Psychologists Say Gay to Straight Therapy is Crap

[Treacle]

Psychologists Reject Gay ‘Therapy’

The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the resolution, adopted by a 125-to-4 vote. The association said some research suggested that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.

Glad they're taking an official stand on the matter.

Full article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/06gay.html?hpw).

[Dylan]

Something good today...finally.

[The Hodag]

I'm sort of surprised a statement of this weight hasn't been issue before, but it's certainly an issue we still drag our feet on.

Anyway, great to see the momentum continuing. I just hope the word makes it out fast to the people really struggling with whether they need to be "fixed."

[Dylan]

I'm sort of surprised a statement of this weight hasn't been issue before, but it's certainly an issue we still drag our feet on.

Still bizarre to me.


Anyway, great to see the momentum continuing. I just hope the word makes it out fast to the people really struggling with whether they need to be "fixed."


Unfortunately, I doubt their families will accept this as "god's word" and the continued (unfortunately) "in-question" will have to deal with this ridiculous notion.

[Ryan Elliott]

http://blog.newsarama.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10087/normal_24.jpg

Not directed at anyone here, just in general. :)

[David Aspmo]

But what about straight to gay therapy? Surely that works.

[The Hodag]

Unfortunately, I doubt their families will accept this as "god's word" and the continued (unfortunately) "in-question" will have to deal with this ridiculous notion.

True, but it's another chink in the armor. The APA's declaration is absolutely gonna make the rounds, hopefully get some good news airtime, and be the kind of thing a confused kid might find if he goes poking around the internet.

It's forward momentum. It's good news.

[King of Mars]

The APA is crap. :) Hey, I agree, this trying to change peoples' sexuality is silly. Let people boink whatever gender makes 'em happy. That being said, I'd bet dollars to donuts the APA doesn't have even close to enough evidence to support this sort of strong, declarative statement. This is a case of them bowing to pressure from a special interest group and taking a stance on a controversial, psychological issue long before they should. I guess it's cool if this proves comforting to gay people who are struggling with their sexuality, but I don't think it's good that the APA decided to adopt this 'pro-gay' agenda without having more facts to back it up. Yes, the APA exists to help people, but I expect their opinions and methods to be shaped by detached, scientific study, not a pre-determined, PC agenda. It just doesn't seem right to me to have our foremost authority on psychological study basically say, "Well, hey, we don't have a whole lot of evidence to back these claims, but society will be a lot better place if we take this stance, so let's go for it." They need a much greater sense of detachment when evaluating this stuff.

[Blue Flash]

The APA is crap. :) Hey, I agree, this trying to change peoples' sexuality is silly. Let people boink whatever gender makes 'em happy. That being said, I'd bet dollars to donuts the APA doesn't have even close to enough evidence to support this sort of strong, declarative statement. This is a case of them bowing to pressure from a special interest group and taking a stance on a controversial, psychological issue long before they should. I guess it's cool if this proves comforting to gay people who are struggling with their sexuality, but I don't think it's good that the APA decided to adopt this 'pro-gay' agenda without having more facts to back it up. Yes, the APA exists to help people, but I expect their opinions and methods to be shaped by detached, scientific study, not a pre-determined, PC agenda. It just doesn't seem right to me to have our foremost authority on psychological study basically say, "Well, hey, we don't have a whole lot of evidence to back these claims, but society will be a lot better place if we take this stance, so let's go for it." They need a much greater sense of detachment when evaluating this stuff.

To add to what you are saying, psychology really should stop being classified as a science and more as a branch of sociology. As a field of study, it describes its claims in a non-scientific manner (not adequately backed up by falsifiable, demonstrable evidence)...

Of course, I'm generalizing, however, in the case of this article, I think the claim that gay to straight therapy can have negative emotional and psychological effects on the patients undergoing such a process is a statement that actually ignores the political bias that allows for something like gay to straight therapy exist in the first place and therefor is a coherent, grounded and rational attitude.

