Okay, fair enough. I never did look up that point.
Then I'm happy to be of service.
> no conversion therapy to date has been proven to be successful
Well, I would generally say that this is an insufficient justification for banning the practice.
Actually, given the fact that no conversion therapy has been proven to be successful, but most methods (if not all) have been proven to cause the patients harm, I think that's a very sufficient justification to ban it. Hypothetically speaking, I wouldn't want my kid sister being told she should not want to have brown eyes because society frowns upon people who have brown eyes and that she should want to change her eye color to blue, so much so that she should pursue a conversion treatment that has never been proven to work, but can leave her half-blind, as it already did to many... Not the best analogy, but I hope it makes it clear why I think conversion "therapy" is an awful thing.
In every area of science, there are important discoveries and techniques that, at one point, "had never worked in the past." But, because someone kept trying and adjusting their methods, it finally worked.
First off, in no area were people ever used as guinea pigs (and the few times when they were, it was before an ethical code for scientific research was developed).
Also, that's why I said that the real question is whether or not you think that homosexuality is in some way wrong and should be changed (which as I said, I don't). To get back to my analogy, one could maybe one day device a way to change everyone's eye color into blue. But is it necessary just because it's possible? Isn't it more important for all of us to know that be your eye color, hair color, skin color, race, religion or sexual orientation whatever it may be, it's just a part of human diversity? Because I happen to believe that the human race is, was and always should be diverse. Not just because the world would be boring otherwise, but because it would mean we can't deal with the hatred of the "other", the different, and that this type of hatred ultimately wins out. And that's not the kind of world I want to live in. And of course, it's a world in which hatred won't cease to be, there will always be someone needing to hate and they'll find some other reason to hate and discriminate on the base of.
He seemed different, from the bits we saw on the screen.
[...]
I did not get the impression that he tried to instill self-loathing in his patients.
I agree that more often than not he seemed compassionate, or at least not out to change all gay men into straight, only the ones who come of their own free will, and he seemed not to push the issue. But did he mean it? He doesn't really have a choice about patients seeking him out rather than the other way around, and once they're there, telling them they should be gay if they're so happy about it, isn't that a manipulative use of reverse psychology? They're obviously not happy with it, and he knows it. He could have, of course, taught them a whole different way of looking at themselves and at the world, he could have sought out another way to help them be happy with themselves, but he didn't, did he? And that choice is what defines him.
Plus, you disregarded the example I brought that showed he wasn't quite so respectful of some gay men's choice to live their lives as gay men, when he compared their love to that of a man's to a dog... His true colors showing. That's instilling self-loathing, alright, like much the whole thing with the "wonder-pill". Disgusting technique designed to bring to the surface all the parts of oneself that one isn't happy with, in this case all labeled as "being gay", like somehow being straight is the solution to everything. Well, let me tell you, straights are often as miserable and incomplete as anyone, only they don't walk around thinking all their problems will be solved if only they were gay, willing to conceal and hide parts of themselves in order to seem so.
That taints your "fact" with your personal opinions.
Something you learn in your first year at university is that all facts are "tainted" to some degree by personal opinions, some just more so than others, and the one thing you can do about it is be honest about what your opinions are. Yes, I don't think gays should be ashamed of being gay. I never thought so, not even when I didn't know a single gay person. Similarly, I don't think black people should be ashamed of being black, Jews of being Jewish, etc. And unlike sexual orientation, changing your religion actually is a possibility. Well, I'm Jewish. And as a kid, I've encountered anti-Semitism. And my life has been harder for being Jewish. And it will continue to be so, most likely. But guess what? That's life as far as I'm concerned. Just because it's easier to be a Christian or a Muslim than a Jew doesn't mean we should all convert from Judaism. And as I said, we Jews at least have an actual option of changing our religion. Gays don't even have that, as far as we know. All they have is the promise of some people that "there has to be a way, and if there is a way, it will be found! Sometime. In the future. Soon! Or maybe not so..."
