This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
The treatment of clerical child abusers has been a source of conflict around the United States and at the Saint Luke Institute. Clinicians who treat offenders often agree that abusive priests cannot be cured but argue that relapse studies suggest that some offenders do respond well to treatment and, although they are not cured, they are less likely to re-offend. Thus, these clinicians argue not for a cure but for successful treatment. [1] [2] ADM ( talk) 05:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well now I've started with a sockpuppet case. I'm sorry if this is a bit boring for anyone who has to witness this, but I think I have uncovered evidence for Born Gay being the banned user Skoojal. Perhaps I am wrong, but if you look back you will see a very similar pattern of editing and commenting. Sigh. Hope I'm right, or I'll have to do a lot of apologising. See this and this and this. Hyper3 ( talk) 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as it is the admitted sock puppet of a disruptive editor, and that he has admitted using a deceptive username, and to have strong views on this topic, and seeing as how he has exerted ownership over this article, would it be appropriate to roll the article back to an earlier version? Will Beback talk 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the general consensus is that SOCE will be the main article and conversion therapy should focus on the definition given by the American Psychiatric Association that conversion therapy is "psychiatric treatment...based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation" and that SOCE that do not fall under this category should remain on the SOCE article. However, it should also be clear that not all sources use this as a definition. I think the bulk of the political debate, medical statements and so forth should be on the SOCE, and this page should summarize the information and point to the SOCE page. I am planning to reorganize the page in that fashion. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 22:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion on homophobia. It was decided that this category should only be applied if it is discussed in the article, but that changes would wait until after mediation. Mediation is over, and there has not been any section added that discusses homophobia. To label this article as homophobia without any reference amounts to OR. If no one adds a reference with this to homophobia, I will remove the category. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 22:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this entry is too long, and the history section needs to be spun off. Also it needs to be matched up with SOCE so we don't get two history articles, as SOCE is the parent article. Any thoughts? Hyper3 ( talk) 12:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Umm, I think this article is incredibly boring and if all the people from NARTH want to write a book about their long sordid history, they should do so but not on Wikipedia. I think this entry needs to be cut down to half its size and feature some of the horrendous techniques that were used in the 60's like electro shock therapy and humiliation/aversion therapy... Of course, the NARTH people will come in and delete it all because most of them were the ones advocating that stuff and they don't want us to make the connections... I can't make these changes to the article because everytime I try to contribute to wikipedia it just gets undone the next day! 98.203.23.189 ( talk) 09:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are 23 empirical studies and case studies published over the past 40 years. Together, they indicate that 1,202 homosexually oriented people out of 3,036 in the 23 studies (40%!) experienced at least some heterosexual shift:
Jones & Yarhouse, Book: Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study, InterVarsity Press, 2007. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 33 out of 73
Shidlo & Schroeder, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 2002. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 14 out of 202
Nicolosi, Byrd & Potts, Psychological Reports, 1997. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 573 out of 882
Berger, American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1994. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1
MacIntosh, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1994. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 276 out of 1,215
Golwyn & Sevlie, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1993. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1
Schechter, International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 1992. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1
Van den Aardweg, Book: On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality, 1986 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 37 out of 101
Schwartz & Masters, American Journal of Psychiatry, 1984 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 35 out of 54
Pattison & Pattison, American Journal of Psychiatry, 1980 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 11 out of 11
Birk, Book: Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal, 1980 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 18 out of 29
Masters & Johnson, Book: Homosexuality in Perspective, 1979 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 29 out of 67
Socaridies, Book: Homosexuality, 1978 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 20 out of 45
Callahan, Book: Counseling Methods, 1976 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1
Freeman & Meyer, Behavior Therapy, 1975 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 9 out of 11
Canton-Dutari, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1974 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 44 out of 54
Birk, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 1974 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 14 out of 66
Liss & Weiner, American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1973 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1
Barlow & Agras, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 2 out of 2
Pittman & DeYoung, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1971 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 3 out of 6
Truax & Tourney. Diseases of the Nervous System, 1971 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 20 out of 30
Hatterer, Book: Changing Homosexuality in the Male, 1970 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 49 out of 143
McConaghy, British Journal of Psychiatry, 1970 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 10 out of 40
-- Joo ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC).