Also, the APA has never been shy from making claims they later take back or modify (again, not very scientific of them). For example, they are now in the process of redefining what constitutes PTSD for the FIFTH time, to make it more restricted, like how the initial definitions of it were.

[Treacle]

That being said, I'd bet dollars to donuts the APA doesn't have even close to enough evidence to support this sort of strong, declarative statement. It just doesn't seem right to me to have our foremost authority on psychological study basically say, "Well, hey, we don't have a whole lot of evidence to back these claims, but society will be a lot better place if we take this stance, so let's go for it." They need a much greater sense of detachment when evaluating this stuff.


Oh lord...:roll:

You do know what the APA is, right? They are the foremost professional organization for psychologists in the U.S. Most of its members either have Ph.D's or are working towards Ph.D's. In short, they've not only read the research, they write the research.

It might help you to read the official press release (http://www.apa.org/releases/therapeutic.html?imw=Y) from the APA, where, among the other things, they state the following:


APA appointed the six-member Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation in 2007 to review and update APA's 1997 resolution, "Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation," and to generate a report. APA was concerned about ongoing efforts to promote the notion that sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy or approaches that mischaracterize homosexuality as a mental disorder.

The task force examined the peer-reviewed journal articles in English from 1960 to 2007, which included 83 studies. Most of the studies were conducted before 1978, and only a few had been conducted in the last 10 years. The group also reviewed the recent literature on the psychology of sexual orientation.

As to the issue of possible harm, the task force was unable to reach any conclusion regarding the efficacy or safety of any of the recent studies of SOCE: "There are no methodologically sound studies of recent SOCE that would enable the task force to make a definitive statement about whether or not recent SOCE is safe or harmful and for whom," according to the report.

"Without such information, psychologists cannot predict the impact of these treatments and need to be very cautious, given that some qualitative research suggests the potential for harm," Glassgold said. "Practitioners can assist clients through therapies that do not attempt to change sexual orientation, but rather involve acceptance, support and identity exploration and development without imposing a specific identity outcome."

So not only have they performed an exhaustive literature review, they're also taking the moral and ethical high ground by advocating a position of doing the least harm. The way it stands now, sexual orientation therapy not only has a null effect on sexual orientation, it also appears to cause real, personal damage.

[Treacle]

Also, the APA has never been shy from making claims they later take back or modify (again, not very scientific of them). For example, they are now in the process of redefining what constitutes PTSD for the FIFTH time, to make it more restricted, like how the initial definitions of it were.


Dude, science--all branches of science--revise the literature as more details come to light. That's actually a huge part of what science is and what distinguishes it from things like religion which remain the same even in the face of conflicting evidence.

[Blue Flash]

Dude, science--all branches of science--revise the literature as more details come to light. That's actually a huge part of what science is and what distinguishes it from things like religion which remain the same even in the face of conflicting evidence.

That's very true, I overstepped there.

But I still feel that psychology, relative to other fields of science, can benefit from being more rigorous in its overall approach if it really wants to be part of that grouping of research and practice disciplines.

[Treacle]

That's very true, I overstepped there.

But I still feel that psychology, relative to other fields of science, can benefit from being more rigorous in its overall approach if it really wants to be part of that grouping of research and practice disciplines.

I understand.

Though, to be fair, people and those concepts surrounding them are somewhat fuzzier and harder to grasp than the things used in the hard sciences.

[Blue Flash]

I understand.

Though, to be fair, people and those concepts surrounding them are somewhat fuzzier and harder to grasp than the things used in the hard sciences.

Yeah, science hasn't been able to develop a full understanding of all the various emotional states (for example) as well as suits our needs as a species. Sure, we can talk about how hormone levels and the receptors in the brain determine certain behavioral changes and so on for ages but it's obviously not enough of an answer so far :-?

