism above?
The one question Ken posed and that Eddy and others seem to refuse to be able to answer directly, is whether or not “undercover reporting is unethical and unprofessional” All sorts of discussions seem to be erupting around this idea but no one is attacking it directly
I’m sorry, I meant NEW and PROFOUND to say – LOL
Let us not forget this woman and her followers align themselves with NARTH! An organization that has all but discredited itself. It has misused data and research, it has been chastised by the people who have done said research, it aligns itself with actual hate groups, and it uses outdated theories and rhetoric! LOL – but surely she has something NEW to say! OY
One of the most educated and familiar faces regarding this issue, Warren, even believes she may need some education! But YOU, for some reason, do not! I wonder … oh wait, I don’t – LOL
If you keep going, I will re-post those quotes, happily!
Back to OUR context. My point about the word ‘infiltration’ was in response to Ken’s suggestion that perhaps Strudwick went in as a sincere client who then exposed what he heard. But he didn’t. He infiltrated…went undercover…had an agenda when he went in…and several of us have suggested that that is enough to warrant hearing the entire tapes before reacting to sound bites.
‘Sound bites’, you say? ‘The statements are damning enough in themselves.’ Ah, but this discussion started with the insinuation that her ‘bad science’ was that she stated that the cause of homosexuality was environmental…but, it appears that she didn’t, it appears that she said ‘We say that’ the cause is environmental.
Just curious. What makes my approach balanced and her approach worthy of censure. Or is it your suggestion that the views that I have that align with hers are worthy of censure? After all, “I strongly believe that the roots of homosexuality are indeed environmental AND, except for the birth trauma, the questions she asked are the questions I would ask.”
I can’t imagine you could fault a professional with a license for what some journalist says –
The therapist knew what she wanted to say – I agree 🙂
The journalist knew what he wanted the therapist to say. We need to hear the recordings.
Actually, I can, but it usually has to do with the use of medical terminology!
The word INFILTRATE was used in the very definition/description for Undercover Journalism. Does this mean that ALL undercover journalists must infiltrate? And if they do, are they always infiltrating “enemy camps”? Maybe so! I don’t think you CAN say there can BE undercover work without infiltration. So where does that leave us?
That speaks volumes! I think we all know what your beliefs are Eddy. I don’t have respect for all your views Eddy, obviously, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have respect for some, and that doesn’t mean that I dislike everything you write – OR that I disagree with it for that matter. Good grief
The therapist knew what she wanted to say – I agree 🙂
The journalist knew what he wanted the therapist to say. We need to hear the recordings.
Where is it written that if a person disagress with you then they must be wrong? Really – where is that?
Is it so much to ask without being accussed of taking sides to see the whole transcript or better yet hear the entire recording?
Funny, how those who want to be fair are actually suggesting that we use partial information to make a decision and conclude someone’s intent.
We know the “reporters” intent. He tells us. Thus far we that’s what we know.
Where is it written that if a person disagress with you then they must be wrong? Really – where is that?
Others on this thread have referenced their unanswered questions, so I’ll repeat mine that haven’t yet been answered.
This first one is a direct question that I’ve asked at least twice. Can anyone come up with an example of when the word ‘infiltration’ has been used when it wasn’t referring to an enemy or adversary?
The second wasn’t stated as directly so I’ll do it now. She said “We say” when she spoke of the causes of homosexuality being environmental. Does this still qualify as ‘bad science’? Is it permissable/excusable for a professional therapist to explore a theory that is yet unproven? If not, why not?
LOL! Trial? Trial? Please go back to the main post. Great Britain has no national entity similar to our APA. She belongs to an organization that is more like a ‘fellowship’. No fines. No prison time. The worst I think they can do is cancel her membership!
And no, you’re wrong when you say you have respect for my views. I broke my several month silence to get involved in this thread because I strongly believe that the roots of homosexuality are indeed environmental AND, except for the birth trauma, the questions she asked are the questions I would ask.
That latter part is entirely untrue Eddy. You have angered me many times, You’ve called me out at times I needed to be called out, I don’t agree with you on several issues, but I DO think you are a well-reasoned, articulate person. We both have our biases, that’s a given, yet I do think you make an attempt at a balanced approach.
This therapist on the other hand, is a different story. Granted I know her less than I do you.
I think we will all know more as the trial proceeds. I’m certain more information will come out then.
By the way, I first made THAT request hours ago. Just one example where ‘infiltrate’ does NOT involve an adversarial position.
Okay. Now, please cite just one situation where they ‘infiltrated’ an organization or network that they weren’t hostile to. I still maintain the dictionary definition that indicates that infiltration ALWAYS implies an enemy or adversary. It’s the dictionary definition. Please provide an example of where the dictionary definition does NOT apply.
Noted that they are ‘posing’. Ken kept suggesting that we were out of line—that perhaps he went with clear intent and then discovered how bad they were.
My apologies: I had been getting rebuttals from both of you and I now realize that you and Ken are arguing different arguments.
And, to be clear, Strudwick may have had the right to infiltrate. HOWEVER, he did go in with an agenda and that agenda may have prompted him to do some ‘leading’ of his own. My latest comments have ALL been tied to wanting to hear the whole tape…Strudwick’s side too…to gain context and to hear whether he stepped over any boundaries…whether he did any leading. I get totally that you think she’s a quack but I also know that you don’t have high regard for me either. That leads me to think that just maybe you’re fallible. The issue is (for me) whether she presented her unproven theories as actual scientific fact. Doesn’t sound like she did so I’m not quite sure what all the brouhaha is about.
I can’t imagine that you’re supporting suppression of thought or speech. And yet, the dynamics of this debate lead me to believe that that is the ultimate goal.
My point with the above posts is to show that it doesn’t appear to be uncommon to use the word when talking about going undercover or when discussing undercover journalism
I did a Google search of the words: journalist, undercover and infiltrate and found many articles talking about how undercover journalists infiltrated this or that…
Again from Wikipedia = “Undercover Journalism”
From the ‘online dictionary’
INFILTRATE (Strudwick’s own word for what he did)
.
Note ‘esp.’ in the first paragraph, it means ‘especially’.
Note ‘and with’ in the second paragraph. Not ‘sometimes accompanied by’…’And with”! If you aren’t trying to confirm what I’ve been saying, please make yourself clear.
Ken explicitly asked
What you guys were addressing or rather “screaming” about was what you considered to be this journalist’s unethical undercover operation, not the more general question above. That’s why I said no one was addressing it.
I’d be all for hearing the entire tape-recorded sessions. I’m assuming some of that will come out in the trial!
As for the quotes, some of them just stand on their own.
Jayhuck., you said:
And I countered that several of us blogging here (which negates your ‘no one’ statement) had strong objections. Granted, objections might not be answers but they are responses. Please explain why that isn’t what you asked? It’s too obscure for me so it’s likely too obscure for others.
And, if we were talking generalities, your next statement would be fine. BUT, we’re talking about a specific incident…one that you have declared that you need no further information about…and WE happen to see some other very real and possible viable scenarios. So, as Mary suggested numerous times, we’d like to see and hear the entire tape-recorded scenarios so that we might more accurately assess the entire conversation. Quite specifically, I’d like to hear if Strudwick baited her. Another specific: I made a big deal out of her saying ‘we say’ instead of ‘science says’; I, for one, would really like to know the comment that led to her remark. It would help me to know whether my emphasis on ‘WE say’ is merited and whether your assertion of a bad science claim is true.
From Wikipedia:
LOL – Eddy! That’s not what I asked!
That may be, but I can’t think of an instance where an undercover reporter did not lie or obfuscate the truth! Most of the ones I can think about the reporter did have to lie – When police go undercover they lie as well!
It sounds like your saying its ok for some journalists and possibly even cops to lie, just not this one
LOL! WE have been screaming that it was unethical! Are your ears plugged up somehow?
BTW: Not ALL undercover reporting requires the reporter to lie; a lot of times they are simply undercover…reporting what they see happening with real people with real stories.
I’m sure it is a strong one for them, as it is for others who believe they are doing God’s calling by restraining whatever they consider to be evil. Perhaps we should remind them this is the same God who sanctioned the killing of children!
Although there are Catholics and Mormons, even a few groups in each, that labor for equal rights for gay people. I happen to think that the Catholic and Orthodox reasons are probably the more well thought out of all the reasons out there.
I’m not sure I follow this.
An excellent question Ken! One that no one seems willing to answer!
Thank you for that. People don’t quite seem to understand why he went undercover in the first place. Let’s not forget that many of the quotes given by the therapists were without a doubt off-the-wall! One only has to read the article for the quotes. Some of the things those people said were, for lack of a better word, crazy!
By the way, I first made THAT request hours ago. Just one example where ‘infiltrate’ does NOT involve an adversarial position.
Okay. Now, please cite just one situation where they ‘infiltrated’ an organization or network that they weren’t hostile to. I still maintain the dictionary definition that indicates that infiltration ALWAYS implies an enemy or adversary. It’s the dictionary definition. Please provide an example of where the dictionary definition does NOT apply.
Again from Wikipedia = “Undercover Journalism”
Ken explicitly asked
What you guys were addressing or rather “screaming” about was what you considered to be this journalist’s unethical undercover operation, not the more general question above. That’s why I said no one was addressing it.
I’d be all for hearing the entire tape-recorded sessions. I’m assuming some of that will come out in the trial!
As for the quotes, some of them just stand on their own.
Jayhuck., you said:
And I countered that several of us blogging here (which negates your ‘no one’ statement) had strong objections. Granted, objections might not be answers but they are responses. Please explain why that isn’t what you asked? It’s too obscure for me so it’s likely too obscure for others.
And, if we were talking generalities, your next statement would be fine. BUT, we’re talking about a specific incident…one that you have declared that you need no further information about…and WE happen to see some other very real and possible viable scenarios. So, as Mary suggested numerous times, we’d like to see and hear the entire tape-recorded scenarios so that we might more accurately assess the entire conversation. Quite specifically, I’d like to hear if Strudwick baited her. Another specific: I made a big deal out of her saying ‘we say’ instead of ‘science says’; I, for one, would really like to know the comment that led to her remark. It would help me to know whether my emphasis on ‘WE say’ is merited and whether your assertion of a bad science claim is true.
From Wikipedia:
LOL – Eddy! That’s not what I asked!
That may be, but I can’t think of an instance where an undercover reporter did not lie or obfuscate the truth! Most of the ones I can think about the reporter did have to lie – When police go undercover they lie as well!
It sounds like your saying its ok for some journalists and possibly even cops to lie, just not this one
I’m sure it is a strong one for them, as it is for others who believe they are doing God’s calling by restraining whatever they consider to be evil. Perhaps we should remind them this is the same God who sanctioned the killing of children!
Although there are Catholics and Mormons, even a few groups in each, that labor for equal rights for gay people. I happen to think that the Catholic and Orthodox reasons are probably the more well thought out of all the reasons out there.
I’m not sure I follow this.
Thank you for that. People don’t quite seem to understand why he went undercover in the first place. Let’s not forget that many of the quotes given by the therapists were without a doubt off-the-wall! One only has to read the article for the quotes. Some of the things those people said were, for lack of a better word, crazy!
Let’s see, all that Mary kept saying was “I’d like to hear everything in context.” You responded:
then when she said essentially the same thing again, you responded:
In the meantime, I had demonstrated a context–where she actually began her statement of position with “We say” rather than “Science says”. That is taken from the very quote that you presented as evidence of your claims to her outrageousness.
But, you know what, I rather enjoy the idea of you having nothing more to say to me.
Eddy# ~ Jan 22, 2011 at 2:40 pm
“It is so amusing that when others suggested that we needed to know more before judging, you claimed we didn’t…that all the evidence was there.”
I NEVER said all the evidence was there. And until you either show where I said that or apologize for mis-representng what I said, I have nothing further to say to you.
Ann# ~ Jan 22, 2011 at 2:12 pm
“He went in with the intention of exposing her according to his own biases – not our’s. Prior to meeting her, he knew he had no intention of benefiting from anything she might have said, therefore he scrutinized until he found something he could try to use against her.”
Really, again I ask how you have determined his intentions when he started this investigation? Why isn’t it possible that he is an investigative reporter who went under cover and fairly and accurately reported what he observed? And yes. under cover investigations mean a person will have to lie about his identity and intentions. Are you saying under cover reporting is unprofessional and unethical?
The only evidence I’ve seen of unethical and unprofessional behaviour is on the part of the therapists investigated.
Ken–
What does the word ‘infiltrated’ mean to you? Why would a happy and ‘out’ gay person seek out change therapy?