I have NOT taken time to read all the preceeding citations, however, I am familiar with the topic at hand. I think that the American Psychological Association's recent review of research (that is scientific in method and critiques ALL available literature on conversion/reparative treatments) would be an excellent source. While some of these studies provided may show a "heterosexual shift" - no one seems to have defined what "counts" as a "shift". Much of the conversion/reparative lit determines "success" to be abstaining from same-sex behavior. Absence of behavior does not result in the cessation of same-sex attraction. I would encourage carefully defining what "shift" means before stating that so many sources suggest a change in sexual orientation. The citation for the REPUTALBE, scientific study of conversion/reparative treatments is: It should also be noted that NARTH recently re-published old findings from articles that failed to employ a scientific method (in hopes of deflecting attention from the APA task-force report can be downloaded from this page:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexual-orientation.aspx ). Hope this helps - because the available scientific research suggests that human sexuality is set from birth (read Savin-Williams, 2005 book "The New Gay Teenager" for more on the history of this matter). Also, the American Counseling Association, American Psychiatric Association, and American Psychological Association have pretty much concluded that conversion treatments are harmful (see for example:
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx )
Hope this is helpful for the editors! Dustin Shepler —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.227.7.47 (
talk)
03:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the Yarhouse and Throckmorton citation from the bibliography. The PDF link leads to a "404 error" (dead page). The additional link for the citation leads only to an abstract.ToddSurfs 04:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)ToddSurfs —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddSurfs ( talk • contribs)
It's not clear at first glance whether any conversion therapies are voluntary. I get the chilling impression that "conversion" is something done to people against their will.
Can we not distinguish between conversion therapy "done to" people who are less than fully aware and perfectly willing, and reparative therapy sought out by homosexuals who want to change?
I'm assuming that there are volunteers; but if this is disputed, let's write about the dispute.
I have heard that before the 1970s there was a lot of pressure on homesexuals to change, and I've read several accounts of homosexuals forced to undergo "therapies" such as electric shock treatment. But I think this might be contrasted with the work of counselors and mental health professionals who treat only volunteers (assuming there are any).
Anyone else interested in making this distinction with me? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if enough emphasis has been given on the distinction between involuntary and voluntary treatment. I just finished watching " Changeling (film)", which has as a major plot theme the abuse of hospitalization and electroshock for a political purpose (i.e., to stop women from criticizing the police department's effectiveness or making assault charges against individual cops). I hope this isn't swaying my editorial judgment, but merely renewing a proper sense of outrage.
In the past, were homosexual men or women ever committed to mental hospitals and/or subjected to treatments like electric shock, against their will? If so, when did this start; how prevalent was it; when did it end?
Please take this next question at face value: did homosexual people ever voluntarily accept (or even seek) such treatments?
Apart from physical interventions (" aversion therapy"?) what sort of "talk therapies" have been tried?
The reason I ask this is that I want to be clear in our writings about therapies which are offered for "people who want to change", i.e., specifically the ideas and methods of Richard Cohen. What I read and see online indicates frequent misunderstanding or distortion of his (and similar) views. (Or am I the one who misunderstands?)
I think there's a universal modern agreement that no one should be subjected to any kind of conversion therapy against their will. Advocates on both sides of the "born gay" issue agree that involuntary therapy is not just ineffective, it's morally wrong (or unethical).
There's also the issue of whether it's also unethical for a therapist to agree to provide conversion therapy to a volunteer. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Could we please get a list of scientific factors which have influenced the APA's changing position on conversion therapy? In particular, which studies have found that homosexuality is immutable?
I'm also very interested in the results of 'therapy' (other than aversion therapy which involves punishments, shaming, and violations of confidentiality) on patients, both those who were committed or 'sectioned' (or otherwise pressured into submitting) and those who are clearly and unambiguously volunteers.
