Why "Conversion Therapy" Should Be Illegal

[Danoh]

Me too, but it wasn't sexual. That would only come years later. As you said, it took a certain age to even get that far. I'm fairly convinced the sexual desires are something to be steered later in life. At this point in our age, sexual would have been an 'ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!' We didn't want a girlfriend for that reason at all. At least I didn't. It was simply 'relating to girls' at that point. I think her name was Lisa or something. I was in kindergarten. My mom and grandma asked if I like a girl at school and I said "Lisa" or whatever her name was was. They asked if she knew and I said " no." They told me to go tell her. I really didn't want to, but at their bidding, the next time she was passing out papers I said "Lisa?" She said "what?" I said, "I love you." She said 'Shut up!' That was the end of "Lisa" or whatever her name was. Later I had a friend named Nikki. She was just a fun friend. One day I gave her a nickel to buy some candy as we walked home together. We'd walked home together for three years and often stopped at the store. She threw my nickel in the bushes, and that was the end of Nikki: She cost me a whole nickel!

There was no 'sexual' desire and I'd have been horrified at 'orientation' at that age regarding the matter. It was all, just as I'd said, role-playing and most likely from the pattern my parents had set. I very much believe broken homes are the cause of nearly all confusions.

Great post.

:thumb:

 

[Danoh]

1. At the personal: It was interesting to listen to him, but (his admission he was excitable notwithstanding) I don't think I could relax in a therapy session with him, he doesn't have a sense of calmness about him (sounds almost like an evangelist). Clients need to have a good rapport with their therapist and there will be those who will respond better to him than others, even very well. I know that. I just can tell I wouldn't be one of them.

2. At the professional: I looked him up and found a couple things to make me question. Here's a 2015 quote from him:

There’s really only one primary issue fueling this therapy ban,” he continued. “It’s not about harm, or therapy, or children. This is about the normalization of homosexuality, no matter how harm comes to children.​

Wait, what? Does that fit with his testimony?

At the same link:

Pickup began experiencing same-sex attractions that lasted throughout much of his life. He later participated in authentic reparative therapy that he says helped saved his life. Today, Pickup is a licensed marriage and family therapist in California with extensive expertise in reparative therapy. He also serves on the board of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH).​

What is NARTH?

The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), also known as the NARTH Institute, is a US organization that promotes conversion therapy, a series of discredited, dangerous and unethical regimens that purport to change the sexual orientation of people with same-sex attraction.



So... he's testifying against practices promoted by an organization for which he serves on the board?

Also, one of his questioners remarked on a blurring of the lines. Not ethically (I'm not insinuating that in the slightest) but I wonder about that too -perhaps in his professional emotional distance, considering how his clients' mental status and emotions might overlap with his own life experiences, and where might one end and the other begin?

Also I'm familiar with the therapies he listed: psychodynamics, C/B, EMDR (not too keen on the pschodynamics), but I have no idea what SPSS therapy is. SPSS is the behavioral statistics software program. Maybe I misunderstood him, but I went back and listened again and it still sounded like SPSS.

Walk a mile in his moccasins.

For it is evident he has just been severely smeared by the presenters who spoke before him.

Also, as clear as he was throughout in his relating his distinguishing between someone who was a victim of some childhood trauma, whom he treats, if that is what they desire, and someone who says he was born gay, and are fine the way they are, and his acceptance of them as that - nevertheless, the two people questioning him continue to hammer away at him as if he has not pointed said distinction out, let alone, repeatedly.

You ought to know what that's like, anna, you constantly find yourself being addressed by various people on here from what is clearly deaf and dumb ears on their part, just as clearly compelled by an animosity on the part of such.

At the same time, the guy nevertheless does end up looking a bit like he could perhaps stand for one more session or two under his own therapy.

:chuckle:

Which reminds me of - an important principle - there is what is called Therapist's Syndrome.

Where someone very highly skilled at helping others through Therapy is not necessarily as successful at helping himself with it, because that actually requires a different set of skills.

Food for though ms benedetti.

 

[Stripe]

It's not OK to be gay.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[annabenedetti]

Walk a mile in his moccasins.

For it is evident he has just been severely smeared by the presenters who spoke before him.

Is it evident, though? I didn't hear any of the presenters who spoke before him.

Also, as clear as he was throughout in his relating his distinguishing between someone who was a victim of some childhood trauma, whom he treats, if that is what they desire, and someone who says he was born gay, and are fine the way they are, and his acceptance of them as that - nevertheless, the two people questioning him continue to hammer away at him as if he has not pointed said distinction out, let alone, repeatedly.

I don't know, Danoh, I perceived it differently, since I don't think they "hammered away." They had questions, good ones, and he answered them. Quite articulately.

You ought to know what that's like, anna, you constantly find yourself being addressed by various people on here from what is clearly deaf and dumb ears on their part, just as clearly compelled by an animosity on the part of such.

Not the same thing, though. We're just people on the internet with opinions and our conversations mostly fly off into the digital wind to be forgotten. He has a grave obligation to the clients he treats, he essentially holds their mental and emotional health in his hands. This is no small thing, it's lives. Hearts. Minds.

At the same time, the guy nevertheless does end up looking a bit like he could perhaps stand for one more session or two under his own therapy.

:chuckle:

Kinda what I was getting at.

Where someone very highly skilled at helping others through Therapy is not necessarily as successful at helping himself with it, because that actually requires a different set of skills.

Therapists are human too - and there are times therapists need therapists. I remember a close family member being treated decades ago for what they would then have called a nervous breakdown, caused by quite a lot of overwhelming stress. That family member told me that there was only the one visit -it was obvious the psychiatrist was crazier than a loon. :chuckle:


I notice you didn't mention his serving on the board of directors of NARTH. In light of his testimony, it seems to me that's a very big thing.

 

[Idolater]

It's not OK to be gay.

Sn rmm MA2FuigTptl

Under no circumstances can homosexual acts be approved.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Well, again what I found interesting in the testimony is the things he doesn't do and the reason why he has to say he doesn't do these things. You can be certain that there are plenty of other therapists who are doing these things, particularly taking a patient because the parents want him changed and not the patient himself. And if he is in the NARTH leadership, he is supporting that activity.

Looking at it again there was one comment that leads me to suspect he is not being totally honest in his comments that he doesn't try to convert the unwilling.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Under no circumstances can homosexual acts be approved.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

 

[Idolater]

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

And under no circumstances can homosexual acts be approved.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

And under no circumstances can homosexual acts be approved.

But they are and will continue to be so under numerous circumstances.

 

[Idolater]

But they are and will continue to be so under numerous circumstances.

Then we should be naming homosexual acts, so that we're all clear about what exactly that they are.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Then we should be naming homosexual acts, so that we're all clear about what exactly that they are.

Pretty much the same as heterosexual acts. There are no activities that homosexual engages in that are not also engaged in by heterosexuals. This forum is not a place to get into the details, I would refer you to the abundance of sex education materials available at most bookstores and libraries if you need.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Yes everyone I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, I'll leave it at that Idolater.

 

[Idolater]

Pretty much the same as heterosexual acts. There are no activities that homosexual engages in that are not also engaged in by heterosexuals. This forum is not a place to get into the details, I would refer you to the abundance of sex education materials available at most bookstores and libraries if you need.

There are licit sexual acts, and there are illicit sexual acts---ones that under no circumstances can be approved. Homosexual acts are some of those, and there are acts done illicitly by heterosexuals that also under no circumstances can be approved.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

There are licit sexual acts, and there are illicit sexual acts---ones that under no circumstances can be approved. Homosexual acts are some of those, and there are acts done illicitly by heterosexuals that also under no circumstances can be approved.

There are acts that apply equally to both, mostly involving non-consent that are illicit, yes.

 

[Idolater]

There are acts that apply equally to both, mostly involving non-consent that are illicit, yes.

No, non-consent is a different matter: rape.

 

[Danoh]

Is it evident, though? I didn't hear any of the presenters who spoke before him.



I don't know, Danoh, I perceived it differently, since I don't think they "hammered away." They had questions, good ones, and he answered them. Quite articulately.



Not the same thing, though. We're just people on the internet with opinions and our conversations mostly fly off into the digital wind to be forgotten. He has a grave obligation to the clients he treats, he essentially holds their mental and emotional health in his hands. This is no small thing, it's lives. Hearts. Minds.



Kinda what I was getting at.




Therapists are human too - and there are times therapists need therapists. I remember a close family member being treated decades ago for what they would then have called a nervous breakdown, caused by quite a lot of overwhelming stress. That family member told me that there was only the one visit -it was obvious the psychiatrist was crazier than a loon. :chuckle:


I notice you didn't mention his serving on the board of directors of NARTH. In light of his testimony, it seems to me that's a very big thing.

I don't always address every point in my posts that I do address in my mind.

Take Your NARTH point, there.

First thing I thought of when I read your original words on that was "and various people within any organization can often be found compelled to but have to follow a different drummer on some aspects of what the organization they hold with, holds, sound or unsound.

I previously observed as much about differences of opinion by people within the ACLU.

It appears you simply forgot to step back just a bit further where a resulting, much wider frame of reference allows seeing a possible hole in one's own argument one can then adjust one's conclusion in light of.

Likewise as to my other points. Just a matter of a wider frame of reference.

Speaking of which, towards that myself, (for I cannot allow myself to simply ignore what might actually have been an astute observation on your part on some other point), I watched the video that follows the one you posted.

Turns out he holds that although homosexuality is not due to a gene, according to him, it is nevertheless still due to one trauma or another, in those cases where a sexual abuse was not the originating agent.

And judging from what he was basing his findings on in said other video, it appeared to me that he has merely ended up at having concluded on origin or root cause a bit too soon in his work.

My own observations have resulted in my concluding that no trauma of any kind need have taken place as an originating agent.

What I do is ask myself questions like 'okay, at the same time, within what other VERY similar context might a conclusion like this one (his) simply NOT fit?'

Answer - within the well known attraction of many a straight male to the idea of two women making out.

Where's the supposed trauma as a root cause compelling that in such men?

It's not.

Rather, that is men compelled to deviate from their straight attraction to that one.

Which is what the root definition of the word deviance is - a deviating from, what course or path (pathology) one had previously been compelled to follow, to some other course, or path.

As in "oh wait, there's a fast food place - lets stop a sec and pick up some grub - we still have time..."

Its a same kind of an on the spot compulsion.

Back to the drawing board, Doc.

Even within the dynamic the following passage is describing, there is an exception to its rule or principle...

James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Lust is basically another way of saying desire.

And in the above, it is the particular desire and its equally particular root cause, that are being described in the negative.

For even in Scripture, things are not a "one size fits all" other than in the eye of a conclusion arrived at too soon.

Note The Things That Differ between the following two Different compulsion descriptions...

Matthew 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

Matthew 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.

Back to the drawing board Doc Pickup (that doc's name on that video).

 

[Arthur Brain]

Me too, but it wasn't sexual. That would only come years later. As you said, it took a certain age to even get that far. I'm fairly convinced the sexual desires are something to be steered later in life. At this point in our age, sexual would have been an 'ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!' We didn't want a girlfriend for that reason at all. At least I didn't. It was simply 'relating to girls' at that point. I think her name was Lisa or something. I was in kindergarten. My mom and grandma asked if I like a girl at school and I said "Lisa" or whatever her name was was. They asked if she knew and I said " no." They told me to go tell her. I really didn't want to, but at their bidding, the next time she was passing out papers I said "Lisa?" She said "what?" I said, "I love you." She said 'Shut up!' That was the end of "Lisa" or whatever her name was. Later I had a friend named Nikki. She was just a fun friend. One day I gave her a nickel to buy some candy as we walked home together. We'd walked home together for three years and often stopped at the store. She threw my nickel in the bushes, and that was the end of Nikki: She cost me a whole nickel!

There was no 'sexual' desire and I'd have been horrified at 'orientation' at that age regarding the matter. It was all, just as I'd said, role-playing and most likely from the pattern my parents had set. I very much believe broken homes are the cause of nearly all confusions.

Well obviously they weren't sexual at such an age for me either but all the attractions and crushes I had from that age until the following onset of adolescence and beyond were for the opposite sex. Puberty simply took the innate heterosexual wiring to the next obvious step. Would it really bother you if orientation is hard set for people before puberty? You downplay the way you saw girls differently to boys at six IMO. You seem to want to reduce it to something other than what it most probably was. As an adult, when I've had conversations with friends and peers on the occasion the subject comes up I've yet to talk with one who thought they choose their attraction. Granted, the vast majority are straight but it's very simplistic to think that all those who have a different orientation to heterosexuality come from broken homes. That's reaching to say the least. There are plenty who'd tell you that they knew where their attractions were as young as the ages of you and I and come from stable family backgrounds.

 

[Stripe]

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

Ew.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Ew.

The text is from the link Idolater posted to the Vatican, the Catechism of the Catholic Church - the Sixth Commandment.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The text is from the link Idolater posted to the Vatican, the Catechism of the Catholic Church - the Sixth Commandment.

Eh, don't expect too much in the way of compassion, respect, sensitivity and understanding from Stripe. Or logic for that matter. He's also not a catholic so he won't care about the catechism. What you can expect from Stripe is dumb little drive by posts such as "It's not okay to be gay" and the like. Hardly worth bothering with...