Comments on: The roots of preventing homosexuality: George Rekers uncovered at Box Turtle Bulletin

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:28:03 +0000

In reply to David Blakeslee. The website appears to be down...

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:39:04 +0000

Guys… to clear up some stuff (this is a complicated story)
The issue is not really whether the program is solely responsible for Kirk’s suicide. That is a bit unknowable and frankly a bit of a red herring.
The issue is that George Rekers made claims about the effectivity of therapy to prevent homosexuality. As evidence he presented Kraig and the story of Kraig was the primary evidence reported over his 30+ year career.
Rekers cannot say “I didn’t know.” Because he CLAIMED to know. As recent as 2009 (when Kirk had been dead for six years) Rekers was presenting the story of Kirk as evidence of his success.
So CONSEQUENCE ONE: whatever claims that Rekers made based on the Kraig case study no longer have any basis. Kraig did not “grow up straight” as Rekers reported. This speaks not to intent, but simply to the study being a failure rather than a success.
Further, Rekers should have known that Kraig was not a success. The follow up in his late teens reported (it’s there in the black and white) that Kirk had attempted suicide in the previous year. If this did not set off red flags for Rekers (and it appears that it did not) then Rekers may possibly be the single worst therapist to walk the face of the planet.
Truly, is there a greater sign of failure than your patient trying to kill themself at 17? Regardless of the reason for the attempt, clearly there’s a problem. To declare this kid to be “cured” has go to be callousness on a colossal level.
CONSEQUENCE TWO: George Rekers has demonstrated a desire to report conclusions that supported his agenda rather than facts. Thus, we know that any positions based on Rekers’ research has no basis.
So the twin pillars of Rekers and Kraig must be removed from the structure of reparative and preventative therapy.
I suspect that when these are removed, the entire structure has insufficient support. We will have to see.

By: Teresa

Teresa — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:39:04 +0000

Thank you, Timothy, for your explanation. As usual, with many of your comments, this further comment of yours was well written and cogent.
Thank you, also, David Blakeslee, for your invaluable insights on this issue.
I do have two further questions:
How much of reparative therapy and NARTH are dependent on George Rekers and his writings?
Do you think NARTH, et. al., will take note of this and in any way amend their current position regarding reparative therapy?

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:39:04 +0000

Cattle-prods! OMG!
(I suppose that, back in the day, ‘therapists’ did some pretty crass and brutal things. What a good thing that many have ‘moved on’. What a shame that people like Rekers have not.)

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:39:04 +0000

And it is truly terrible of me…. but Reker’s compatriot in the whole mess was a guy named… Dr. I. Lovaas
Only a Mel Brooks character could have gotten away with that name.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:39:04 +0000

Timothy – Make sure you write about that; gives some indication of how broadly this story is being followed.

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:39:04 +0000

Thanks Zoe. A very interesting commentary.
I’m sure you are correct to suggest that there are instances where ‘treatment of last resort’ might be necessary, if only to protect others. (After all, despite the very poor record that prisons have when it comes to the rehabilitation of offenders, we still deem it necessary to send some people to prison in order to ‘protect society’.) But to say that such ‘treatment of last resort’ is actually therapeutic is a contention that strikes me as very difficult to justify; I suspect that such ‘treatment’ is not administered to help the client her/himself – rather because it is deemed necessary or convenient for others. I take the view that doing something to someone ostensibly for others’ perceived benefit is not what ‘therapy’ is about. Therapy must be directly beneficial to the client, or else it isn’t therapy. Period.
I suspect that many experiments on ‘sissy boys’ etc are not motivated by a desire to help the boy in question, but rather in response to the aspirations and/or ideological bents of others. Thus such experiments surely fail the principle ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes true ‘therapy’. Rekers had an ‘axe to grind’ (he was, I suspect, projecting his own agenda onto his clients); this ipso facto rules him out as an effective therapist.

By: Throbert McGee

Throbert McGee — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:39:04 +0000

The issue is not really whether the program is solely responsible for Kirk’s suicide. That is a bit unknowable and frankly a bit of a red herring.
The issue is that George Rekers made claims about the effectivity of therapy to prevent homosexuality.

Thanks for making this point so clearly, Tim. Even if Kirk hadn’t killed himself for whatever reason, this story would still be scandalous because of the Wonkatastical-scale “fudging” of data (possibly exaggerating Kirk’s effeminacy, whitewashing the corporal punishment involved in the “poker-chip” system, not reporting the teenage suicide attempt, not attempting to do long-term follow-ups with Kirk as an adult, etc.).

By: David Blakeslee

David Blakeslee — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:39:04 +0000

Teresa,
My hunch is they will lift my arguments about confounding variables to deny that “reparative therapy” can account for Kirk’s being harmed.
Secondly, they are likely to say that a reparative model that is not interpersonally focused is likely to have poor effects and easily results in poor outcomes.
I don’t know of anyone, during my brief NARTH experience, that ever advocated for a behavioral model like Rekers’ to treat unwanted SSA.
Rekers’ model is not psychodynamic or interpersonal in nature. Joe’s work with adults will not be changed, his book on preventing homosexuality in children will need to be amended.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:39:04 +0000

David
I agree with points 1 through 5.
But I think it is irrelevant to points 1 through 5 that Kirk committed suicide. The reporting of Kraig was neither more nor less inaccurate in 2002 than in 2004.
I think what is confusing is that we are conflating the two questions on sexual orientation therapy: 1) is it effective, and 2) is it harmful.
Kirk’s story significantly contributes to the question as to whether such therapy is effective. As the Kraig study has been instrumental in supporting the therapy, the revelation that it does not support that theory – and, in fact, refutes it – is very important.
As to the second question, the harm of orientation therapy, the suicide might be relevant but to a much lesser degree. We cannot claim that Kirk’s suicide is directly linked to the therapy (regardless of the family’s beliefs). There were just too many other factors to make such a claim.
So while it may be interesting (and worth consideration) Kirk’s suicide does not give conclusive testimony to either effectiveness or harm. That’s why I was calling it irrelevant (though your term “secondary” might be better)