« Can’t Get Enough of This Joyful Reunion
Democrats and Republicans: Why Not Lighten Up On Healthcare Townhalls? »
APA Reports: Sexual Orientation Cannot Be Changed
A two-year study conducted by the American Psychological Association on the effectiveness of “conversion” therapies in turning gay people straight has concluded what most rational people already knew: It cannot be done (emphasis mine).
The panel reviewed 83 peer-reviewed journal articles that appeared in English between 1960 and 2007. Most were conducted before 1978, and only a handful had been conducted in the last 10 years. “Unfortunately, much of the research … contains serious design flaws,” said psychologist Judith M. Glassgold of Rutgers University, who chaired the committee. “Few studies could be considered methodologically sound and none systematically evaluated potential harms” from the conversion efforts, she said. Potential harms include depression and suicide attempts.
“Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose,” she said. “At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted, or its long-term mental health effects.”
The APA report is here.
80 Responses to “APA Reports: Sexual Orientation Cannot Be Changed”
Then same sex attraction must be a psychological disorder or psychosis that is apparently untreatable. I don’t think we should stop trying though.
Are you serious?
The APA said in 1975 that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. It's not a psychological disorder; it's not chosen behavior or lifestyle; it's not changeable; and it's no more “abnormal” than having blue eyes (as I do) or being left-handed (as I am).
Homophobia, however, is a different story. I don't believe that homophobia is a psychological disorder, though. I think it's a dysfunctional learned thinking pattern that develops over years of environmental exposure. Richard Rodgers' expression of this idea is still one of the best. (Rodgers, although undoubtedly a wise observer of human nature, should not be confused with Carl Rogers, the well-known psychologist who founded the humanistic, or individual-centered, approach to psychology.)
I've had various ex-girlfriends tell me that I might have one psychological disorder or the other, depending on what mood strikes their fancy. Secretly, I harbour thoughts that my attraction to such women might be the disorder itself, hiding in plain sight. Of course, no one has tried to stopped me being attracted to them. Maybe I'm not trying hard enough.
“I don’t think we should stop trying though.”
What treatments are you proposing, Father Time?
Those who believe that homosexuals can be changed are just like those effing birthers…. They refuse to believe the many scientific studies (and other evidence) out there to support a hogwash theory which fits in with their own self-interest(s).
Father_Time: “I don’t think we should stop trying though.”
So what treatments have you tried on homos to cure them of their sexual fetish, their disorder?
kathykattenburg–
The biological reason for sex is procreation. Besides procreation there is no reason for sex. The normal brain allied with the body tells the human's mind that it enjoys and wants sex for the natural purpose of reproducing itself. The human mind simply obeys or not, and, to what degree or not, it chooses. Therefore sex is ultimately a choice.
If the brain allied with the body tells the human mind that it enjoys and wants sex with a same sex human, then it is doing so in its own self destruction of biological oblivion. This also could be some natural process but I prefer not to think so. I prefer to think it as a simply an abnormality, correctable or not correctable, deviating the mind away from natural biological logic.
Whether same sex attraction is a learned behavior or an abnormality, it is NOT normal natural selection such as “blue eyed or brown eyed” characteristics because it eliminates natural selection by eliminating procreation. It is the actual “end of the line” for that human’s biological immortality.
Correct, once learned [imprinted] at an early age, usually completed by puberty, sexual orientation towards same sex, opposite sex, objects and fetishes of all descriptions usually cannot be changed.
Which is reflective of what the AI industry has known for decades in the animals they train to fixated sexually on a given object.
And this finding underscores why we must un-normalize deviant sexualities of all descriptions apart from the purpose of sex to procreate: to minimize, but not eliminate obviously, fixation on deviant fetishes. Monkey see, monkey do.
Thanks for the article Kathy.
Dr J–
Self introspection.
Father_Time: “The biological reason for sex is procreation.”
Have you ever masturbated or had any other type of sex that was not vaginal (i.e. oral sex) or other sexual stimulus?
If you have ever masturbated or had any other sex (or stimulus) that was not vaginal then what is the difference between indulging in those behaviors and what two guys, or two women do?
And what about sex after menopause? Do you believe that older people are “abnormal” if they have sex? After all the human body has changed and is no longer producing certain hormones…. The woman's body is incapable of producing babies.
