Box Turtle Bulletin

I very very much recommend reading the chapter about his entire experience at JiM

Jason D

this sounds a lot like the intimacy exercises I’ve had in acting classes.

which are not for curing our treating any condition.

It can be useful for an actor, for a variety of reasons, but it’s not therapy. Although it is kinda fun.

And having experienced this, lying around cuddling with men doesn’t make you less gay.

If that were true, the amount of cuddling I’ve done with my partner should’ve made me straight by now. In fact, if this is supposed to make you straight, then homosexuality should be a self-healing condition.

Burr

Hahah.. exactly. I’m sorry but this is just so incredibly gay. How utterly delusional to think this would change anything, especially in the direction they want..

Richard Rush

It sounds to me like these “therapy” methods are designed (perhaps unconsciously) to provide a guilt-free way for the program leaders to have physical male-on-male contact. As all of us know, these leaders are still really gay themselves.

I doubt that JiM would be stupid enough to sue Ted Cox for breaching the confidentiality agreement, but if they do, we should all contribute to his defense costs.

I’m really thankful for Ted Cox.

Cox’s behaviour was unethical and likely illegal. I hope Journey into Manhood prosecutes him to the full extent of the law.

Incidentally, their theory that “lack of affection and affirmation” from fathers contributes to the development of male homosexuality is true, in my opinion. It has never, despite massive propaganda to the contrary, been proven false by any scientifically valid method.

Ray

Quo,

Why would we need affection and affirmation from our daddies when we can pay $650.00 and get a motorcycle hug that floats our boat? You know, that “cure” that JiM says happens to 4 out of 5 guys?

I’m seen some pretty screwed up straight guys point to the lack of affection and affirmation from their fathers as the cause of their drama. Why weren’t they gay? I mean, if it’s all about daddies, then we should have about 50 times the number of gay men in the world since there are virtual armies of straight guys who don’t even know who their fathers are.

Ray

Oh and this is choice: The P.E. class reinactment where the guides mocked the attendees to remind them about all the times they weren’t chosen to play on the basketball team. LOL!

I was the starting center on two State Championship basketball teams. I was on the base championship team at three Air Force bases and was on the All-Military Airlift Command team. Geeze! Where to these “experts” get their information? You’d think all gay guys ran away screaming if someone mentions sports. Hilarious.

Richard Rush

Quo said, “Coxâ€™s behaviour was unethical and likely illegal. I hope Journey into Manhood prosecutes him to the full extent of the law.”

That’s rather amusing coming from someone who vigorously defended (here at BTB) the right of a father to arrange for someone to sexually abuse his son.

Ray

Quo, here’s something from Cox’s book for you to ponder and explode your brain over:

“Since going undercover in ex-gay programs, I’ve learned that Dad can inflict the Father Wound (make his son gay) by:
1. Being a super-jock
2. being emasculated (not a super-jock)
3. excessively touching his children
4. not touching his children enough
5. being too religious
6. not being religious enough
7. by reading the newspaper

Priya Lynn

Quo said “Incidentally, their theory that â€œlack of affection and affirmationâ€ from fathers contributes to the development of male homosexuality is true, in my opinion.”.

Your opinion has repeatedly been demonstrated to be bizarre and evil and hence is of no importance.

Quo said “It has never, despite massive propaganda to the contrary, been proven false by any scientifically valid method.”.

My claim that I have an invisible unicorn in my backyard has never been proven false by any scientifically valid method.

Priya,

Evil, huh? That’s strong language. You could have simply said that, in your view, my ideas are mistaken, but oh no, you had to go for “evil”, as though I’m Satan himself. If anything is “bizarre”, it’s your insistence on replying to me, despite your simultaneous insistance that my views are “of no importance.” Guess what – if my views really were “of no importance”, you wouldn’t be replying to them.

Ray,

Your first question is frivolous, so I’m not going to answer it.

As to your second question, I think the answer is that different people can respond differently to the same kind of life events. Having a negative relationship with his father isn’t going to turn most boys gay, but it may do that to some boys if they are unusually sensitive, for example.

grantdale

Relax Priya. Try and show a little understanding towards poor old Quo.

Imagine how horrid it would be to go through life clinging to an demonstrably absurd notion because it’s the only hope you have of realising your fantasy lifestyle?

Imagine after all that work and weekends and books and dollars and weeping and holding the official staff… some guy motorcycles you for 3 minutes and you’re faced with realising you’re still at square one. And that’s something you cannot face. So you don’t.

How painful would life be in such circumstances?

————-

It’s nothing we haven’t read before, but Cox’ piece will make disturbing reading for those who aren’t familiar with these ex-gay cranks. And that’s a good thing. I’m trying to imagine describing a weekend like that to Dad…

I’m also formally introducing ‘motorcycle’ in all it’s variations.

“It got a bit chilly after dusk: and thank heavens for motorcycles!”

“He gives the most amazing motorcyclings. Like, really.”

“We motorcycled all the way from St Louis to Salt Lake City.

Is there some special reason why the pro-“gay” commenters here insist on turning every thread in which I comment into a discussion of (and attack on) me personally?

I’m certainly not trying to discuss myself here – I’m pointing out that the Journey into Manhood/NARTH theory about male homosexuality has never been disproven. I’ve got a long post (carefully researched and footnoted) on my blog explaining why.

John

There is no demonstrated causal relationship between distant fathers and gay sons. This is pure conjecture that has been repeated again and again by exgay propagandists, including the less than successful Quo.

Quo likes to say that this hairbrained theory hasn’t been disproven, but more importantly, it hasn’t been proven. It is the burden of the person making the claim of causation to prove it.

Large population based studies comparing men with distant (or no father) to men with a close relationship to their fathers, and comparing the rate of homosexuality for the two groups would be required to even begin to make the claim that there was some relationship between distant fathers and homosexuality. But exgay propagandists don’t do research (since it isn’t in their interest), so this study will not be done either. Normal people will not do the study either, because why should they waste their time trying to disprove a hairbrained theory that is only supported by a few politically and religiously motivated activists who become less influential by the minute.

John,

I’m not sure that I have ever claimed that the distant fathers theory advocated by groups like Journey into Manhood has been proven correct (maybe I did at some point, but if so it was long ago and I’ve forgotten it).

So I’m not sure that I’m guilty of being a propagandist – that term would be better reserved for those on the other side, who insist that the theory has been entirely disproven. That claim rests on worthless pseudo-science.

John

Quo asks “Is there some special reason why the pro-â€gayâ€ commenters here insist on turning every thread in which I comment into a discussion of (and attack on) me personally?”

Quo vigorously argued in favor of parents sexually abusing their childen. He has no insight into how disturbing his stridency in defending a parent’s right to have their child sexually abused is to normal people. If he did that in a town, people who heard him (as well as everyone they told about it) wouldn’t have anything to do with him. They would make sure never to leave a child unsupervised around him. Any attempt on his part to become some sort of authority in the community would be met with contempt. Any intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual) arguement he tried to make would be utterly dismissed.

Just because Quo’s disturbing actions occurred in cyberspace, behind the cloak of a screen name, why would he expect the Box Turtle Bulletin Community to respond any differently than a physical community in a town or city?

John,

Yeah, you’re probably right – if I said something outrageous about one subject, people might well dismiss what I chose to say about something completely different, even though there might be no connection whatsoever between the two issues. That wouldn’t mean that I would actually be wrong about either subject, however.

I’d advise you to refrain from further trolling, however, because it’s both completely obnoxious and also totally off-topic here.

William

Quo:

“Iâ€™m pointing out that the Journey into Manhood/NARTH theory about male homosexuality has never been disproven.”

No, and I’d just like to point out that the 18th century theory that homosexuality is caused by drinking tea and listening to the Italian opera has never been disproven. That’s not to say that these things ALWAYS cause homosexuality, but they may in some instances. They certainly did the trick in my case.

anteros

what a sham. i feel badly for all those who experienced disappointment after getting their hopes up, paying hundreds of dollars, and enduring the entire program. i can only imagine the total collective damage suffered by all participants over the years (especially the “unsuccessful” ones)… psychological, spiritual, financial, emotional and sexual (motorcyclers are allowed to poke motorcyclees with their boners while whispering sweet nothings into their ears, right?).

i’m proud of Cox – tough decision, but he did the right thing. i think confidentiality agreements ought to be invalid in some circumstances, especially in cases where such agreements are used to abuse or cheat those who signed them before being made aware of the full deal. hopefully more people will have the courage to speak out after this. and hopefully these kind of shady programs will die a natural death after enough exposure. if JiM sets its lawyers on Cox, i hope that all those who ever felt defrauded by JiM will also take legal action.