And you mean to tell me that you think gays should want to spend their lives wishing they were something they can't be, something they may never be able to be, and something that isn't so obviously better than what they are (social acceptance excluded)? That seems to me like the sure fired way to ensure that not only will they be miserable, but to one extent or another, so will everyone around them who loves them. Because if you really love someone, how can you be happy when they're so unhappy about themselves?
And as for what you said, about people hating themselves and how they should go out and chance whatever it is they dislike - if they can change it and be happy about it, good on them. But what if they can't? And worse, what if they can, but that still leaves them unhappy, because their self-hatred runs deeper than the way their nose look, and how they feel about their nose is only a symptom of how they need to learn to love themselves a bit more? Just so you know, plastic surgeons always go on about how plastic surgery helps their clients feel better about themselves, but the rate of suicide attempts (surely the most radical criterion for self-loathing and thus, should be the rarest) is three times higher in people who have undergone plastic surgery than in the general population.
Granted, we don't have pills yet to change sexual preference or gender or race, but if they were, you can bet your bottom dollar that people would be using them.
Like I said, I don't think people should want to change their race either (and by the way, you actually can change your gender nowadays), I think we should strive to make this world a better one for all minorities rather than tell the minorities that they should want to change themselves due to the way society views and treats them. May not happen so quickly, but if we tell those amongst us who are different to change, it surely won't ever happen. And how horrible will that be, our not even trying anymore to make this world a better place?
as Frank pointed out earlier in the movie, Dr. Baldwin was trying to convert every gay into some kind of militant crusader
Was he? Or was that Frank's perception, greatly influenced by Dr. Apsey? Because I agree that Dr. Baldwin was wrong with the way he went about this particular business, but beyond that, you never see how he treats his patients or other gay people. What you do see is that he demands of himself to be the best gay activist he can be. And what's wrong with that? If you don't go over-board, as he did in this particular case, it's actually the best thing you can do. And by going over-board, what I mean he should have kept strictly to filing a complaint, like he eventually realized himself he should have. Although, considering how he was probably seeing on a weekly basis the damage caused by Dr. Apsey's supposed therapy, I can see how he would lose sight of what's proper and ethical, and go for the "sure kill" instead.
I used to have a , but damnit do I want a !
reply
share
bing-57
18 years ago
> I wouldn't want my kid sister being told she should not want to have brown eyes ... Not the best analogy
Well, a better analogy might be if your kid sister (let's say that she is at least 21) has small breasts and society makes her feel inadequate. Should she get enhancement surgery or simply learn to like her "mosquito bites?"
I know many women who are more than happy about having their breasts "converted."
> First off, in no area were people ever used as guinea pigs
Humans are almost always used as Guinea pigs. I have been in several studies where they give one group new pills for something and the other group gets placebos. Sometimes the pills have nasty side effects. I have heard of people being harmed quite badly because of that.
> he seemed not to push the issue. But did he mean it? ... They're obviously not happy with it, and he knows it.
Yes. And he knows, first hand, what can happen if the situation is not addressed.
If I go to a therapist and tell him that I don't want to be angry all the time any more, should the therapist try to "convert" me into a less-angry person or should he get me to embrace my anger and be happy about my situation?
> he compared their love to that of a man's to a dog... His true colors showing.
Possibly. But, he wasn't talking to a patient at that point, he was talking to a reporter. It is unknown whether he takes that position with his patients.
While the example of a dog was insulting, he could have had the same effect using the word "Mother" or "Brother" or "Sister" or "Daughter." His point was that there are certain categories of love that are not the same as that between a heterosexual couple. He considers gay love to be one of those "other" categories. He used the dog example because it was a little bit shocking.
Gay people often have the same thoughts about heterosexual relationships. It seems just a little bit disgusting to want to be with someone of the opposite gender.
> Well, let me tell you, straights are often as miserable and incomplete as anyone
Some comedian once said about gay marriage, "Let them go ahead and get married and then they can be as miserable as the rest of us."
> [as if] being straight is the solution to everything.
Obviously that would not be true for everybody. But, for some gays, it would remove one rather large unhappy element in their life. This would not make them instantly happy, but it might remove a big problem and that's one step towards happiness for them.