Human beings come in many variations, principally determined by our genetics, hormones, and some environment. Many “choices” are hard-wired and not really voluntary decisions. I am a flaming heterosexual a number of gay friends and acquaintances, probably knowing them since my early 20's. A few gay friends in high school did not “come out” until their 20's. They are simply wired differently but they are still humans. My wife and I do not have sex only to have babies but to enjoy each other's company. Now individuals with same-sex attractions may constitute from 5 to 10 percent of the total population. One could easily call that an “abnormality” since it differs from 90 percent of the rest of the heterosexual community. However, there are other deviations or “abnormalities” that heterosexual people (and gay people have) including certain inherited diseases, unusual physical features, or many other things that make humans unique yet very similar as a whole species. Yes, attraction to the same sex may be a biological dead-end since children are not possible but so are many heterosexual people sterile and some married couples choose not to have children for a variety of reasons. Various TMV contributers discussed these ideas in many good posts several months ago before some of the readers and commentators may have joined us. There are many people who do not have any sex with anyone for months or years at a time for a variety of reasons, and that may apply to individuals who are attracted to the opposite, same or both sexes. They are not necessarily abnormal either but simply “different” by the choice of not engaging in sex but it is hardly abnormal in any historical sense. Best regards from a TMV contributor in PHX-AZ, MP – Best regards to Kathy back in my old State of OH.
Thanks Kathy for this update. Was working in the field when homosexuality was pathologized, then dropped from the DSM, then argued about as evangelicals decided to target the APA by joining up while carrying the covert agenda to reassert homosexuality as pathology. It's been a wild ride with exposes of the ill agendas of those who were supposed to be the helpers.
Religious points of view are religious. The APA depends on science. My experience as a shrink for 39 years? THe cruelty and denigration of gays by people who say they are religious, is apparently part of being that particular kind of religious. This was sharp and deeply apparent during the first years of AIDS epidemic where parents who said they were religious, often shunned their dying children, refusing to see them or help them, because the parents had been taught their own child was going to hell. I've witnessed this… too many times, too too many. It is in my work, which is post-trauma, amongst the saddest of ways I've ever seen one human abandon another human being in desperate need of the mommie touch, the father's comfort.
There are however, many religious people, who do not agree to banish, shame or pathologize gay people.
Science doesnt often concur with religion because science is fact based. Evidence based in reality that has to be replicated and closely contained in order to validate or invalidate. Just as there are some who use their religious beliefs a certain way, there are also quasi-scientists who try to skew outcomes too.
But, science that is evidence based and its oftimes replication of outcomes is what most in the helping professions rely on… but also on their own sense of holding others, despite differences, with decency of heart. The oath, If you cannot help, do no harm.
Although its easy to set it up in our culture so that one thought system feels irritated enough to try to spring at the throat of the system of science, or visa versa, to me, it is pointless endeavor, as most are not deeply connected to gay people, do not know firsthand their radiant gifts, hopes or sufferings.
Knowing gay people deeply and loving them, in some, often changes the level of the conversation from condemnation out of pocket, to at least ambivalence, and sometimes, just love. Just love.
However, meanwhile, as some condemn or try to block equal rights for various groups of people, gays seem to make more and more inroads in their quest for rights, and likely will at last winner take all, despite all those who cleave to different or religious beliefs to the contrary.
Just my two cents worth.
dr.e
OK, so how do you explain bi-sexuality, or those who do live one or the other lifestyle, happily, then without any outside persuasion change their orientation?
Very relevant question to me, quite frankly.
I am convinced that when any side of biological/environmental/personal choice argument claims to have an answer that covers all, then they are wrong.
Some, maybe even most, gays are 'hardwired', but I firmly believe some are environmental, and some are personal choice (or experimental).
But here is a great bottom line, IMHO – it is their business. Period.
StockBoySF
My post answers all of your questions SBSF, please read it through.
Same sex attraction is either an abnormality or a choice. In either case it is not a legitimate civil rights issue equal to an example of racial civil rights. Religion is absolutely irrelevant as is percent of population.
Read this clearly: There is NO “read-between the lines” message within my post with any construed meaning that people with same sex attractions are not human deserving of ALL human rights.
Please note that I do not care if you change or not. For those whom WANT to change, as well as for those whom merely seek answers, I advocate vigorous and more available psychiatric research.
What you do and whom you have sex with or marry or ham-fistedly lust for is your private business IMO, as long as it occurs within the boundary of law. However politically, I do not want to be forced to accept, by the expansion of law, bizarre and unnatural behavior as normal behavior, nor do I want our youth educated to believe that it is normal or natural behavior. Simply because it is NOT.
AustinRoth–
One person cannot have intercourse with two people at the same moment. My post covers everything you mention.
Dear Austin, first of all, still have your girl on our daily prayer list. Update us when you can.
Youre accurate. Most hardwired, but could be some by social pressure, et al. Bisexuality is more of a continuum that does not necessarily have 'fixed' preference. However, just from witness as a clinician, when asked by someone with this continuum, I say, dont decide by gender unless you have a strong preference. Even then, decide most of all by whom you come to cherish and love.