Quo:

i’m just curious… do you think motorcycling (as described above) is effective in dealing with unwanted same sex attractions? …just your honest opinion, please – scientific or not. would you, under any circumstances, recommend JiM to those struggling with unwanted same sex attractions?

anteros

i wrote, “i can only imagine”… that should be “i cant even begin to imagine”

Quo, I’m not going to attack you personally or otherwise. I will, however, ask you to produce research from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that backs up your theory that distant fathers create gay children.

Jason D

“Iâ€™m seen some pretty screwed up straight guys point to the lack of affection and affirmation from their fathers as the cause of their drama. Why werenâ€™t they gay? I mean, if itâ€™s all about daddies, then we should have about 50 times the number of gay men in the world since there are virtual armies of straight guys who donâ€™t even know who their fathers are.”

Ray, I’ve often thought of the same thing. The “distant/absent father theory” of the cause of homosexuality has gigantic flaw in.
That being that distant/absent fathers are more the norm than they are the exception.

Between Mom and Dad over the centuries if either parent has been more distant or absent from a child’s life it’s been the father. killed in battle, busy with work, off hunting for days/months on end, never known in the first place, or abandoned at some point along the way.

Considering that historical tradition, there should be a larger segment of the population that is gay. Much larger. But there isn’t. Fathers have become, in recent years, more active in their children’s lives yet this is having no effect on the gay population. In fact, it seems there are more fathers accepting their gay sons during childhood, and yet the child still manages to grow up gay.

Plus there’s the fact that folks, like Cohen say things like “a boy grows up with a unfulfilled need for closeness with his father and or male peers and this need becomes sexualized” Yet they never provide the “how”. As in “How does it become sexualized?” There’s a missing step, a big hole in this equation that they never explain. It’s like the South Park Underpants Gnomes:

Step 1: Collect Underpants
Step 3: Profit

When asked “What’s step 2?” they stare blankly and then tell the listener what Step 1 and 3 are again.

Richard Rush

Qou,

Whenever I read your defenses of quack theories concerning homosexuality’s causes, I can’t help wondering if your vested interests are really on the sleazy money-grubbing-parasite side of the issue. Somehow I sense an incongruity among your various comments.

But anyway, let’s assume you are who you would appear to be: a self-loathing homosexual who hangs out in bathhouses while searching for the elusive magic cure that will transform you into a happy heterosexual. As you know there are a multitude of organizations selling pay-away-the-gay programs (or pay-and-pray programs). And, similar to McDonald’s, they claim that thousands and thousands have been ~~sold~~ cured. So why aren’t you cured yet, Quo?

Are all the programs cost-prohibitive? Or have you participated in a program and then soon after realized that you’re feeling man-hungry again? If so, now you’ve learned where the big money is – the repeat business.

Sadly, there may actually be some benefit for some people being exploited into repeatedly participating in programs like JiM. For a desperately lonely guilt-ridden person utterly convinced they are worthless abominations, these programs offer a way of sharing some intimate fellowship (including some physical intimacy) with other homosexuals in a guilt-free environment. Pathetic.

Ben in Oakland

Quo– as I’ve often said to you…

you are clearly very bright.

you are clearly very deluded.

Your problem is not that your a big ol’ ‘mo’, your problem is your self-hatred.

No one, with the possible exception of a catholic mortifier of the flesh, ever died thinking that they hadn’t quite beaten themselves up enough.

John

Every time that Quo writes with such certainty and “I know more than anyone else” smugness about the supposed causes of homosexuality and how to “cure” someone of their gayness, he opens the door to others who will point out his own personal abysmal failure to “cure” himself of his homosexuality. These sorts of responses will always be on point and provide appropriate context to the discussion.

Further, when he expresses outrage for subjecting exgay therapists and groups to the light of exposure, calling for prosecutions of those who would expose these exploitative charlatans, he opens the door to others who will point out how little regard he has for protecting some of the most vulnerable members of our society, children. Exposing the jarring disconnect between his concern for for the welfare of charlatans committing consumer fraud (and possibly getting some sexual gratification out of it) and his complete lack of concern for children subjected to sexual abuse is directly on point and provides context for these discussions.

Priya Lynn

Well said John.

Quo, when I said your opinion is of no importance, what I meant was that your opinion that something is true doesn’t lend any credibility to the idea that its true.

When someone has bizarre and evil ideas like parents have a right to sexually abuse their children and that we don’t own our bodies it strongly suggests they haven’t got the ability to see anything correctly.

Jason D

William, I myself have never been proven to NOT be a talking sponge that lives in a pineapple under the sea.

Therefore, I must be!

Ben in Oakland

sponge jason square pants doesn’t quite roll of the tongue, therefore you must not be said sponge.

q.e.d.

William

No matter what bizarre theory you come up with about the cause(s) of homosexuality (or of heterosexuality) youâ€™ll find some people who seem to fit it. And if you add the rider that itâ€™s the cause in SOME cases, as Quo does, then youâ€™ve come up with a theory that can never be disproven. Thatâ€™s the great merit of unscientific theories: they can be reconciled with almost any conceivable state of affairs. In that respect I find them rather reminiscent of the messages from the Spirit World that platform mediums give in their demonstrations of â€œclairvoyanceâ€.

Timothy Kincaid

Just a suggestion… perhaps it isn’t the best policy to feed Quo’s sense of martyrdom.

Ben in Oakland

But how will he ever get to heaven if he can’t be a martyr?

Jason D

whoa, I’m getting a psychic vision.

Does someone on this board have feet? The spirits are telling me something about someone with feet. Someone gay with feet…

To the person with feet:
Did you have a father or father figure, or stepfather, or Uncle who was close or very distant?

Yes?

Did he hug you a lot, a little, a moderate amount, or not at all?

I see.

Well, that’s what made you gay.

*bow*

Rick Brentlinger

Rather than a journey into manhood, its more like a journey back to childhood.

I’m amazed that adult men would pay to participate in summer camp rituals more suitable for elementary school boys.

I wonder how many first-timers also buy another seminar or pay for “coaching?”

How cruel of J.i.M. to exploit the pain and vulnerability of these men.

And so a thread is hijacked – utterly diverting it from its supposed subject, Cox and Journey Into Manhood, into a series of irrelevant, frothy attacks on me.

I’m afraid that too many of the comments above help prove the point that gay people, in general and with a handful of exceptions (me being one of them…), aren’t able to think about issues such as what causes homosexuality or whether it can be changed in an objective manner.

This unfortunate fact deprives your criticisms of the Journey Into Manhood theory of how people become homosexual of all merit. What J.i.M. says about that issue is not necessarily above criticism, but all I’m seeing in response to it are fallacies of the “Not everyone who has a bad relationship with his father becomes gay, so therefore no one becomes gay because he had a bad relationship with his father” kind.

Supposedly the theories about distant fathers were discredited long ago, but the research that supposedly disproved them proves, on close inspection, to be worthless pseudo-science.

I’m not going to try to explain here why that’s the case – it would probably be off-topic. But it seems fair to mention it. I’m guessing that eventually there’ll be a thread that will permit me to fully explain this, and no one is going to be able to rebut me convincingly, because I have researched it and I know what I’m talking about.

Emily K

Hey, why don’t we use Quo’s personal anecdotes as “proof” homos can go straight.

so far… he trolls bathhouses because he’s so sexually stunted he can only get release in a gay bathhouse… and… advocates for a parent to have the right to force their child to have sex with someone in order to “straighten” them out.

Hmm. It’s “proof” of SOMEthing, but not that homos can be “cured.”

Emily K,

Why don’t we, instead of doing what you suggest, act like grown ups and refrain from making comments that demean ourselves and others?

William

Quo:

â€œSupposedly the theories about distant fathers were discredited long ago, but the research that supposedly disproved them proves, on close inspection, to be worthless pseudo-science.â€

No, the theories about distant fathers havenâ€™t been disproved, because they canâ€™t be â€“ which, of course, is a typical characteristic of unscientific theories. As Carl Sagan put it, â€œassertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless.â€

I hope that Journey into Manhood do sue Ted Cox. And I hope that they get the $1 in damages that they deserve and that they are landed with the costs of the action.

Ben in Oakland

What did I say about the necessity of martyrdom?

DQ.

Ben in Oakland

Jason: having feet does not make you gay. Maybe happy feet, but not feet by themselves.

Happy feet was surely a gay penguin movie if there ever was one.

Ben in Oakland

Quo– I’ve probably read more books on the subject of homosexuality than you could ever hope to read– both the factual ones and the crazy ones.

I’m always mindful of what wardell Pomeroy– half of the kinsey team– said to me personally more than 30 years ago;

“More nonsense has been written about homosexuality than any other subject except the true nature of god”

Pretty much sums it up.

Richard Rush

Journey into Manhood (possibly NSFW)

William,

You wrote, “No, the theories about distant fathers havenâ€™t been disproved, because they canâ€™t be â€“ which, of course, is a typical characteristic of unscientific theories.”

Wrong. See what philosopher of science Adolf Grunbaum says about about the issue of testing theories like this in Validation in the Clinical Theory of Psychoanalysis, pages 320-321. According to him, such theories are perfectly testable, so it’s incorrect to claim that they are unscientific due to lack of falsifiability.

There is no reason why such theories could not be properly tested – the old research that supposedly tested and refuted them in fact never achieved this.

Jim Burroway

I would submit that the theory that distant fathers cause homosexuality has never been proven true by any scientifically valid method that has undergone an independent peer review.

I do believe that I can rig an experiment that would convincingly demonstrate the theory that there are no unicorns in Priya Lynn’s back yard. Admittedly, disproving invisibility might take some more work. But if she were to make such an extraordinary claim, I would expect that there be a scientifically rigorous method which would appear to support such a claim, and would either rule out or diminish the likelihood of alternative explantions to the phenomenon that gave rise to the theory of invisible unicorns, and I would expect that those results would pass muster via independent peer review and hold up over time with replication before I would bother to try to disprove her theory.

By the same token, I have not seen a scientifically rigorous, independently peer-reviewed and replicated body of studies to support the theory that distant fathers or overbearing fathers cause homosexuality. So to take such a theory as an a priori accepted probabililty that must be disproved elevates the theory far beyond that which is merited by the sparse and unscientific literature which has not held up over time in independently peer-reviewed settings which would purportedly support of such a theory.

Which is why, by the same token, I don’t expect to see any research to disprove Priya Lynn’s unicorns anytime soon either.

Jim,

With respect, I find your efforts at humour misplaced. It should concern you that the research that was widely accepted as showing that Freudian theories about homosexuality are wrong is fundamentally flawed. Indeed, it is so drastically flawed that it is extremely easy to demonstrate what is wrong with it – and I have, on my blog. I’ll demonstrate it here too, if there’s ever a suitable thread.

You may find the literature supporting the Freudian theories to be “sparse and unscientific” – the truth is, it’s more scientific than the study that is most widely held to have disproven them.

Emily K

Odd, Quo, because Grunbaum seems to be rather critical of Freud, though less so than others:

Freud and his followers rely primarily on the productions of patients in analytic treatment as evidence for their theoretical edifice. And psychoanalytic theory is replete with causal hypotheses purporting to explain normal and abnormal human conduct. But their clinical evidence does not provide cogent observational support for these core hypotheses, thus leaving their support remarkably weak. This is the skeptical upshot of my Foundations book.

Indeed, it seems he is attacking psychoanalytic theory as a whole, which would include the Freudian straws NARTH grasps at.

Jim Burroway

“You may find the literature supporting the Freudian theories to be â€œsparse and unscientificâ€ â€“ the truth is, itâ€™s more scientific than the study that is most widely held to have disproven them.”

Well then it shouldn’t be too difficult to name them: multiple studies (meaning the results were replicated), scientifically rigorous, independently peer reviewed, and capable of supporting the distant father theory as the most probable explanation for the cause (not mere correlation, but the cause) of homosexuality.

John

You cannot argue with religious belief. Quo’s devotion to his pet theory of distant fathers causing homosexuality will never be shaken by any logical arguement, any lack of scientific support for the theory, or the billions of non-gay men who would describe their fathers as distant or anything else. This was never about science, since their is no scientific support for the theory and there never will be. This is purely about faith, and for whatever reason, Quo has put his full faith in this strange, unsupported belief about the causation of homosexuality.

Jim Burroway

And for clarification, you might note that in the original post that started all this, I characterized the distant-father theory as unproven, not disproven. I do not hold the position that a theory that has never been proven ought to be disproved. I only reiterate that there is scant scientifically rigorous support for distant fathers being the cause for homosexuality. And on that basis, I would no sooner support therapy built on such shakey grounds than I would support laetrile as a cure for cancer.

Timothy Kincaid

If it were proven unequivocally that every other gay man in the world was made gay by Gerber’s Strained Peas, it wouldn’t matter. Quo would be capable of still believing that his homosexuality was caused by his Daddy.

Emily K,

Yes, Grunbaum is known as a critic of psychoanalysis. His criticisms of it don’t, however, imply that Freudian ideas on the causes of homosexuality must be wrong – he wouldn’t have pointed out that they are testable theories otherwise.

Jim,

I believe we’ve been through this before. As I mentioned the last time the subject was discussed, Seymour Fisher provides a long list of studies in his Sexual Images of the Self. His judgment alas is not fully reliable, since he thinks that Bell and Weinberg’s study Sexual Preference is one of the best. I’ve exposed the methodological flaws of that worthless study on my blog (do take a look – you might learn something). Some of the other studies Fisher lists may be worth something, however.

John,

I don’t think that distant fathers “cause” homosexuality in some mechanical, predictable way. They’re a factor that can make its development more likely under certain circumstances. As for such theories having no scientific support, see my reply to Jim.

John

Quo just acknowledged in his last response that he couldn’t name even one study, let alone the ” multiple studies (meaning the results were replicated), scientifically rigorous, independently peer reviewed, and capable of supporting the distant father theory as the most probable explanation for the cause (not mere correlation, but the cause) of homosexuality” that Jim Burroway asked him to produce.

grantdale

There is a way to satisfactorily ‘disprove’ both Pryia’s Invisible Unicorn and Quo’s Faith in the Blessed Nicolosi.

A valid scientific theory always — always — fulfils the requirements of both theoretical science and applied science. For the former, you had better be prepared for some fancy footwork if you, say, require established theories to be ignored or rejected. Perhaps they need to be, but you better be ready to show why.

For the latter, a valid scientific theory has the power to predict an outcome given the inputs. If it cannot, it’s not a theory (and also rather useless).

So… I’d first want to know why Pryia claims there are unicorns in the garden. What has she experienced to come to make that statement? What was experienced is an outcome — it can be observed again by someone else, because that is what is predicted as a result of having a unicorn in your garden.

(Actually Pryia — the lab results came back. The sample you sent appears to be moose plop. The footprints in the photo appears to be that of a moose. The hair samples were a mixture of moose and Palin DNA. Your neighbours confirmed that moose often wander about of a night. Are you sure your Visitor is not a moose? Just asking.)

Quo’s straw-to-clutch can be treated the same way. OK… we already know he’ll come back with “But it doesn’t apply to EVERYone.” So we cannot test at an individual level, apparently. There’s a bit of unexplained noise to his prediction about distant fathers, apparently.

We can cope with that very easily in applied science. We instead test the prediction globally. That cancels out any noise as we are looking to the movement in the outcomes rather than the effect on an individual. (Double-blind drug trials anyone? Breeding for fine micron wool anyone?)

If Quo was correct we can predict the outcome from a number of scenarios with known, otherwise-matched conditions. (Remember to account for any other compounding factors… and we have a tool for that… it’s called multi-variant analysis).

A) there would be a higher proportion of black American men who are gay than white American men. Are there?

B) fathers serving in the military would have more gay sons than those on civvy street. Do they?

C) we would have seen a spike in gayness following World War II. Did that happen?

D) we whould find that travelling salesmen have more gay sons than do guys who work in stores and live at home. Is there a ‘Planes, Trains and Automobiles’ effect?

etc etc. Come up with any other scenario that increases the distancing of fathers from their sons or similar, find a time or place where it applies… and then test whether or not more or less overall, global gayness actually happened. That is what Quo PREDICTS would happen, but does it?

Short answer: No. Never been observed.

QED, Quo, the ‘theory’ is rubbish.

Of course, we’ll then hit the inevitable: I’m sure Pryia could also reply that unicorns do exist but only SOME people on SOME days in SOME weather conditions during SOME alignment of the planets are able to observe them. While waving SOME crystal.

Yep. Yep. It’s still moose plop dear.

(Or possibly Gerberâ€™s Strained Peas. Both are identical under most test conditions.)

John,

Do your own research.

Grantdale,

You might try reading me more carefully. I wrote that in my view having a distant father helps make the development of homosexuality more likely under particular conditions – there is no good reason why one should assume that it would have that effect uniformly and at all times. Thus your point about blacks (and your other points) don’t show what you suppose they do.

Oh, and since I know that you think highly of Bell and Weinberg’s study “Sexual Preference”, you might take a look at my blog, where I demolish it, and expose it as pseudo-scientific garbage.

John

Quo again acknowledges that he can’t name any of the multiple studies that prove the absent daddy causation theory of homosexuality that meet Jim’s criteria.

Eric in Oakland

The debate about whether homosexuality could be caused by bad parenting seems decidely silly to me.

Science has repeatedly shown in recent decades that male homosexuality is a product of physical traits. Ie. brain structure, pheremone reception, etc. Does anyone seriously think that things like that can be altered by hugs?

And what about the presence of homosexuality in all the animal species without parenting as such?

The debate about proof or disproof is similary silly. Are we to believe every absurd contention of prescientific societies until such a time as they are conclusively disproven?

And what kind of idiot (excuse me for being harsh) would pay large sums of money for a treatment that has NOT been proven effective but has in fact been shown to be INEFFECTIVE for the majority of people?

grantdale

I read it Quo. I read everything. Your “blog” consists of a few disjointed attacks on Warren Throckmorton and a few disjointed attacks on B&W&H. It also reads as if you are barking mad, frankly.

(To spare people the trouble here is a summary of Quo’s blog: “Throckmorton is a psychologist and he knows nothing about psychoanalysis, so he’s not allowed to talk about it. But Quo is. Also he edits his own Wikipedia entry. So there. And BW&H used their own measure of homosexuality, and even though it’s a perfectly valid one used by others, and even though other professionals have had 30 years to ‘demolish’ them but haven’t, they must be wrong. Quo says so. So there. Also, That Kinsey Crowd were involved. So there. Da-dah! Applauds self.”)

my view having a distant father helps make the development of homosexuality more likely under particular conditions â€“ there is no good reason why one should assume that it would have that effect uniformly and at all times.

Yep, you did exactly what I said you would: “unicorns do exist but only SOME people on SOME days in SOME weather conditions during SOME alignment of the planets are able to observe them. While waving SOME crystal.”

Useless. Utterly and completely useless.

——————–

I only “highly regard” Bell & Weinberg (two books from the one study) as far as they (and Hammersmith) go. Obviously you’re not aware of the many spats I’ve had with, say, Throckmorton over the misapplication of their work. A period of our lives that is fortunately now completed.

Most importantly, I took the time to read, understand, and try not to misapply because of the very clear caveats they state right from the introduction and throughout the text. A word of advice Quo: it’s a bit hard to “expose” someone who’s standing there in their birthday suit.

There are three things to be mindful of when reading B&W(&H): 1) it is not a random sample. It is in fact a large convenience sample. They tell you that. 2) There is no comparative heterosexual cohort. That’s obvious. And annoying. 3) They use K2 to K6 for ‘homosexuality’. Not always a good approach. They tell you that. But, all in all not a bad effort for a study that commenced in the 1960’s — especially considering the claptrap that was being hawked by others at the time (and since). Pace Beiber. Pace Socarides. Pace Nicolosi.

Significantly you fail to mention what underlies BW&H conclusions: they found “bad fathers” featured in the history of some of those who ended up in therapy, but failed to find such histories in those who had never been to a therapist. They offer a number of thoughts on this, including the possibility that therapists have coached the client into seeing their childhood in a negative way. Because that fitted the assumptions of the therapist.

(Did anyone just think “But that is exactly what Nicolosi and Exodus and Cohen and JiM still do! They drill and drill and drill until they find something, anything, that can be latched onto and distorted to fit.”)

Perhaps you should try reading the books from the front to the back, next time. Jumping to the index, looking for your trigger words and then reading parts of pages in isolation is not generally a good way to study an author or gain much understanding of a subject.

Actually, try doing that with all books in the future. Indexes are intended for future reference rather than to enable cherry-picking.

William

Sorry, Quo. That distant fathers (exactly how distant do they have to be?) are ONE of the causes of homosexuality in SOME cases is not a theory that is capable of either proof or disproof. It is therefore not a scientific theory, just a belief. You may hold that belief if it appeals to you, but there is no reason why anyone else should.

Emily K

Oh, and since I know that you think highly of Bell and Weinbergâ€™s study â€œSexual Preferenceâ€, you might take a look at my blog, where I demolish it, and expose it as pseudo-scientific garbage.

…and your credentials include…

..trying oh so hard and yet still failing to “demolish” your own homosexuality?

Ben in Oakland

“trying oh so hard and yet still failing to â€œdemolishâ€ your own homosexuality?”

Well, that’s true. but also, quo has well documented issues with his father and issues with himself. He gets to kill two birds with one stone this way, so to speak.

Except that they’re not birds, it is a stone that weighs nothing, and the birds won’t die,.

quo, if you don’t want to be gay, according to your own theories, it should be very simple.

1) See a therapist to deal with all of your anger and disappointment at your father for not loving you and respecting you as a boy, as a teenager, and as a man. you see, your anger makes you want him to be at fault for what you claim are your own choices. You get to be a victim that way, and you STILL get to go to the baths.

2) stop being gay. It is a choice, you know.

3) 5 cents, please.

Priya Lynn

Quo said “I wrote that in my view having a distant father helps make the development of homosexuality more likely under particular conditions â€“ there is no good reason why one should assume that it would have that effect uniformly and at all times. Thus your point about blacks (and your other points) donâ€™t show what you suppose they do.”.

Nonsense. If distant fathers were a statistically significant cause of gayness there would be a correlation with higher rates of gayness in the populations that grantdale mentioned. Seeing as no such correlation has ever been found and anti-gays are highly motivated to demonstrate it if it were there it is clear the distant father theory of gayness is without support.

Those speculating that they can disprove that I have an invisible unicorn in my back yard are wrong. The unicorn levitates and thus leaves no footprints. The unicorn’s feces are transported to the edges of the universe before they hit the ground so although Grantdale may have found moose plop and moose footprints in my backyard that in no way disproves my invisible unicorn.

My unicorn is incorporeal and can’t be detected by instuments of science. My unicorn is like god and exists outside the material world and is indetectable by human methods. He only appears to me when I summon him to do so and I shan’t summon him in front of anyone else as its critical that humans have the free will to believe or disbelieve in him. Anyone who rejects my experience out of hand is a horrible nasty person and just like the anti-gay religious fundamentalists.

Ben in Oakland

my gorgon and my mantichore can beat up your unicorn.

Priya Lynn

Na-uh.

Ben in Oakland

Allllrightttttttttttty.

Mythical creature (yet to be proved) SMACKDOWN!!!!!

John

Priya and Ben,

Perhaps there is a non-violent way to solve your little mythical conflict.

Ben in Oakland

Priya has a cute little unicorn, probably with a rainbow coming out its ass. Nonviolent is all very well for something like that.

I have a big, butch, gorgon and a butt-stomping mantichore. Violence is in their ichor.

You mess with my mythological theory– I mean creature– and I will pull out the big Daddy guns of Ol’ Nick and St. Paul Cameron– I mean my gorgon and my mantichore.

And thus we are back to the original subject of this thread.

sorta.

Jason D

I’m still not following this logic train.

-Boy has emotional needs his father is unable/unwilling to meet.
-Without explanation and completely subconsciously, this need becomes sexualized.(we’ll ignore that for now)
-Boy grows into gay man who seeks out emotional fulfillment from men, which fails continuously(again, we’ll ignore that, too)
-The explanation for the failure is because the need is not being met by physical/emotional contact with men.

They treat this by providing “sufferers” with….more physical/emotional contact with men.

Again I say….

If this is the treatment, if this is the “cure”. Then homosexuality should be a self-curing condition.

I don’t see how this “treatment” is all that different(at least in spirit) than what regular couples (straight or gay) do on a regular basis.

Ben in Oakland

It’s all very clear, Jason. It is some kind of an oedipus thingy, and these gay men clearly need to sleep with thier fathers, or (as usual)…

…something.

John,

I mentioned a book, Seymour Fisher’s Sexual Images of the Self. If you’re interested on studies on homosexuality and parenting, you’ll find it mentions a whole bunch of them.

Eric in Oakland,

You wrote, “Science has repeatedly shown in recent decades that male homosexuality is a product of physical traits. Ie. brain structure, pheremone reception, etc.”

Nope. It hasn’t done anything of the kind. These factors may be relevant to the development of homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean they are its only causes.

Grantdale,

My most recent post on my blog debunks Bell and Weinberg’s pseudo-scientific study. It is short, concise, and carefully researched, not “disjointed.” Rather, it is your ludicrous, vitriolic comments that are disjointed.

Bell and Weinberg’s definition of sexual preference is totally mistaken, and there is therefore no way they could have done a proper scientific study of it. Their definition of homosexuality is patently absurd, and even if “others” (which others?) used it, that would not make it valid. Appeals to majority opinion in social science or psychology are pathetic – if something is worthless, it’s worthless, no matter how many people accept it, and no matter what their credentials.

Any application of Bell and Weinberg’s study (and I’ve read all of it, thank you) is misapplication, because, being pseudo-science, it proves nothing at all.

Just to return to a moment to the supposed subject of this thread:

gay activists like to claim that groups like Journey Into Manhood, which try to set people free from homosexuality, have been discredited by mainstream mental health organizations such as the American Psychological Association.

Presumably, then, we are expected to believe that the American Psychological Association can tell the difference between pseudo-science and real science. The record shows that the APA can’t do anything of the kind.

“Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation”, their 2009 statement about attempts to change homosexuality, relies on Bell and Weinberg’s now nearly thirty year old work of pseudo-science “Sexual Preference” to dismiss the theories about the causes of homosexuality used by ex-gay groups. It’s an absolutely worthless study, but the APA accepts it, absolutely and without qualification.

Someone tell me why, if the APA accepts garbage like Bell and Weinberg’s work, any of their claims about issues relating to changing sexual orientation should be considered trustworthy?

Burr

Quo does not understand science at all if he doesn’t realize that grantdale’s metastudies would precisely account for his “view having a distant father helps make the development of homosexuality more likely under particular conditions” even if it didn’t have a uniform affect. The differences in the populations would more than account for all the variables we don’t know about and remove all the noise.

Sorry but screeching about others “pseudoscience” without ever actually doing any science yourself is just sour grapes about being wrong.

William

â€˜ â€œAppropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientationâ€, their 2009 statement about attempts to change homosexuality, relies on Bell and Weinbergâ€™s now nearly thirty year old work of pseudo-science â€œSexual Preferenceâ€ to dismiss the theories about the causes of homosexuality used by ex-gay groups.â€™

To those who have not seen the APAâ€™s 2009 statement, the above sentence of Quoâ€™s is likely to be misleading. It could be more accurately put as follows:

â€˜Bell and Weinbergâ€™s now nearly thirty year old work â€œSexual Preferenceâ€ is merely ONE of the sources cited in â€œAppropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientationâ€, their 2009 statement about attempts to change homosexuality, in its dismissal of the pseudo-scientific theories about the causes of homosexuality used by ex-gay groups.â€™

Ben in Oakland

“Bell and Weinbergâ€™s definition of sexual preference is totally mistaken, and there is therefore no way they could have done a proper scientific study of it. Their definition of homosexuality is patently absurd, and even if â€œothersâ€ (which others?) used it, that would not make it valid. Appeals to majority opinion in social science or psychology are pathetic â€“ if something is worthless, itâ€™s worthless, no matter how many people accept it, and no matter what their credentials.”

Yup, Quo. thank you for that.

And there you have it in a nutshell everything that was wrong with the original diagnosis of homosexuality as a mental illness. And everything that was wrong with the vote that made it NOT a mental illness.

And everything that was right with the vote against the referendum that the anti-gay homophobe psychiatrists tried to implement to vreverse the decision.

grantdale

This is what Quo means by “relies on”. From page 23 of the APA report, and one of only 2 references to BW&H:

Studies failed to support theories that regarded family dynamics, gender identity, or trauma as factors in the development of sexual orientation (e.g., Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Bene, 1965; Freund & Blanchard, 1983; Freund & Pinkava, 1961; Hooker, 1969; McCord, McCord, & Thurber, 1962; D. K. Peters & Cantrell, 1991; Siegelman, 1974, 1981; Townes, Ferguson, & Gillem, 1976).

Quo obviously reads this differently to how most people would.

Studies failed to support theories that regarded family dynamics, gender identity, or trauma as factors in the development of sexual orientation (e.g., Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981, 1981; Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981).

Perfectly understandable error by Quo given that it must be rather difficult to read a report in the low-wattage lighting of a sauna.

Priya Lynn

William and Grantdale expose Quo’s dishonesty again. So much for Quo’s laughable claim that he’s objective and the only one who is.

Ben in Oakland

Priya– of ocurse he is. thats why he is so thoroughly hetero.

5 cents, please

Richard Rush

Maybe part of the reason Quo is so eager to validate certain theories is because he wants to be in the business of selling quack “cure” products* that rely on quack theories to exist.

*Products might include books, seminars, “coaching,” and weekend retreats, etc..

John

For the third time, Quo has acknowledged that he cannot name the â€ multiple studies (meaning the results were replicated), scientifically rigorous, independently peer reviewed, and capable of supporting the distant father theory as the most probable explanation for the cause (not mere correlation, but the cause) of homosexualityâ€ that Jim Burroway asked him to produce.

In his third feeble response to try and deflect and distract from Jim’s simple and direct question he refers to Seymour Fisherâ€™s Sexual Images of the Self. He though admits he has no confidence in the book and hasn’t reviewed the listed studies in this book in his previous response to Jim where he wrote: “His judgment alas is not fully reliable, since he thinks that Bell and Weinbergâ€™s study Sexual Preference is one of the best. Iâ€™ve exposed the methodological flaws of that worthless study on my blog (do take a look â€“ you might learn something). Some of the other studies Fisher lists may be worth something, however.”

He hasn’t read these studies. He thinks that there “may” be something useful in the list, but he couldn’t really say. In other words, he can’t come up with a list satisfying Jim’s criteria.

Quo doesn’t understand that the truth really can set you free. In that spirit, I will answer Jim’s questions: Jim, there just aren’t multiple studies that prove a causal relationship between distant fathers and homosexuality.

The truth was easy, straight forward, and everyone on this thread knew that answer before I wrote it, including Quo who acknowledges the truth of that answer every time he tries to dance around the question, deflect attention to some other subject or someone else’s short-comings.

David

Even if there were some shred of evidence indicating correlation between ‘absent fathers’ and male homosexuality, it would not prove causation.

To prove causation, every single possible alternative would have to be accounted for, and one would have to be experimentally able to create the projected result by exposing the subject to the hypothesized conditions.

However, to disprove causation is much simpler – one need only demonstrate a preponderance of examples where the the hypothesized conditions exist without producing the projected result.

This is what the accumulated evidence exploring the incidence of homosexuality in society in relationship to familial relationships indicates – there is no evidence that ‘absent fathers’ cause their sons to be gay.

Further, the premise is ridiculous, not only because the cumulative effect of male-male intimacy should be to turn gay men straight(as someone mentioned earlier), negative familial patterns tend to create a negative, rather than an attractive response, so if absent fathers have any effect on their sons, it would be to make them womanizers who chase the parent figure they did connect to.

Only trouble is, that doesn’t match observations either.

People extolling the contradicting theories that claim that environment – familial dynamics, exposure to “recruitment”, etc. causes homosexuality are simply grasping at straws; concocting irrational fantasies and charades of science they’d never accept for any other subject matter.

Quo – prove, by eliminating all other possibilities, that ‘absent father’ has caused even one person to be homosexual.

Bear in mind that you will need to account for all of the possible contributions for every gene, and gene combination, as well as every possible hormonal fluxation, no matter how small, during natal development, just to eliminate physical influences. Then you will have to account for every single second, and every single interaction for the entire pre-puberty life of your subject, including not only influences present but those that are not, to demonstrate that your hypothesis is correct.

Or spend your time productively; take the straws you are grasping at and weave a nice basket. Idle hands do the devil’s work, after all.

David

Quo

you complained, a lot, that you were being picked, the subject of personal attacks.

However, your premise attacks, by implication, other people’s relationships with their parents, and dismisses the testimony of gay men who had loving, supportive, nurturing fathers. The theory you are defending, in its purest form is used to brow beat and harass the parents of gay men, and inflicts considerable personal, emotional harm.

Though you have qualified your theory with so much randomness that it is unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific), you really have not created any appreciable distance between yourself and your theory, and a brutally offensive attack on the lives and childhoods of gay men.

You are asserting, from an absence of evidence and the negation of other people’s direct testimony, something that you claim is a truth relevant to the lives of others sufficient to justify coercing and abusing them.

That is a symptom of prejudice when it occurs in relationship to sexual orientation, race, gender, or religion(to name only a few).

Burr,

You speak of “grantdaleâ€™s metastudies”. You don’t seem to be making sense – when did they do any studies?

William and grantdale,

I’m well aware that Bell/Weinberg/Hammersmith is only one of the sources the APA’s 2009 report relies on. By “relies on”, all I meant was that they accept it as a valid study – which it isn’t. The significance of this is that the APA seems unable to distinguish real science from pseudo-science.

John,

The names of the studies aren’t an interesting issue. I didn’t bother to name them the last time this issue was discussed; I chose instead to simply mention the fact that Fisher’s book reviewed them, so that those genuinely interested in the subjcet can pursue the matter for themselves.

That Fisher gets it wrong about Bell et al (which he calls one of the best studies) is regrettable, but doesn’t show that he must be wrong about the value of the others. I’m open minded enough to think that he may be right in thinking they’re valuable.

Grantdale,

Oh, and as for Freund and Blanchard 1983, they too are partially dependent on Bell et al’s pseudo-scientific garbage.

John

For the fourth time Quo refuses to directly answer Jim’s question. He again deflects and in the process acknowledges that there are no studies that meet Jim’s criteria. At the very least, he is consistent.

John,

Since I have not personally reviewed most of the studies Fisher mentions, I can’t say if they’re convincing or not, and as you presumably haven’t either, neither can you.

I’m not necessarily confident that there are studies meeting the criteria Jim mentioned – but I certainly didn’t “acknowledge” that there aren’t.

John

In Quo’s 5th response we are getting dangerously close to the truth. We have an acknowledgement that he hasn’t reviewed the studies. He can’t cite any studies that meet Jim’s criteria and he wrote, “Iâ€™m not necessarily confident that there are studies meeting the criteria Jim mentioned.”

Jim’s challenge was issued in response to Quo’s ongoing arguement that there is strong “scientific” evidence to support the distant father causation theory of homosexuality that he clings to like some singular religious belief.

The science simply does not support the theory. He can’t cite the studies, because rigorous, reproducible, peer reviewed studies in support of this belief simply do not exist.

John,

You write, with regard to the views about homosexuality that courageous groups like Journey Into Manhood are upholding, “rigorous, reproducible, peer reviewed studies in support of this belief simply do not exist.”

How do you know? Whether such sudies exist or not, and whether I am able to cite them, are different quesions, and it’s idiotic to confuse them.

John

Quo has no scientific support for his theory, and to his credit, he is increasingly acknowledging that directly, rather than dancing around the question as he was before. Yet still he clings to this belief, despite the complete lack of science behind it.

His religious belief in the theory is coupled with another belief that there must be studies out there to support his belief, despite his inability to unearth even one of them. He has been arguing for this belief for years yet has never found rigorous, reproducible, peer reviewed studies in support of his belief in all that time. Hmmm. Most objective people would begin to question their basic assumptions at that point, but not the true believer.

Quo wrote:”Whether such s[t]udies exist or not, and whether I am able to cite them, are different quesions, and itâ€™s idiotic to confuse them.”

I haven’t confused the two issues. I have stated fairly clearly that the reason Quo is unable to cite the studies is because they do not exist. I would call that clarity, not confusion.

Ben in Oakland

John– it IS a religious belief. Quo doesn’t have a leg to stand on– he would have to be personally responsible for both his homosexuality and his behavior– if this isn’t true the way that religions are all supposed to be true. And this despite the obvious: they all contradict each other, just like so many of the “observations” and beliefs of the homobigots, the homo-hatin’-homos, and the faux-mosexuals, and at least one quomosexual. We’re hyper masculine, we’re all effeminate. We’re weak, we can bring down mighty empires. We’re godless, we’re infiltrating the churches and fooling those innocent churchmen. We’re obsessed with manhood, we all wear dresses and want to be Tragedy Queens. (Except Lesbians). We’re disgusting and perverted, so disgusting and perverted that we turn naturally hetero people queer just by existing.

Blah, blah, und blah.

Quo is not really (or personally) concerned with the actual absent father (pace, Grantdale, but it’s not really important, as your evidence shows). But Quo does need for the emotionally distant father to be the cause of homosexuality even if and except when it isn’t. But then, that’s not important, either, as he has so clearly demonstrated. It might be true, and there might be a unicorn in Priya’s backyard with a rainbow coming out of its ass. In a world where a Polack can be pope, and no one but me sees the irony (or hoof of Satan) in the Vatican’s Banco di Espiritu Santo, anything is possible.

And why? We already know quo is a major projector. Gays shouldn’t be in the military because HE shouldn’t be in the military. Can’t trust him in the showers; he might forget that he didn’t rent a locker and a towel for the evening. Or he just might not know how to behave himself. We’ve gone through this before with him. We also already know that his father put him down because he wasn’t butch enough, or some such, and that this caused his queerness, and by the laws of projection magic, cause all queerness in all men everywhere, even though it has never been demonstrated outside of his Freudian fever-dream to have caused one man anywhere to turn queer. Don’t forget the other half of the equation which quo has probably left out on purpose: Overbearing Mom. You’d think that having a strong, dominant mother would turn him straight again by the same process, but then what would we do with the left over misogyny? It doesn’t keep.

By the way, this is a good example that cause and effect are easy to confuse a priori, depending on your ideology. Dad senses that Junior is queer, belittles him for not being man enough, leading Junior to hate himself and his sexuality. Or dad belittles Junior for reasons that have nothing to do with queerness, no-no-no-no, creating the distant Bad Dad and thus turns Junior queer from not getting enough Daddy Love while in his formative years, which he then, as Jason has rightly pointed out, sexualizes at the age of 3 (wienerrrrrrrrrs!!!!!), or 7, or 13, or 30, or 90, for reasons completely unclear, unexplained, unpredictable, and unlikely. And if course you also have to wonder where Bad Dad learned that, and why it didn’t turn HIM queer.

Where is William of Occam when you need him?

Quo needs the emotionally distant father to be the cause of homosexuality because he needs HIS father to be the cause of HIS homosexuality. That way, Quo is not responsible for any of his behavior, including his sexual acting out, because he is damaged. As I’ve said to Quo, if homosexuality is simply choosing bad behaviour, it should be fairly easy to choose to stop being homosexual. You shouldn’t have to spend years at the feet of Old Nic OR St. Sigmund. You just stop doing it, and presto-change-o, you’re Alan Chambers or Ted Haggard. He doesn’t have to be a Healthy Homosexual (another book by Weinberg), or indeed, a happy, healthy anything, which he wouldn’t want to be in any case because he really doesn’t like himself. As I’ve often said about quo, the problem is not his homosexuality. The problem is his self hatred. The answers are to be found in transactional analysis, not unsocialized polymorphous perversity.

Grand prize: He is a victim yet one more time, and his father, who put him down for not liking, or liking far too much, Manly Things, is, one more time, the victimizer. More transactional analysis. Of course, it wasn’t my father that made me a homosexual. It was my mother. If you’ll give me the yarn, I’ll see if she’ll make you one, too.

Just for the record: I don’t really care about quo’s alleged sexual acting out. I’ve been a (blush) major slut, maybe not world class, but certainly in there trying. And I have been happily and monogamously married for years in a healthy relationship with a grown up German who used to be a thorough going heterosexual. I’m not judging it at all; I’m just pointing out that nobody held a gun to his head and made him say “You know you want it, doncha, Stud???!!!”. Likewise, I am also very familiar with self hatred and homo-hatin’-homos. I had a gay brother who is dead because of his lifetime of hating everything about himself, but especially his homosexuality. I resent the loss of my gay brother because someone had taught him so carefully that his life was worth scheiss, that he had no responsibility for it, and that all he had to do was blame That Woman. I quote: “Everything I touch turns to shit.”

He was right about that, but not for the reasons he thought. No one should lose his brother for such stupid and petty reasons.

This whole story is fairly obvious and unfortunately, common and predictable. It’s all very Freudian and all very tiresome. OMG, Quo, has does it feel to be a clichÃ© right out Bell and Weinberg world of 1970’s homosexual literature? Becuase you are, irony of ironies.

This is why you could keep arguing with quo about this book and that citation, this theory and that interpretation, and you never get anywhere. You can’t, because you are talking about two different things, just as you can’t get anywhere with a inerrant bible fundamentalist. You’re talking about fact, experience and reason. They’re talking about faith, need, and the willing suspension of disbelief.

As irritating as I find quo to be, as I frequently found my brother for the same reaosns, I only wish him well. I truly wish he would stop hating himself, and put his obvious intellect towards making the world a better place, instead of contributing more to the darkness..

Ben in Oakland

oh.

5 cents, please.

Tommy

Well, well, well, looks like Quo is back and STILL perusing his own line of entirely irrational thinking.

Although you should not have brought up your blog, Quo. I read the first entry and counted innumerable logical fallacies, contradictory ideas and expectations, and an endless series of shifting goalposts. Congratulations, you’ve managed to destroy your own argument fairly effectively.

And then there’s the fact that you brought up Seymour Fisher’s book… even though I personally have shown the massive, gaping, huge holes in that book proving that your conclusions from it were completely irrational.

But one thing you casually threw out there was a perfect example of why the “psychoanalytic” perspective to choose to place all your faith in is bunk. You said the child being “sensitive” was a major factor.

First off the entire notion of “distant father” is hilariously unscientific. Note the complete absence of objective standards for what qualifies as a “distant father.” This is an intentional and evil way to endlessly shift those goalposts. If someone were to say a distant father is a father who interacted with his child only fifty days a year, you would be able to find plenty of gay people who did not have “distant fathers.” By leaving it just a vague notion anything, or indeed nothing could fit into it. I submit that every single person on this planet could find a way to describe their fathers as “distant,” no matter how loving and available they were.

But back to “sensitive.” It is a word with at least five definitions and hundreds of sub-definitions. At least with “distant father” we get some level of standards. We at least know we are talking about fathers. With sensitive we do not even have that much. Sensitive in what way? Oh, right in all the time I’ve seen “sensitive” brought up, no one has ever quantified it. Because, again, if they quantified it, they couldn’t shift those goal posts.

I think what is happening with you Quo is a fairly common example of groupthink that manifests in cults. When a religion disproves itself, the followers switch from being believers to fanatics. They’ve invested so much time and energy into being in this cult, that they simply can’t handle the reality of it being false. So they reject the world rather than the cult, in the process becoming dangerously unhinged. This is probably why you cling so desperately to your delusions about how people become gay.

William

Letâ€™s just look at these two statements from Quo, in consecutive postings:

(1) â€œIâ€™m well aware that Bell/Weinberg/Hammersmith is only one of the sources the APAâ€™s 2009 report relies on. By ‘relies on’, all I meant was that they accept it as a valid study â€“ which it isnâ€™t. The significance of this is that the APA seems unable to distinguish real science from pseudo-science.â€

COROLLARY: The significance of this is that Fisher also â€“ since he calls Bell et al one of the best studies â€“ seems unable to distinguish real science from pseudo-science.

(2) â€œThat Fisher gets it wrong about Bell et al (which he calls one of the best studies) is regrettable, but doesnâ€™t show that he must be wrong about the value of the others. Iâ€™m open minded enough to think that he may be right in thinking theyâ€™re valuable.â€

COROLLARY: That the APA got it wrong (in Quoâ€™s view) about Bell et al is regrettable, but it doesnâ€™t show that they must be wrong about the value of the others. We should be open minded enough to think that they may be right in thinking theyâ€™re valuable.

Which way do you want it, Quo?

It’s nice of Tommy to have taken a look at my blog, but I really don’t think an objective observer would write that my critique of Bell et al’s “Sexual Preference” involves “innumerable logical fallacies, contradictory ideas and expectations, and an endless series of shifting goalposts.”

Instead, an objective observer would admit that I am right – Bell et al’s study is essentially worthless, and so flawed that no conclusions should be drawn from it. If Tommy thinks I’m guilty of logical fallacies it would be helpful if he could explain what they are (preferrably on my blog, rather than here). Even if I were wrong, there is no way I could be guilty of “innumerable” fallacies since my critique of Bell et al is very short…

To William: you’re absolutely right. Fisher (just like the APA) unfortunately does seem incapable of distinguishing valid studies from pseudo-scientific nonsense. This means that there is no necessary reason for trusting what either he or the APA says.

I’d simply suggest that their claims be investigated with an open mind, with no automatic assumption that they are right or wrong.

There’s a widespread assumption out there that the APA, being so-called experts, must be right in the criticisms they make of ex-gay groups like Journey Into Manhood – something which emboldens the likes of Ted Cox to make unethical and self-important (“If I donâ€™t talk about this, this is going to keep happening”) attacks on them. If people took the APA less seriously, stunts like Cox’s might be less likely to happen.

Tommy

And Quo makes a fool out of himself again! Notice that he sets up only two possible outcomes: either you agree with him, or you are not “objective.” It must be the only way you can sleep at night, thinking everyone else is irrational, the reality is you are the deaf and blind person in the kingdom of the bild.

And, yes, you can make innumerable mistakes in a short post. See, “innumerable” means just “numerous.” Please study up on your language skills. Even if we were to use its second definition of “countless,” when your logic turns circular the mistake results in an infinite series of mistakes. Point A to Point B back to Point A leads to infinity. Which happens quite a lot on your sad little excuse for a blog.

I would have to make a much larger post than yours in an effort to show all the logical fallacies in it, and how they all connect to each other. Of course the one that jumps out is the appeal to tradition, which you then use to criticize Bell for setting up objective standards lacking in Kensey’s study. Which just goes to show how phobic you are about anything approaching objectivity (hence your ironic projection earlier). You complain that Bell’s standards are “arbitrary” while defending standards that are even more arbitrary. You wind up making a simple mathematical mistake when trying to present examples of how Bell would miss-label people, which only serves to prove your whole criticism is invalid. I could keep going on like this for an eternity, hence innumerable.

I did notice how you, Quo didn’t respond to anything I said about the lack of objective standards to qualify what a distant father is or what you meant by “sensitive.”

You really are phobic about setting up anything that is capable of being tested and then proven or disproven.

It’s sad and pathetic.

Ben in Oakland

I already diagnosed the reasons ofr this, and no body seemed to care.

And i didn’t get my 5 cents.

William

April 19th, 2010

Quo, have you considered the following theory of the origin of male homosexuality? Like your own theory, it may not apply in ALL cases but in may apply in SOME, and itâ€™s similarly immune to disproof.

MALE FRIENDSHIP AND HOMOSEXUALITY:

The older western astrological texts state that homosexuality occurs when there is an exchange of the signs between Venus, Saturn and Mercury. An ADB search of charts with Sun, Venus, and Mercury in Gemini drew six Gay charts with Gemini stelliums:

ADB #10649: Gemini ascendant; Uranus, Venus, Mercury, Sun in Gemini; Navamsa ascendant, Mars, Mercury Sun in Gemini, Venus in Aquarius (The navamsa is the relationship chart.)

ADB #10650: Virgo ascendant; Uranus, Venus, Mercury, Sun in Gemini; Mars, Mercury, Sun in navamsa Gemini; Navamsa Venus in Aquarius

ADB #10651: Libra ascendant; Uranus, Venus, Mercury, Sun in Gemini; Navamsa ascendant, Mars, Mercury, Sun in Gemini; Venus in Aquarius navamsa

ADB #10982: Virgo ascendant; Uranus, Sun, Mercury, Venus in Gemini; Moon, Neptune in Gemini navamsa; Venus in navamsa Capricorn

ADB #10995: Gemini ascendant: Uranus, Sun, Mercury, Venus in Gemini; Navamsa Venus in Capricorn, navamsa Neptune in Gemini

ADB #13021: Virgo ascendant; Venus, Mercury, Sun in Gemini

Tommy,

There is no “appeal to tradition” in my argument. The problem with what Bell et al did is not that it departs from Kinsey’s procedure (which was itself flawed and questionable) but that it is totally devoid of scientific merit.

You write that I, “…wind up making a simple mathematical mistake when trying to present examples of how Bell would miss-label people, which only serves to prove your whole criticism is invalid.”

No. There’s no mistake in those examples. They were carefully thought through. If you disagree, then please, do feel free to say what you think the mistake is.

Is it possible, Tommy, that you, like Grantdale, just can’t stand the thought that Bell et al got everything important completely wrong? After all, that would mean that one of the main arguments gay activists use against groups such as Journey Into Manhood – that their theories about the causes of homosexuality have been disproven – doesn’t hold up, and we can’t have that, can we?

Tommy

Yes, there is Quo. It’s there whenever you criticize the study based off your incessant criticism for adapting the Kinsey scale, rather than upon the merits of the study itself. It’s an obvious and blatant logical fallacy proving your only concern is discrediting it, rather than good science.

If the problem was that it was “devoid of scientific merit” you would have at no point wondered off in to the logically flawed territory what the Kinsey scale was meant to be, but rather focused on Bell’s use of it.

You absolutely did make that simple mathematical mistake. Look at your two hypothetical examples, you claim the prostitute would be classified as heterosexual, while the prisoner as homosexual. Except according to your own statements about the scale used, both would be 3 on the scale and so both classified as heterosexual. Thus the simple mathematical mistake proving your entire line of criticism wrong.

I’ve not read Bell’s study, nor do I particularly have a vested interest in it. I don’t have to. You’ve done an excellent job demolishing any possible criticism of it. Your reliance upon logical fallacy and out right stupid mistakes is enough to show your claims are entirely without merit.

I do note, again, that you have run screaming to the hills and refused to comment on anything with objective standards. So sad.

Tommy,

You’re right about one thing – I did mis-state the exact circumstances under which Bell et al’s stupid procedure would miscategorize a lesbian as a heterosexual (she’d have to be a Kinsey 4 in terms of attractions, a Kinsey 0 in terms of behavior for that to happen).

