Re: Which kind of therapy are you referring to?

"My post was not about "conversion therapy" in general, nor about "reparative therapy"" Well, you spend two paragraphs of your post discussing reparative therapy. I understand now your reason for doing so, but your motive isn't clear in your post. (By the way, putting quotation marks around terminology you object to is an underhanded way of fighting the opposition. Keep in mind that there are people who don't believe boylove is love of boys, yet who nonetheless are courteous enough not to put "boylover" in quotation marks.) You haven't answered my question from the first post. If you were exclusively endowed with sexual feelings that *you* - never mind the therapists or the police - considered to be dangerous and distressing, how far would you go to try to change your feelings? Suppose, for example, that you woke up tomorrow and discovered that your orientation had changed entirely toward violently raping and murdering boys. I don't deny that anything you say is untrue in some cases; it may even be true in most cases. You know how I react to talk of the benefits of chemical castration. I'm simply saying that you're presenting a one-sided view of the topic. There *are* people who have voluntarily entered into aversion therapy, plethysmographs, and chemical castration, and having read their writings, I'm not convinced that they did so entirely out of societal pressure. They didn't "attach feelings of pain and shame to [their] sexual and affectionate feelings" as a result of the therapy; the feelings of pain and shame were already there, and they entered into therapy to find a solution to their dilemma. Are you saying that you wouldn't feel pain and shame if your overwhelming desire was to rape a boy? Mark, I've said this before and I've said this again: Unless you've spent time really, really listening to the stories of people in the sexual recovery world, you're never going to be able to understand sexual recovery therapy, any more than outsiders understand boylovers if they've never spent time seriously listening to boylovers' stories. What is true for *you* is not necessarily true for someone who is undergoing very different experiences. Boylove is also considered by the establishment to consist of "crude, unproven, and dangerous methods." Minorities often have to fight the establishment to get what they believe is right for them. Heather [E-mail]   [Home Page]