What. The. Fcuk?

[Prufrock]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8015711.stm

Doctors criticise 'gay treatment'



Plans to promote medical treatment for homosexuality at a religious conference have been criticised by doctors.

The event will hear from prominent American psychologist Dr Joseph Nicolosi who said he had helped many people to become heterosexual.

But the Royal College of Psychiatrists said there was no supporting evidence and such treatment could be damaging.

The two-day conference being held in central London has been organised by the church group Anglican Mainstream.

'Deal of evidence'

Dr Nicolosi said he had been helping people to "increase their heterosexual potential" for 25 years, and put his success rate among men at about two out of three.

He said he was offering a choice for people who were unhappy being gay.

While the Church of England said it did not promote such therapies, Anglican Mainstream believed such an approach needed to become more well known.

Dr Nicolosi told BBC News: "We have a great deal of evidence showing that these individuals are not harmed and that the therapy does work.

"We are petitioning the American Psychiatric Association to look at the scientific data."

'Prejudice and discrimination'

The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) said there was no evidence that the treatment worked, and that it was likely to cause considerable distress.

An RCP spokesman said: "There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.

"Furthermore, so-called treatments of homosexuality create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish."

The Royal College said the American Psychiatric Association had concluded there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic glossary of mental disorders in 1973.

The World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases followed suit in 1992.

How the hell is this allowed? Also, still a disease in 1992 ffs!!!

[TANGODANCER]

In just as much as people can openly choose to be gay these days, surely that right extends to choosing not to? I would have thought the choice lay with the individual, not the Royal College of trick-cyclists.

[a1]

can stem cells make people not gay ?

[Puskas]

In just as much as people can openly choose to be gay these days, surely that right extends to choosing not to? I would have thought the choice lay with the individual, not the Royal College of trick-cyclists.

Eh????

How does one choose to be gay? Or not?

Surely it's biologically hard-wired?

I fancy person X and similar types. If that type is the same sex as me, I'm gay. If not, I'm not.

I don't really have much choice in the matter, either way.

[TANGODANCER]

In just as much as people can openly choose to be gay these days, surely that right extends to choosing not to? I would have thought the choice lay with the individual, not the Royal College of trick-cyclists.

Eh????
How does one choose to be gay? Or not?
Surely it's biologically hard-wired?
I fancy person X and similar types. If that type is the same sex as me, I'm gay. If not, I'm not.
I don't really have much choice in the matter, either way.[/quote

If they're not happy with it and want the treatment being described. No different than a man wanting to be a woman. It's the individuals' choice. Simple enough.

[Montreal Wanderer]

In just as much as people can openly choose to be gay these days, surely that right extends to choosing not to? I would have thought the choice lay with the individual, not the Royal College of trick-cyclists.

Eh????
How does one choose to be gay? Or not?
Surely it's biologically hard-wired?
I fancy person X and similar types. If that type is the same sex as me, I'm gay. If not, I'm not.
I don't really have much choice in the matter, either way.

If they're not happy with it and want the treatment being described. No different than a man wanting to be a woman. It's the individuals' choice. Simple enough.

I think you are on shaky grounds with this view, Tango. If they are not happy the treatment described will likely not change them - there seems to be a paucity of evidence on this. Yes, gay men can pretend to be straight (they did in our youth) and get married, but they were still gay. The difference is there is no longer a stigma attached to sexual orientation and it is not a crime (it was when you were young) or a disease. That's progress.

[seanworth]

In just as much as people can openly choose to be gay these days, surely that right extends to choosing not to? I would have thought the choice lay with the individual, not the Royal College of trick-cyclists.

Eh????
How does one choose to be gay? Or not?
Surely it's biologically hard-wired?
I fancy person X and similar types. If that type is the same sex as me, I'm gay. If not, I'm not.
I don't really have much choice in the matter, either way.

If they're not happy with it and want the treatment being described. No different than a man wanting to be a woman. It's the individuals' choice. Simple enough.

I think you are on shaky grounds with this view, Tango. If they are not happy the treatment described will likely not change them - there seems to be a paucity of evidence on this. Yes, gay men can pretend to be straight (they did in our youth) and get married, but they were still gay. The difference is there is no longer a stigma attached to sexual orientation and it is not a crime (it was when you were young) or a disease. That's progress.