It is so amusing that when others suggested that we needed to know more before judging, you claimed we didn’t…that all the evidence was there. And now, when we present evidence from Strudwick’s written words, you sing a different tune.
LOL. All the arguments up til now were that Strudwick had the right to be deceptive in order to expose her. Suddenly you (and you alone) try to make it sound like Strudwick was sincere in the first place. Sorry, dude, that stuff doesn’t sell.
I would hear them in a different light. I would not expect everyone to agree with my interpretations for my own life.
I am aware of Strudick’s stop conversation therapy group, which he started after he investigated the practice. Again, you are simply attempting to attack the author rather than address the issues he raised.
Now it may very well be the Strudick hates conversion therapy and went gunning for these therapist. However, even if (not saying it is) that were true, you still haven’t presented any evidence that he lied about or took out of context what the therapists said (or otherwise mis-lead about what happened in the sessions)
Michael –
I like your comment. It implies (correctly, I would say) that ‘real choices’ are, more often than not, about what one DOES, rather than ‘what one IS’.
Although the ‘official view’ (NOT subscribed to by all Catholic Christians, myself included, I would add!) of the Catholic Church is that same-sex sexual activity is always ‘disordered’. HOWEVER, the Church is at great pains to point out that a ‘homosexual person’ is not his/herself ‘intrinsically disordered’ any more than is anyone else. There is a profound wisdom in this apparent contradiction.
That LGBT persons are in no way ‘less intrinsically worthwhile human beings’ than heterosexual persons must be an axiom that undergirds the work of any therapist, whatever ‘values’ they might subscribe to when it comes to ‘lifestyle choices’. It should also be an axiom for every Christian, of course.
On the specific issue of ‘orientation change’, I am very sceptical indeed; ‘lifestyle change’ is not the same thing.
Ken,
He went in with the intention of exposing her according to his own biases – not our’s. Prior to meeting her, he knew he had no intention of benefiting from anything she might have said, therefore he scrutinized until he found something he could try to use against her. Eddy and Mary have presented very logical responses to be considered regarding another way to evaluate what happened. This reminds me of when a journalist outed a minister when he saw him at a self help group that was meant to be anonymous. Deceit is unbecoming and very unprofessional. The therapist might not have used words that you found acceptable, however, to another person who is sincere about their resolve to explore another perspective on their unwanted same gender attractions, they might have heard them in a completely different light. The journalist had a choice to be professional and ethical – he chose not to be. How and why would I believe anything he had to say?
Ken,
Are you serious?
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=Mr+Strudwick+runs+a+campaign+called+the+Stop+Conversion+Therapy+Taskforce&cp=0&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Mr+Strudwick+runs+a+campaign+called+the+Stop+Conversion+Therapy+Taskforce&pbx=1&fp=a09eab5fb0f14aaf
Check out that link.
Eddy,
You are forgetting one thing in your analysis of what Strudwick wrote, he wrote his article after he met with the therapists. And it is quite possible (and I think highly probable) that meeting with these therapists negatively effected his attitudes towards this therapy. It certainly effected him personally and he said so in his article:
So no Eddy, neither you nor Mary know what his intentions or biases where before he met with the therapists. What you, Mary, and Ann are doing is attacking the author based on your own prejudices, rather than address the issue he brought up, which was expose how these therapists were using unscientific and unethical methods.
Let’s see, all that Mary kept saying was “I’d like to hear everything in context.” You responded:
then when she said essentially the same thing again, you responded:
In the meantime, I had demonstrated a context–where she actually began her statement of position with “We say” rather than “Science says”. That is taken from the very quote that you presented as evidence of your claims to her outrageousness.
But, you know what, I rather enjoy the idea of you having nothing more to say to me.
Eddy# ~ Jan 22, 2011 at 2:40 pm
“It is so amusing that when others suggested that we needed to know more before judging, you claimed we didn’t…that all the evidence was there.”
I NEVER said all the evidence was there. And until you either show where I said that or apologize for mis-representng what I said, I have nothing further to say to you.
Ken,
Are you serious?
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=Mr+Strudwick+runs+a+campaign+called+the+Stop+Conversion+Therapy+Taskforce&cp=0&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Mr+Strudwick+runs+a+campaign+called+the+Stop+Conversion+Therapy+Taskforce&pbx=1&fp=a09eab5fb0f14aaf
Check out that link.
How do we know Strudwick was “set against from the get go”? LOL. On one hand, we don’t actually know because I suppose it’s possible that Strudwick could be lying once again in what he’s written. However, if we take his words at face value, any reasonable person would not only arrive at that conclusion but also believe that’s what Strudwick intended to convey.
That’s how Strudwick sets up his story…how he gives us the backstory. He’s a journalist, right? Works with words? Communicates with words? Do you see that word ‘infiltrates’? The word choice wasn’t ‘stumbled upon’, ‘checked out’, ‘investigated’ or anything of that sort; the word was ‘infiltrates’. If anyone has an example of that word being used by anyone when it didn’t imply ‘the enemy camp’, I’d be delighted to hear it.
If Strudwick communicates logically, then what follows the statement containing the word ‘infiltrates’ is the reasoning or explanation. Strudwick read a report by King (which he references again as he goes on) and cites (having already affirmed that he is an out and happy gay man) that they are becoming co-ordinated and unified and that they ‘plan to gain credibility, university backing and government funding. In some cases, the NHS is even paying for the treatment.’
So, NO, Mary isn’t assuming and YES, Ken’s bluster is humorous at best.
How do we know Strudwick was “set against from the get go”? LOL. On one hand, we don’t actually know because I suppose it’s possible that Strudwick could be lying once again in what he’s written. However, if we take his words at face value, any reasonable person would not only arrive at that conclusion but also believe that’s what Strudwick intended to convey.
That’s how Strudwick sets up his story…how he gives us the backstory. He’s a journalist, right? Works with words? Communicates with words? Do you see that word ‘infiltrates’? The word choice wasn’t ‘stumbled upon’, ‘checked out’, ‘investigated’ or anything of that sort; the word was ‘infiltrates’. If anyone has an example of that word being used by anyone when it didn’t imply ‘the enemy camp’, I’d be delighted to hear it.
If Strudwick communicates logically, then what follows the statement containing the word ‘infiltrates’ is the reasoning or explanation. Strudwick read a report by King (which he references again as he goes on) and cites (having already affirmed that he is an out and happy gay man) that they are becoming co-ordinated and unified and that they ‘plan to gain credibility, university backing and government funding. In some cases, the NHS is even paying for the treatment.’
So, NO, Mary isn’t assuming and YES, Ken’s bluster is humorous at best.
Ken,
No matter I ( me Mary ) write, you are going to argue. And this is ( I don’t know) humorous or just an addiction. Take care.
Mary# ~ Jan 21, 2011 at 10:06 pm
“If I seek out a gay affirming shrink and I think he/she is nuts I move on. He sought out a therapuetic model that he was set against from the get go.”
Strudwick wasn’t interested in changing his orientation. He went under cover to report on conversion therapists. Do you really not understand what that means?
And how do you know he was “set against from the get go”?
How many more times can this be said? If I seek out a gay affirming shrink and I think he/she is nuts I move on. He sought out a therapuetic model that he was set against from the get go. Duh.
Back to context:
Strudwick sought her out. Strudwick identified himself as someone who was not finding satisfaction in the gay lifestyle and who desired ‘change’. We don’t find in the record provided by Strudwick what they discussed about change…it’s even possible since they only had two sessions that they didn’t get there yet. (Believe it or not, for many therapists session one is often devoted to inventory and fact-finding; goal-setting often doesn’t crystallize for a few sessions.
It can be assumed that Strudwick presented himself as someone who didn’t live in a cave…that he knew there were therapies available that would affirm his homosexuality…and yet, he sought her out. Again, if not living in a cave, they also likely touched on the fact that the discussion of change was ‘the road less travelled’ by dissatisfied gays. In short, Strudwick presented expectations that the offered therapy wouldn’t follow the status quo.
And the counselor responded honestly. As I cited in my middle of the night post, she said “We say everybody is heterosexual but some people have a homosexual problem. Nobody is born gay. It is environmental; it is in the upbringing.” Sure sounds like they were discussing the approach she’d be taking and she shared her views and those of her like-minded colleagues. She said “We say” rather than “Science says” or “everybody knows” or “the truth is”.
And, like it or not, although it’s true that environmental cause has no solid scientific base; it’s conversely true that it has no solid scientific challenge. It remains, much like ‘you’re born that way’, in the realm of theory. If a theory is presented to a client and is not presented as a scientific fact, is it worthy of censure? If a theory is unpopular, is it in the best interests of science to silence it…to quench it’s exploration?
That was the context here. Her words ‘We say” say that very clearly to anyone with ears to hear.
I am no longer in practice. But, if I had such a client, I would tell her it was indeed possible to follow her conservative faith and values, and to someday marry a man. I never would encourage a client to act against her own faith or values.
I believe I could help her to live in harmony with her values. However, I would inform her that I do not know how to actually change a person’s orientation from gay to straight. That I would never promise. I don’t think any good therapist should.
Ann
I think your comment above is very perceptive and true to the complex realities of life, as well as being ‘nicely balanced’ in its form and content.
Mary
What people ‘want’, and what might be best for them, is often not the same thing. I have this problem in my job (as an educator): X may want to be a brain surgeon, but X’s academic profile and skills suggest that she/he would be better off aiming to be journalist.
Thinking about ‘faith and values’: should we necessarily always seek to follow OUR OWN values; might it sometimes be the case that there are other values that we have overlooked?
If a lesbian identified person came walking into your office and she wanted to follow her conservative faith and values, and someday marry a man – would you tell her that is possible and could you help her?
Michael,
I have heard this more than I thought was possible. When a therapist interjects their own opinion and / or bias, all bets are off for the well being of a client. That is why I asked to what extent is a patient / client responsible for walking away. I have seen it both ways – therapists who tell clients that they cannot change and should accept their feelings and come out of the closet – and – therapists who tell clients they can and should change from gay to straight. In both scenarios, the client is left devastated because the therapist did not or would not listen and direct them accordingly, whether it is within the scope of their theraputic knowledge or to refer them to someone else.
Some clients are not educated about what constitutes “ethical” or effective therapy” or they may be too depressed or frightened to question what is being said to them. Many a vulnerable client has been taken in by an unethical therapist. Certainly, if the client has the insight to realize he’s not on the same page, he should walk away.
I am saying there is context missing and I would like to know what it is. People quote things and put it in a context that they understand. I’d like a transcript of the entire two sessions.
I’m not requiring more evidence – I am requesting all. Bits and pieces are not satisfying from any perspective. I’d like to read it for myself. Better yet – hear the recorded sessions so as not to lose tone.
Mary# ~ Jan 21, 2011 at 1:09 am
“Ken,
I’d like to see a whole review of the tape recorded sessions.”
Are you saying you believe there is a context in which the statements are appropriate?
I find it revealing that you are making assumptions about the reporter (he is unethical, he misquoted Pilkington, quoted her out of context etc) based on no evidence whatsoever and yet when presented with evidence about Pilkington you continue to require even more evidence to be presented.
Ann# ~ Jan 21, 2011 at 12:22 am
“What responsibility does a patient have to walk away from someone they think is unethical or just not on the same page as they are?”
A lot. Why is that relevant?
I am saying there is context missing and I would like to know what it is. People quote things and put it in a context that they understand. I’d like a transcript of the entire two sessions.
I’m not requiring more evidence – I am requesting all. Bits and pieces are not satisfying from any perspective. I’d like to read it for myself. Better yet – hear the recorded sessions so as not to lose tone.
Speaking of Context: Well, for starters, she opens the statement not with ‘Science says’ but with ‘We say’.
Ken,
I’d like to see a whole review of the tape recorded sessions.
What responsibility does a patient have to walk away from someone they think is unethical or just not on the same page as they are? Isn’t that why people go for second opinions?
Mary# ~ Jan 20, 2011 at 9:33 pm
“As well, you are certain that nothing she said was taken out of context, that nothing the fraudulent client did was unethical or skewed.”
I’m curious Mary. in what context is this:
acceptable to say, esp. for a therapist who deals with gays?
Jayhuck and Michael,
The notion of “restraining evil” is a strong calling for Dispensationalists; and it refers back to Sodom and Gomorrah where Abraham is bargaining with God about its destruction, “if there are 50 righteous…” Unfortunately, this projection of an angry God returning due to mounting evil (and destroying the world with fire) is inconsistent with the Covenant the God made after the Noah Flood (I will never do this again).
