|
Reparative therapy, or conversion therapy, is any of several controversial religious and secular techniques that are aimed at changing a person's sexual orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality (or ex-gay). Their efficacy has not been established, and most professionals warn that such attempts may be psychologically harmful. Most pro-therapy advocates believe that sexual orientation is changeable and that homosexuality is itself either a psychological disorder, a tendency toward immoral and harmful behaviors (to oneself and others), or both.
Techniques
Reparative therapy can be used to describe any formal attempt to alter a person's sexual orientation from homosexuality or bisexuality to heterosexuality, but is more typically used to refer to a specific, secular counselling technique which involves helping a gay or lesbian form an emotional, non-sexual bond with another adult of the same gender. Secular reparative therapists generally come from a religious perspective, particularly Christian, and focus on religious, prayer-based counselling therapies.
Religious reparative therapies, such as those practised by Christian transformational ministries, include one-on-one counselling, group counselling, prayer, fasting, reading scripture and meditation. Other techniques involved have included controversial therapies such as electro-shock therapy and aversion therapy (such as showing subjects homoerotic material whilst inducing nausea and vomiting through drugs).
Doctrine
Contemporary secular reparative therapy, as championed by leading reparative therapists Joseph Nicolosi and Charles Socarides, holds that homosexuality is the product of a mental disorder called "gender-identity deficit" caused by an alienation from, and perceived rejection by, individuals of the subject's gender. This, it is argued, leads to a quest for bonding and fulfilment, oftentimes in what is perceived to be inappropriate and dysfunctional manners such as compulsive sexual gratification. It describes homosexuality as the need to possess the perceived manhood or womanhood of the object of desire:
- "The basic premise of reparative therapy is that the majority of clients (approximately 90%, in my experience) suffer from a syndrome of male gender-identity deficit. It is this internal sense of incompleteness in one's own maleness which is the essential foundation for homoerotic attraction. The causal rule of reparative therapy is "Gender identity determines sexual orientation." We eroticize what we are not identified with. The focus of treatment therefore is the full development of the client's masculine gender identity."1
Nicolosi suggests the subject, as a boy, first experiences rejection by his father, then lapses into helplessness and finally retreats to the security of his mother and defensively detaches from his father. According to his theories, this defensive detachment emotionally isolates him from other males and from his own masculinity hence, according to reparative therapists, causing homosexuality.
It is worth noting that reparative therapists hold that a propensity for an emotional bisexuality would seem to exist in all men, for example, as is evidenced by the male need for camaraderie and bonding. It is in the fulfilment of these unfulfilled needs that they believe the cure for homosexual attraction is to be found. Hence, it is not the innate emotional need for same-sex bonding that reparative therapy tries to correct, but what reparative therapists see as its dysfunctional expressions.
Criticisms
The thinking behind reparative therapy has been criticised by psychological and psychiatric health professionals for perceived clinical research bias. Most notably, reparative therapy is based upon the assumption that homosexuality is innately negative or unhealthy and thus that change is desirable, which does not necessarily follow from current research. Critics note that these assumptions seemed to be based more upon religious objections to homosexuality rather than any objective analysis or empirical evidence. Critics also note that reparative therapy research focuses on male homosexuality almost exclusively and rarely takes into consideration female homosexuality, demonstrating further clinical research bias.
Finally, they criticise reparative therapy for it's lack peer review (see Evidence) and the fact that reports are published exclusively in non-peer reviewed journals like Psychological Reports and are noted for focusing on homosexuality for other publishing papers from openly hostile anti-gay activists such as Paul Cameron.[1] (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_journals.html)
History
The idea of altering a person sexual orientation is not a new idea and harkens back to the start of psychology itself. By classifying homosexuality as a disorder, psychoanalysis first defined homosexuality as an exclusive sexual orientation and, thus, discovered the posibility of altering that orientation2. Researchers such as Irving Bieber, Lawrence Hatterer and Sigmund Freud attempted to cure homosexuality through a variety of techniques, including "aversion therapy, nausea producing drugs, castration, electric shock, brain surgery, breast amputations, etc."[2] (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod.htm). For more information see Homosexuality and psychology.
Modern reparative therapy is a re-reading of the earlier, psychological research and stems from the clinical work and theories of Elizabeth Moberly, a British Christian theologian, during the early 1980s. In her book, '', which is widely read by reparative therapy proponents, she suggests that homosexuality is purely a result of environmental factors - primarily a failure to bond with the subject's father, as opposed to the domineering mother theory in Freudian psychoanalysis.
