BBC’s Stephen Fry Interviews Joseph Nicolosi

Stephen Fry of the BBC interviews Jospeh Nicolosi and a former patient (Dan Gonzales).

Nicolosi: “We resolve the conflicts behind the homosexual attractions, that’s what we do.”

Nicolosi covers familiar ground in that he claims homosexuality is the result of psychological trauma with the parents, particularly the father.

He still insists without any evidence that one-third are not cured, one-third gets some improvement and one-third experience significant change.

Sixty percent of his clients are teens.

Fry acknowledges that his dad was aloof but his dad was aloof with his brother, who is straight, as well.

Metrosexual?

Print Friendly

  • http://www.classicalarminian.blogspot.com/ William Birch

    I watched this video yesterday, and was quite pleased. I, too, had experienced a somewhat emotional detachment from my father, but not because he was distant, or because I didn’t feel loved by him: we just didn’t have a lot in common. Then again, neither did he and my straight brother.

    How, then, can we account for my being gay and my brother being straight? Reparative Drive theory has no legitimate answer to this dilemma. For this and other reasons I find the theory farcical at best, dangerous and emotionally and psychologically damaging at worse, as I’ve often stated here and on my own blog.

    Nicolosi’s alleged metrosexuality was a hilarious input I was not expecting! (lol) How perceptive of Fry! But, for me at least, the clincher in this piece is Nicolosi’s failure to provide Fry with even one willing patient who has been one hundred percent converted from homosexual attraction to heterosexual attraction. What about the guy who looked at gay porn and was, supposedly, no longer excited by it — why not offer his voice? Could it be a mere wishful thinking — a momentary persuasion of wishful thinking that is able to be persuaded to the contrary, same-sex-attracted reality?

  • Bernie Keefe

    I saw this yesterday as well. My gaydar picked up on Nicolosi as being closeted, a little more than just Metro. I believe that was Fry’s attempt.

  • Throbert McGee

    What about the guy who looked at gay porn and was, supposedly, no longer excited by it — why not offer his voice?

    The question that jumped into my head was “Yabbut has he started to get excited by pictures of naked women?”

    Some months ago, Warren posted a link to a NARTH study which suggested that certain anti-depressant medications can reduce homosexual desire in men — never mind the fact that these same anti-depressants have long been known to put the damper on ALL sexual desire, homo or hetero, in both males and females!

    But people like Nicolosi would rather believe that “heterosexuality” consists of the mere absence of same-sex desires, rather than the presence of opposite-sex desires.

  • Mary

    Hahahaha! Don’t know if they edited the video or what but I loved the reaction Nicolosi gave in response to the “…you could be mistaken for a gay man…”

  • tom van dyke

    Fry acknowledges that his dad was aloof but his dad was aloof with his brother, who is straight, as well.

    Metrosexual?

    Everyone who smokes doesn’t get lung cancer.

  • Richard Willmer

    What about those get on wonderfully with dad and are gay? (Well, I suppose some might retort that not everyone who doesn’t smoke does not get lung cancer.)

    The real issue here is that Nicolosi has a proposition (which he uses as a basis for ‘treating patients’ – or ‘diagnosis’ of their ‘condition’); the problem is that he can’t seem to produce credible evidence to back up that proposition.

  • William

    @ tom van dyke

    Similarly, a certain conjunction of the planets at birth is a cause of homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean that everyone with that birth chart will be homosexual.

    That’s the beauty of non-scientific theories like that: they can be reconciled with almost any conceivable state of affairs.

  • Patrocles

    The basic idea seems to be that boys – in order to become men – need a masculine role model with whom they can identify.
    I would add that the boys bring with them, of course, an innate degree of masculinity/feminity. If the boy is extremely feminine, no masculine role model will work. If he is extremely masculine, he will not need much of a role model. The most frequent and most interesting boys are the in-betweens.
    I will add, too, that under certain conditions the father can be replaced by another masculine role model. (And Nicolosi wouldn’t deny that.)