My line of thinking has its flaws: it does not explain Catholic or Mormon criticism of homosexuality (as they are not Dispensationalists).
But it does explain Evangelical Lutheran and Episcopal tolerance (neither of which are dispensationalist).
Mary,
Yes I really do understand that! And to be honest, I don’t think the woman is a bad person, and I’m fairly certain she meant well. I don’t think she’s evil or wicked, just a little misguided. And I do think that Warren made some good suggestions regarding reprimanding her that don’t involve revoking her license.
For the record, I’m not completely happy with the way the journalist went about uncovering the story, but I do think it gave us a side of her and others we might not have seen had they known they were being “watched”
You didn’t bother me Mary, and I’m sorry if I come across as brusque! 🙂
Sorry I bothered you Jayhuck.
You do understand though that people can have different perspectives? That some will want a full knowledge of what was said before jumping onto a bandwagon of sorts? Kind of like – some people who read part of a book and think they have complete knowledge of the entire story?
Anyhow, I’ve got to move on from this. Take your time.
I think it takes a spiritual willingness to “forgive them for they know not what they do”. This is something I have trouble with. I have to admit it. It’s hard for me. I tend to hold grudges. 🙂
They were direct quotes Mary – the quotes can stand on their own! Did you read what she said? Those things were bad. I can’t imagine a therapeutic context wher those things, or some of her actions, would ever be appropriate
Not all things are fought in the media. As well, you are certain that nothing she said was taken out of context, that nothing the fraudulent client did was unethical or skewed. I’m just sayin’ haven’t we been down the road so many times that it is time to break the cycle of assumption, guilt, blame, who is noble and who isn’t noble based on some sound bytes? (or is that bites?) Anyhow, I think you get the idea.
LOL – I’m not even sure what this means in this context. I am not saying I’m better than this woman, but she is a professional with a license. Having that license means she has to live by certain standards and ethics. If she said the things she did, and we have reason to believe she did, then she needs to be disciplined. Although I think revoking her license is extreme. I prefer the recommendations given by Warren.
Mary,
The woman said some incredibly damning things and she hasn’t refuted a single quote that was printed. What she said was bad, regardless! I’m not content with minimal knowledge, because I believe the rest of the story needs to be known. But what we do know is bad.
Jayhuck,
You show an amazing willingness to be content with minimal knowledge.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!
Ann,
That may be, but the journalist said plenty of damning things – she did and said things good counselors shouldn’t do. Even if we don’t have the whole story, her quotes, which she hasn’t refuted, are pretty awful coming from a therapist. She needs to be disciplined!
Yes, thank you for the acknowledgement!!! : )
Michael,
Wow, this acknowledgement is very appreciated! Perhaps this is why the journalist tried to set up the therapist – I could be wrong, but it would explain it.
How would you advise someone to respond to these resentments when they did not personally create them?
Ken,
I’d like to see a whole review of the tape recorded sessions.
should = shout
I think this is true to some extent but lets not pretend that Christians haven’t given them a reason to should. Gay people have at the mercy of some incredible vitriol that has spilled from people and groups that call themselves Christian. Many Christians have demonized gay people, skewed research to their liking to further that demonization, and worked incredibly hard to undermine equal rights for gay people and families . I sympathize with why gay people may shout the negative, because, frankly, there’s plenty of negative to shout about when it comes to the Christian community, especially from some of the hate groups like AFA, etc.
That said, I know fully well there are plenty of wonderful Christians out there, and I’m not just talking about the more liberal ones. I happen to be friends with many Orthodox Christians who believe being a practicing gay is a sin, but nevertheless love and respect me. One couple who is closest to me even made me the godfather of their children. They also don’t work to undermine the rights gay people seek. I also know wonderful and loving people from conservative Evangelical groups who are also respectful when it comes to me. Warren is an excellent example of such an evangelical.
Absolutely – Anyone from any religious group who believes that what they are doing is the will of God but which hurts and harms other human beings is frightening. I know this is a stretch, and I most definitely do not mean to tie these types of Christians to this, but Islamic terrorists would be the extreme example.
I find it interesting that ideas like The Rapture and what some Dispensationalists believe didn’t come around until the 19th century. Ancient Christians did not hold these sorts of beliefs.
So, so true. I never (maybe rarely) read about a positive from the gay community where it concerns Christians who disagree with their ideas on the sin of homosexuality. And I have had the good fortune of knowing some fantastic Christians (once I allowed myself to get to know them) who are truly walking the walk.
Neither do I. I respect their decision to do so. I also respect the “inner awareness or instinct” of those who decided to leave the ex-gay/post gay path. We all must live in accordance with our values. Life is unbearable doing anything else.
BTW; I applaud the decision of Canyon Ridge to distance themselves from Ssempa — and told them so personally. Whether they responded to outside pressure or their own inner guidance, it was the right thing to do. My correspondence with them was coridal and respectful — from and to. I have maintained regular contact with them and admire the many good things they seem to be doing to demonstrate grace, tolerance and humiity in their community.
Michael,
I don’t need to watch a video – what you tell me is good enough. I understand. It seems that in today’s society, that these things are not so much an issue as they once were. I see an acceptance and defense of gays now as I have never seen before. Perhaps through natural attrition, it will become a completely acceptable way to be and live – I just don’t know. I still do not want to diminish or discredit the inner awareness or instinct that some might have that, regardless of their desires or feelings, would guide them away from same gender sex.
True. I belong to one. I am not saying gays bear no responsibility for the negative perception they have of Christians. We do tend to accentuate the negative at times — partly because that kind of “Christianity” is louder. (I believe David said they have a “bigger megaphone”.) We are often suspicious, angry and resentful based on past experience. And sometimes, gays are just looking for any example that proves the “hateful Christian” stereotype. It’s easy to do.
Sad. I have been guilty of this. But I have hope. I am changing. Things are changing. As time passes, I believe more Christian churches will exemplify tolerance, grace and humility. It’s what they are called by Christ to do. More gay Christians will come out and help to change the situation. More churches will be affirming. More moderate and loving Christians will encourage their brethren to pipe down. As they do, gays may change their tune as well, but it will take them longer to catch on to the new music.
Thinking…
Actually, in part it is. What was it? Canyon Creek or Canyon Ridge church there in Las Vegas? They were a community sponsor for an HIV-testing site…an example of ‘tolerance, grace and humility’. But that didn’t make the national gay news or become blog-fodder. It went unnoticed in the gay community at-large until the connection to Ssempa was discovered. Then it turned into very big news.
That’s the way of news…it’s the way of ALL news. The gay bloggers are going to shout the negative…shout about the ones who threaten them and those who quietly and consistently go about doing good, they aren’t talked about. I’m not placing blame. Christian news is the same. They pick up on the extreme…the part that threatens. That becomes news. I try to awaken Christians to the fact that this dynamic plays out in all of the media. I try to help them see their part in it and encourage them to repent. It’s time some folks on the gay side take their share of responsibility and culpability…for them to shout loudly “PHELPS isn’t typical of fundamental Christianity; they might not all be ‘gay-affirming congregations’ but there are many, many churches with attitudes of tolerance, grace and humility’ rather than dismissing all responsiblity by saying ‘that is not the fault of gay people’.
Believe it or not, I do. As you said, they are imprisoned by their fear.
It seems sometimes that many Christians just aren’t listening.
We say, “Your message hurts. You hate and reject us. You fear us. You say we won’t go to heaven. You want to deny us equal rights — basic human rights to employment, housing, health, marriage, etc. You want to criminalize us. You tell us we our love is counterfeit.
You say hateful, bigotted things about us and spread lies about us. You say we pose a danger to your kids. We want to destroy the family and civilization itself. Homosexuality is Evil. Dangerous. You insist that we are damaged goods, deserving of scorn or pity.”
And you respond defensively, “No we don’t. It’s unfair to say that we do”. Gays say Christianity is their enemy. And you say, “No we aren’t. There is no evidence that we are!”
Not listening. Not caring. Not really.
Now lets move on to having compassion for fundamentalist dispensationalists!
They are imprisoned by their own terrifying end times philosophy which asserts that the world is in a hopelessly degrading trajectory and that only the holiness of the saints and the righteousness of the people generally is staying the hand of God’ Judgement.
Acting as a restraining influence, Dispensationalist Christians believe they are delaying Judgement by pushing the greater culture to embody morally all Judeo-Christian demands.
This, and not hatred, is the core fuel. That is not to say the outcome is not hateful.
Religious and social pressure. About equally weighted. The message that they will not inherit the Kingdom of God or have the blessings and rights of being “normal”. The fear of being rejected by their church, family or culture.
The desire to be loved for who they are and the fear that they have to deny some true aspect of their nature –or live a lie — in order to get these things. Here’s Peterson Toscano, an “ex-gay survivor”, summing it up quite well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMPnxqmuq_U&playnext=1&list=PL9DBDADFE36387AB4&index=6
David,
Heterosexism is a good start, but I think its important for all the Abrahamic? traditions to own up to their contributions to anti-gay attitudes – realizing, that they are not the only ones to carry this burden! 🙂
I also think that humans have a fear of the different. Its built in and hard wired it seems. White people were afraid of black skinned people as one example. That this fear exists, or even if its hard wired, does not make it right or good its just a part of the human condition that we all suffer from. Sometimes though these inherent fears are fueled and perpetuated by people who WANT to keep them going.
I think heterosexism is an interesting phenomenon that could be discussed at length.
What is it?
David. Sorry. Thanks for dancing. I thought you were dodging the questions since you seem very reluctant to include Christianity (and religion in general) as one of the contributing factors to anti-gay attitudes. Many gays know better, by personal experience.
Our own culture seems to do this currently. Everyday, I talk to homosexual males who feel they were “coerced” by cultural and religious pressure into “heterosexual mating through rituals, shame and intimidation.” They (and their spouses) suffer greatly in such “mixed-orientation” marriages.
Just yesterday, I spoke with another such man — a pastor and former “ex-gay” ministry leader — who is now facing the fact that his orientation never changed, that he never developed heterosexual or even “spousosexual” feelings.
He and his wife have decided to remain married for now, but their relationship is precarious. Kids are involved. I could start a group of such “ex-gay” or “post-gay” men. There are new cases in my inbox every day. It’s truly sad.
Ask these men, and many like them, married and single, what is the single, most persistent pressure against living in congruence with their true orientation and they are clear. Unlike them, I have finally found a Church home where I experience true tolerance, grace and humility, where I am welcomed radically and where my sexual orientation is no barrier.
To anyone,
How does Christianity compare to the other main religions around the world regarding same gender coupling and sex?
Michael,
Well, heterosexism comes to mind off the bat…and fits nicely with other “isms.”
I “guess” that your argument associated with fear of survival rings true…tribal paternalistic cultures would have incredible difficulty understanding the value of homosexual coupling; and might coerce ambivalent or homosexual males into heterosexual mating through rituals, shame and intimidation.
Finally, the issue of “identity” (individualism) is a very late phenomenon in human culture. I think Judeo-Christian culture arrives at the cusp of this change…I don’t know how to complete this though, maybe you can help, but prior to identity, conformity was the highest value.
Please don’t accuse me of dancing until I have done so. I was waiting to see if you wanted to dance :). Thanks for joining me.
One other thought, deep down perhaps there is some basic human fear that homosexuality threatens population growth. Reproduction is a very basic drive. So two guesses (in addition to religion): it’s seen as non-reproductive and it may evoke fear because it is different from the norm. So far, that’s the best I can come up with. It really makes no good sense to me since many things are non-reproductive and different.
I sincerely would like to hear your guess for “another origin for cultural concern and personal avoidance of homosexual behavior than oppression by Christianity.” Perhaps if religious people admitted that at least some of the intolerance and oppression comes from them, we might make more progress. Many Christians seem deliberately blind to what is painfully obvious to gays.
Thanks, Jayhuck.
Please quit dancing, David. You asserted “another origin”. What?
That would be great. I doubt that can be done as long as religious people refuse to see the part of they have played. To it’s credit, Exodus seems willing to admit that mainline, conservative Christianity has largely failed to convey “tolerance, grace and humility.” In fact, a large part of their Mission to is help “equip” the Church, to help it overcome it’s lack of these virtues towards gays.
My first guess would be a fundamental fear of the different, the unknown. Fanned and promoted mainly by religious intolerance. Your turn. What do you guess? I would also like to hear you address Jayhuck’s question: Who has been the biggest source of opposition to this normalization David?
Jayhuck,
I think that most people respond to attitudes rather than the issues. Herein lies the problem or the solution.
I’m sure we can. Maybe we can start by dealing with Michael’s questions.