I'm not advocating one thing or another, although if anyone thinks the fact that I met and talked to Richard Cohen a few times means I could be unconsciously biased in favor of his ideas, I can bow out. I'm simply saying that the article should describe all viewpoints fairly, which should include giving the reasons for various decisions and findings in cases where these are public knowledge. I feel that a summary of the arguments and evidence for each side helps the reader to decide for themselves what's what. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 19:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to do some copy editing to try to clean up and clarify the language in some sections. It is not my intention to change the underlying meaning. If you feel my edits change the meaning unacceptably, I invite you to move the language forward rather than to revert. There are some seriously tortured sentences in here. Viciouslies ( talk) 15:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
In accord with BRDC I have reverted a series of edits by Stepback84 ( talk · contribs), because they were each pretty stark violations of Wikipedia protocol. This edit introduced an editorial and unencyclopædic "It should be noted…" remark that cast fatuous assertions on Shidlo & Schroeder's study. This edit aggravated that offence against NPOV by referring to the "openly gay" researchers and reporting a non-published working title of the report, both tactics clearly meant to imply that gay researchers would produce biased research. This edit added the disparaging word "alleged" to the subheading in violation of WP:ALLEGED. None of the edits I reverted added balance or rectitude to the article; each of them inserted or reinforced the editor's own point of view, and in so doing pushed the article away from the NPOV goal. Before any or all of these edits can be reinstated, we'll need to discuss them here on the talk page and see what consensus develops. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 22:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Are we using the word "controversy" as a synonym for "opposition"? I thought controversy means a dispute between two sides, as when the USA was split in 2000 over whether to elect Gore or Bush. With the exception of a few obscure advocates, I don't see anyone standing up for conversion therapy. The mainstream is adamantly opposed to it, but a one-sided opposition does not make an "intense controversy".
There is no "controversy" in Western academic circles over whether The Holocaust occurred; the controversy is between the largely Christian and Jewish West ("it did") and the largely Arab and Muslim Middle East ("it didn't"). There is no controversy over whether smoking cigarettes increases one's risk of getting cancer; the controversy was in the 1950s and 1960s when the earliest research programs had not yet borne fruit.
Is there any evidence that an intense controversy now exists over reparative therapy, conversion therapy or SOCE? Or is it more a minor matter of advocacy by a few obscure groups, met with opposition by the mainstream? I'm thinking of scientific disputes like that over cold fusion, which is not an "intense" controversy: the mainstream took a long, hard look at the supposed phenomenon, and when no reputable scientist could duplicate it, the scientific world dismissed it.
If there is a controversy, then there must be two sides. Let's not violate our undue weight policy by suggesting that the two sides on conversion therapy have an equal following. If the APA, etc., have dismissed CT as unproven and then pretty much forgotten about it then there is no intensity. It is only if there is evidence of an ongoing anti-CT campaign that we could say there is an intense controversy. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there needs to be some editing of this line : Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations have expressed concern over conversion therapy and consider it potentially harmful.[3][7][8]
Additionally this one :
Mainstream health organizations in the United States find that conversion therapy is potentially harmful, but that there is no scientifically adequate research demonstrating either its effectiveness or harmfulness.
Mainstream? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to leave out mainstream? Especially since it is highly unlikely that large swathes of the scientific community would assert a treatment as potentially harmful with out studies to back up that assertion. I think this is a case of some bias seeping into the article and it should be reworded to a more neutral position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.5.91 ( talk) 05:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
:While you may not approve of the terms, they do indeed apply, even if the zealot term is not usable in the article.
I assume that gay rights is a political issue. Any reason for disagreement here? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to change the intro. It says CT "comprises" a whole bunch of things. However, if you read the source, it turns out that the more "cruel" ones were in use (past tense). I wouldn't want the article to give the impression that anyone still uses or advocates these things.
Unless, of course, there is evidence that anyone still uses such cruel methods as "aversive treatments, including the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals, or nausea-inducing drugs, which would be administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli."