It is notable, I think, that the repetitive interest re who does what with whom, why and how, et al… seems a little funny when the often overheated rhetoric rises accusing others oriented one way or another sexually… of being overheated humans themselves.
The research into human sexuality, has not been done by psychiatrists for decades. Research on the mysteries of how we're put together(if such can be pinned down entirely) is done by many reseasrch scientists, some of the most interesting in neurobiology and psychobiology and comparative biology etc.
dr.e
“One person cannot have intercourse with two people at the same moment.”
Um Fathertime, are you maybe still quite young? Your statement is not accurate, not literally or metaphorically. Just saying. Maybe restate it as you meant something not quite so literal?
dr.e
FT –
One person cannot have intercourse with two people at the same moment.
I am not sure why you answered my post as you did. I clearly said bi-sexuality and those who change their sexual preference orientation. I didn't say one word about group sex, which is something else altogether.
BTW – based on my own personal experience, I can also say that your statement was wrong!
Do keep trying. ; )
Father Time,
You need to retake your biology classes again. Human are one of the few mammals where the females do not go into heat. Human women are capaple of having sex at all times because it keeps the men around due to the relatively long pregnancy of women and human children have a long growing time.
AustinRoth,
Thank you for your questions. I have noticed that no one really answer them except for some pointless hand waving. What the argument really comes down is that the mental health industry is stating that homosexual behavior is dominate over heterosexual behavior. Look at how often people are accused of being latent homosexuals. Look at how the avoid the issue of bisexuality. Look at all of the hasbians or homosexual experimentation by college students. The mental health community is basically saying that once someone engages in homosexual behavior, they are homosexual and there is no going back.
The biggest problem for the mental health industry to explain is why homosexuals are whiter, wealthier, and more educated that the population as a whole. all of the demographic data seems to indicates that there are life chioces that affect sexual behavior but there would rather not talk about them.
Male homosexuality is both nature and nurture. An Australian paper in psychology detailed a survey of gay men and their one-egg twins. The correlation was high – the incidence of both sons being gay was higher than, say, 5 or 10 percent.
So there.
But this is beside the point. Homosexuality will always be 100 % acceptable whether it is a choice or decided by biology, and anyone who disagrees with that is… I'm going to go with a diplomatic choice of word here: “unwise”.
AustinRoth–
My statement was not wrong. You need to read it again. (hint-there is a difference between Brain and Mind).
superdestroyer–
[Human are one of the few mammals where the females do....ect..ect..]–
What on earth does that have to do with anything posted here?
I'm with AR here – could be nature, could be nurture or some combo of the two.
But, I'm a firm believer in live and let live. Its not my lifestyle, but opposing it is more harmful to society than embracing it, because repressing one's sexual identity causes psychosis and the break-up of families. I can't think of a bigger waste of one's resources than trying to use therapy to change back into a heterosexual! In these economic times it should be unthinkable- because it doesn't work.
archangel–
Yes literally. One penis can only actually be at one place at one time. I'm not speaking in useless metaphors here, I'm speaking about actual space. So unless you can shiskabob two people with one penis…now do you get it??
Father_Time,
What if you are one of the rare people who do have 2 penises and then could potentially have sex with 2 people.
Scientific research doesn't support your conclusion. Only your beliefs support it. I really wish people who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds would just say so, instead of spouting such nonsense as this in an attempt to coopt real science.
Nor can straights be turned gay, as conservatives are so afraid of…
What I find ironic is, based on the 20 or so gay men and 6 or so gay women in our acquaintance circle, none of them show half the interest in this discussion that the straights do.
Kastanj–
Homosexuality is not natural. However I noticed that you differentiated away from female same sex attraction. In that case it can't be “nurture” either. Based on that suspicious Freudian slip, a hard look must be done considering same sex couples and child adoption, at least for male same sex couples.
Also your “egg” example is totally irrelevent. 5 or 10 percent?
100% acceptable? Well in that case there is no need for civil rights legislation regarding same sex attracted people. LGBT activists can go home.
jeainnj–
So tell me, what was unscientific about my conclusion?
Also, as I stated earlier, religion is irrelevant. My comments are not based in any religion.
Same sex sexual behavior is either an abnormality or learned behavior. It is not natural or normal.
Father Time,
I'd like to know what research you base this on, because I haven't heard any scientist say that.
Marshall Gauntt–
In that case that individual could possibly have normal and natural sex and abnormal and unnatural sex at the same time, but not in the same place at the same time.
jeainnj–
Say what? That the biological reason for sex is procreation?