Wish we could find some common ground.
Only recently David, not historically, and now it appears only the more liberal Christians are the ones primarily displaying these attitudes when it comes to gay people.
Yes David – somehow one of the most powerful forces shaping western thought just somehow managed to not influence a science developed in the West! I’ll repeat myself, just because a group acts as if they are hostile towards Christianity does not in any way mean that group was not influenced by it!
Religious and social pressure. About equally weighted. The message that they will not inherit the Kingdom of God or have the blessings and rights of being “normal”. The fear of being rejected by their church, family or culture.
The desire to be loved for who they are and the fear that they have to deny some true aspect of their nature –or live a lie — in order to get these things. Here’s Peterson Toscano, an “ex-gay survivor”, summing it up quite well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMPnxqmuq_U&playnext=1&list=PL9DBDADFE36387AB4&index=6
Not only do these Christian organizations work to oppose equal rights for gay people, they often demonize gay people in the process through lies and by skewing research done by others to further their agenda! Its a shameful legacy
Christians have traditionally not just been intolerant of gay people but downright hostile towards them. In recent history it has been religious and primarily Christian organizations that work to oppose equal rights for gay people.
From Wikipedia:
AND
I am beginning to be amazed at your ability to miss the point David!
Perhaps you missed what I said above David! I’ll refer you again to my post
David Blakeslee# ~ Jan 20, 2011 at 10:23 am
“Oddly enough…Western society has been at the forefront of normalizing homosexuality; could that be the influence of far broader Christian ideals of tolerance, grace and humility?”
Only in the last few decades. For centuries Western society spread their homophobia throughout the world (mostly from British and Spanish colonization).
And in these cultures (including the US) working to normalize homosexuality, who has been the biggest source of opposition to this normalization David?
And of the therapists you know of who attempt conversion therapy, how many of them would you say have strong religious beliefs?
Jayhuck didn’t say christianity was the sole cause of homophobia or of its diagnosis as a pathology, just that it has had a significant influence.
David,
Heterosexism is a good start, but I think its important for all the Abrahamic? traditions to own up to their contributions to anti-gay attitudes – realizing, that they are not the only ones to carry this burden! 🙂
I also think that humans have a fear of the different. Its built in and hard wired it seems. White people were afraid of black skinned people as one example. That this fear exists, or even if its hard wired, does not make it right or good its just a part of the human condition that we all suffer from. Sometimes though these inherent fears are fueled and perpetuated by people who WANT to keep them going.
I think heterosexism is an interesting phenomenon that could be discussed at length.
Jayhuck,
Unlike the physical sciences…the fathers of psychology were explicitly hostile of Christianity and Judeo-Christian thought, your partner many not be aware of this. His analogy is apt, until the facts make it a poor analogy.
…and I am not denying the some Christians played a part; you are using polarized criticisms about arguments I am not making.
Causation is non-existent and correlation is weak…scientifically, this makes us ask other questions.
You and Kincaid often reduce the issue to religious oppression and pathological repression…to reinforce: this is the argument of heterosexuals during the sexual revolution.
Michael,
an excellent question…what are your guesses? I think if we can find an original cause, we can band together. :).
What is it?
David. Sorry. Thanks for dancing. I thought you were dodging the questions since you seem very reluctant to include Christianity (and religion in general) as one of the contributing factors to anti-gay attitudes. Many gays know better, by personal experience.
Our own culture seems to do this currently. Everyday, I talk to homosexual males who feel they were “coerced” by cultural and religious pressure into “heterosexual mating through rituals, shame and intimidation.” They (and their spouses) suffer greatly in such “mixed-orientation” marriages.
Just yesterday, I spoke with another such man — a pastor and former “ex-gay” ministry leader — who is now facing the fact that his orientation never changed, that he never developed heterosexual or even “spousosexual” feelings.
He and his wife have decided to remain married for now, but their relationship is precarious. Kids are involved. I could start a group of such “ex-gay” or “post-gay” men. There are new cases in my inbox every day. It’s truly sad.
Ask these men, and many like them, married and single, what is the single, most persistent pressure against living in congruence with their true orientation and they are clear. Unlike them, I have finally found a Church home where I experience true tolerance, grace and humility, where I am welcomed radically and where my sexual orientation is no barrier.
In asking the question, I am not suggesting that “Christianity” alone created anti-gay attitudes. There surely are other sources. But I agree with Jayhuck to deny any causal relationship is simplistic. Otherwise, how do we explain that many (if not most gays) see Christianity as their enemy and not their friend?
Some would suggest that many gays are anti-Christian because Christianity “convicts them of their sin”. Maybe for some. But I don’t think that’s it. I think they have failed to see Christianity as an expression of ” tolerance, grace and humility.” And that is not the fault of gay people.
Such as?
Next of course we could get into how religion in general has denigrated homosexuality across cultures and influenced scientific though- sometimes for the worse
And my partners more important thought is worth repeating:
To deny that Christianity played a part in Western thought and culture, and to deny it influenced science is also simplistic and maybe deeply satisfying David! 🙂
A West that has been highly influenced by Judea o-Christian beliefs!
You would not expect universal neutrality toward the behavior but instead a variety of views that have modified over time, and this is exactly what we see. It was never suggested that Christianity invented or were the first to have condemnations of same-sex behavior. The simple fact, however, is that the science of psychology began in the West.
Emily,
No these people are not my god. I was just making reference to the fact that many turned their backs on Jesus becaue he kept company with sinners, tax collectors and such.. I’m just saying we should probably not judge others by the company they keep. We should take into consideration the people themselves. If read closeley you will see tht I did not support nor condemn NARTH or anyone in that comment.
Jayhuck?
Seriously – you didn’t that connection?
Major leaps pal. Major leaps of assumption there.
Oddly enough…Western society has been at the forefront of normalizing homosexuality; could that be the influence of far broader Christian ideals of tolerance, grace and humility?
Your partner cannot have it both ways, Jayhuck.
To me it is similar to the second class status of women around the world. This is supported in deeply A-Christian (without Christian) cultures. Blaming Christianity is simplistic and maybe deeply satisfying; but the culture supported such denigration for generations prior to Christianity and in the absence of Christianity.
There is no causation…and even the correlation is weak.
Right or wrong, there is another origin for cultural concern and personal avoidance of homosexual behavior that oppression by Christianity.
Heterosexuals made many of the arguments Gay Rights advocates make now during the sexual revolution and Christianity as “oppressive and repressive” was the political and psychological criticism they used.
To anyone,
How does Christianity compare to the other main religions around the world regarding same gender coupling and sex?
To anyone,
How does Christianity compare to the other main religions around the world regarding same gender coupling and sex?
That, David, is not what I said!
@ Jayhuck,
If Christians were the creators of “pathologizing” homosexuality; then we would expect that in non-Christian cultures there would be a history of neutrality toward the behavior.
That is not the case.
Quite the opposite is true.
One other thought, deep down perhaps there is some basic human fear that homosexuality threatens population growth. Reproduction is a very basic drive. So two guesses (in addition to religion): it’s seen as non-reproductive and it may evoke fear because it is different from the norm. So far, that’s the best I can come up with. It really makes no good sense to me since many things are non-reproductive and different.
I sincerely would like to hear your guess for “another origin for cultural concern and personal avoidance of homosexual behavior than oppression by Christianity.” Perhaps if religious people admitted that at least some of the intolerance and oppression comes from them, we might make more progress. Many Christians seem deliberately blind to what is painfully obvious to gays.
One other thought, deep down perhaps there is some basic human fear that homosexuality threatens population growth. Reproduction is a very basic drive. So two guesses (in addition to religion): it’s seen as non-reproductive and it may evoke fear because it is different from the norm. So far, that’s the best I can come up with. It really makes no good sense to me since many things are non-reproductive and different.
I sincerely would like to hear your guess for “another origin for cultural concern and personal avoidance of homosexual behavior than oppression by Christianity.” Perhaps if religious people admitted that at least some of the intolerance and oppression comes from them, we might make more progress. Many Christians seem deliberately blind to what is painfully obvious to gays.
I’d have to agree, but only because of an experience I had with my mother. Shortly after I came out, my mother, in a sense, came out to me. She confessed to having a several year long relationship with a woman, someone I had known was a “family friend” for a long time. She also told me she did not think she would ever have another experience like this as she has never felt attracted to other women as she did this one. I would never call my mother gay because of this experience as I would never call a person straight who simply develops some attractions to their opposite sex spouse.
Thanks, Jayhuck.
Please quit dancing, David. You asserted “another origin”. What?
That would be great. I doubt that can be done as long as religious people refuse to see the part of they have played. To it’s credit, Exodus seems willing to admit that mainline, conservative Christianity has largely failed to convey “tolerance, grace and humility.” In fact, a large part of their Mission to is help “equip” the Church, to help it overcome it’s lack of these virtues towards gays.
My first guess would be a fundamental fear of the different, the unknown. Fanned and promoted mainly by religious intolerance. Your turn. What do you guess? I would also like to hear you address Jayhuck’s question: Who has been the biggest source of opposition to this normalization David?
Thanks, Jayhuck.
Please quit dancing, David. You asserted “another origin”. What?
That would be great. I doubt that can be done as long as religious people refuse to see the part of they have played. To it’s credit, Exodus seems willing to admit that mainline, conservative Christianity has largely failed to convey “tolerance, grace and humility.” In fact, a large part of their Mission to is help “equip” the Church, to help it overcome it’s lack of these virtues towards gays.
My first guess would be a fundamental fear of the different, the unknown. Fanned and promoted mainly by religious intolerance. Your turn. What do you guess? I would also like to hear you address Jayhuck’s question: Who has been the biggest source of opposition to this normalization David?
Jayhuck,
I think that most people respond to attitudes rather than the issues. Herein lies the problem or the solution.
Jayhuck,
I think that most people respond to attitudes rather than the issues. Herein lies the problem or the solution.
Only recently David, not historically, and now it appears only the more liberal Christians are the ones primarily displaying these attitudes when it comes to gay people.
Yes David – somehow one of the most powerful forces shaping western thought just somehow managed to not influence a science developed in the West! I’ll repeat myself, just because a group acts as if they are hostile towards Christianity does not in any way mean that group was not influenced by it!
Not only do these Christian organizations work to oppose equal rights for gay people, they often demonize gay people in the process through lies and by skewing research done by others to further their agenda! Its a shameful legacy
Christians have traditionally not just been intolerant of gay people but downright hostile towards them. In recent history it has been religious and primarily Christian organizations that work to oppose equal rights for gay people.
From Wikipedia:
AND
Ken:
The references have been ‘changed from gay to straight’. Michael, for one, says that if a person still has temptations towards the same sex, then they aren’t hetero…and if the attractions they develop are only for their spouse, it’s not the real definition of hetero either.
I am beginning to be amazed at your ability to miss the point David!
Perhaps you missed what I said above David! I’ll refer you again to my post
David Blakeslee# ~ Jan 20, 2011 at 10:23 am
“Oddly enough…Western society has been at the forefront of normalizing homosexuality; could that be the influence of far broader Christian ideals of tolerance, grace and humility?”
Only in the last few decades. For centuries Western society spread their homophobia throughout the world (mostly from British and Spanish colonization).
And in these cultures (including the US) working to normalize homosexuality, who has been the biggest source of opposition to this normalization David?
And of the therapists you know of who attempt conversion therapy, how many of them would you say have strong religious beliefs?
Jayhuck didn’t say christianity was the sole cause of homophobia or of its diagnosis as a pathology, just that it has had a significant influence.
Jayhuck,
Unlike the physical sciences…the fathers of psychology were explicitly hostile of Christianity and Judeo-Christian thought, your partner many not be aware of this. His analogy is apt, until the facts make it a poor analogy.
…and I am not denying the some Christians played a part; you are using polarized criticisms about arguments I am not making.
Causation is non-existent and correlation is weak…scientifically, this makes us ask other questions.
You and Kincaid often reduce the issue to religious oppression and pathological repression…to reinforce: this is the argument of heterosexuals during the sexual revolution.
Michael,
an excellent question…what are your guesses? I think if we can find an original cause, we can band together. :).
In asking the question, I am not suggesting that “Christianity” alone created anti-gay attitudes. There surely are other sources. But I agree with Jayhuck to deny any causal relationship is simplistic. Otherwise, how do we explain that many (if not most gays) see Christianity as their enemy and not their friend?
Some would suggest that many gays are anti-Christian because Christianity “convicts them of their sin”. Maybe for some. But I don’t think that’s it. I think they have failed to see Christianity as an expression of ” tolerance, grace and humility.” And that is not the fault of gay people.