[EmarAndZeb]

http://blog.newsarama.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10087/normal_24.jpg

Not directed at anyone here, just in general. :)

I can't stop chuckling at this strip.

[Basketball Jesus]

I'm just glad that, in the interest of journalistic integrity, the associated press gave equal time on the subject of psychological opinion to the APA and to the people who think that being gay makes Jesus cry.

[Superior Kiai]

An in other news, the Earth is still round, the sky is still blue and 2+2 may still equal 4. Keep up the good work! ;)

[bartleby]

Well, I hope all those "reformed homos" will be able to get refunds.

[Marcdachamp]

Big deal. Trey Parker and Matt Stone beat them to it and managed to be much more biting and funny.

[Jim T.]

But what about straight to gay therapy? Surely that works.

:)

[ArttyG12]

http://images.southparkstudios.com/img/content/characters/135a.jpg

[Boris the Blade]

Someone needs to do all these dudes a favor and seduce them, one by one, until they are comfortable with themselves.

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

In other news, water is wet.

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

But what about straight to gay therapy? Surely that works.

That's called "a couple C-notes and mai tais".

[HOOKS]

*looks at thread*

*looks at this post by Khrutch (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showpost.php?p=5977971&postcount=3553)*

:mistrust:

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

*looks at thread*

*looks at this post by Khrutch (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showpost.php?p=5977971&postcount=3553)*

:mistrust:

Funny, I wouldn't leave my kids alone with him either, so that the retardedness doesn't rub off on them.

[Ben]

*looks at thread*

*looks at this post by Khrutch (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showpost.php?p=5977971&postcount=3553)*

:mistrust:http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l8/ben543250/comicstrips/071-denial071607.gif

[Captain Sensation]

and i was just about to download Chasing Amy, oh well.

[adam_warlock_2099]

Why does someone homosexuial need any therapy to make them straight?

[19bernardo87]

My mom is a psychologist, and she never had someone ask her to help go from gay to straight, but she says that she would have to unfortunately turn them down if they did.

She didn't think she could "cure" them, much less that they needed curing (she thought if they were unhappy it was either because they or others in their lives didn't yet accept their homosexuality, and that's what needed to be addressed).

But she thought she was a minority, and heavily influenced by the fact that our family always had quite a few gay friends.

Anyway, I'm sending this link to her.

[ernster]

Why does someone homosexual need any therapy to make them straight?

they don't. many people believe it to be morally reprehensible, often because of their religion or their upbringing.

here's a quote from sam harris' book:

"your principal concern appears to be that the creator of the universe will take offense at something people do while naked. this prudery of yours contributes daily to the surplus of human misery."

even if faithheads finally accepted that being gay is as inborn as your skin color (and ultimately no source of shame or pride), there would still be people who have to take offense at something that is not their concern.

[Hate_Prime]

*looks at thread*

*looks at this post by Khrutch (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showpost.php?p=5977971&postcount=3553)*

:mistrust:

Despicable.

[usagi20]

The APA stopped classifying homosexuality as a mental illness over thirty years ago. So this is really just an extension of that.

[DAVE]

*looks at thread*

*looks at this post by Khrutch (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showpost.php?p=5977971&postcount=3553)*

:mistrust:

Holy shit, how have I never seen that post? That post should be stickied at the top of the board always and forever.

[bartleby]

*looks at thread*

*looks at this post by Khrutch (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showpost.php?p=5977971&postcount=3553)*

:mistrust:

For those they don't want to read all of that, I've take the liberty of quoting the relevant part:


I love gay folks

[adam_warlock_2099]

they don't. many people believe it to be morally reprehensible, often because of their religion or their upbringing.

here's a quote from sam harris' book:

"your principal concern appears to be that the creator of the universe will take offense at something people do while naked. this prudery of yours contributes daily to the surplus of human misery."

even if faithheads finally accepted that being gay is as inborn as your skin color (and ultimately no source of shame or pride), there would still be people who have to take offense at something that is not their concern.