Honestly, I thought that sort of thing went out with " A Clockwork Orange". -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 03:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Someone needs to add something regarding conversion therapy for asexuality, which is really this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoactive_sexual_desire_disorder. But asexuality is being compared to homosexuality as a sort of "sexual preference" and it's beginning to pick up steam as a movement, even though it's really a disorder.
The lead said that conversion therapy is "sometimes called reparative therapy or reorientation therapy". I have simplified that by removing "reorientation therapy." My reasoning is that while a variety of different terms are used for conversion therapy, "reparative therapy" seems to be the only one that is in widespread use. So I don't think it is necessary to mention "reorientation therapy" separately in the lead, as that term seems to be seldom used. Hebradaeum ( talk) 01:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Due to recent events concerning Spitzer's disavowal and the current opinion of the medical establishment as of 2012, I've added the update tag to the lead and the obsolete medical theory category. Viriditas ( talk) 21:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems very very very long. I basically ignored it as I'm guessing will many readers. Insomesia ( talk) 21:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The lead of this page says, "The American Psychiatric Association states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation 'by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue'." I looked up the source, and it seems to be a dead link; it just connects to a page with an error message. Can someone fix this? I'm not sure how to do it. Hebradaeum ( talk) 05:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Someone changed the lead to make it say that Conversion therapy " is controversial a type of sexual orientation change effort " [sic]. The "controversial" part isn't necessary. Anyone can see it is controversial. I think that edit should be reverted. Hebradaeum ( talk) 01:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Stalik added this to the section on reparative therapy: "Some theraupetic approaches of Nicolosi also include usage of pornography." It is possible that what Stalik's addition asserts is correct. Unfortunately, however, the source Stalik used is a blog posting. Blogs are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, with good reason. They have no independent mechanisms for fact-checking and no reputation for general reliability or veracity. This information could go back in if a proper source can be found, but without such a source it must stay out. Suggesting that someone is using pornography in therapy based on a blog posting may violate Wikipedia's BLP policy, and is potentially defamatory. Hebradaeum ( talk) 04:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. I've taken a look at the sources used in this article, and I see some problems. The first sentence of the article reads, "Conversion therapy, sometimes called reparative therapy, is a type of sexual orientation change effort that attempts to change the sexual orientation of a person from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual." The trouble with that is that the source used does not say that. What it says, in full, is, "For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA's concern about the position's [sic] espoused by NARTH and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our futher concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish." There is nothing there that says that conversion therapy is sometimes called reparative therapy, that it is a type of sexual orientation change effort, and that it attempts to change the sexual orientation of a person from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual. Hebradaeum ( talk) 02:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the introductory sentence is an important part of the article, and I don't want to try to change it without discussion, but I thought I should point out that there is a problem with it. Hebradaeum ( talk) 02:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the "obsolete medical theory" category. No references have been provided that state that conversion therapy is specifically an "obsolete medical theory", so the category was unsupported. Note that in order for conversion therapy to be an "obsolete medical theory", it would first of all have to be a "medical theory" of some or any kind (in the same sense in which, say, the germ theory of disease is a medical theory). I consider such view to be far-fetched, and in any event there are no references supporting it. Hebradaeum ( talk) 01:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Why did an editor change "aims" to "purports" in the lead? The American Psychological Association says "aims", and that term does not mean the same thing as "purports". Hebradaeum ( talk) 23:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
About this, I did change one of the "purport" instances to "claim", but not the same one that was previously changed. That was my mistake. As it stands right now, with both changed, it's the way it ought to be. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 23:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
End of discussion when talking about 'reparative' therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.159.14.62 ( talk) 14:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Someone is trying to insert a mention of the fact that conversion therapy is "derided by critics as pray away the gay" in the lead. I'm going to keep on removing that, because Wikipedia is meant to be a serious encyclopedia and not a dumping ground for every random trivial fact that might interest someone. There is quite enough scientific criticism of conversion therapy in the lead - there's no need for silly, vulgar, and totally unscientific criticisms of it. Hebradaeum ( talk)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