Such as?
Next of course we could get into how religion in general has denigrated homosexuality across cultures and influenced scientific though- sometimes for the worse
To deny that Christianity played a part in Western thought and culture, and to deny it influenced science is also simplistic and maybe deeply satisfying David! 🙂
A West that has been highly influenced by Judea o-Christian beliefs!
Oddly enough…Western society has been at the forefront of normalizing homosexuality; could that be the influence of far broader Christian ideals of tolerance, grace and humility?
Your partner cannot have it both ways, Jayhuck.
To me it is similar to the second class status of women around the world. This is supported in deeply A-Christian (without Christian) cultures. Blaming Christianity is simplistic and maybe deeply satisfying; but the culture supported such denigration for generations prior to Christianity and in the absence of Christianity.
There is no causation…and even the correlation is weak.
Right or wrong, there is another origin for cultural concern and personal avoidance of homosexual behavior that oppression by Christianity.
Heterosexuals made many of the arguments Gay Rights advocates make now during the sexual revolution and Christianity as “oppressive and repressive” was the political and psychological criticism they used.
@ Jayhuck,
If Christians were the creators of “pathologizing” homosexuality; then we would expect that in non-Christian cultures there would be a history of neutrality toward the behavior.
That is not the case.
Quite the opposite is true.
I’d have to agree, but only because of an experience I had with my mother. Shortly after I came out, my mother, in a sense, came out to me. She confessed to having a several year long relationship with a woman, someone I had known was a “family friend” for a long time. She also told me she did not think she would ever have another experience like this as she has never felt attracted to other women as she did this one. I would never call my mother gay because of this experience as I would never call a person straight who simply develops some attractions to their opposite sex spouse.
To say that psychology made this pronouncement without the influence of religion is a flat out falsehood. The idea that the dominant cultural force of the past two millennia would not greatly influence a relatively nascent science, borders on the absurd. There is a litany of so-called pathologies that these seemingly secular scientists invented that just happened to reflect and reinforce the cultural and religious norms of time.
Scientific endeavors are inherently accumulative and self-correcting. This in no way denigrates the scientific method but in fact demonstrates its greatest asset. For a large amount of time biologist and geologist did their research with the viewpoint that the earth was created relatively recently. Of course, they were wrong. Just like these past psychologists.
I have to thank my partner for the above statement 🙂 I wish I could attribute this to me but he is much more eloquent in some ways.
My own addition to David’s response:
Christians love to make pronouncements about how the Bible has influenced Western thought and culture, until they are called upon to realize some of these influences were bad or flat out wrong.
To say that some psychologists or even psychology in general did not favor religion is not the same thing as saying that religion did not influence its thought. C’mon David!
David,
I agree with you about biological design, but I think we take different viewpoints when it comes to homosexuality and that design, as do many biologists 🙂
As for religion and psychology, I would argue strongly that psychology and many other not-so-great aspects of society were strongly influenced by religion, even if they didn’t say so outright.
Biological design and complementarity are non-religious arguments.
I think most people here have forgotten that psychology, without the influence of religion, argued for decades asserting a pathological view of homosexuality. Psychology, in its early decades especially, was openly skeptical of religion, if not hostile toward religious practice.
So there was a complete theory and rationale for treating it as an illness which has nothing to do with religion.
Ken:
The references have been ‘changed from gay to straight’. Michael, for one, says that if a person still has temptations towards the same sex, then they aren’t hetero…and if the attractions they develop are only for their spouse, it’s not the real definition of hetero either.
If I had a choice, I would never choose to be middle class 🙂
Ann,
I refer you to my comment about minorities above! Many people who belong to minority groups see their minority status as a problem, but that doesn’t mean they should try to change it.
Emily K
I cannot speak for anyone other than myself – I think the answer might be with the individuals who see it as a problem and present it that way, ie “if I had a choice, I would never choose to be gay”. I find that you are the exception among those who wish they had a choice and would choose to be straight rather than gay.
Let’s remember, while Jesus did hang around with people that others considered undesirable, he didn’t condone their behavior, unlike NARTH!
I don’t remember Jesus running around lying about others, abusing others scholarship, and being asked to speak by known hate groups. Maybe that’s in a different Bible.
Eddy# ~ Jan 19, 2011 at 8:01 pm
And just who suggested “complete and total heterosexuality”? Whether you called it that or “raging heterosexuality” it is still a straw man argument.
“Not sure what you mean by ‘convert’? He represented himself as believing as she did. ”
No, he presented himself as a gay client wishing to become straight. And I mean convert from gay to straight.
“And I would suspect that, as she asked her questions, he’d be assessing where she was heading with them and he’d answer that with answers designed to lead her”
Really, and just how did he lead her into claiming that troubled births or freemasonary lead to homosexuality? Or any of the other misleading and unscientific claims she made.
And from the quotes given (admittedly not a complete picture), it was Pilkington who was leading him in order to fit her narrative about sexual orientation.
seriously, Mary? these people are now the equivalent of your God? They are now righteous people and martyrs thanks to godless heathens (or worse yet, JEWS) who refuse to “see the light”?
Nobody has answered my question about why gayness is seen as inherently a “problem” that humans have to deal with rather than an incidental characteristic. (the exception being religious reasons, natch.)
LOL!!!! Really? That’s what they did to Jesus.
To say that psychology made this pronouncement without the influence of religion is a flat out falsehood. The idea that the dominant cultural force of the past two millennia would not greatly influence a relatively nascent science, borders on the absurd. There is a litany of so-called pathologies that these seemingly secular scientists invented that just happened to reflect and reinforce the cultural and religious norms of time.
Scientific endeavors are inherently accumulative and self-correcting. This in no way denigrates the scientific method but in fact demonstrates its greatest asset. For a large amount of time biologist and geologist did their research with the viewpoint that the earth was created relatively recently. Of course, they were wrong. Just like these past psychologists.
I have to thank my partner for the above statement 🙂 I wish I could attribute this to me but he is much more eloquent in some ways.
My own addition to David’s response:
Christians love to make pronouncements about how the Bible has influenced Western thought and culture, until they are called upon to realize some of these influences were bad or flat out wrong.
To say that some psychologists or even psychology in general did not favor religion is not the same thing as saying that religion did not influence its thought. C’mon David!
Ann,
Very well put Ann! I agree with you here 🙂
Eddy,
As a matter of fact she was insinuating that the intensive care, which might impact the bonding process, MIGHT cause his homosexuality! Really?
From Nicolosi – yet another quote that just begs to be laughed at. I mean, c’mon! Do these people really say these things? And if they do, do people really buy into this stuff? That’s truly frightening.
Yes Eddy – I got that. That is what I was talking about. Completely unproven and unsubstantiated nonsense!
Regardless of everything else, these people have aligned themselves with NARTH. For goodness sake, this group has done nothing but undermine itself by aligning itself with charlatans and misusing other people’s research. We should at the very least judge them by the company they keep.
Eddy,
I never said we had the complete picture, but we have quotes from her that are completely damaging. As I understand it she hasn’t refuted them either. If she wants to refute his claims then she should.
Biological design and complementarity are non-religious arguments.
I think most people here have forgotten that psychology, without the influence of religion, argued for decades asserting a pathological view of homosexuality. Psychology, in its early decades especially, was openly skeptical of religion, if not hostile toward religious practice.
So there was a complete theory and rationale for treating it as an illness which has nothing to do with religion.
Yes, thank you for recognizing such. It’s just not right for everyone. Some people are fine with it – some are not. Why is that a problem for people to accept?
Thanks David – I agree.
Ann,
No…he is using a cliche, probably borrowed from Truth Wins Out that is meant to be simplistic and demeaning.
If I had a choice, I would never choose to be middle class 🙂
Michael,
I just looked up the word “instinct” and think it is worthy of consideration to understand this inner awareness. What do you think?
sorry – the word should be epiphany
Michael,
Thank you for saying this. It is good to have these people and their reasons acknowledged. It doesn’t matter if it really makes sense to others as it is very personal and we might not ever understand. I really appreciate you saying you respect it as well – so much.
The only thing I can think of would be along the lines of an ephinany – a feeling or thought that comes to one without explanation. One can have a conviction about something or someone and then have a complete change of heart about that conviction from an inner awareness or ephany – both without any outside influence. The few I have had in my life came from something completely inside me – an innate awareness and, while it might not have changed my set of circumstances, I had a completely different perspective and thought and feeling about it. Some say it is the Holy Spirit that comes to them – I think that is like when Saul became Paul on the road to Damascus. It would be interesting to hear other people talk about this personal awareness and ask them if it had anything to do with outside influences or if it was something from within that was completely unexpected.
David Blakeslee,
Stephen said they are religious and believe the only cure is to pray away the gay. Do you accept this as a true statement about Narth?
Michael,
I guess (and could be wrong) that one would know how they wanted to live by their desires. I would say that it is highly probable to have two desires that conflict with each other. When that happens, a personal knowledge of how they want to live is helpful in making a choice as to which desire is worthy of pursuing and which desire is not. I think most people make these kind of choices in every area of their life on a continual and ongoing basis.
Ann:
I should add that I know (and respect) that there are some people who insist that they had an “inner awarenes” or “spiritual sense” or “personal knowledge” that gay was not right for them.
I remain very puzzled as to how they can be sure that this experience was not culturally or religiously induced — or at least significantly influences by these pressures. That said, I accept that this is how they experience their internal reality.
Ken said:
That’s because she didn’t promise ‘raging homosexuality’, that term is something you made up as a straw man argument. Strudwick went to this therapist telling her he wanted to change from gay to straight. She accepted him as a client. By her actions and statements her intentions where to convert him.
1) I said ‘raging heterosexuality’ not ‘raging homosexuality.
2) Two words hardly make up a ‘straw man argument’. My phrase was intended to address the suggestion that she was offering ‘complete and total heterosexuality’ and the rest of my comment addressed that.
3) Not sure what you mean by ‘convert’? He represented himself as believing as she did.
Jayhuck: I noted several comments from you directed to me in my inbox but they aren’t appearing here. Not sure if Warren screened them or if, despite your acknowledgement that you realized the conversation had been shifted to this thread, that you’re still posting them on that ‘mental illness’ thread.
Re the intensive care question. She was not suggesting that intensive care caused his homosexuality but she was suggesting that the dynamics of intensive care might impact the bonding process between the infant and their parents. I’m really not sure how far-fetched that is. I am closely related to a person who exhibits sociopathic patterns and more than a few people have suggested that it may be traceable to the months that he spent in the hospital as an infant. Not likening homosexuality to being sociopathic, BTW, merely citing that the answers aren’t all in on the impact of infant bonding or the lack thereof.
And finally, re the dynamics of this ‘set-up scenario’. While it appears that we have the complete picture (after all, he provided actual quotes and everything!), we don’t. We have him saying ‘so I told her thus and such’. Please note how brief these summaries were. I honestly can’t imagine a counseling session where the client offered such terse statements. And, if they did, it would cue me as a counselor that there was a reason why they weren’t being more forthcoming. All I’d have to go on would be their previous statements (that I assumed to be true) and their expression and body language. In this situation, I’d begin to wonder if there wasn’t some sort of trauma that prevented the individual from being more forthcoming.
Beyond that, it wasn’t just one lie…the lie of why he came for help. That lie needed to be supported by other lies. He spoke of a string of meaningless relationships (sorry, not the exact words) which sounds like he was trying to feed her what she wanted to hear. Later, though, he tried to hedge on that a bit (more than likely now trying to toss in ‘the other side’ of the coin). The two declarations wouldn’t necessarily jive (wait a minute…didn’t you just tell me that it was a string of meaningless relationships? where is this coming from?)
At the same time, she’d be assessing his ego strength. (He seems articulate, sincere, confident, aware…what part of him is drawn to meaningless serial relationships? Why isn’t that part surfacing in our discussion?)
And I would suspect that, as she asked her questions, he’d be assessing where she was heading with them and he’d answer that with answers designed to lead her.
There was a famous episode of Everybody Loves Raymond where Debra and Raymond had a blowup involving a can-opener and a can of tuna. Raymond tells his version to his mom…remaining essentially true to the dialogue…but with gestures, expressions and delivery his version comes off light years away from the version Debra tells to Robert…remaining essentially true to the same dialogue. As the story played out, although both of them used exact quotes, neither one conveyed the real truth of how the conversation actually played out.
If this situation does come under review, it is my hope that they will subpoena the full tape and hear both sides as they were delivered.
