Comments on: NARTH Cites Aversion Therapy As Evidence That “Change Is Possible”

By: The Story So Far… » Blog Archive » Welcome, My Heterosexual Friends, To The Front…

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:18:30 +0000

[...] built a multi-million dollar industry with dozens of front groups whose only job is to churn out one lie after another about gay people which they insist everyone else accept as holy writ, whereas any actual science is regarded as [...]

By: Wayne Besen: APA Was Right To Reject Harmful ‘Ex-Gay’ Therapy | My 2 Cents Worth

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:27:05 +0000

[...] aversion therapy experiments to “cure” homosexuals. It is telling that NARTH included examples of torture to support its tortured attempts to make ex-gay therapy appear ethical and [...]

By: Truth Wins Out - Commentary: The APA Says ‘No Evidence’ In Support of Ex-Gay Therapy

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:43:50 +0000

[...] rigorous effort, NARTH produced a shoddy report that cherry picked outdated research, including dated shock and aversion therapy experiments to “cure” homosexuals. It is telling that NARTH included examples of torture to support its [...]

By: Richard W. Fitch

Richard W. Fitch — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 05:00:04 +0000

Somehow I doubt that any reputable survey of the treatments for mental illnesses in the past two centuries would mention shock therapy and lobotomies but only in passing. True professionals are willing to admit that various methods have been used based on the understandings at that time and are later realized as both barbaric and unproductive in any true sense of healing. NARTH is not of this ilk.

But maybe the very fact that people have sought such drastic treatments for something that others have worked hard to accept and help others accept makes this just too hurtful to even consider objectively.

There will always be charlatans who hold out hope to desperate people. Even when the source of ‘hope’ has been proven to be effective in a minuscule percentage of cases. NARTH would contend that the treatment failed because the patient was under-motivated and not because the plan of treatment is bogus.

By: BeckySue in Poway

BeckySue in Poway — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:29:06 +0000

I look at it this way:
If 50 years from now they do a survey on the treatment of liver cancer, they will no doubt include a review of the results of the barbaric use of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. All three are horrific to endure and often profitable for doctors and hospitals. Hopefully, in 50 years, we will have gentler and much, much more effective treatments for cancer and a better understanding of it. Such a review would not necessarily broaden its scope to include comments on the tremendous suffering and cost to those treated with such “primitive” approaches.

That being said, this is in no way intended to imply that being gay is like having cancer. However, it seems that there is a certain segment of people, usually religious, but not necessarily, who find it disconcerting to be gay and these people are looking for options.

But maybe the very fact that people have sought such drastic treatments for something that others have worked hard to accept and help others accept makes this just too hurtful to even consider objectively. That would be totally understandable.

I still can only speculate on the article since I have no copy of it.

By: Jarred

Jarred — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:23:57 +0000

To me, the inclusion of this material leads to another question that the article barely mentions: If aversion therapy is was so effective, then why isn’t NARTH advocating its use? All the article says (if I’m reading Jim’s review correctly) is that it’s considered “unethical.” However, NARTH never discusses why it’s considered unethical.

Personally, I find myself wondering if that’s not intentional. I find myself wondering if openly discussing the ethical problems with aversion therapies would simply lead to discussing the ethical problems with other methods of reparative therapy that they continue to promote.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:37:19 +0000

I agree William. If they oppose use aversion therapy and consider it unethical why include it in the research in the first place. Its like an opponent of abortion using examples of abortion in a paper on how to successfully deal with unwanted pregnancies.

By: William

William — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:49:57 +0000

As to the question of whether NARTH’s lengthy account of the supposed efficacy of aversion therapy implies approval of it, I believe that it does – at least to some extent – even if NARTH does not itself use aversion therapy.

It’s as though today’s right-wing Catholics, who get their knickers in such a twist about what they regard as unsound beliefs among their fellow Catholics, were to start citing the success of the Inquisition’s policy in past centuries of burning heretics as proof that heresy can be extirpated.

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:14:38 +0000

Unfortunately, it's not online. It's for sale at NARTH for $15.

By: BeckySue in Poway

BeckySue in Poway — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:11:13 +0000

Is this on the internet so I could check it out myself?