    That is, as far as I see, the element of truth in Nicolosi’s theory.

    • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

      Pat – You just undermined Nicolosi’s theory with a nature slant on the nature-nurture issue. Well done.

  • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

    Richard: I know for a fact that Nicolosi knows those men exist. I confronted him with at 15 cases of these men in a meeting several years ago. He denied they were gay. In one case in particular, he told me the client wasn’t really gay. Essentially, Nicolosi denies what he doesn’t like. Seen it first hand.

  • Patrocles

    Warren,

    I’m not a complete follower of Nicolosi; I’m just stressing the elements of truth in his theory.
    Notwithstanding: Indeed I suppose that a certain degree of masculinity/feminity is innate. That does NOT mean that sexual orientation or sexual attraction in itself is innate. Rather masculine men can be homosexual, and rather feminine men can be straight. (Didn’t you yourself share this position some time: Not homosexuality is innate, but only some peculiar conditions which make the resulting homosexuality more probable or less probable? And I never understood, if eventually you changed your position, and why.)

    • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

      Pat – You are referring to my favorable evaluation of Bem’s EBE theory. I did have a more favorable opinion of it at one time than I do now. While I am of the opinion that Nicolosi is painfully wrong, I don’t have much clarity other than that. I think the action is probably in the flux of estrogen and testosterone during development, particularly the development of the hypothalamus. However, that is a pretty broad statement and not an opinion I can stand on with solid conviction. I think we know more about what does not lead to sexual orientation than we know about what does lead to it.

  • Christopher Doyle

    Warren,

    It has been my clinical observation that the client’s sensitive temperament is the significant factor that leads to the development of SSA, in combination with the Triadic Narcissistic Family. Other siblings may not have this sensitivity, thus, they do not development SSA.

    That would explain the difference between siblings, albeit a simple one.

    Chris

  • ken

    tom van dyke# ~ Oct 16, 2013 at 10:45 pm

    ” “Fry acknowledges that his dad was aloof but his dad was aloof with his brother, who is straight, as well.”

    Everyone who smokes doesn’t get lung cancer.”

    Are you claiming that evidence for Nicolosi’s “weak father” theory and homosexuality is strong as (or even any close to) the evidence of the link between smoking and lung cancer?

  • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

    Christopher – In God we trust, all others must bring data.

    Your clinical experience is not sufficient. I have much more clinical experience and in my experience, gay males and straight males are about the same when it comes to closeness with dad. However, even my experience is not sufficient as proof. It does however, call into question the overgeneralization reparative therapies do with their cases.

    There are studies which seem to support your side and studies which support mine. We must then look at the quality of the evidence, and in my view, the studies which fail to link fathering with male homosexuality are of better quality and take more factors into account.

  • ken

    Patrocles# ~ Oct 17, 2013 at 8:07 am

    “The basic idea seems to be that boys – in order to become men – need a masculine role model with whom they can identify.”

    Are you suggesting gay men aren’t “men”?

    You also seem to be suggesting that gay men aren’t masculine. I would say that guys like David Kopay, Orlando Cruz, John Amaechi, Billy Bean, Brendan Burke and a host of others would disagree with that suggestion.

  • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

    While we are on this topic, let me remind all about this page with lots of information on the reparative drive theory.

    http://wthrockmorton.com/reparative-therapy-information

  • DAVE G

    Research child development: temperament varies at birth from sensitive/passive to adventurous/active –on a spectrum bounded by each extreme. Our culture deems the s/p “feminine” and a/a “masculine” since the sexes on average tend in either direction, but neither makes a male “feminine” nor a female “masculine”. However, the s/p tendency also makes one more at risk of conforming to social pressures, and the a/a more at risk of experimenting with behaviors that can prove to be addictive; in the case of sexual behaviors, especially during the fertile years.

    The association of sex-drive with any LGBT behavior is emotion-imprinted conditioned behavior (perception, cognition, self-identity, interpersonal attractions and actions). The testimony of ex-gays indicates that the identity aspect is more responsive to counseling, whereas the neural imprint of the emotional experience of same-sex intercourse (or porn-stimulated sexual release) is much harder to extinguish.

    • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

      DAVE G – Please provide data for this statement: “the s/p tendency also makes one more at risk of conforming to social pressures.”

  • http://www.classicalarminian.blogspot.com/ William Birch

    Christopher — “It has been my clinical observation that the client’s sensitive temperament is the significant factor that leads to the development of SSA.”

    Yet you claim that those with SSA are not “born that way.” In other words, people, men in particular, are not “born gay,” but they are at least born with the propensity toward being gay by allegedly being born with a sensitive nature, which would render the cause of SSA biological. Would you agree?

    Why I think this is nonsensical is because both me and my straight brother are “of a sensitive nature,” as is my heterosexual father. Yet, we are all three very masculine men. The same can be said of some other men I know. One beer-drinking, Nascar-watching, Chevy-truck driving, construction-working man just secretly came out to me recently. The “sensitive nature” theory is unfounded scientifically, as you yourself have admitted, and is, in my opinion, embarrassingly inconsistent.

  • DAVE G

    Warren: It is my observation that s/p individuals seek (need?) peer approval more than the a/a personalities. This is a common observation mentioned in many psych texts.

  • William

    @ Christopher Doyle:

    How do you determine whether or not other siblings have this sensitivity? By the circular process of reasoning that, if they have not “developed SSA”, then obviously they don’t have this sensitivity?

  • http://www.classicalarminian.blogspot.com/ William Birch

    Christopher,

    My heterosexual brother and heterosexual father have a sensitive temperament. Why, then, did this sensitive nature not lead them toward SSA?

  • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

    DAVE G – Your observations are nice, but they are not sufficient. There are too many exceptions and too many other observations that contradict yours to allow us to make much of anything of your hypothesis.

  • http://www.classicalarminian.blogspot.com/ William Birch

    Christopher,

    BTW, I couldn’t help but notice that you neglected to answer my question regarding biology.

  • DAVE G

    Warren: Yes, I’m aware of exceptions, which is why we use the word “tendency’; but in statistical analysis, “exceptions” are just that. They are not statistically significant.

  • tom van dyke

    ken# ~ Oct 17, 2013 at 9:41 am
    tom van dyke# ~ Oct 16, 2013 at 10:45 pm

    ” “Fry acknowledges that his dad was aloof but his dad was aloof with his brother, who is straight, as well.”

    Everyone who smokes doesn’t get lung cancer.”

    Are you claiming that evidence for Nicolosi’s “weak father” theory and homosexuality is strong as (or even any close to) the evidence of the link between smoking and lung cancer?

    I’m saying that Dr. Throckmorton’s demurral in the post

    Fry acknowledges that his dad was aloof but his dad was aloof with his brother, who is straight, as well.

    is neither logical nor scientific. If Nicolosi’s theory is false, this particular demurral doesn’t establish that, is all. Later on in this combox Warren, rather establishes that We. Don’t. Know.

    FTR, I lean toward Warren’s intuition/inductive guess, that a disposition towards SSA is epigenetic, that is, due to hormones released by the mother during pregnancy. However, perhaps this “disposition” is latent, and needs to be brought out by environmental factors such as family relationships with dad, mom or even older brothers.

    If so, Nicolosi could be partially correct, that family relationships are relevant– although not the direct or only cause of same-sex attraction, which is why not every bad father-son relationship results in SSA.

    And of course, lesbianism could be a completely different constellation of causes and factors than with males. Perhaps its related to psychosexual trauma. Perhaps some [but not all] males with SSA are habituated to it by early sexual experiences, voluntary or involuntary.

    Science admits, or should admit, that it does not know at this point whether male and female SSA are even related or if there’s only one kind, reason, and cause of SSA. My objection here is formal, to the logic of the original post. I have no problem with Dr. Throckmorton’s later admission in the combox that he leans toward studies that ignore father-son relationships completely. But the original post’s demurral is not that argument. It’s possible that, for reasons given, Nicolosi is at least partially correct.