Initially, reparative therapy was welcomed by many 'Ex-Gay' and gay Christian groups who saw it as a means of reconciling their beliefs with their sexuality and as a way of gaining greater acceptance in their respective churches or ministries. Some of these ministries have since turned away from reparative therapies, disillisioned with promise to change their sexuality.
Once seen as a being on the fringe of the gay rights argument, lately reparative therapy has been adopted by much larger, conservative religious groups, particularly in the USA. Many in these groups see reparative as a kinder way of approaching their opposition to homosexuality. It has also been used by some of these groups to influence public opinion and sway legislators "from supporting equal rights, domestic partnership and hate crime legislation."[3] (http://jgford.homestead.com/Fordessay.html)
Controversy
Reparative therapy itself is a highly contentious and controversial topic, and the claims of the ex-gay movement are hotly contested, particularly by various professional medical bodies (see Opponents). The general scientific consensus has been that sexual orientation is unchangeable in adults, though this consensus and the cause for that immutability are disputed by reparative therapy advocates. This section seeks to detail and summarise the various controversies and debates surrounding reparative therapy.
Generally, the debate tends to focus on traditional arguments for and against homosexuality. Opponents view these therapies as a product of Christian fundamentalism and intolerance of the gay and lesbian minorities, whilst supporters argue that opposition to reparative therapies is only due to vocal minority groups. These arguments are not necessarily directly related to reparative therapy and are not repeated here. For more information see Religion and homosexuality, Homosexuality and morality and Gay rights.
Proponents
Various religious and ex-gay organizations, including PFOX, Exodus International, NARTH and the International Healing Foundation, as well as various minor ex-gay and transfomational ministries advocate the belief that reparative therapy is genuine and works.
Conversion therapies are also advocated by various religious family values groups such as the Family Research Council and Focus on Family.
Opponents
Reparative therapies are opposed by a variety of groups, including gay rights oragnizations such as GLAAD, Stonewall and Outrage.
More importantly, many various proffesional medical and psychological bodies condemn conversion therapies. Such bodies include:
On the question of whether therapy can change sexual orientation the APA clearly answers:
- "No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable." [4] (http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#cantherapychange)
Some religious organisations also oppose reparative therapies, including The Interfaith Alliance, New Ways Ministries and People for the American Way.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association have developed and endorsed a statement in 1999 reading:
- The most important fact about 'reparative therapy,' also sometimes known as 'conversion' therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.' ...health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through 'reparative therapy' and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm.
Terminology
The language used to describe reparative therapies is itself contentious. Opponents prefer to use the term "conversion therapy".
Sexual Orientation
The main controversy centers around whether or not sexual orientation is determined at birth and, hence, whether it is changeable or innate. For more information on these arguments please see Causes of sexual orientation and Environment, choice, and sexual orientation.
Supporters of reparative therapy believe that homosexuality is not a fixed sexual orientation but an emotional or mental disorder which a person can change, and that it should be reclassified as such. They refer to this disorder as same-sex attachment disorder so as to distinguish from a fixed or innate sexual orientation.
Generally, opponents of reparative therapy believe that sexual orienatation is fixed and, hence, that reparative therapies will always be ineffective and raise false hopes in vulnerable individuals. Some opponents agree that sexual orientation is changeable but argue that, despite this, there is no, or no great, moral imperative to try to do so or that doing so would not substantially improve the well-being of the subject and, for this reason, consider reparative therapies to be useless.
Evidence
The success or failure of reparative therapy is itself sometimes used in the mainstream debate for and against homosexuality and the past few years have seen a flurry of reports self-published by reparative therapists and ex-gay organisations describing anecdotal evidence of conversions and measuring success rates from 30% to over 70%.
Opponents contest these results and respond that many of these groups do not make a clear distinction between homosexual behaviour and orientation or do not take into consideration that subjects may be bisexual and, for example, may have simply been convinced to restrict their sexual activity to the opposite sex. Similarly, many of the studies released by reparative therapy groups are conducted over short periods of time and there are few follow-up studies to determine rates of relapse over the long-term.
Finally, they criticise the way reparative therapies define success: many of their clients appear to still feel homosexual attraction or their orientation appears to not have been changed and the client is merely celibate. Both results are considered successful, 'partial' conversions by reparative therapists.[5] (http://www.iglss.org/media/files/Angles_41.pdf) Reparative therapists respond that the case against reparative therapy has not been proved and this variability in success should not be viewed as a therapeutic failure.