The treatment of clerical child abusers has been a source of conflict around the United States and at the Saint Luke Institute. Clinicians who treat offenders often agree that abusive priests cannot be cured but argue that relapse studies suggest that some offenders do respond well to treatment and, although they are not cured, they are less likely to re-offend. Thus, these clinicians argue not for a cure but for successful treatment. [1] [2] ADM ( talk) 05:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well now I've started with a sockpuppet case. I'm sorry if this is a bit boring for anyone who has to witness this, but I think I have uncovered evidence for Born Gay being the banned user Skoojal. Perhaps I am wrong, but if you look back you will see a very similar pattern of editing and commenting. Sigh. Hope I'm right, or I'll have to do a lot of apologising. See this and this and this. Hyper3 ( talk) 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as it is the admitted sock puppet of a disruptive editor, and that he has admitted using a deceptive username, and to have strong views on this topic, and seeing as how he has exerted ownership over this article, would it be appropriate to roll the article back to an earlier version? Will Beback talk 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the general consensus is that SOCE will be the main article and conversion therapy should focus on the definition given by the American Psychiatric Association that conversion therapy is "psychiatric treatment...based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation" and that SOCE that do not fall under this category should remain on the SOCE article. However, it should also be clear that not all sources use this as a definition. I think the bulk of the political debate, medical statements and so forth should be on the SOCE, and this page should summarize the information and point to the SOCE page. I am planning to reorganize the page in that fashion. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 22:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion on homophobia. It was decided that this category should only be applied if it is discussed in the article, but that changes would wait until after mediation. Mediation is over, and there has not been any section added that discusses homophobia. To label this article as homophobia without any reference amounts to OR. If no one adds a reference with this to homophobia, I will remove the category. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 22:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this entry is too long, and the history section needs to be spun off. Also it needs to be matched up with SOCE so we don't get two history articles, as SOCE is the parent article. Any thoughts? Hyper3 ( talk) 12:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Umm, I think this article is incredibly boring and if all the people from NARTH want to write a book about their long sordid history, they should do so but not on Wikipedia. I think this entry needs to be cut down to half its size and feature some of the horrendous techniques that were used in the 60's like electro shock therapy and humiliation/aversion therapy... Of course, the NARTH people will come in and delete it all because most of them were the ones advocating that stuff and they don't want us to make the connections... I can't make these changes to the article because everytime I try to contribute to wikipedia it just gets undone the next day! 98.203.23.189 ( talk) 09:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are 23 empirical studies and case studies published over the past 40 years. Together, they indicate that 1,202 homosexually oriented people out of 3,036 in the 23 studies (40%!) experienced at least some heterosexual shift:
Jones & Yarhouse, Book: Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study, InterVarsity Press, 2007. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 33 out of 73
Shidlo & Schroeder, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 2002. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 14 out of 202
Nicolosi, Byrd & Potts, Psychological Reports, 1997. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 573 out of 882
Berger, American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1994. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1
MacIntosh, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1994. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 276 out of 1,215
Golwyn & Sevlie, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1993. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1
Schechter, International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 1992. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1
Van den Aardweg, Book: On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality, 1986 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 37 out of 101
Schwartz & Masters, American Journal of Psychiatry, 1984 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 35 out of 54
Pattison & Pattison, American Journal of Psychiatry, 1980 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 11 out of 11
Birk, Book: Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal, 1980 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 18 out of 29
Masters & Johnson, Book: Homosexuality in Perspective, 1979 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 29 out of 67
Socaridies, Book: Homosexuality, 1978 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 20 out of 45
Callahan, Book: Counseling Methods, 1976 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1
Freeman & Meyer, Behavior Therapy, 1975 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 9 out of 11
Canton-Dutari, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1974 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 44 out of 54
Birk, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 1974 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 14 out of 66
Liss & Weiner, American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1973 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 1 out of 1
Barlow & Agras, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 2 out of 2
Pittman & DeYoung, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1971 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 3 out of 6
Truax & Tourney. Diseases of the Nervous System, 1971 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 20 out of 30
Hatterer, Book: Changing Homosexuality in the Male, 1970 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 49 out of 143
McConaghy, British Journal of Psychiatry, 1970 Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 10 out of 40
-- Joo ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC).