“Homosexuality is not natural. “
Yes it is. It is common in countless species in nature. It does not fly in the face of any higher purpose of our naughty bits. Don't anger me.
“However I noticed that you differentiated away from female same sex attraction.”
Lesbianism is a more complex matter that I have not read much research about. Lesbianism is still 100 % acceptable – religious convictions that it is unnatural is, however, not acceptable. Homophobes should suffer social and societal opprobrium so that they stop humiliating themselves by wasting their right to free speech on homophobic opinions.
“Based on that suspicious Freudian slip, a hard look must be done considering same sex couples and child adoption, at least for male same sex couples.”
What are you trying to say? That a gay male pair that adopts a kid will boff it in order to spread their agenda? Assume for a second that you are not among your peers and have to speak with a degree of humility and respect.
“Well in that case there is no need for civil rights legislation regarding same sex attracted people.”
Just because something is acceptable doesn't mean everyone will be intelligent enough to act as if this is a fact. Just like people in Africa will find it a moral imperative to cut of a small girl's clitoris, even though it is 100 % wrong. I can't wait for my generation to outlive and forget the uselessness and homophobia of the previous ones…
There are females who are born without functional ovaries and men born without functional testes. These people will never be able to conceive children. So I guess there's no reason for them to have sexual intercourse right? I guess the same goes for post-menopausal women.
I guess, according to your logic, these people all must have some kind of psycological problems if they want to have sex. I suppose the same goes for the rest of us who enjoy having sex without wanting to conceive children from the act.
nicrivera–
No.
“The normal brain allied with the body tells the human's mind that it enjoys and wants sex for the natural purpose of reproducing itself. The human mind simply obeys or not, and, to what degree or not, it chooses”….
In your scenario, the Body has an abnormality. Not the brain or the mind.
Father_Time,
If all human beings on the planet were heterosexual, and if every human being on the planet paired up with a member of the opposite sex and procreated, what kind of strains do you think that would place on humanity in general?
Consider for one moment the possibility that homosexuality is one of a number of mechanisms in nature that enable human life to continue on this planet. If procreation were the be-all and end-all of human survival, then human life would have died out a long time ago, Clearly, the survival of the species is NOT dependent on every single last human being procreating.
Kastanj—-[Yes it is. It is common in countless species....]
Sorry but your comments are a bit irrational. There are no normal same sex attracted animals. Note that animals may have abnormalities and mental disorders as well as humans.
My political premise is LGBT civil rights legislation. Meaning I do not want further LGBT legislation because I believe it unnecessary. Thus “gay rights” as it were, does not need to be a political issue.
kathykattenburg–
Well, as I stated earlier, there may be a natural selection process at work, but it would suggest elimination of a gene line by same sex attraction. Maybe there are particular gene lines that trigger same sex attraction so that particular gene line does not procreate and is thus eliminated. In that case it would be part of the natural selection process making same sex attraction natural and normal. However I would hate to break such news to my gay/lesbian friends.
You are very smart Kathy.
Homosexuality is not natural.
Homosexuality IS natural, by definition, and it is normal. “Normal” carries a broader meaning than just “statistically most common.” Very few (if any) human behaviors or characteristics exist in all human beings. There are variations. And whether it's plainly apparent or not (and often it isn't), all human variation has some kind of adaptive purpose, if it persists. Maladaptive human characteristics die out over time, and homosexuality has been present and has stayed constant in terms of percentage of population throughout human history.
As a matter of plain, objective fact, same-sex attraction is a normal variation of human sexuality. You may be repulsed and frightened by the idea of same-sex attraction, but your repulsion and fear do not make homosexuality abnormal or unnatural.
“There are no normal same sex attracted animals.”
Are you their psychologist now? Of course some neurons somewhere in the brain tells guys to get it on with other guys rather than other chicks (the brains and the electrical lattice inside the brain cannot be identical while producing different behavior) but you can't really say what is normal anyway. Yes procreation is super-important. That doesn't mean that it is normal per se. There's nothing good or bad about procreation. It just is.
“Meaning I do not want further LGBT legislation because I believe it unnecessary. Thus “gay rights” as it were, does not need to be a political issue.”
Yes it is. Gays should be able to join the military, adopt and have complete equality under the law including matters of recognized unions. Anyone who disagrees is just as bad as a racist. Now and forever. Stop complaining or get flattened by the inevitable course of societal progress.
“See, you called me a “homophobe”.”
And you called other human beings unnatural, which means that you called me unnatural. You're no better than a racist. Stop complaining about the heat or get out of the kitchen, you unspeakably rude and solipsistic person.