Opponents also highlight that the lack of empirical evidence demonstrates that reparative therapies are experimental or pseudoscienfitic techniques that lack scientific rigour to back them up. Results are not published in peer reviewed journals but tend to be released to the mass media and the Internet (see Science by press conference), random samples of subjects are not used and results are reliant upon the subject's own self-reported outcomes or on the therapist's own evaluations which may be subject to social desirability bias.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) (which concluded in 1973 that homosexuality is not a mental illness) stated in a 1998 position statement unanimously endoresed by its Board of Trustees that there are no scientifically rigorous studies to indicate the actual "efficacy or harm of 'reparative' treatments" and that conversion therapists have yet to produce "any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure... Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians." The APA position statement ends with a recommendation for ethical practitioners to "refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm." (see Potential risks).
Reparative therapists respond to criticisms from these bodies, arguing that opposition from the proffessional psychological and medical community is due to various political forces from within and without. They argue that the lack of evidence supporting their claims is to be expected, as the political pressures by various political groups, in particular gay rights groups, are such that any attempt at proper testing and study are quashed by the APA and other governing bodies.
Spitzer Report
Further controversy ensued in May 2001 when Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was involved in the original declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, presented a paper on reparative therapy at the APA annual convention. In his paper he reported that he had found that 66% of the men and 44% of the women had achieved "good heterosexual functioning" through interventions. Advocates of reparative therapy saw this as the first step towards official acceptance and the legitimisation of reparative therapy. Opponents levelled the similar criticisms at Spitzer's paper: that it relied upon samples selected by reparative therapists themselves, that proper random samplings were not used, small samplings were used (143 men and 57 women), that the subjects appeared to be ex-gay advocates who may have be biased in favor of reparative therapies, and that no follow-up study had been carried out to ascertain the long-term success. Similarly, the pointed to the fact that 60% of participants had previously experienced attraction to both sexes. Spitzer himself played down the results of his own paper, saying that the number of homosexuals who could successfully become heterosexual was likely to be "pretty low."[6] (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html) A similar paper presented by Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder, which has since been published for peer review, presented much lower success rates.
Potential risks
Conversion therapies are frequently promoted as being helpful and safe. They claim they are helping those afflicted with unwanted and intrusive homosexual thoughts.
However opponents argue that there is no evidence that reparative therapies are safe, and they may in fact be potentially dangerous. Some of the more extreme therapies that have been used (such as electo-shock therapy and aversion therapy) have a long histories of being psychologically and physically harmful. However, such therapies are not commonly used by contemporary conversion therapists.
Opponents go further and claim that "softer" therapies such as the secular conversion counselling therapies may also be dangerous. They compare untested reparative therapies to other experimental therapies such as recovered memory therapy (used in unproven cases of satanic ritual abuse) and dissociative identity disorder, that have much in common with reparative therapies (i.e. they are all experimental therapies that have only been promoted by a minority of therapists and clergy). which have proven to cause emotional pain, devastated peoples lives and even resulted in suicide. They also claim that such therapies seek to exploit guilt and anxiety leading to further psychological problems.6
No study has been yet carried out into the long-term consequences of conversion therapies.
Social pressures
Reparative therapists, working from the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder, often argue that their therapies are voluntary and the people seek them out because of negative aspects intrinsic to homosexuality. Opponents argue that reparative therapists ignore research that demonstrates that social pressure plays a key role in an individuals attempt to alter their homosexuality. [3],[4] They argue that harassment, abuse and homophobia, as well as pressure from family, friends and Churches [5], may cause high levels of emotional stress for lesbian, gays and bisexuals. In these circumstances, they argue, individuals may feel their only option is to attempt to alter their homosexuality.
Financial gain
Finally, opponents argue that many reparative therapists may become involved for personal financial gain. They note that participants in conversion therapies frequently have to pay for the treatment they receive, and that, whilst many conversion therapists claim to be secular and independent of religion, they receive substantial funding from other, well-funded religious groups such as Focus on the Family.[7] (http://www.exgaywatch.com/xgw/finance/)
References
- [1] Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004, ISBN 0765701421
- [2] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Homosexuality (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality)
- [3] Beckstead, A. "Gay is not me:" Seeking Congruence Through Sexual Reorientation Therapy. (Unpublished master's thesis, Univesity of Utah, 1999).
- [4] Shildo, A. & Shcroeder, M., Changing Sexual Orientation: Does Counselling Work? Papar presented to the American Psychological Association, Boston MA, 1999.
- [5] American Psychological Association Appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. Proceedings for the legislative year 1997. American Psychologist, Vol. 53, 1998.
- [6] Policy statement, "Homosexuality and Adolescence," American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics, 1993-OCT.
External Links
Medical & Scientific Organisations' Statements On Homosexuality
Reparative Therapist Ministries and Organisations
Opposition and Criticism
Neutral
- Bridges Across the Divide (http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/science.htm) links to and quotations from advocates and opponents of conversion therapy
|