  • ken

    tom van dyke# ~ Oct 17, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    “I’m saying that Dr. Throckmorton’s demurral in the post is neither logical nor scientific.”

    Warren isn’t “demurring” on anything. He is saying quite plainly (apparently to everyone but you), that Nicolosi has no scientific evidence to support his claims.

    “Science admits, or should admit, that it does not know at this point whether male and female SSA are even related or if there’s only one kind, reason, and cause of SSA. ”

    “Science” (or rather scientists) do admit that what determines a persons sexual orientation is unknown. The APA has had statements to that effect on its website for years.

    “But the original post’s demurral is not that argument.”

    Warren’s original post wasn’t an argument. It was a summary of the video he linked to. You appear to have mis-interpreted what Warren wrote, then attacked that mis-interpreted notion.

  • Tom Van Dyke

    I’m afraid you’re not following, Ken, or being responsive to what I just wrote. Thanks anyway.

  • stephen

    Oh look, Christopher Doyle found an authentic ex-gay. He’s not shy to present him to the world. One wonders why Nicolosi doesn’t have the same faith in his work.

    Kudos to Mr. Doyle. I can’t think when I’ve been more convinced. Here’s the ex-gay of the year.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eosYfCAJJio

  • ken

    Tom Van Dyke# ~ Oct 17, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    “I’m afraid you’re not following, Ken,”

    And yet you don’t bother to try and clarify what you are saying. Instead you choose to be dismissive.

    “being responsive to what I just wrote.”

    I did respond to what you wrote. I said it was a classic straw man argument. You mis-represented Warren’s original post, then attacked that mis-representation. Do you not understand that the original post was a summary not an attempt at a logical argument?

    Further, you never directly answered my question about your reference to cancer. A simple “Yes, I’m claiming that” or “No, I’m not claiming that”, with additional info afterwards if you wanted, would have been very clear. As it is, I still don’t know what your answer to that question is.

  • ken

    Regarding the 60% of Nicolosi’s clients are teenagers, notice when he says that (at approx. 4:53 in the video) he also says it is the parents that are calling to enroll their teenagers in the therapy. Not the teenagers pushing for it themselves:

    parents call up in a panic because they found that their son is looking at gay porn and of course we have to get him into therapy.

    Previously, Nicolosi has claimed he has never treated anyone who didn’t want to be in therapy and puts the child’s wishes above those of the parents (see Sissy Boy experiment, Part 3), yet he describes how he gets is clients in just the opposite way.

  • inca nitta

    It’s amazing that so far, Daniel Gonzalez, is the only person to be known who has been “totally harmed” by Dr. Nicolosi’s therapy. All other clients of his and of NARTH, even though, still retained SSA have found benefits with his therapy. As for why he doesn’t ask his clients to speak positively about NARTH and does not mention them to the public, I think it’s a simple confidentiality between a therapist and a client issue.

  • Ann

    Dr. Throckmorton,

    About a year ago, you posted about a very interesting article about epigenetics – in that article a test was proposed to validate the theory of epi markers and how they can explain sexual orientations. I remember the test was viewed as a very simple one and would take only about 6 months. Do you know if there Is there any follow-up on that?

  • http://www.wthrockmorton.com Warren Throckmorton

    Ann – Haven’t seen any follow up…

  • Ann

    Dr. Nicolosi is far more effective in helping clients modify or temper their unwanted SSA and/or have a different perspective of themselves than he is at public speaking.

  • http://www.wthrockmorton.com Warren Throckmorton

    Ann – Given the fact that he has no evidence, I would say that your assessment is more faith than fact.

  • Ann

    Dr. Throckmorton,

    I’m not sure what evidence you are referring to or how to quantify personal experiences in therapy, or that it should be necessary. I would also say that your comment about an assessment being more faith based than fact is unnecessary and inaccurate. I made a comment based on personal experience and nothing more. I believe Dr. Nicolosi is a better therapist than public speaker and wish, for everyone, that he would stop making public appearances and espousing a theory that may or may not be true. He, like you and everyone else, cannot back up any theories about this subject. All we have are studies and opinions.