I agree. The only reason that homosexual people could/do feel uncomfortable about their sexual preferences is because too many people can't get their damned noses out of other people's life.

I would think that this subject would ever come up as far as "cureing" homosexuality is because some people think their opinion is law.

[Jef UK]

Yeah, science hasn't been able to develop a full understanding of all the various emotional states (for example) as well as suits our needs as a species. Sure, we can talk about how hormone levels and the receptors in the brain determine certain behavioral changes and so on for ages but it's obviously not enough of an answer so far :-?

We're getting there with cognitive studies and AI and the like. Knowledge of how the brain works (and the resulting social insights) has boomed in the last decade. BOOMED!

[Jef UK]

Despicable.

Agreed.

[The Hodag]

For those they don't want to read all of that, I've take the liberty of quoting the relevant part:

Couple with a Keith P. quote in a sig line for maximum awesomeness. :lol:

[MIKE D]

Despicable.

Ugh. That is the single most revolting thing I've ever read on this board.

[19bernardo87]

Ugh. That is the single most revolting thing I've ever read on this board.

Is that a serious post? What was the context?

[MIKE D]

Is that a serious post? What was the context?

Knowing him, that was a serious post.

[Arion]

Glad they're taking an official stand on the matter.

Full article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/06gay.html?hpw).

It was about time.

[WinstonWolf]

I think this is a great step in the right direction. And psychology is definetely a science.

[Ryan Elliott]

Ugh. That is the single most revolting thing I've ever read on this board.


If not the, it definitely ranks the fuck up there.


Just makes me so angry and sad that there are people like THAT out there, willing to manipulate other people to their own agenda. Manipulate them down to their very CORE, just to further the "message" of a fucking book that was written and re-written by dozens of different ignorant people over hundreds of years.

It makes me so physically ill to see distraught people confused over something that they should NOT be confused about taken advantage of by some fucking wingnut with a cross around their neck and told that they're not right and that they need to change.

Goddammit this gets me fucking angry.

I need to go watch some Tom and Jerry to calm down.

[Ben]

If not the, it definitely ranks the fuck up there.


Just makes me so angry and sad that there are people like THAT out there, willing to manipulate other people to their own agenda. Manipulate them down to their very CORE, just to further the "message" of a fucking book that was written and re-written by dozens of different ignorant people over hundreds of years.

It makes me so physically ill to see distraught people confused over something that they should NOT be confused about taken advantage of by some fucking wingnut with a cross around their neck and told that they're not right and that they need to change.

Goddammit this gets me fucking angry.

I need to go watch some Tom and Jerry to calm down.Tom hated Jerry because Jerry was gay.

[HOOKS]

If not the, it definitely ranks the fuck up there.


Just makes me so angry and sad that there are people like THAT out there, willing to manipulate other people to their own agenda. Manipulate them down to their very CORE, just to further the "message" of a fucking book that was written and re-written by dozens of different ignorant people over hundreds of years.

It makes me so physically ill to see distraught people confused over something that they should NOT be confused about taken advantage of by some fucking wingnut with a cross around their neck and told that they're not right and that they need to change.

Goddammit this gets me fucking angry.

And now I have had my revenge. :lol:

[Ryan Elliott]

Tom hated Jerry because Jerry was gay.

Then Jerry was in some amazing denial because the episode I just watched saw both Tom, Jerry, and Jerry's little devil side fall in love with some girls.


And now I have had my revenge. :lol:

Do the stanky leg hooks! :mad:

[bartleby]

Tom hated Jerry because Jerry was gay.

Hanna-Barbera didn't make Tom and Sherry. They made Tom and Jerry.

[19bernardo87]

Hanna-Barbera didn't make Tom and Sherry. They made Tom and Jerry.

Brilliant!