I have NOT taken time to read all the preceeding citations, however, I am familiar with the topic at hand. I think that the American Psychological Association's recent review of research (that is scientific in method and critiques ALL available literature on conversion/reparative treatments) would be an excellent source. While some of these studies provided may show a "heterosexual shift" - no one seems to have defined what "counts" as a "shift". Much of the conversion/reparative lit determines "success" to be abstaining from same-sex behavior. Absence of behavior does not result in the cessation of same-sex attraction. I would encourage carefully defining what "shift" means before stating that so many sources suggest a change in sexual orientation. The citation for the REPUTALBE, scientific study of conversion/reparative treatments is: It should also be noted that NARTH recently re-published old findings from articles that failed to employ a scientific method (in hopes of deflecting attention from the APA task-force report can be downloaded from this page:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexual-orientation.aspx ). Hope this helps - because the available scientific research suggests that human sexuality is set from birth (read Savin-Williams, 2005 book "The New Gay Teenager" for more on the history of this matter). Also, the American Counseling Association, American Psychiatric Association, and American Psychological Association have pretty much concluded that conversion treatments are harmful (see for example:
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx )
Hope this is helpful for the editors! Dustin Shepler —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.227.7.47 (
talk)
03:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the Yarhouse and Throckmorton citation from the bibliography. The PDF link leads to a "404 error" (dead page). The additional link for the citation leads only to an abstract.ToddSurfs 04:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)ToddSurfs —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddSurfs ( talk • contribs)
It's not clear at first glance whether any conversion therapies are voluntary. I get the chilling impression that "conversion" is something done to people against their will.
Can we not distinguish between conversion therapy "done to" people who are less than fully aware and perfectly willing, and reparative therapy sought out by homosexuals who want to change?
I'm assuming that there are volunteers; but if this is disputed, let's write about the dispute.
I have heard that before the 1970s there was a lot of pressure on homesexuals to change, and I've read several accounts of homosexuals forced to undergo "therapies" such as electric shock treatment. But I think this might be contrasted with the work of counselors and mental health professionals who treat only volunteers (assuming there are any).
Anyone else interested in making this distinction with me? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if enough emphasis has been given on the distinction between involuntary and voluntary treatment. I just finished watching " Changeling (film)", which has as a major plot theme the abuse of hospitalization and electroshock for a political purpose (i.e., to stop women from criticizing the police department's effectiveness or making assault charges against individual cops). I hope this isn't swaying my editorial judgment, but merely renewing a proper sense of outrage.
In the past, were homosexual men or women ever committed to mental hospitals and/or subjected to treatments like electric shock, against their will? If so, when did this start; how prevalent was it; when did it end?
Please take this next question at face value: did homosexual people ever voluntarily accept (or even seek) such treatments?
Apart from physical interventions (" aversion therapy"?) what sort of "talk therapies" have been tried?
The reason I ask this is that I want to be clear in our writings about therapies which are offered for "people who want to change", i.e., specifically the ideas and methods of Richard Cohen. What I read and see online indicates frequent misunderstanding or distortion of his (and similar) views. (Or am I the one who misunderstands?)
I think there's a universal modern agreement that no one should be subjected to any kind of conversion therapy against their will. Advocates on both sides of the "born gay" issue agree that involuntary therapy is not just ineffective, it's morally wrong (or unethical).
There's also the issue of whether it's also unethical for a therapist to agree to provide conversion therapy to a volunteer. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Could we please get a list of scientific factors which have influenced the APA's changing position on conversion therapy? In particular, which studies have found that homosexuality is immutable?
I'm also very interested in the results of 'therapy' (other than aversion therapy which involves punishments, shaming, and violations of confidentiality) on patients, both those who were committed or 'sectioned' (or otherwise pressured into submitting) and those who are clearly and unambiguously volunteers.