Ann,
I refer you to my comment about minorities above! Many people who belong to minority groups see their minority status as a problem, but that doesn’t mean they should try to change it.
Narth espouses a variety of approaches…Reparative Drive theory is the most well documented.
Until I hear the entirety of the tape recorded sessions, it would be difficult to make balanced conclusions about most of what is being portrayed in the media.
the rest I’m disregarding because it’s just futile exercise in back and forth crap.
Emily K
I have never read or hear this and it comes as a surprise to me. Where can I find when or where he said this or do you know it to be an ongoing theme for him. I have never heard Narth to be religious in nature, never heard them say pray away the gay – Exodus, Desert Stream Ministries, Jonah, etc. – definitely are religious in their approach, however, my understanding is that Narth espouses a reparative therapy approach, not religion.
This is really good to hear and I am happy for you.
Emily K
I cannot speak for anyone other than myself – I think the answer might be with the individuals who see it as a problem and present it that way, ie “if I had a choice, I would never choose to be gay”. I find that you are the exception among those who wish they had a choice and would choose to be straight rather than gay.
Case in point — Alan Chambers once said that if same sex marriage had been legal, he almost certainly would have chosen that. If the culture had said it was OK, he thinks he might not have chosen the path he took — and might never have found his faith. So instead, he chose a “post-gay/spouso-sexual” direction — and admits that he still fights daily “that which comes naturally” for him.
He seems to be happy with this decision — and that is certainly his right — but was the decision based solely on “personal knowledge” or was it largely the impact of prejudice? How is it possible? One wonders how one can have a “a personal knowledge that it is not how they want to live” — one that is not seriously influenced by the cultural and religious attitudes against gayness.
Ann,
Yes, for a small percentage of gay people, it is their orientation that is the problem, and these people deserve getting whatever help they need in coming to terms with their orientation or learning to live a celibate life in accordance with their values. But just because people make statements like the one you quoted doesn’t mean they aren’t happy with who they are overall.
why is being gay automatically labeled a “problem?” Why is it when someone is attracted to the same sex they are automatically labeled a straight person with a gay “problem”? What exactly is the problem?
Other than religious objections to same gender sexual acts, there is absolutely nothing moral or immoral about one’s sexual orientation, be it heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, or bisexual. It’s only descriptive of the attraction one has.
Ann,
Some African American people used to wish they hadn’t been born black back when they had to deal with a great deal of prejudice and bigotry during the last century, Ive heard women in my lifetime say that if they could have chosen they wouldn’t have been born a woman because it is, or at least was, easier to be a man. Don’t try to turn the fact that some gay people say this into an idea that they have some deep inherent problem with it. Many many minorities often wish they weren’t born into that minority group. The problem could, and most likely is, with society and not the minority group that suffers in it. Its a fact, its easier to be white and middle class in this society, even today. Please
Not at all surprising. Consider the prejudice against them. I would imagine that many members of minoroty groups might feel the same.
I wonder how many would “have a problem with it” if they enjoyed equal rights and if the social and religious stigma were removed?
It has been my observation and experience that most gays who say they hate being gay actually hate being hated for being gay. Whose “problem” is that — the individual’s or the culture?
Let’s remember, while Jesus did hang around with people that others considered undesirable, he didn’t condone their behavior, unlike NARTH!
considering the biggest utilization of NARTH’s “research” and “science” comes from places like Exodus (religious), JONAH (religious), Courage (religious) and Evergreen (religious), and that Nicolosi himself espouses that “the opposite of homosexuality is holiness,” well.. draw your own conclusions.
Given the choice I would still want to be gay. It’s how I know myself best and it’s such an intricate part of my being – falling in love with women – that I would never want to lose it or to become asexual either.
Stephen,
Have you been able to locate any information to back up your claim that Narth is a religious organization that believes the only cure is to pray away the gay?
These are questions and assumptions that will remain just that until one or both give you their answer(s). My observation and experience is that the person who is gay almost always says if he or she had a choice, they would never want to be gay – that, to me, sounds like they might have a problem with it. I think you might respond that it is societal pressure that make them feel that way, however, I also know for some, it has little to do with that, but rather, a personal knowledge that it is not how they want to live.
LOL!!!! Really? That’s what they did to Jesus.
Eddy,
As a matter of fact she was insinuating that the intensive care, which might impact the bonding process, MIGHT cause his homosexuality! Really?
The reporter did very well to expose her. Let her open a church if she wants to pray. All this trash from NARTH, etc is pitiful. And people around here write about it as if it’s something new. This garbage didn’t work in the 40s, the 50s, the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, or whenever else men and women couldn’t deal with the feeling of social outcast that has been foisted upon us. Trying to talk away the gay – as was popular once – kept most of NYC’s psychiatrists in business for many years. They had a lot of the same ‘theories’ as NARTH: distant father, too-protective mother, sexual abuse, etc. If I sound scornful it’s because I am. However, people can do what they want with their lives, good luck to them, I hope they find some happiness. I only mind that this nonsense has been weaponized by those who make their livings trying to stop GLBT people enjoying their civil rights, peacefully, in private: Maggie Gallagher, Bryan Fischer, et al. NARTH gives them cover; ‘reparative therapy’ lets them seem rational. Let them beware in the UK and keep these leeches out.
Eddy,
I never said we had the complete picture, but we have quotes from her that are completely damaging. As I understand it she hasn’t refuted them either. If she wants to refute his claims then she should.
David Blakeslee –
One of the main reasons I question these therapist’s (Socarides and Pilkington) motivations is because of quotes like this:
Is the homosexuality a problem for her son, or just her? If its not a problem for him, why is it a problem for her?
I also like what Professor Michael King said about this woman’s unorthodox practices:
Thanks David – I agree.
OMG – I just finished reading the article in its entirety! These Nicolosi and Socarides reparative therapy followers are frightening. Did anyone else notice all the unsubstantiated/unproven claims they make about homosexuality? Wow! It boggles my mind when I read babble like this from people who are educated. I guess it shouldn’t surprise me considering the source – NARTH – but it still does.
One of the questions the therapist asks:
“Did you have a difficult birth?” she asks. No, I say. Why?
“It’s just something I have noticed. Often [with homosexuality] it is quite traumatic, the baby was put into intensive care and because of the separation from the mother there can be that lack of attachment.”
The baby was put in intensive care? That’s the reason? This is laughable!
Anne,
I think Warren’s suggestion for a remedy is a good one though:
There is a reason people go undercover to uncover stories Ann! If the person had done this, been upfront, there is a real possibility she wouldn’t have been genuine or honest but instead realized he was a journalist and done her best to present herself in as good a light as possible – shifting things around to make her look better.
Ann,
No…he is using a cliche, probably borrowed from Truth Wins Out that is meant to be simplistic and demeaning.
Michael,
Thank you for saying this. It is good to have these people and their reasons acknowledged. It doesn’t matter if it really makes sense to others as it is very personal and we might not ever understand. I really appreciate you saying you respect it as well – so much.
The only thing I can think of would be along the lines of an ephinany – a feeling or thought that comes to one without explanation. One can have a conviction about something or someone and then have a complete change of heart about that conviction from an inner awareness or ephany – both without any outside influence. The few I have had in my life came from something completely inside me – an innate awareness and, while it might not have changed my set of circumstances, I had a completely different perspective and thought and feeling about it. Some say it is the Holy Spirit that comes to them – I think that is like when Saul became Paul on the road to Damascus. It would be interesting to hear other people talk about this personal awareness and ask them if it had anything to do with outside influences or if it was something from within that was completely unexpected.
David Blakeslee,
Stephen said they are religious and believe the only cure is to pray away the gay. Do you accept this as a true statement about Narth?
Ken,
Only partially so…and that is the problem.
Some parents focus on “cures” generally which are esoteric and of limited scientific utility…yet they focus.
In part because they believe the larger scientific community is missing important possibilities.
This is true of all human suffering (real and perceived) to which parents seek remedies (necessary and superfluous).
Michael,
I guess (and could be wrong) that one would know how they wanted to live by their desires. I would say that it is highly probable to have two desires that conflict with each other. When that happens, a personal knowledge of how they want to live is helpful in making a choice as to which desire is worthy of pursuing and which desire is not. I think most people make these kind of choices in every area of their life on a continual and ongoing basis.
Ken said:
That’s because she didn’t promise ‘raging homosexuality’, that term is something you made up as a straw man argument. Strudwick went to this therapist telling her he wanted to change from gay to straight. She accepted him as a client. By her actions and statements her intentions where to convert him.
1) I said ‘raging heterosexuality’ not ‘raging homosexuality.
2) Two words hardly make up a ‘straw man argument’. My phrase was intended to address the suggestion that she was offering ‘complete and total heterosexuality’ and the rest of my comment addressed that.
3) Not sure what you mean by ‘convert’? He represented himself as believing as she did.
Jayhuck: I noted several comments from you directed to me in my inbox but they aren’t appearing here. Not sure if Warren screened them or if, despite your acknowledgement that you realized the conversation had been shifted to this thread, that you’re still posting them on that ‘mental illness’ thread.
Re the intensive care question. She was not suggesting that intensive care caused his homosexuality but she was suggesting that the dynamics of intensive care might impact the bonding process between the infant and their parents. I’m really not sure how far-fetched that is. I am closely related to a person who exhibits sociopathic patterns and more than a few people have suggested that it may be traceable to the months that he spent in the hospital as an infant. Not likening homosexuality to being sociopathic, BTW, merely citing that the answers aren’t all in on the impact of infant bonding or the lack thereof.
And finally, re the dynamics of this ‘set-up scenario’. While it appears that we have the complete picture (after all, he provided actual quotes and everything!), we don’t. We have him saying ‘so I told her thus and such’. Please note how brief these summaries were. I honestly can’t imagine a counseling session where the client offered such terse statements. And, if they did, it would cue me as a counselor that there was a reason why they weren’t being more forthcoming. All I’d have to go on would be their previous statements (that I assumed to be true) and their expression and body language. In this situation, I’d begin to wonder if there wasn’t some sort of trauma that prevented the individual from being more forthcoming.
Beyond that, it wasn’t just one lie…the lie of why he came for help. That lie needed to be supported by other lies. He spoke of a string of meaningless relationships (sorry, not the exact words) which sounds like he was trying to feed her what she wanted to hear. Later, though, he tried to hedge on that a bit (more than likely now trying to toss in ‘the other side’ of the coin). The two declarations wouldn’t necessarily jive (wait a minute…didn’t you just tell me that it was a string of meaningless relationships? where is this coming from?)
At the same time, she’d be assessing his ego strength. (He seems articulate, sincere, confident, aware…what part of him is drawn to meaningless serial relationships? Why isn’t that part surfacing in our discussion?)
And I would suspect that, as she asked her questions, he’d be assessing where she was heading with them and he’d answer that with answers designed to lead her.
There was a famous episode of Everybody Loves Raymond where Debra and Raymond had a blowup involving a can-opener and a can of tuna. Raymond tells his version to his mom…remaining essentially true to the dialogue…but with gestures, expressions and delivery his version comes off light years away from the version Debra tells to Robert…remaining essentially true to the same dialogue. As the story played out, although both of them used exact quotes, neither one conveyed the real truth of how the conversation actually played out.
If this situation does come under review, it is my hope that they will subpoena the full tape and hear both sides as they were delivered.
Narth espouses a variety of approaches…Reparative Drive theory is the most well documented.
Until I hear the entirety of the tape recorded sessions, it would be difficult to make balanced conclusions about most of what is being portrayed in the media.
the rest I’m disregarding because it’s just futile exercise in back and forth crap.
Emily K
I have never read or hear this and it comes as a surprise to me. Where can I find when or where he said this or do you know it to be an ongoing theme for him. I have never heard Narth to be religious in nature, never heard them say pray away the gay – Exodus, Desert Stream Ministries, Jonah, etc. – definitely are religious in their approach, however, my understanding is that Narth espouses a reparative therapy approach, not religion.
This is really good to hear and I am happy for you.
Case in point — Alan Chambers once said that if same sex marriage had been legal, he almost certainly would have chosen that. If the culture had said it was OK, he thinks he might not have chosen the path he took — and might never have found his faith. So instead, he chose a “post-gay/spouso-sexual” direction — and admits that he still fights daily “that which comes naturally” for him.
He seems to be happy with this decision — and that is certainly his right — but was the decision based solely on “personal knowledge” or was it largely the impact of prejudice? How is it possible? One wonders how one can have a “a personal knowledge that it is not how they want to live” — one that is not seriously influenced by the cultural and religious attitudes against gayness.
why is being gay automatically labeled a “problem?” Why is it when someone is attracted to the same sex they are automatically labeled a straight person with a gay “problem”? What exactly is the problem?