You are very smart Kathy.
Thank you.
kathykattenburg–
[Maladaptive human characteristics die out over time, and homosexuality has been present and has stayed constant in terms of percentage of population throughout human history]–
Ok. then human repulsion of same sex attraction as a natural response to same sex attraction has existed throughout history and could then not be considered “maladaptive” by your analogy. Why? A natural response to the obvious threat against the continuation of the species?
I think we agree that a species natural prime directive, (if you will excuse the term), is to succeed. Expanding or contracting in numbers may play a roll in succeeding. Natural selection may indeed “select” some gene lines for oblivion. These eliminating mechanisms may be biological or psychological manifestations such as cancer, or, suicide, or same sex attraction??
What else?
FT…Bonobo chimps have homosexual sex….not just a small percentage of them…but ALL of them.
To say homosexuality is not natural is factually incorrect.
“then human repulsion of same sex attraction as a natural response to same sex attraction has existed throughout history and could then not be considered “maladaptive” by your analogy.”
It might not be maladaptive, but while we are animals, we are not beasts. That human repulsion (which is completely a result of conditioning, not an instinct) is just as intolerable an impulse in society as giving special treatment to people of your own skin because you have a natural affinity towards people of the same skin color as your family.
Rape, racism, violence, subjugation of women. All of these are results of the natural impulses you extol. Just admit that it is not acceptable to call homosexuality unnatural or abnormal and stop pretending as if you have anything to add to the subject.
So, after we have marginalized and heaped our natural and understandable disgust on those species-endangering gays, who shall we turn to next? I know, how about the people who sow discord and conflict in our society by calling other members of his species “unnatural”?
You have no idea about the golden rule. If you really are the friend of these gays and lesbians like you say, you should do the adult thing and stop harboring your views of them in secret. Be a man and tell them of your armchair understanding of the natural origin of the hatred your friends are a target of.
just a note re someone who said “then natural repulsion of same sex attraction…”
For most, it's not a repulsion. It's just mundane lack of interest. There's no big charge about it. There's no reason for a het woman for instance to be 'repulsed' for instance, just to say a simple no thanks to a man (men) who are circling. It's not repulsion, at least not in an even-minded woman, it's just not a strong interest for engaging. It's not a fight or an insult or some big deal. It's flattering and sweet often, but, It's just life as usual. No 'repulsion'
I'll say it again: there will be exceptions always which we must tolerate and have empathy towards but we must never normalize them else we will have abnormal “queer” become normal. When reality is tweaked by aping humans we'll have a problem on our hands. So far the majority want heterosexuality to stay the “norm”.
There are no homosexual humans, just like there are no shoe-fetish humans and no pedophile humans. These behaviors are aquired after birth via imprinting. Seriously, read up on the procedures the AI industry uses to induct various animals [usually male stud animals] into fixating on any given object to reach climax. From the point after they are trained [or select via environmental conditions and habituate to] they will prefer said “object” from that point on over all others.
To make matters worse, like I said, people, especially children, imitate the adult members of their society. You go making homosexuality and other fetishes the norm, [accepted and stamped as such by society] then you can hang your hat on exponentially increasing numbers of said in the future.
I think the imprinting aspect of homosexuality and other fetishes is what Father Time was referring to when he said: “Self Introspection”. If any person looks back honestly and far enough they will find where they became habituated to their “preference” [no longer true once it becomes habit] via outside pressures, frustrations or incidents that presented to initiate the first few critical orgasm/association experiences. Don't forget, molestation often includes blackout to repressed memories that “aren't allowed” to be part of any survey that researchers conduct. Were all the subjects undergoing regressive hypnotherapy? If not, the results are probably skewed…
Silhouette, as homosexuality has become more accepted over the last 2 decades, where is the surge in numbers you assert should be there? If your argument is a valid one, surely there would be a much greater % of homosexuals than there currently is.
As for your patterning argument, studies show children raised by homosexuals have no greater tendnecy toward homosexuality than those raised by heterosexuals.
Sil and Father_Time: since you believe the primary purpose of sex is to reproduce, what do you think of a man raping a woman? After all he is only doing what nature wants him to.
And if you think women have a choice to say “no” when it comes to sex, then are you also saying that those women do not have to follow the biological imperative to reproduce. If you are fine with women choosing not to have babies all the time, then what distinctions do you draw between that and two people who have sex for purposes other than procreation?
If we're talking about the continuation of the species…. Our planet has a finite amount of resources which we are rapidly using up. In fact every day hundreds of millions of people go hungry.
Are you also saying that humans should reproduce until we exhaust our resources and all die? The better population control we have the longer we as a species will survive on this planet.