[Jacques Toochay]

The APA is crap. :) Hey, I agree, this trying to change peoples' sexuality is silly. Let people boink whatever gender makes 'em happy. That being said, I'd bet dollars to donuts the APA doesn't have even close to enough evidence to support this sort of strong, declarative statement. This is a case of them bowing to pressure from a special interest group and taking a stance on a controversial, psychological issue long before they should. I guess it's cool if this proves comforting to gay people who are struggling with their sexuality, but I don't think it's good that the APA decided to adopt this 'pro-gay' agenda without having more facts to back it up. Yes, the APA exists to help people, but I expect their opinions and methods to be shaped by detached, scientific study, not a pre-determined, PC agenda. It just doesn't seem right to me to have our foremost authority on psychological study basically say, "Well, hey, we don't have a whole lot of evidence to back these claims, but society will be a lot better place if we take this stance, so let's go for it." They need a much greater sense of detachment when evaluating this stuff.

What an odd post.
They relied on data from 83 different studies over the last 40+ years to reach their conclusions. That seems like a lot of data to me but it apparently doesn't meet your criteria for credibility.
How much evidence should they have had?

[Captain Sensation]

Hanna-Barbera didn't make Tom and Sherry. They made Tom and Jerry.

this was truly sensational, the timing, and all.

[19bernardo87]

How much evidence should they have had?

Only one person is apt to answer this question.

Evidence Expert Wendy Wright!
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/images/wendywright.jpg

[Jacques Toochay]

Only one person is apt to answer this question.

Evidence Expert Wendy Wright!
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/images/wendywright.jpg

Oh, I quite understand that people like her and Bachman don't believe in statistics and/or mountains of correlating evidence. They require each and every person (fossil) to be found and interviewed (analyzed) before a conclusion can be properly made.
I'm just trying to determine if Mars fits into that camp as well.

[usagi20]

If not the, it definitely ranks the fuck up there.


Just makes me so angry and sad that there are people like THAT out there, willing to manipulate other people to their own agenda. Manipulate them down to their very CORE, just to further the "message" of a fucking book that was written and re-written by dozens of different ignorant people over hundreds of years.

It makes me so physically ill to see distraught people confused over something that they should NOT be confused about taken advantage of by some fucking wingnut with a cross around their neck and told that they're not right and that they need to change.

Goddammit this gets me fucking angry.

I need to go watch some Tom and Jerry to calm down.

It's OK for gay teenagers to be confused about their sexuality. It's just that religion is the last place they should go to resolve that confusion.

[Ray G.]

Despicable.

He clearly has a ton of self-hate and projects it outward. It's sad.

I wonder just how many of the hardcore homophobes have this going on. Certainly seems to be enough around.

[Khrutch]

Does anyone really take the 'expertise' of psychologists seriously? They are wrong. I and I know others who can say for a fact they are wrong.

[Mattman]

Does anyone really take the 'expertise' of psychologists seriously? They are wrong. I and I know others who can say for a fact they are wrong.
So you liked the cock until you gave your balls to Jesus? This explains a lot.

[Khrutch]

Psychotherapy won’t change anything, but Jesus can change everything. Been there, done that.

:)

[WillieLee]

Some say psychology is crap. Do you hear that Ben?

[Morrison_Lad]

Does anyone really take the 'expertise' of psychologists seriously? They are wrong. I and I know others who can say for a fact they are wrong.

This post does more to imply that you could use psychological help than it does impugn psychology.

[Treacle]

Does anyone really take the 'expertise' of psychologists seriously? They are wrong. I and I know others who can say for a fact they are wrong.

Actually--

On second thought, nevermind.

[Khrutch]

So you liked the cock until you gave your balls to Jesus? This explains a lot.

It explains that I once was lost, but now I am found and I would never go back.

:)

[Mattman]

Psychotherapy won’t change anything, but Jesus can change everything. Been there, done that.

:)
Were you a top or a bottom?

[WillieLee]

What an odd post.
They relied on data from 83 different studies over the last 40+ years to reach their conclusions. That seems like a lot of data to me but it apparently doesn't meet your criteria for credibility.
How much evidence should they have had?