  • ken

    inca nitta# ~ Oct 18, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    “It’s amazing that so far, Daniel Gonzalez, is the only person to be known who has been “totally harmed” by Dr. Nicolosi’s therapy. ”

    he is not. Do a web search on the name “Ryan Kendall”

    “All other clients of his and of NARTH, even though, still retained SSA have found benefits with his therapy.”

    Gabriel Arana didn’t.

    “As for why he doesn’t ask his clients to speak positively about NARTH and does not mention them to the public, I think it’s a simple confidentiality between a therapist and a client issue.”

    If he doesn’t ask his clients to speak positively about NARTH, how do you know that “all of his other clients” benefited from his therapy?

  • ken

    Ann# ~ Oct 18, 2013 at 1:21 pm

    “Dr. Throckmorton,

    I’m not sure what evidence you are referring to or how to quantify personal experiences in therapy,”

    Evidence that Nicolosi is “effective in helping clients modify or temper their unwanted SSA”

    “He, like you and everyone else, cannot back up any theories about this subject. All we have are studies and opinions.”

    Studies and research are HOW scientists backup their theories. And Nicolosi doesn’t have that. Nicolosi has spent far more time trying to discount any research that doesn’t support his pet theory about homosexuality than actually trying to prove his theory is correct.

  • Ann

    Studies and research are HOW scientists backup their theories. And Nicolosi doesn’t have that. Nicolosi has spent far more time trying to discount any research that doesn’t support his pet theory about homosexuality than actually trying to prove his theory is correct.

    Ken,

    I think I cited only studies and opinions, not research. Scientific research is more credible to me, and to date, nothing has been produced that is credible or conclusive that sheds light on sexual orientation. I wish there was.

    As to the issue of Dr. Nicolosi discounting other theories, I would tend to agree. I also think a lot of time is spent discounting his theories. Unfortunately confirmation bias is a play in both scenarios and only theories.

    Therapy can be a serendipitous experience – one can go in for a specific reason and discover a myriad of other aspects about themselves – regardless who their therapists is.

  • tom van dyke

    I think I cited only studies and opinions, not research. Scientific research is more credible to me, and to date, nothing has been produced that is credible or conclusive that sheds light on sexual orientation. I wish there was.

    As to the issue of Dr. Nicolosi discounting other theories, I would tend to agree. I also think a lot of time is spent discounting his theories. Unfortunately confirmation bias is a play in both scenarios and only theories.

    This. On this issue, most of the litigants live in glass houses. The better debater might “win,” but that’s not the same thing as truth. All studies and theories to date have flaws. Attacking the other guy is when one is on firmest ground.

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/01/same-sex-science

    But attacking is not the same thing as finding truth. We know so little. The idea that the other guy might be partially correct is not operative when all you want to do is scorch the other guy’s earth.

    Therapy can be a serendipitous experience – one can go in for a specific reason and discover a myriad of other aspects about themselves – regardless who their therapist is.

    All you can do is keep giving your personal testimony, Ann. Keep on.

  • http://www.classicalarminian.blogspot.com/ William Birch

    Stephen,

    Christopher Doyle’s “courageous winner” has admitted to Janet Parshall his same-sex attraction to the bassist of a Christian praise band: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/satanic-drag-queen-turned-ex-gay-hero-not-exactly-ex-gay Oy! I guess by “ex-gay” one does not have to use the phrase literally — as in, “no longer attracted to one’s gender.”

  • inca nitta

    Ryan Kendall, the one who testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and Gabriel Arana, another gay marriage activist, so there’s 3 instead of one. It should be noted that these people are political activists, no wonder to them reparative therapy was a horror. According to their logic, it reparative therapy wouldn’t be so horrific, we wouldn’t need to have gay marriage. But that’s beside the point. What I was saying that as a therapist, Nicolosi cannot reveal information positive or negative about his clients as per confidentiality clause, unless they ask for his permission. I also think that if reparative therapy was so terrible, there would be more former clients speaking than these 3.