> But guess what? That's life as far as I'm concerned.
That may work out just fine for you and many other people. But, there are people who are unhappy enough with certain aspects of their life to need to change.
> And you mean to tell me that you think gays should want to spend their lives wishing they were something they can't be,
No. I am telling you that some gays will spend their lives wishing that they weren't gay. I am not saying that all gays should do that. For those people that are unhappy, they hope that science will someday offer them an oppoturnity to change.
As far as I can tell, we aren't even close to that yet.
(you wrote a lot, so I will continue the respose later)
--
"Music is a world within itself, with a language we all understand." - S. Wonder
reply
share
alpeaston
14 years ago
When the "conversion" therapist spoke about his brothers suicide and how that is what motivated him to want to help people change all I could think was maybe he should help people accept who they are since people who attempt to change hurt themselves, potentially an innocent woman and even perhaps some children!
"If Men Could Get Pregnant, Abortion Would be a Sacrament!" Erica Jong
reply
share
bing-57
18 years ago
(continued)
> Because if you really love someone, how can you be happy when they're so unhappy about themselves?
People are strange that way. Just because a person happens to be your son or daughter or mother or father or uncle or whatever, does not at all mean that you love them. Oh sure, many family members do love each other unconditionally, but that is not the case for all people. Society almost forces family members to pretend to love each other, but deep down, that may not be so.
Within the gay community, there are thousands or millions of stories of gays coming out to their families and then being shunned and hated by the very people who are supposed to love them no matter what.
So, you can postulate that everything will be love and roses when someone comes out, but that just aint 100% true.
> But what if they can't? And worse, what if they can, but that still leaves them unhappy
Unfortunately, that will be the case most of the time. But, in those cases, changing whatever thing will remove it from the list of stuff that makes that person miserable. They will still be miserable, but less so.
> the rate of suicide attempts is three times higher in people who have undergone plastic surgery
Perhaps. I suppose someone needs to do a study comparing the suicide rates of people who got plastic surgery to those people who wanted it but were talked out of it. When you compare it to the general population, it is very misleading and doesn't lead to any valid conclusion.
I mean, I could compare the suicide rates of skateboarders to the general population, but I could not conclude anything about whether skateboarding makes people unhappy. If I compared it to people of the same age who do not skateboard, I've have something to conclude.
> by the way, you actually can change your gender nowadays
Sort of. Your chromosomes never change and you will always be a boy or girl from the day you were born until the day you die. But, you do make a point similar to mine. There are people who are unhappy being a boy or girl and want to change. Science can do that these days, whereas 75 years ago, no could imagine that this was possible and it was insane to even think about it.
Yet, some people do it and it makes them feel happier. If there was a pill or surgery or therapy to make a gay person straight, some percentage of gays would jump on that without hesitation.
Interestingly, if the reverse process were available, there would be almost no takers. Which kind of amazes me to hear people say that being gay is a choice.
> I think we should strive to make this world a better one for all minorities rather than tell the minorities that they should want to change themselves due to the way society views and treats them.
Unfortunately, that would create a situation much like the UN, where everyone just argues about self-serving interests and then celebrates the differences between themselves. Nothing ever really gets done and the rest of the world just laughs at them and goes about the business of commerce and living.
If we are all on different pages, no one ever sees eye-to-eye.
> Or was that Frank's perception, greatly influenced by Dr. Apsey?
That probably had something to do with it. But, notice that Dr. Baldwin never made any attempt to deny that he was, indeed, trying to convert gays into militant rebels. And, most obviously, he did recruit Frank to go undercover and trap Dr. Apsey. Frank was uncomfortable doing that, long before he first met Dr. Apsey, but Dr. Baldwin pressured him into doing it.
> What you do see is that he demands of himself to be the best gay activist he can be. And what's wrong with that?
Nothing at all. The community needs more people like that. But, that should a person's own decision to become an activist. No one should pressure him and tell him to become one.
When Dr. Apsey pointed that out to Frank, Frank immediately knew that it was true. It wasn't like Dr. Apsey had to drill it into his brain week after week.