One of the biggest criticisms of psychology is that they use very small study groups. So to counteract this criticism, some psychologists will gather together multiple studies in order to meet the agreed minimum sample size. But this could lead to erroneous conclusions.

[19bernardo87]

Alright, guys it's my fault. I linked Krutch to this thread. :(

After this and posting those Wendy Wright youtube clips, I must be the least popular person on the forums right now... you know... after Krutch. :)

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

Alright, guys it's my fault. I linked Krutch to this thread. :(

After this and posting those Wendy Wright youtube clips, I must be the least popular person on the forums right now... you know... after Krutch. :)

Well, now that WinstonWolf is gone, you're probably right!

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

It explains that I once was lost, but now I am found and I would never go back.

:)

Don't worry, guy. You'll always be a homosexual to me.

[Mattman]

Well, now that's WinstonWolf is gone, you're probably right!Wonder if that a forever thing.

[Jacques Toochay]

One of the biggest criticisms of psychology is that they use very small study groups. So to counteract this criticism, some psychologists will gather together multiple studies in order to meet the agreed minimum sample size. But this could lead to erroneous conclusions.

I can see that.
But shouldn't one actually examine the studies before assuming they are flawed?

Honestly, the finding seems to be pretty much common sense to me so I'm just trying to get Mars to flesh out his objection to it a little more beyond the strange anti-APA rant he posted.

[Ryan Elliott]

Does anyone really take the 'expertise' of psychologists seriously? They are wrong. I and I know others who can say for a fact they are wrong.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PaHcZUHI00

[King of Mars]

Oh lord...:roll:

You do know what the APA is, right? They are the foremost professional organization for psychologists in the U.S. Most of its members either have Ph.D's or are working towards Ph.D's. In short, they've not only read the research, they write the research.I was a psych major. I know what the APA is...and I know that, just like most Gotham criminals, they're a superstitious and cowardly lot. Frankly, I don't think they have the balls to confront this sort of thing objectively.






So not only have they performed an exhaustive literature review, they're also taking the moral and ethical high ground by advocating a position of doing the least harm.Problem is, adopting the "position of doing the least harm" may provide some short term benefits (like cutting the legs out from under a few conservative chuckleheads' arguments), but it could also rob us of a true understanding of our sexuality. Really, if you remove the religiously based arguments against homosexuality from consideration, what's the problem with exploring the idea that sexuality may be a changeable thing?

[King of Mars]

I can see that.
But shouldn't one actually examine the studies before assuming they are flawed?Conversely, shouldn't you examine the studies before assuming that they're legit? You don't think it's a bit odd that a task force looking to "calm the polarized debate between religious conservatives who believe in the possibility of changing sexual orientation and the many mental health professionals who reject that option" happened to suddenly find the basis for a declarative statement on the subject in a bunch of thirty year old studies?


Honestly, the finding seems to be pretty much common sense to me so I'm just trying to get Mars to flesh out his objection to it a little more beyond the strange anti-APA rant he posted.Why is it common sense? The world is full of examples of the changeable nature of sexuality.

[Hate_Prime]

It's a choice!

...that apparently needs several hours of therapy and divine fucking intervention to make, but still.

[The Hodag]

Does anyone really take the 'expertise' of psychologists seriously? They are wrong. I and I know others who can say for a fact they are wrong.

http://www.bob-marley-mp3-videos.com/photos/discographie/rastaman-vibration.jpg

[Hate_Prime]

It explains that I once was lost, but now I am found and I would never go back.

:)

Is it okay to jerk off on a guy's foot every now and then, at least? That doesn't warrant Jesus taking me to his torture land, right? I mean, without a safety word.

[The Hodag]

Why is it common sense? The world is full of examples of the changeable nature of sexuality.