  • Ralph

    Hearing a present or former client’s personal testimony, especially on camera or at least audio would give more weight to their side of the story of reparative therapy or whatever helped them. However, many of you may recall that Richard Cohen was severely disciplined by the American Counseling Association and permanently expelled for, in part, using his clients to promote his publications and therapy. Also, many if not most former and present clients may not want to do this and may feel uncomfortable being brought out like a circus animal to perform, so to speak and no therapist should expect, pressure and/or require clients present or former clients to do this; although some present or fomer clients may feel obligated to comply. Like most therapy clients for all psychological issues, they just want to get on with their lives and seek privacy not publicity for the cause and/or therapist. This is why professional counseling organizations have guidelines concerning this. So, don’t discount the validity of something just because clients don’t come forward to testify. Is having present and/or former clients expected or required to testitfy publicly before a research study or paper is released or published? I don’t think so.

  • Ann

    Like most therapy clients for all psychological issues, they just want to get on with their lives and seek privacy not publicity for the cause and/or therapist.

    Ralph,

    This is something I have always known and commented about many times on this blog so I really appreciate you saying it too! I also think it is the reason that all the studies, etc. that come from selective groups are flawed. Most of the people who have benefited from therapy will never volunteer to be “studied”. As you say, they just want to get on with their life and do it in private.

  • ken

    Ann# ~ Oct 18, 2013 at 2:15 pm

    “I think I cited only studies and opinions, not research.”

    And I corrected you, by pointing out that research is a very important part of validating theories. Not Nicolosi’s theories, but credible theories about sexual orientation.

    “Scientific research is more credible to me, and to date, nothing has been produced that is credible or conclusive that sheds light on sexual orientation.”

    So the research that showed homosexuality was not a mental disorder wasn’t credible to you, Ann? The research showing biological differences between people of different orientations, isn’t credible to you Ann?

    Research over the last 40 years has indicated there are many factors involved in determining a person’s orientation (biological, environmental, psychological)
    Simply because research hasn’t been able to exactly determine what causes a person’s orientation doesn’t mean a whole lot hasn’t been learned since homosexuality was considered a disorder. And much of what has been learned is that what Nicolosi has based his theories on is seriously flawed.

    Your problem Ann is that you can’t seem to distinguish that not all theories are equal. You keep trying to imply that Nicolosi’s theories are based on sound science and they are not.

  • ken

    tom van dyke# ~ Oct 18, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    “On this issue, most of the litigants live in glass houses.”

    It isn’t “litigation” it is science.

    “All studies and theories to date have flaws. ”

    some more than others. however, people who actually understand the issues, know how to account for those flaws when reading research. And the reputable ones don’t cherry pick whatever they think supports their personal/religious/political views.

    “We know so little.”

    something we agree on Tom. You know very little about this topic. Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop you from posting about it.

  • ken

    inca nitta# ~ Oct 18, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    “Ryan Kendall, the one who testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and Gabriel Arana, another gay marriage activist, so there’s 3 instead of one. It should be noted that these people are political activists, no wonder to them reparative therapy was a horror. ”

    They weren’t “activists” when they 1st met Nicolosi. they were teenage boys whose parents forced into therapy. Did you even bother to read their stories Inca? Or did you just looks for something you could use to dismiss them?

    so now you admit there are 3, in about 6 hours you tripled the number of people you acknowledge have been harmed by Nicolosi.

    “I also think that if reparative therapy was so terrible, there would be more former clients speaking than these 3.”

    And I think you don’t understand how damaging and scarring what Nicolosi does can be to some people. Why don’t you actually read what Kendell, Arana and, Gonzales have to say about what therapy did to them. Then maybe you might understand why people may not want to come forward to talk about it.

  • ken

    Ralph# ~ Oct 18, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    “However, many of you may recall that Richard Cohen was severely disciplined by the American Counseling Association and permanently expelled for, in part, using his clients to promote his publications and therapy.”