Other than religious objections to same gender sexual acts, there is absolutely nothing moral or immoral about one’s sexual orientation, be it heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, or bisexual. It’s only descriptive of the attraction one has.
Ann,
Some African American people used to wish they hadn’t been born black back when they had to deal with a great deal of prejudice and bigotry during the last century, Ive heard women in my lifetime say that if they could have chosen they wouldn’t have been born a woman because it is, or at least was, easier to be a man. Don’t try to turn the fact that some gay people say this into an idea that they have some deep inherent problem with it. Many many minorities often wish they weren’t born into that minority group. The problem could, and most likely is, with society and not the minority group that suffers in it. Its a fact, its easier to be white and middle class in this society, even today. Please
Not at all surprising. Consider the prejudice against them. I would imagine that many members of minoroty groups might feel the same.
I wonder how many would “have a problem with it” if they enjoyed equal rights and if the social and religious stigma were removed?
It has been my observation and experience that most gays who say they hate being gay actually hate being hated for being gay. Whose “problem” is that — the individual’s or the culture?
These are questions and assumptions that will remain just that until one or both give you their answer(s). My observation and experience is that the person who is gay almost always says if he or she had a choice, they would never want to be gay – that, to me, sounds like they might have a problem with it. I think you might respond that it is societal pressure that make them feel that way, however, I also know for some, it has little to do with that, but rather, a personal knowledge that it is not how they want to live.
Ken,
Here is how I am intrepreting the set of circumstances – this gentleman went to a therapist without any intention to benefit from what she thought he was there for. This is presenting himself in a fraudulent manner and setting her up for failure in helping him. In order to benefit from any kind of therapy for unwanted same gender attractions or desires, it is my opinion that one needs to be highly motivated with personal reasons to see a therapist for this and, just as important, that the therapist be ethical. If religion is very important to the individual then they might want to see a therapist or couselor who can integrate their chosen religion into ethical therapy.
If he went to her and said something like – “I am gay, have absolutely no desire to modify or shift my thoughts about that, however, as a journalist, I would like to talk with you about how you would treat someone who is gay but has the desire and personal motivations to modify and shift their thoughts and perspective on how they respond to this” – then I would have complete respect for him and his efforts in reporting. Then the real story could be told about how the therapist responded as there was no set up, no fraud, no undermining, no deceit.
Love that motivates someone to want to understand something is fine, but when that “love” motivates someone to want to understand a phenomenon, which isn’t a disease, in order to change that part of the person to make them the way you feel they should be, is something else entirely.
I’m sure there was a better way to phrase that 🙂
David Blakeslee# ~ Jan 19, 2011 at 11:26 am
“Love of a family member often drives people into science and inquiry to more deeply understand the phenomenon.”
Do you believe that Lesley Pilkington’s understanding and inquiry into sexual orientation is scientific?
Ann# ~ Jan 19, 2011 at 11:06 am
“Please read my comment dated 1/18 @1:11 and see if that answers your question. If not, let me know and I will try to articulate more and better. ”
That post is what prompted my question. You made accusations/insinuations about Strudwick (esp. claims about his intentions/motivations prior to the start of his investigation). I’m asking what evidence you have to support those claims.
Mary# ~ Jan 19, 2011 at 10:29 am
“I’m waiting for a full report.”
What “full report” are you waiting for? If you know of any more detailed information about the sessions Strudwick had with Pilkington that is forthcoming, I’d be very interested in hearing about it.
“it seems to me that instead of waiting for a full report you are bending over backwards to support the fraudulent client and attack the therapist.”
I do support the use of under cover investigation (what you refer to as a “fraudulent client”) and I see nothing wrong with Strudwick doing that in order to learn what happens in the therapy sessions.
I did take exception to Warren’s use of the term “set-up” and made it clear why I did.
And I pointed out Pilkington made unscientific claims about sexual orientation and it is inappropriate to base a therapy on such unsound principles (btw, I was not the only person here to point that out).
Mary# ~ Jan 19, 2011 at 11:07 am
” ” Not even Pilkington has claimed he mis-reported the sessions”
LOL!!! After misrepresenting himself and having a goal of “catching” the therapist. Okee dokee?””
Do you have a cite where Pilkington claims Strudwick mis-represented what happened in the sessions?
David Blakeslee –
One of the main reasons I question these therapist’s (Socarides and Pilkington) motivations is because of quotes like this:
Is the homosexuality a problem for her son, or just her? If its not a problem for him, why is it a problem for her?
Love of a child often motivates the creation of non-profit organizations by parents…nothing sick here.
Love of a family member often drives people into science and inquiry to more deeply understand the phenomenon….nothing sick here.
@ Mary,
There are some who visit this site, some gay affirmative visitors, who are rigid and stereotypical in their understanding of those who do not wish to build an identity around their SSA.
They perceive the phenomenon as oppressive to the person and they are pejorative in their criticism of it.
They demonstrate their disgust, much like Fischer, with phrases like “pray the gay away,” maybe you can think of some others.
OMG – I just finished reading the article in its entirety! These Nicolosi and Socarides reparative therapy followers are frightening. Did anyone else notice all the unsubstantiated/unproven claims they make about homosexuality? Wow! It boggles my mind when I read babble like this from people who are educated. I guess it shouldn’t surprise me considering the source – NARTH – but it still does.
One of the questions the therapist asks:
“Did you have a difficult birth?” she asks. No, I say. Why?
“It’s just something I have noticed. Often [with homosexuality] it is quite traumatic, the baby was put into intensive care and because of the separation from the mother there can be that lack of attachment.”
The baby was put in intensive care? That’s the reason? This is laughable!
Anne,
I think Warren’s suggestion for a remedy is a good one though:
LOL!!! After misrepresenting himself and having a goal of “catching” the therapist. Okee dokee?
Ken,
Please read my comment dated 1/18 @1:11 and see if that answers your question. If not, let me know and I will try to articulate more and better.
Ummm…..I believe I opined on this in the above comment as well.
Yes, I agree – you might want to look at what Stephen said about Narth and still has not provided facts to back it up or, better, do the honorable thing and retract the statement.
I’m waiting for a full report. However, Ken, it seems to me that instead of waiting for a full report you are bending over backwards to support the fraudulent client and attack the therapist. I have also seen that many times, too.
Ken,
Here is how I am intrepreting the set of circumstances – this gentleman went to a therapist without any intention to benefit from what she thought he was there for. This is presenting himself in a fraudulent manner and setting her up for failure in helping him. In order to benefit from any kind of therapy for unwanted same gender attractions or desires, it is my opinion that one needs to be highly motivated with personal reasons to see a therapist for this and, just as important, that the therapist be ethical. If religion is very important to the individual then they might want to see a therapist or couselor who can integrate their chosen religion into ethical therapy.
If he went to her and said something like – “I am gay, have absolutely no desire to modify or shift my thoughts about that, however, as a journalist, I would like to talk with you about how you would treat someone who is gay but has the desire and personal motivations to modify and shift their thoughts and perspective on how they respond to this” – then I would have complete respect for him and his efforts in reporting. Then the real story could be told about how the therapist responded as there was no set up, no fraud, no undermining, no deceit.
David Blakeslee# ~ Jan 19, 2011 at 11:26 am
“Love of a family member often drives people into science and inquiry to more deeply understand the phenomenon.”
Do you believe that Lesley Pilkington’s understanding and inquiry into sexual orientation is scientific?
Love of a child often motivates the creation of non-profit organizations by parents…nothing sick here.
Love of a family member often drives people into science and inquiry to more deeply understand the phenomenon….nothing sick here.
LOL!!! After misrepresenting himself and having a goal of “catching” the therapist. Okee dokee?
Ken,
Please read my comment dated 1/18 @1:11 and see if that answers your question. If not, let me know and I will try to articulate more and better.
Ummm…..I believe I opined on this in the above comment as well.
Yes, I agree – you might want to look at what Stephen said about Narth and still has not provided facts to back it up or, better, do the honorable thing and retract the statement.
I’m waiting for a full report. However, Ken, it seems to me that instead of waiting for a full report you are bending over backwards to support the fraudulent client and attack the therapist. I have also seen that many times, too.
I’m not even sure how to address this, but it does make me wonder what is driving the woman. Was it the same thing driving the late Dr Socarides? I wonder…
Ann# ~ Jan 18, 2011 at 11:08 pm
“His intentions were not honorable and his reporting is biased and will be perceived as such to the discerning mind.”
And how have you discerned his intentions? The reports I’ve read all said he went under-cover (and yes that means lying about some details) in order to report on the therapy. I have read nothing that indicates his article was inaccurate or misleading. Not even Pilkington has claimed he mis-reported the sessions.
Yet instead of discussing the issues raised by the report, or even providing evidence of inaccuracies or counter-arguments, you instead attack the author.
A tactic I’ve seen many times before.
And by his actions and intentions, he set her up to fail in any attempt to help him, as he was a fraud. Nothing she said or did would have mattered as he wanted to expose her in the light he saw her – accommodating his pre-conceived notion. His intentions were not honorable and his reporting is biased and will be perceived as such to the discerning mind.
Honestly, from what I’ve culled from the internet (as little as it is) sounds like he asked and she offered. She did not seek him out as a client.
Before discussing this further – should we have a copy or a link to exactly what went on?
Eddy# ~ Jan 18, 2011 at 8:54 pm
“Second, I can’t find where this therapist is promising ‘raging heterosexuality’.”
That’s because she didn’t promise ‘raging homosexuality’, that term is something you made up as a straw man argument. Strudwick went to this therapist telling her he wanted to change from gay to straight. She accepted him as a client. By her actions and statements her intentions where to convert him.
I’m not even sure how to address this, but it does make me wonder what is driving the woman. Was it the same thing driving the late Dr Socarides? I wonder…
First, my inner ‘spelling compulsive’ can’t remain ambivalent about the ‘ambivilent’ spelling (main topic, 2nd paragraph from the end).
Second, I can’t find where this therapist is promising ‘raging heterosexuality’. In fact, to my dismay I can’t find the SOCE guidelines she refers to so I’m not quite sure what it is exactly that she’s promising. The most I find in the topic article is that she hopes to lead them ‘to develop healthy relationships with women’.
I agree with Warren that declaring that ‘it is environmental’ is bad science but I also feel that scientifically it also hasn’t been proven that it is NOT environmental. Stating theories as facts is always bad science. For a therapist to declare ‘it’s just the way you are’ is also bad science since they really don’t know how the person got that way. Even if it’s one day proven that there is a genetic or inborn cause for homosexuality, we err in presuming that everyone’s homosexuality is genetic or inborn. Ignoring the possibility that some may have stumbled into those attractions some other way seems like a dangerous presumption to me.
Finally, “reparative therapy’ seems to have gone the route of Kleenex. It’s a specific brand name that many now apply to other therapies that actually may offer more, less or even something substantially different than what ‘Reparative Therapy’ does. (Even Warren’s SIT Therapy has sometimes been wrongly described as a ‘reparative therapy’.) It seems foolish to pass judgements or draw conclusions before we dig deeply enough to understand both the similarities and the differences.
Yes. Speaking of men only in this comment. I understand that female sexual orientation may be more fluid, but I am not aware of good science related to proven therapeutic methods to reorient females either.
Ann# ~ Jan 18, 2011 at 11:08 pm
“His intentions were not honorable and his reporting is biased and will be perceived as such to the discerning mind.”
And how have you discerned his intentions? The reports I’ve read all said he went under-cover (and yes that means lying about some details) in order to report on the therapy. I have read nothing that indicates his article was inaccurate or misleading. Not even Pilkington has claimed he mis-reported the sessions.
Yet instead of discussing the issues raised by the report, or even providing evidence of inaccuracies or counter-arguments, you instead attack the author.
A tactic I’ve seen many times before.
Referring to men?
And by his actions and intentions, he set her up to fail in any attempt to help him, as he was a fraud. Nothing she said or did would have mattered as he wanted to expose her in the light he saw her – accommodating his pre-conceived notion. His intentions were not honorable and his reporting is biased and will be perceived as such to the discerning mind.
Honestly, from what I’ve culled from the internet (as little as it is) sounds like he asked and she offered. She did not seek him out as a client.
Before discussing this further – should we have a copy or a link to exactly what went on?
Eddy# ~ Jan 18, 2011 at 8:54 pm
“Second, I can’t find where this therapist is promising ‘raging heterosexuality’.”