I'm not advocating one thing or another, although if anyone thinks the fact that I met and talked to Richard Cohen a few times means I could be unconsciously biased in favor of his ideas, I can bow out. I'm simply saying that the article should describe all viewpoints fairly, which should include giving the reasons for various decisions and findings in cases where these are public knowledge. I feel that a summary of the arguments and evidence for each side helps the reader to decide for themselves what's what. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 19:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to do some copy editing to try to clean up and clarify the language in some sections. It is not my intention to change the underlying meaning. If you feel my edits change the meaning unacceptably, I invite you to move the language forward rather than to revert. There are some seriously tortured sentences in here. Viciouslies ( talk) 15:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
In accord with BRDC I have reverted a series of edits by Stepback84 ( talk · contribs), because they were each pretty stark violations of Wikipedia protocol. This edit introduced an editorial and unencyclopædic "It should be noted…" remark that cast fatuous assertions on Shidlo & Schroeder's study. This edit aggravated that offence against NPOV by referring to the "openly gay" researchers and reporting a non-published working title of the report, both tactics clearly meant to imply that gay researchers would produce biased research. This edit added the disparaging word "alleged" to the subheading in violation of WP:ALLEGED. None of the edits I reverted added balance or rectitude to the article; each of them inserted or reinforced the editor's own point of view, and in so doing pushed the article away from the NPOV goal. Before any or all of these edits can be reinstated, we'll need to discuss them here on the talk page and see what consensus develops. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 22:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Are we using the word "controversy" as a synonym for "opposition"? I thought controversy means a dispute between two sides, as when the USA was split in 2000 over whether to elect Gore or Bush. With the exception of a few obscure advocates, I don't see anyone standing up for conversion therapy. The mainstream is adamantly opposed to it, but a one-sided opposition does not make an "intense controversy".
There is no "controversy" in Western academic circles over whether The Holocaust occurred; the controversy is between the largely Christian and Jewish West ("it did") and the largely Arab and Muslim Middle East ("it didn't"). There is no controversy over whether smoking cigarettes increases one's risk of getting cancer; the controversy was in the 1950s and 1960s when the earliest research programs had not yet borne fruit.
Is there any evidence that an intense controversy now exists over reparative therapy, conversion therapy or SOCE? Or is it more a minor matter of advocacy by a few obscure groups, met with opposition by the mainstream? I'm thinking of scientific disputes like that over cold fusion, which is not an "intense" controversy: the mainstream took a long, hard look at the supposed phenomenon, and when no reputable scientist could duplicate it, the scientific world dismissed it.
If there is a controversy, then there must be two sides. Let's not violate our undue weight policy by suggesting that the two sides on conversion therapy have an equal following. If the APA, etc., have dismissed CT as unproven and then pretty much forgotten about it then there is no intensity. It is only if there is evidence of an ongoing anti-CT campaign that we could say there is an intense controversy. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there needs to be some editing of this line : Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations have expressed concern over conversion therapy and consider it potentially harmful.[3][7][8]
Additionally this one :
Mainstream health organizations in the United States find that conversion therapy is potentially harmful, but that there is no scientifically adequate research demonstrating either its effectiveness or harmfulness.
Mainstream? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to leave out mainstream? Especially since it is highly unlikely that large swathes of the scientific community would assert a treatment as potentially harmful with out studies to back up that assertion. I think this is a case of some bias seeping into the article and it should be reworded to a more neutral position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.5.91 ( talk) 05:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
:While you may not approve of the terms, they do indeed apply, even if the zealot term is not usable in the article.
I assume that gay rights is a political issue. Any reason for disagreement here? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to change the intro. It says CT "comprises" a whole bunch of things. However, if you read the source, it turns out that the more "cruel" ones were in use (past tense). I wouldn't want the article to give the impression that anyone still uses or advocates these things.
Unless, of course, there is evidence that anyone still uses such cruel methods as "aversive treatments, including the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals, or nausea-inducing drugs, which would be administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli."