    A very SMALL part of the reason Cohen was disciplined had to do with using clients to promote his publications and therapy. What you wrote is a very deceptive characterization of why Cohen was expelled. Like saying Richard Nixon had to resign, in part, because he lied.

  • inca nitta

    Ken,

    Kendally, Arana, and Gonzalez started talking harshly about repairative therapy NOW since 2006, when the movement for gay marriage has begun. And still, I’m bemused why many people who were in this therapy, if it hurt them, don’t want to talk about their experiences. I’m not saying there were no disappointments with reparative therapy, sporadically speaking, but what I’m saying that many people who were in it, were not damaged in such a draconian way as Arana, Gonzalez, and Kendall claim. If this were true, then repairative therapy would be outlawed long time ago.

    Speaking of deceptions, it lies in the eyes of the beholder, if there’s a possibility that Cohen and Nicolosi are being deceptive, it could also be a possibility that Arana, Gonzalez, and Kendall are really deceiving themselves and others by claiming that they were all “born gay?”

  • ken

    inca nitta# ~ Oct 18, 2013 at 10:44 pm

    “Kendally, Arana, and Gonzalez started talking harshly about repairative therapy NOW since 2006, when the movement for gay marriage has begun.”

    You don’t know that. At best you know when they started speaking publicly about their experiences in therapy.

    “I’m bemused why many people who were in this therapy, if it hurt them, don’t want to talk about their experiences.”

    Really, are you also “bemused’ why rape victims don’t want to talk about their experiences either? You seriously can’t understand why someone who was hurt by a past experience might not want to publicly relive that experience over and over again?

    “it could also be a possibility that Arana, Gonzalez, and Kendall are really deceiving themselves and others by claiming that they were all “born gay?””

    Ryan Kendall gave his testimony under oath and penalty of perjury. Nicolosi refuses to even acknowledge any evidence that doesn’t fit his views of sexual orientation. And the topic is, whether Nicolosi’s therapy has harmed people, not whether someone was “born gay.”

  • inca nitta

    Speaking of Ryan Kendall, I have to acknowledge that he had a very terrible experience growing up. In court, he testified how his family rejected him for having SSA and that’s why they sent him to repairative therapy against his will, and I have my utmost sympathy for him. However, I’m not so eager to blame his pain on Nicolosi, but on his parents, who have been very unloving to him.

    On his website, Nicolosi acknowledges that not all his clients change and that there are thos who even after therapy embrace the gay identity, and he is very respectful of their choices. What I see though, how numerous gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge evidence that reorientation is happening to people. They are so eager to argue without listening that all those who claim are being happy living heterosexually cannot ever be happy. Like Wayne Besen, for example. I personally think that his activism causes more harm than repairative therapy. Like I said before, I believe that NARTH causes harm to people, in general, but not anymore than AA, so there’s no need to overdramatize their harms.

    I don’t know when exactly Arana, Gonzalez, and Kendally started speaking harshly about NARTH and Nicolosi, and I don’t know all their stories, but Wayne Besen and his crew also don’t know the stories of ALL former homosexuals.

  • ken

    inca nitta# ~ Oct 19, 2013 at 12:50 am

    “his family rejected him for having SSA and that’s why they sent him to repairative therapy against his will,”

    Well, at least you acknowledge he was Nicolosi’s patient. Nicolosi claims he doesn’t remember him at all. Even though Nicolosi remembers another patient (Gabriel Arana) he treated at the same time as Kendall. Nor do I claim Nicolosi is responsible for all Kendall’s problems. However, the Kendall case highlights 2 falsehoods on Nicolosi’s part (both made in the Sissy Boy Experiment, part 3 I recommend you read through that discussion as well)

    1) he never treated anyone who didn’t want to be in therapy
    2) he puts the needs/wishes of the child before those of the parents

    “On his website, Nicolosi acknowledges that not all his clients change and that there are thos who even after therapy embrace the gay identity, and he is very respectful of their choices.”