That’s because she didn’t promise ‘raging homosexuality’, that term is something you made up as a straw man argument. Strudwick went to this therapist telling her he wanted to change from gay to straight. She accepted him as a client. By her actions and statements her intentions where to convert him.
I would add to that. “Goals supported by good science.” It’s unscientific and unethical to promise or imply that therapy can change a person’s orientation from gay to straight.
Other changes are reasonable, rational and supported by good science, as we have discussed numerous times on this blog — changes in lifestyle, changes in “identity”, changes in behavior — not reorientation from homosexual to heterosexual.
Simply giving a client what they want (or presuming that you can) is highly unethical in my opinion. Treat the underlying depression or anxiety. Help clients resolve compulsive/destructive behavior. Assist clients in living congruenly with their beliefs. Never promise what you can’t deliver.
First, my inner ‘spelling compulsive’ can’t remain ambivalent about the ‘ambivilent’ spelling (main topic, 2nd paragraph from the end).
Second, I can’t find where this therapist is promising ‘raging heterosexuality’. In fact, to my dismay I can’t find the SOCE guidelines she refers to so I’m not quite sure what it is exactly that she’s promising. The most I find in the topic article is that she hopes to lead them ‘to develop healthy relationships with women’.
I agree with Warren that declaring that ‘it is environmental’ is bad science but I also feel that scientifically it also hasn’t been proven that it is NOT environmental. Stating theories as facts is always bad science. For a therapist to declare ‘it’s just the way you are’ is also bad science since they really don’t know how the person got that way. Even if it’s one day proven that there is a genetic or inborn cause for homosexuality, we err in presuming that everyone’s homosexuality is genetic or inborn. Ignoring the possibility that some may have stumbled into those attractions some other way seems like a dangerous presumption to me.
Finally, “reparative therapy’ seems to have gone the route of Kleenex. It’s a specific brand name that many now apply to other therapies that actually may offer more, less or even something substantially different than what ‘Reparative Therapy’ does. (Even Warren’s SIT Therapy has sometimes been wrongly described as a ‘reparative therapy’.) It seems foolish to pass judgements or draw conclusions before we dig deeply enough to understand both the similarities and the differences.
Yes. Speaking of men only in this comment. I understand that female sexual orientation may be more fluid, but I am not aware of good science related to proven therapeutic methods to reorient females either.
From the chronic mental illness thread:
Mary# ~ Jan 17, 2011 at 7:14 pm
” “Can you imagine being told (as it was back before the 70?s) that you are not allowed to pursue your own goals in mental health?”
Even if those goals are to kill a US Congresswoman to stop her from taking over your mind?
Ken,
Are you seriously trying to conect these two? Seriously?”
Actually, I was trying to get the other thread back on track.
However, my point stands, a therapist’s job is to help a client achieve reasonable and rational goals not simply help him do whatever he wants.
From the chronic mental illness thread:
Ann# ~ Jan 17, 2011 at 4:37 pm
“Do you suppose his reporting is biased then if he was looking for something negative? I am wondering if a client went to her for therapy for their unwanted attractions and was sincere in their resolve to abstain from same gender sex, if he/she would have reported differently.”
Strudwick tape-recorded the sessions, and Pilkington isn’t claiming his article mis-represents what happened in the sessions. And what I take issue with are the incorrect claims Pilkington made about sexual orientation (and which form the basis of her therapy).
We seem to agree on this, Warren.
David,
Can you expound on this statment?
Good points Ann.
This sounds unscrupulous to me. However, besides the article, do you have any inside information that could give more insight into the actual series of events, discourse, representations?
So far, we have a partial sketch and a man who misrepresented himself.
Warren# ~ Jan 18, 2011 at 11:53 am
“He said he wanted a religious approach and that is what she offered.”
Actually Warren, I think you got that backwards. According to Pilkington:
“I told him I only work using a Christian biblical framework and he said that was exactly what he wanted.”
She told him, and he agreed to it. She didn’t adjust her method because he said he wanted a religious approach.
Now I don’t have a problem with a therapist who incorporates religion into therapy (ex. encouraging a religious patient to pray for strength) as long as the therapist is sticking to sound scientific principles. Based on what I’ve read, Pilkington was not using sound principles.
Since personal motivations are a major factor in successful therapy (success or ongoing progress is defined subjectively) for unwanted same gender attractions, he stood no chance of receiving or absorbing anything positive from this therapist – in other words, he went in as a fraud and nothing she could say would change his mind about her intentions on his behalf. He did set her up for failure because his intentions were not honorable. It doesn’t matter what she said – it matters that he made a decision to perceive what she said in a negative light before he even met her.
Mary# ~ Jan 18, 2011 at 11:45 am
“Are you 100% certain of his actions? If so, can you shed some light on the incident?”
I’m familiar with the articles Warren referenced (and a couple of others, which didn’t include any new info).
Strudwick posed as someone who wanted to change his orientation in order to find out what happens in these therapy sessions. From the article he wrote he has a bias against conversion therapy, but I saw nothing to indicate he “set up” Pilkington (i.e. got her to say or do something she wouldn’t normally do in such a session.)
Explanations for origins of psychopathology, or common behavior, are the temptations of every therapist with every question asked.
It is so simple, but neglected generally, to assert that human behavior is linked to a combination of genes, early experiences, cultural demands and personal choices.
I hope Mrs. Pilkington took excellent notes in her sessions.
To repeat other posts, I am waiting for a group of trauma survivors to form an advocacy group against therapist to practice simplistically in this area…and maybe marital couples who have been harmed.
Psychotherapy is a very soft science, impossible to police.
ken: I don’t know everything Strudwick did but he apparently lied about what he wanted and who he was. If he had gone there and said I am skeptical of what you do, how can you help me (still pretending to be a client) and she still said all of those things and tried to coerce him into changing, then I would have a different take on it.
In Britain the therapists are not licensed by the state and apparently they can practice like pastoral counselors with no conflict. He said he wanted a religious approach and that is what she offered. Now, I disagree that reparative therapy is a religious approach; I think most of it is provably false and thus not suitable for any practitioners, let alone religious ones. So on one hand, I think she followed what she was told was his value position but used a provably false therapy imposed on that value position. I think she needs instruction on sexual orientation so she can more ethically work with people who have the same value position that she does.
The other thing I don’t know is to what degree the ethics complaint relates to homosexual behavior as a moral issue. If the BACP say counselors cannot work with clients to life in contrast with their SSA then I think that will be a religious liberty problem. If they say counselors may not present false and misleading information to their clients then I think they will probably suspend her membership for a period while she gets some training.
@ Ken,
Are you 100% certain of his actions? If so, can you shed some light on the incident?
Warren,
I disagree with your characterization that Strudwick “set her up.” That implies Strudwick said (or did) things to get her behave in ways she normally wouldn’t. I’ve seen nothing to indicate he did that. He simply went in under cover to report on her (and others) therapy methods.
I would add to that. “Goals supported by good science.” It’s unscientific and unethical to promise or imply that therapy can change a person’s orientation from gay to straight.
Other changes are reasonable, rational and supported by good science, as we have discussed numerous times on this blog — changes in lifestyle, changes in “identity”, changes in behavior — not reorientation from homosexual to heterosexual.
Simply giving a client what they want (or presuming that you can) is highly unethical in my opinion. Treat the underlying depression or anxiety. Help clients resolve compulsive/destructive behavior. Assist clients in living congruenly with their beliefs. Never promise what you can’t deliver.
From the chronic mental illness thread:
Mary# ~ Jan 17, 2011 at 7:14 pm
” “Can you imagine being told (as it was back before the 70?s) that you are not allowed to pursue your own goals in mental health?”
Even if those goals are to kill a US Congresswoman to stop her from taking over your mind?
Ken,
Are you seriously trying to conect these two? Seriously?”
Actually, I was trying to get the other thread back on track.
However, my point stands, a therapist’s job is to help a client achieve reasonable and rational goals not simply help him do whatever he wants.
We seem to agree on this, Warren.
David,
Can you expound on this statment?
Good points Ann.
Since personal motivations are a major factor in successful therapy (success or ongoing progress is defined subjectively) for unwanted same gender attractions, he stood no chance of receiving or absorbing anything positive from this therapist – in other words, he went in as a fraud and nothing she could say would change his mind about her intentions on his behalf. He did set her up for failure because his intentions were not honorable. It doesn’t matter what she said – it matters that he made a decision to perceive what she said in a negative light before he even met her.
Explanations for origins of psychopathology, or common behavior, are the temptations of every therapist with every question asked.
It is so simple, but neglected generally, to assert that human behavior is linked to a combination of genes, early experiences, cultural demands and personal choices.
I hope Mrs. Pilkington took excellent notes in her sessions.
To repeat other posts, I am waiting for a group of trauma survivors to form an advocacy group against therapist to practice simplistically in this area…and maybe marital couples who have been harmed.
Psychotherapy is a very soft science, impossible to police.
Fg68ht,
I’m not going to get into speculations about theories or research interpretationsof same sex attraction.
I can say that my therapist has alwyas asked what my belief on the religious and physical aspects were before moving forward. And honestly, I think thats a good thing to do to 1) protect the therapist against unscrupulous people who are only looking to get a counselor into trouble and 2) for the sake of the client to check in and see where they are at.
In all discriptions from clients i read, the rare which have discriptions of the beginnings of rep-ther-sessions, there are allways the questions about abuse and/or relationship to the father.German Nicolosi-follower Vonholdt: There is no evidence of the gay-gene. But there are many indicators about dysfunctional family and trauma, most absent fathers. [others as the “most” never descibed] It compares not-evidence with believed indicators. Indicators, that are blieved true for everyone.
How can i make new lines and breaks? I worked before with HTML-br-tag, but it seams that it works only in the preview.
Agreed.
Mary – I think this is partly right. She apparently told him he was gay because of his upbringing. There is no strong evidence for this and as such she was providing an unscientific belief. However, if he told her he wanted a religious framework on his actions, she could have accommodated that without giving him false information.
In other word, to me, the issue was not that he wanted to avoid homosexual behavior and she worked with him toward that end. The issue was that she provided him with a narrative that is not based in fact. She did not need to do the latter to do the former.
If she asked him about his beliefs and thoughts on his own origins of his sexuality and he moved in the direction that he was not born that way – then she is off the hook. She was just moving in the direction as directed by the client.
and a gloriole from some conservative. 🙂
Could this help? I have little hope. There is so much faith (not only religion) behind. And so much: Homosexuality is all times and for everyone and in every situation bad. To few are like you. I think you are a rarity.
The 4 longer stories in the press since 2005 was always undercover. (Mark Benjamin: My gay therapy session, Turning off gays, Getting straight with God, True confessions; Patrick Strudwick: The ex-gay files: The bizarre world of gay-to-straight conversion; Ted Cox: What Happened When I Went Undercover at a Christian Gay-to-Straight Conversion Camp; Brandon Kirby: The straight jacket ) And it show, that you say you are a homosexual and want to turn straight, the threatment and the supposed causes are the same for everyone. Might he be truly straight or gay.A real client has mostly to deal with himself for a longer time. In we have few ex-gays. In Germany they called Peterson Toscano to have one wo speaks. The “Zwischenraum” has some documents, but they deal mostly to give her client a place for beeing gay and have their christian faith. We hat one anonymus Ex-Ex-Gay in Germany with harm, wehre umbrella “Wuestenstrom” say they can not figure out that this can be true and nobody have shourly said what he belief. The Problem is, that the organisation sues gladly. They also communicaty not with me, because they would better help in the time their clients, our views are to different and they had nothing to warrant against me.And harm… i.e. Gonzales said, that Nicolosi helped him in some cases. But the reparative-thing don’t work for him. He breaked up after one year. He had also no gay friends before. When someone is longer in this and he has hope, he feels no harm. A critical point is when he lose hope, when he see he can not reach the target what he wish (and i think this is mostly to be straight.). And after then the harm is not always clear. Toscano summarized it in Ex-Gay Harm–Let Me Count the Ways. The reparative therapy implements views, i.e. that the cause of the homosexuality is the bad upbringing or sexual abuse. It connect this close. And some deal with this then. And Pilkington also implemets “antireligious phenomenon”. Less faith, more homosexuality. And she want only to help.And i know not much cases that a psychotherapeuthic client had said: I have harm because of the therapeut. Mostly it is in other medical disciplines. And also there: i.e. Ryke Geerd Hamer is also a “faith”-thing. He loose his approbation not because clients “lement” harm. He loose it because there was human death, friends and other family members and other medics. One child with cancer was treated from other medics against the will of the parents with justice authorization.Today is not my best time, it is some confuse, but i hope the readers can take some hints.