It’s a minor mistake, however, and it doesn’t affect my main argument at all. That you haven’t read Bell et al shows – if you had, you’d know that they arbitarily decided that anyone with an overall rating of 3 (exactly equal amounts of heterosexuality and homosexuality) was a homosexual.

Thus, I’m right about the straight prisoner; with exactly equal levels of heterosexuality and homosexuality according to Bell et al’s method (due to his being subjected to homosexual rape) he would be categorized as homosexual.

Next time, try getting some idea of what you’re talking about before telling me I’m wrong.

grantdale

You’re a complete ding-bat Quo. We’re indifferent to anyone showing Bell et al to be wrong, but that person will obviously not be you.

JiM is 100% wrong because they 100% push the notion of bad parenting.

JiM is also 100% laughably sad and idiotic.

You need to find some friends. Seriously.

Have you ever considered joining a motor-cycle club?

——-

@Tommy: a “3” would be classified as “homosexual”. BW&H used the range 2 to 6, which causes it’s own problems at times. I mentioned that in the linked post above. B&W were well aware of this, and discussed it openly. In any case, researchers can access the raw data if required and do their own fiddling about.

The core problem with Quo’s examples is that they are “hypothetical”. ie invented by Quo. There is no evidence that B&W’s encountered such people (or that the overall sample would be tainted beyond repair even if they did).

It wouldn’t really be a discussion with Quo if we didn’t have a whole gallery of straw men flying out of thin air.

It’s all part of his suave charm.

Tommy

Oh, Quo, as always you grasp at straws. But I do love how you are forced to admit I was right, absolutely right about your logical fallacies. Of course if I am right about that one, how many others am I right about? Did you ask yourself that? I doubt it. And no, it isn’t a minor mistake, it is a core criticism you level against the study. And it being disproven, as you yourself admit, invalidates not just it, but every argument hinging upon it.

And like I said, I don’t have to read Bell at all. Mainly because at no point did I argue science at all. I was arguing logic, something you failed at. I do not have to read Bell to know you were appealing to tradition or to see your phobic reaction to objective standards. And that you criticize it for having “arbitrary standards” even though those standards were more objective than either Kinsey or Freud. It’s really hard to take criticism about “arbitrary standards” seriously from someone who is so terrified of objective standards.

“Next time, try getting some idea of what youâ€™re talking about before telling me Iâ€™m wrong.”

What an ironic statement from someone who was forced to admit I was right in telling him he was wrong.

Now, where are those objective standards about distant fathers and sensitivity?

Grantdale,

Nope, what Journey Into Manhood is saying about homosexuality is the absolute truth. I like them and approve of what they do. I hope that Ted Cox, and anyone else who tries to pull stunts similar to his, is prosecuted and given suitable punishments, including fines and perhaps even jail time.

Regarding your claim that Bell et al’s original data (eg, their findings about their subjects Kinsey ratings for feelings and behavior, as distinct from the artificially generated figures produced by their averaging those original figures), is available: prove it, or retract it. I didn’t notice anything in their study suggesting that their original data were even preserved.

You misunderstand the point of my hypothetical examples. It isn’t to insist that only these two particular possible cases could have distorted the outcome – rather, any cases in which the feelings and behavior scores were significantly different could have that effect.

Unless the original data are available, there is no way of knowing to what extent this problem might have distorted Bell et al’s findings. It’s entirely conceivable that they didn’t distort them to any significant extent, but it’s equally possible they did.

Tommy,

Er, no. I didn’t admit that you were “absolutely right” about my supposed “logical fallacies.” All I said was that I slightly misdescribed one of the possible ways that Bell et al’s unsound methodology might have distorted their results.

Looking at it again, I don’t even think I misdescribed it – I just wasn’t quite as clear as I could have been (I’ve changed my critique of Bell et al to clarify the prostitute example).

What you call Bell et al’s “objective” approach is actually their rigid, absurd misuse of mathematics to try to draw conclusions about human sexuality. Scientifically, it’s utter nonsense.

grantdale

Quo, I will not be ordered about by anyone — let alone by a lunatic.

I was about to start laughing my head off at the very idea of you personally being able to sustain that “Prove it, or retract it” approach you demand of others, but then I remembered you would not because you are a self-absorbed hypocrite. That’s two misfortunes that I really shouldn’t laugh about.

If you want the Bell and Weinberg data you can flipping well pay the Kinsey Institute to run it off for you. Following standard scientific research practice, the data set has been available (and in use) for 30 years. Prepayment is required, so you may want to alert your guardian.

So, how about it? Do you want to prove that bad parenting causes any homosexuality, or do you wish to retract?

Independent research: not really your strong point is it?

ps. Given our input is intended to simply protect others from your life of fantasy, rather than try convince you of anything, I think we’re about done on this for now.

anteros

April 21st, 2010

Quo:

r u xxxgay?

Tommy

April 21st, 2010

Oh, Quo,again you humiliate yourself. You go from claiming it was a mistake to suddenly it was a vagueness of language. Even thought you’ve already admitted that I was right. You said “I don’t think,” and truer words were never spoken.

And I didn’t say it was “objective,” I said it was “more objective.” Or, I said within the context of the study their standards were objective. There’s less fuzziness there. Of course you at no point show it is an “absurd misuse of mathematics.” The mistake you made shows you clearly have no understanding of even the most simplistic mathematics. And as far as “rigid” that hilariously telling. “Rigid” means it can be proven or disproven, Quo, something you are terrified of. “Rigid” means coming up with standards BEFORE the experiment, not retroactively applying them in order to make the data fit as you believe should be done. “Rigid” means objective standards of the kind you keep avoiding stating with regards to “distant fathers” and “sensitive.”

Scientifically everything you believe is utter nonsense. Scientifically all your complaints are utter nonsense. So, go address the lack of objective standards in your hilariously stupid belief about “distant fathers” and “sensitive.” But we all know you won’t, you are terrified of objective standards. If you create objective standards, well then you might accidentally falsify them, your greatest fear.

April 22nd, 2010

Grantdale,

You wrote that, “If you want the Bell and Weinberg data you can flipping well pay the Kinsey Institute to run it off for you. Following standard scientific research practice, the data set has been available (and in use) for 30 years.”

If by “the data set”, you mean their figures for their subjects’ separate Kinsey ratings for feelings and behavior (as distinct from the nonsense figures produced by averaging them), that seems totally baseless.

Tommy,

I see that, despite Grantdale’s attempt to help you, you honestly don’t understand my argument, which is quite simple and straightforward. That’s really too bad.

Priya Lynn

April 22nd, 2010

Quo your arguments are irrational that’s why no one but you “understands” them.

I apologise to both Tommy and Grantdale – I missed the point that Bell et al classified Kinsey 2s as homosexuals. In other words, they actually decided that people who were mostly heterosexual according to their combined measure of feelings and behavior were homosexuals.

If I missed that point (which means that the prostitute example I was using doesn’t work), it’s because the sheer idiocy of Bell et al’s approach is difficult to grasp fully. I was simply being too generous to them. I will be rewiting my critique of them accordingly.

Priya,

No, none of my arguments were irrational. I misread Bell et al on one point, failing to realize that they classified mainly heterosexual people as homosexual (it does seem hard to believe…), but that’s all.

grantdale

Priya, Quo doesn’t just have irrational thought pattens, he’s ignorant and unwilling to correct even in the face of plain evidence. A dangerous combination where you’re so damn sure of yourself.

Perfect example: even after I gave him the direct link to the B&W codebook, do you think he bothered to look at it? No — he simply maintains that separate figures for behaviour and feelings are unavailable. “Baseless”, he says.

Yet, there they are. Neatly coded as response 20/49 and 20/50, both on a scale of 0 to 6, from the original 1969 survey. For a modest fee the Kinsey Institute would be more than happy to run either of them off, matched to any of the other 526 questions, ready for a stats package of choice.

Sadly, the fevered mind of Quo has locked on a false belief that the past 50 years of study by thousands of researchers — and the lives of millions of gay men and women — all relies on something Bell & Weinberg wrote.

Yes, irrational to the core.

Priya Lynn

Yes, I see Grantdale, Quo is not only irrational, but willfully blind. He’s decided what he wants to believe in advance and won’t allow any evidence to the contrary to dwell in his mind.

Grantdale,

When you have a legitimate point, it helps to express it in a polite and easily understandable way.

Links to other websites are difficult to spot when they are burried within the text of a comment; I therefore didn’t see your link to the Kinsey Institute’s site until now.

I don’t believe, and didn’t suggest that, “the past 50 years of study by thousands of researchers â€” and the lives of millions of gay men and women â€” all relies on something Bell & Weinberg wrote”. (Their study is 29 years old now, by the way, not 50 years old).

grantdale