    However, it is also clear that his numbers regarding those that have become straight are wrong. Nicolosi proclaimed Arana was straight. Arana is currently married to another man. However, Nicolosi would count Arana as a “successful conversion” even though he clearly is not. This inconsistency is why people insist on actual evidence and not just claims of the therapist.

    “What I see though, how numerous gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge evidence that reorientation is happening to people. They are so eager to argue without listening that all those who claim are being happy living heterosexually cannot ever be happy. ”

    And yet you can’t see how NARTH says the same things about gays?

    Now I will agree, claims that people can never change their orientation or that anyone who claims to have changed from gay to straight is lying, are inappropriate. A more appropriate statement would be “if change in orientation is possible, it is very rare, and there is no credible scientific evidence that change in orientation can be caused by therapy.”

  • Ann

    “And I corrected you, by pointing out that research is a very important part of validating theories. Not Nicolosi’s theories, but credible theories about sexual orientation.”

    Ken,

    Actually, no correction was necessary as I pointed out that scientific research is something I find credible while studies, surveys, opinions, well – not so much.

    “So the research that showed homosexuality was not a mental disorder wasn’t credible to you, Ann? The research showing biological differences between people of different orientations, isn’t credible to you Ann?”

    I do not think sexual orientation is a mental disorder. The jury is still out as to whether there are some, or any, psychological components in play for homosexual orientation. I feel it is a yet to be understood human condition, that for some, causes distress and is unwanted – for others, it is a very natural way to be. Either way, my belief is that each person has the right to self determine how they want to live and for some, this includes therapy of their choosing. As to your other question and point – no, I do not feel there is anything credible and/or conclusive yet to explain orientation. I wish there was.

    “Your problem Ann is that you can’t seem to distinguish that not all theories are equal. You keep trying to imply that Nicolosi’s theories are based on sound science and they are not.”

    Thank you for your kind words – actually I do not think I have the problem you say I have. Please point me to where I have implied that Dr. Nicolosi’s theories are based on sound science.

  • Ann

    “What I see though, how numerous gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge evidence that reorientation is happening to people. They are so eager to argue without listening that all those who claim are being happy living heterosexually cannot ever be happy. ”

    Inca Nitta,

    People with strong biases and opinions rarely want to concede or civilly reason out a contention, even when the facts are before them. Having said that, I also believe it is true that most people who have experienced a desired personal transformation of any kind, tend to live out the authenticity of that significance in private. No one needs to claim anything if they are actually living it – one day at a time and with humility.

  • tom van dyke

    Tell it, sister. Don’t let anyone shout you down.

  • ken

    Ann# ~ Oct 19, 2013 at 11:31 am

    ” “Your problem Ann is that you can’t seem to distinguish that not all theories are equal. You keep trying to imply that Nicolosi’s theories are based on sound science and they are not.”


    Please point me to where I have implied that Dr. Nicolosi’s theories are based on sound science.”

    I’ll re-phrase, you keep trying to imply that Nicolosi’s theories and methods are just as valid as everyone else’s.

    Ann# ~ Oct 18, 2013 at 1:21 pm

    “He (Nicolosi), like you and everyone else, cannot back up any theories about this subject. All we have are studies and opinions.”

    and I corrected you, because others studying sexual orientation, actually have credible research to back up their theories.

    Ann# ~ Oct 18, 2013 at 2:15 pm

    “As to the issue of Dr. Nicolosi discounting other theories, I would tend to agree. I also think a lot of time is spent discounting his theories. Unfortunately confirmation bias is a play in both scenarios and only theories. ”

    here you equate what Nicolosi does to others who discount him. Implying everyone is doing the same thing, and they are not.

    Now these are just the examples from this thread. I’ve read others posts of yours in different threads where you do similar things.

  • Ann

    Now these are just the examples from this thread. I’ve read others posts of yours in different threads where you do similar things.

    Ken,

    Your interpretation of my comments indicate (to me) that it is important for you to have the perspective you do about them. I respect that and don’t see the value in responding or explaining any more than I have.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X