I don't think we really disagree
Submitted by Mark on February 17 2002 00:21:51
In reply to Re: Which kind of therapy are you referring to? submitted by Heather on February 15 2002 03:07:25
|
By the way, putting quotation marks around terminology you object to is an underhanded way of fighting the opposition. I'm trying to remember my attitude as I was writing that post. I don't think I was trying to use those quoted terms sarcastically, but used the quotes to set them off as specific categories of therapy. Sorry if that sounds lame, but that's the way I recall it. 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? Perhaps I would use aversion therapy; I don't know. In my post I wasn't addressing the voluntary use of therapy when one is distressed by one's feelings, or when one is violent. I'm simply saying that you're presenting a one-sided view of the topic. Apparently, I wasn't clear enough in my post what topic I was addressing. My topic was limited to the forced or coerced use of aversion therapy, plethysmograph, and/or chemical castration by the police on boys due only to their attraction to younger boys, particularly, when they are non-violent. The side you're presenting is actually not another side, but another 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. I was not aware that people voluntarily did this to change their same-gender attraction or attraction to minors, and found it beneficial. I assumed such therapy was of the counseling type. I stand corrected, although that was not the topic of my post. 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? Certainly I would. But that wasn't the topic of my post. I was not condemning (or even meant to discuss) the voluntary use of therapy when one's sexual feelings cause one distress. I was talking about forced therapy which is intended by the police to cause one to feel pain and shame about one's sexual feelings. At least, according to the Eysenck quote, aversion therapy is intended to associate pain and fear with sexual feelings. 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 Again, my post was not about sexual recovery therapy in general. Heather, we've discussed this before in person, and I thought you knew that I do not dispute that many ex-gays have sincerely found conversion therapy to be beneficial. I don't remember ever saying in person or online that it should not be available to those who want it. My only error may have been that I always assumed it was of the counseling type, not the aversion or plethysmograph variety. I actually don't think you and I disagree on much here. I just think you missed most of the point of my original post. I was making an argument about certain types of therapy, used under certain conditions, and for certain reasons, and you are discussing therapy that is usually of a different type, used under different conditions and for different reasons. Mark |
Follow ups: