Chris,
Quote:
(1) in lots of cases the therapy simply does not work;
(2) the side effects can be very bad: depression and the development of suicidal tendencies are not unkown;
(3) many ex-gays later turn into ex-ex-gays;
(4) no serious medical organization aproves of this kind of therapy;
(5) in the case of "aversion therapy" it is rather hard to see how the actual practice of this therapy is to be reconciled with the concept of human dignity;
(6) quite often the therapists do not have proper qualifications and, compared to standard psychotherapy practices, seem to operate in rather amateuristic ways.
|
In my opinion it is because the field has been politicized by for lack of a better term 'pro gay' forces -the same way the fields of anthropology and history took far left terms post WWII. Anthropology's turn was based on out right falsification and lies - which are still widely believed.
With improved techniques, and as you imply - if more professional bodies took up the practice, we might see better results.
Most substance treatment programs like AA and such have low sucess levels too. i don't think its a reason to stop them.
You say the side effects can be bad - maybe so, but the successes often say they find new levels of happiness - even one of the psychologists who treated them said he was able to get gays out of a destructive anonymous sex pattern - there are plenty of testimonials here:
Interviews/Testimonials
regarding spitzer:
Spitzer's conclusions are simply this: based on his study, there is evidence to suggest that some gay men and lesbians are not only able to change self-identity, but are able to modify core features of sexual orientation, including fantasies. Spitzer Study Critiqued in the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy It appears that the activist-authors of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy were outraged that the study was published at all, a sad commentary for a professional journal. Spitzer's motives were questioned, his credibility attacked and his research subjected to a kind of scrutiny unparalleled in any scientific arena.
As a scientist, I find the journal's approach in this issue to be both disingenuous and intolerant. Disagreement among scientists is healthy. Name-calling and intimidation tactics are not.
To me, that speaks volumes.
Socarides treated patients for homosexuality throughout his career. He reported that "about a third" [1] of his patients became heterosexual and led heterosexual lives after treatment. Charles Socarides - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far