I would find this more acceptable if they also offered a treatment for heterosexuals who were unhappy with their sexual orientation, and wanted to become homosexuals.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I have a friend, Olivia Jensen, once Oliver, who had a sex change operations in her 40s - she is now in her mid-sixties. He was married with two children and was heterosexual. After the operation she still had an interest in women (though she tried men too) and I asked her if this changed her from heterosexual to homosexual. She explained that there were at least nine sexes (based on XY variations) and each June she has a party where many are on display. Attending these events has raised my consciousness and, on occasion, my hair. I recall one time discussing our kids with three other fathers - I was the only one not wearing a skirt (though I was still the best looking . )

[TANGODANCER]

I think you are on shaky grounds with this view, Tango. If they are not happy the treatment described will likely not change them - there seems to be a paucity of evidence on this. Yes, gay men can pretend to be straight (they did in our youth) and get married, but they were still gay. The difference is there is no longer a stigma attached to sexual orientation and it is not a crime (it was when you were young) or a disease. That's progress.

But I don't have a view Monty; only that a body of individuals shouldn't decide over what someone wants in that light. It's no different than another body of people deciding homosexuality was wrong (which happened for centuries, I agree). People will decide their own fate in the end. What conclusion they come to is their own to make, rightly or wrongly. That's the only view I was expressing. In the past, sex was always a private thing, now it's a public industry.

[seanworth]

I have a friend, [http://travesti.geophys.mcgill.ca/~olivia/olivia.html] Olivia Jensen[/url], once Oliver, who had a sex change operations in her 40s - she is now in her mid-sixties. He was married with two children and was heterosexual. After the operation she still had an interest in women (though she tried men too) and I asked her if this changed her from heterosexual to homosexual. She explained that there were at least nine sexes (based on XY variations) and each June she has a party where many are on display. Attending these events has raised my consciousness and, on occasion, my hair. I recall one time discussing our kids with three other fathers - I was the only one not wearing a skirt (though I was still the best looking . )

Why, not got the legs for it?

[Montreal Wanderer]

I think you are on shaky grounds with this view, Tango. If they are not happy the treatment described will likely not change them - there seems to be a paucity of evidence on this. Yes, gay men can pretend to be straight (they did in our youth) and get married, but they were still gay. The difference is there is no longer a stigma attached to sexual orientation and it is not a crime (it was when you were young) or a disease. That's progress.

But I don't have a view Monty; only that a body of individuals shouldn't decide over what someone wants in that light. It's no different than another body of people deciding homosexuality was wrong (which happened for centuries, I agree). People will decide their own fate in the end. What conclusion they come to is their own to make, rightly or wrongly. That's the only view I was expressing. In the past, sex was always a private thing, now it's a public industry.

I meant your view that it was the individual's choice - we don't have a choice in these "hard-wired" preferences of sexual orientation and have to adapt to what we are. Fortunately it is easier now in (at least) western societies.

[Prufrock]

In just as much as people can openly choose to be gay these days, surely that right extends to choosing not to? I would have thought the choice lay with the individual, not the Royal College of trick-cyclists.

You don't choose! And you can't *cure* it. This smacks of some mental Nazi experiment. Being gay is not a choice nor a disease. In your lifetime being gay was a crime, and in mine it was recognised as a disease, the fact this is no longer the case is massive progress, stuff like this being allowed sets back movements massively and is SUPREMELY ignorant.

[CrazyHorse]

In just as much as people can openly choose to be gay these days, surely that right extends to choosing not to? I would have thought the choice lay with the individual, not the Royal College of trick-cyclists.

You don't choose! And you can't *cure* it. This smacks of some mental Nazi experiment. Being gay is not a choice nor a disease. In your lifetime being gay was a crime, and in mine it was recognised as a disease, the fact this is no longer the case is massive progress, stuff like this being allowed sets back movements massively and is SUPREMELY ignorant.

Christ you're a drama queen. Calm down for crying out loud.

Nazi experiment? Get a grip.

[TANGODANCER]

In just as much as people can openly choose to be gay these days, surely that right extends to choosing not to? I would have thought the choice lay with the individual, not the Royal College of trick-cyclists.