> considering how he was probably seeing on a weekly basis the damage caused by Dr. Apsey's supposed therapy, I can see how he would lose sight of what's proper and ethical
Maybe. I think the movie said that he was seeing just four of Dr. Apsey's former patients. We never heard just how many patients Dr. Apsey had in this category. Maybe Dr. Baldwin was just seeing those patients who were, indeed, damaged by the treatment. Perhaps the others just shrugged off the bad therapy. Perhaps some of them are living straight lives. We don't really know.
> He could have realized that this hate-loathing that his brother felt was so pointless, that he would help gays deal with their sexual orientation and better accept it and themselves.
Yes, he could have tried that. But, it is very hard for someone who is not gay to help a gay person accept it. They just don't know the particular problems that the person is facing. They usually can't relate.
> The only help he offers is if you wanna turn straight. Otherwise, it's "hit the road, Jack", more or less.
Well, if I go to my dentist and complain that my knee hurts, he will ask me if I have a tooth problem. If I don't, he will tell me to hit the bricks.
Dr. Apsey has a particular specialty. If you come to him and you don't need or want the particular therapy he offers, then you should hit the road, Jack.
> The only help he offers is if you wanna turn straight. Otherwise, it's "hit the road, Jack", more or less.
I think the movie mentioned a date for his death. I recall that it was maybe 15-20 years ago. That would have been way back before Dr. Apsey began specializing and maybe even before he took up psychiatry as a profession.
I think that, only in retrospect, he realized that he handled his brother all wrong. At the time, he didn't know any better. The way he talks about it, I am quite sure that he wishes that he had a time machine and could go back and comfort his brother.
> even if he was telling the truth, his reaction to the suicide (deciding to help gays "change" rather than comit himself to furthering social change and tolerance, for example) is very telling of just how deeply his accpetance of his brother ran...
Yet, if he really was repuled by gays, he would have danced on his brother's grave and continued on with a career in architecture or whatever. Instead, his brother's death shaped the rest of his life. He dedicated his whole career to making up for his own failure in how he handled his brother when he was alive. He cared very deeply. You can see the passion he has when he talks to Frank.
The fact that he chose to help gays try to convert when they asked him to help is seen by most of the gay community as a mistaken goal. But, he is doing what he feels is best for them.
Many people in all areas of life have mistaken goals, according to other people in that field. It's up to the customers (in this case, patients) to decide which goals are mistaken and which are not.
Thanks for the enjoyable interchange of ideas.
--
"Music is a world within itself, with a language we all understand." - S. Wonder
reply
share
marka_dogg
17 years ago
bing-57, just to clarify for you, participating in studies - even ones that require you to take pills with warnings of possibly fatal side effects - is not the same type of "guinea pig" testing that a doctor practicing conversion therapy would be subjecting his/her patients to.
Before any sort of treatment can even begin to WISH to be used on humans, must go through a long extensive scientific process involving tons and tons of research, and then publication, peer review, more research, more peer review, more research input from experts in other scientific fields, then animal testing, then most likely even more research and review.
A pharmaceutical company can't just throw some chemicals together and feed them to you. A neurologist can't just cut you head open, insert an electric probe, and see what happens. I'm a medical student with an emphasis in neurosurgery, and oftentimes my professors will get on a plane and fly to a trauma center across the country because some patient had a skiing accident and just happened to sustain an injury in this area.
If we could just use humans as guinea pigs, the injured skiier would not be remarkable at all as we could just perform whatever lesion on human guinea pigs. We can't do this, and conversion therapy, although less overtly extreme, is in essence using humans as guinea pigs in this way. It goes against all the principles of 'do no harm' central to medical science today. This was actually not the case half a century ago, but it certainly is the case in the context of the movie.
The double blind studies you participated in involved pills that had years if not decades of research and science behind them. Considering that no solid psychological (or neurological, or genetic, or physical, or behavioral, etc.) basis has even been correlated to homosexuality, advertising a method to 'fix' it is certainly unethical and a definite valid reason to take away Apsey's license, which I believe was your initial concern.
reply
share