Honestly, I thought that sort of thing went out with " A Clockwork Orange". -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 03:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Someone needs to add something regarding conversion therapy for asexuality, which is really this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoactive_sexual_desire_disorder. But asexuality is being compared to homosexuality as a sort of "sexual preference" and it's beginning to pick up steam as a movement, even though it's really a disorder.
The lead said that conversion therapy is "sometimes called reparative therapy or reorientation therapy". I have simplified that by removing "reorientation therapy." My reasoning is that while a variety of different terms are used for conversion therapy, "reparative therapy" seems to be the only one that is in widespread use. So I don't think it is necessary to mention "reorientation therapy" separately in the lead, as that term seems to be seldom used. Hebradaeum ( talk) 01:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Due to recent events concerning Spitzer's disavowal and the current opinion of the medical establishment as of 2012, I've added the update tag to the lead and the obsolete medical theory category. Viriditas ( talk) 21:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems very very very long. I basically ignored it as I'm guessing will many readers. Insomesia ( talk) 21:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The lead of this page says, "The American Psychiatric Association states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation 'by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue'." I looked up the source, and it seems to be a dead link; it just connects to a page with an error message. Can someone fix this? I'm not sure how to do it. Hebradaeum ( talk) 05:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Someone changed the lead to make it say that Conversion therapy " is controversial a type of sexual orientation change effort " [sic]. The "controversial" part isn't necessary. Anyone can see it is controversial. I think that edit should be reverted. Hebradaeum ( talk) 01:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Stalik added this to the section on reparative therapy: "Some theraupetic approaches of Nicolosi also include usage of pornography." It is possible that what Stalik's addition asserts is correct. Unfortunately, however, the source Stalik used is a blog posting. Blogs are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, with good reason. They have no independent mechanisms for fact-checking and no reputation for general reliability or veracity. This information could go back in if a proper source can be found, but without such a source it must stay out. Suggesting that someone is using pornography in therapy based on a blog posting may violate Wikipedia's BLP policy, and is potentially defamatory. Hebradaeum ( talk) 04:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. I've taken a look at the sources used in this article, and I see some problems. The first sentence of the article reads, "Conversion therapy, sometimes called reparative therapy, is a type of sexual orientation change effort that attempts to change the sexual orientation of a person from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual." The trouble with that is that the source used does not say that. What it says, in full, is, "For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA's concern about the position's [sic] espoused by NARTH and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our futher concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish." There is nothing there that says that conversion therapy is sometimes called reparative therapy, that it is a type of sexual orientation change effort, and that it attempts to change the sexual orientation of a person from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual. Hebradaeum ( talk) 02:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the introductory sentence is an important part of the article, and I don't want to try to change it without discussion, but I thought I should point out that there is a problem with it. Hebradaeum ( talk) 02:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the "obsolete medical theory" category. No references have been provided that state that conversion therapy is specifically an "obsolete medical theory", so the category was unsupported. Note that in order for conversion therapy to be an "obsolete medical theory", it would first of all have to be a "medical theory" of some or any kind (in the same sense in which, say, the germ theory of disease is a medical theory). I consider such view to be far-fetched, and in any event there are no references supporting it. Hebradaeum ( talk) 01:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Why did an editor change "aims" to "purports" in the lead? The American Psychological Association says "aims", and that term does not mean the same thing as "purports". Hebradaeum ( talk) 23:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
About this, I did change one of the "purport" instances to "claim", but not the same one that was previously changed. That was my mistake. As it stands right now, with both changed, it's the way it ought to be. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 23:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
End of discussion when talking about 'reparative' therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.159.14.62 ( talk) 14:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Someone is trying to insert a mention of the fact that conversion therapy is "derided by critics as pray away the gay" in the lead. I'm going to keep on removing that, because Wikipedia is meant to be a serious encyclopedia and not a dumping ground for every random trivial fact that might interest someone. There is quite enough scientific criticism of conversion therapy in the lead - there's no need for silly, vulgar, and totally unscientific criticisms of it. Hebradaeum ( talk)