You don't choose! And you can't *cure* it. This smacks of some mental Nazi experiment. Being gay is not a choice nor a disease. In your lifetime being gay was a crime, and in mine it was recognised as a disease, the fact this is no longer the case is massive progress, stuff like this being allowed sets back movements massively and is SUPREMELY ignorant.

Shxt. I've been associating with criminals for years.

Get over yourself Pru. Victoria had been dead nearly forty years before I was born. Two of Bolton's most notorious gays went to the Palais when I did. Next door neighbour's lad (who I've known all his life) is gay, guy across the road is gay, the guy who delivers supplies to me at work is gay, three female friends are lesbians. Do I need more to qualify as a good guy?

Just to put you straight (awful pun, I agree) as long as no-one tells me what to be, I'm fine with it all. Like Hoss says, calm down lad.

[Montreal Wanderer]

In just as much as people can openly choose to be gay these days, surely that right extends to choosing not to? I would have thought the choice lay with the individual, not the Royal College of trick-cyclists.

You don't choose! And you can't *cure* it. This smacks of some mental Nazi experiment. Being gay is not a choice nor a disease. In your lifetime being gay was a crime, and in mine it was recognised as a disease, the fact this is no longer the case is massive progress, stuff like this being allowed sets back movements massively and is SUPREMELY ignorant.

Shxt. I've been associating with criminals for years.

Get over yourself Pru. Victoria had been dead nearly forty years before I was born. Two of Bolton's most notorious gays went to the Palais when I did. Next door neighbour's lad (who I've known all his life) is gay, guy across the road is gay, the guy who delivers supplies to me at work is gay, three female friends are lesbians. Do I need more to qualify as a good guy?

Just to put you straight (awful pun, I agree) as long as no-one tells me what to be, I'm fine with it all. Like Hoss says, calm down lad.

Victoria may be dead but decriminalization in the UK came as follows: sexual acts between two adult males, with no other people present, were made legal in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980 and Northern Ireland in 1982. That is fairly recent. Only in 1997 was the age of consent lowered to that of heterosexual relationships (16 years old) and no other person present was reduced to minor person present.

[TANGODANCER]

Victoria may be dead but decriminalization in the UK came as follows: sexual acts between two adult males, with no other people present, were made legal in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980 and Northern Ireland in 1982. That is fairly recent. Only in 1997 was the age of consent lowered to that of heterosexual relationships (16 years old) and no other person present was reduced to minor person present.

Since when has legal been anything but the guidelines on anything regarding sex? The people making such laws have oft been quotes as some of the worse offenders. They musn't have told Oscar Wilde and co.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Victoria may be dead but decriminalization in the UK came as follows: sexual acts between two adult males, with no other people present, were made legal in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980 and Northern Ireland in 1982. That is fairly recent. Only in 1997 was the age of consent lowered to that of heterosexual relationships (16 years old) and no other person present was reduced to minor person present.

Since when has legal been anything but the guidelines on anything regarding sex? The people making such laws have oft been quotes as some of the worse offenders. They musn't have told Oscar Wilde and co.

Fair enough. Dislike for and/or disgust at homosexual behaviour was drilled into me at school (along with many other prejudices). I shed most of them on emigrating but, I'm ashamed to confess, my homophobia lasted longer. Even when I knew intellectually the prejudice was wrong, I still had a knee-jerk reaction of revulsion. It took me until I was about thirty to shake that and I'm not too proud of myself. That was 35 years ago and, since then, my life has been enriched by knowing people of many persuasions. Perhaps because of my own guilt, I needed to point out that society came late to according those of a different sexual orientation full civil rights.

[TANGODANCER]

Almost every prejudice we possess comes from inherited beliefs rather than our own unclouded decisions. If we could forget them all, or not know them (the way a class of kids of all denominations play and grow together happily do) we'd be better people. In time we realise that the world is just a place of only two divisions, comprised of various degrees of decentfolkiness and arseholeability. That, I'm afraid, is the nature of the beast and will probably never change.

Here endeth tonight's lesson. It's weekend and I'm of to listen to some music and maybe have a read.

[finlayson]

I guess any treatment for sexual devience is good.

after all, it must be wrong...it says so in the Bible....










Sarcasm that by the way!

[Jakerbeef]

To muddy the water even further, I know a set of twins. One gay, the other not. Both obviously raised under similar conditions.

Not quite sure how that affects the 'born as' or 'upbringing' routes. So what does really decide it?