I'd say it's common sense that trying to force a change in sexuality on someone against their instincts is a pretty awful notion. Sexuality's too tied to identity for that to not fuck with someone.

[oconnellmd]

Clearly these so-called "scientists" haven't spent enough time watching the What To Think Network:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRT3zs23sLk

[oconnellmd]

You know, I didn't think I had any gay in me, but after just catching myself thinking, "Man, I feel like I'm spending my whole night loading Bendis' Twitter", I now have to wonder...

[Morrison_Lad]

I'd say it's common sense that trying to force a change in sexuality on someone against their instincts is a pretty awful notion. Sexuality's too tied to identity for that to not fuck with someone.

It's ridiculous.

You don't get "turned" gay or straight.

[Morrison_Lad]

You know, I didn't think I had any gay in me, but after just catching myself thinking, "Man, I feel like I'm spending my whole night loading Bendis' Twitter", I now have to wonder...

That's not gay.

That's just masochistic.

[MIKE D]

It explains that I once was lost, but now I am found and I would never go back.

:)


So that's a yes.

[Black Roman]

This should be interesting . . . :D

[information]

Does anyone really take the 'expertise' of psychologists seriously? They are wrong. I and I know others who can say for a fact they are wrong.

Scientologists?!

[Black Roman]

Dude, science--all branches of science--revise the literature as more details come to light. That's actually a huge part of what science is and what distinguishes it from things like religion which remain the same even in the face of conflicting evidence.

QFT.


Well, I hope all those "reformed homos" will be able to get refunds.

Heh.


Someone needs to do all these dudes a favor and seduce them, one by one, until they are comfortable with themselves.

:lol:


*looks at thread*

*looks at this post by Khrutch (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showpost.php?p=5977971&postcount=3553)*

:mistrust:

Oh god, I think actually feel physically ill now. Just . . . no.


Tom hated Jerry because Jerry was gay.

It all makes sense now!


Were you a top or a bottom?

He sounds like a bottom to me.


Scientologists?!

http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/blog/tcruise3.jpg

:D

[adam_warlock_2099]

He sounds like a bottom to me.


Tom Cruise?

[Black Roman]

Tom Cruise?

Him too.

http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/0/T/T/spEP912--Trapped_in_the_Closet--3.jpg

[adam_warlock_2099]

Him too.

http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/0/T/T/spEP912--Trapped_in_the_Closet--3.jpg

So Tom Cruise is gay?

[Black Roman]

So Tom Cruise is gay?

I think it would surprise no one.

[King of Mars]

I'd say it's common sense that trying to force a change in sexuality on someone against their instincts is a pretty awful notion. Sexuality's too tied to identity for that to not fuck with someone.I think it's likely you're correct. That being said, I'd like to see the APA base their policies and treatment strategies on more than just 'common sense', gut feelings about the human condition. Really, a bunch of 30-40 year old studies suddenly yielded information that allowed the APA to take a definitive stance on this issue? Come on! That's hard to believe. The APA may have taken the right path in this instance, but that approach to psychology/science is bound to do us more harm than good in the long run.

Also, there's evidence to suggest that, for some people, sexuality IS a 'changeable' thing. This edict sends the message that sexuality is a rigidly defined aspect of the human condition, and that's clearly not the case. I'm fine with the APA saying they don't see any value in reparative therapy, but why do that in way that seems to discourage further examination of the flexible nature of human sexuality?

[Black Roman]

Also, there's evidence to suggest that, for some people, sexuality IS a 'changeable' thing. This edict sends the message that sexuality is a rigidly defined aspect of the human condition, and that's clearly not the case. I'm fine with the APA saying they don't see any value in reparative therapy, but why do that in way that seems to discourage further examination of the flexible nature of human sexuality?

Actually, I don't think that's what they are saying at all . . .

[Arion]

This should be interesting . . . :D

Interesting and funny.

[Black Roman]

Interesting and funny.


And in khrutch's case, sad and disturbing.