NARTH
Submitted by Mark on 2002-11-30 23:01:08, Saturday
In reply to To All Concerned At CBLF-Chris submitted by Andy on 2002-11-29 22:47:46, Friday
|
I'm unclear on who would write the article. At first it sounded like Karen Hart would, but then Chris writes like he would. I doubt NARTH would accept an article written by a BL. I would be nervous about this. Karen may be very sincere and positive about CBF, at least at this point. However, I doubt NARTH could ever be positive about CBF or us. Their science, in fact, is not very good, because it is beholden to their preconceptions. Their purpose is to use science to support their presuppositions, rather than to understand human behavior. (Of course, this is also true of mainstream psychology when it comes to BL.) NARTH's presuppositions include the belief that homosexual feelings are sinful and sick, and that homosexuals lead sleazy lives. As Andy said, they are adamant about the need to change homosexuals into heterosexuals. However, they are humane. Unlike mainstream psychology which tries to change the sexual feelings of BLs through psychologically abusive aversion therapy and monitoring and shaming every thought of BLs (sex offender "therapy"). Whether NARTH can transfer their humaneness to BLs remains to be seen. Their writings on pedophilia paint us as monsters. Of course, so does mainstream psychology. The upshot is that Karen Hart does not speak for NARTH. Even if she wrote a positive article, I am afraid that NARTH would either not accept it, or they would put a very negative spin on it. Mark |
Follow ups: