?

Log in

No account? Create an account
What I say? Who knows me? What I said? What I am? disturbing.org.uk Previous Previous Next Next
Words fail me... - Corrosive Shame
Therapy for Life
kneeshooter
kneeshooter
Words fail me...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3258041.stm

Current Mood: angry angry

20 lies or Lie to me
Comments
cookwitch From: cookwitch Date: November 11th, 2003 05:02 am (UTC) (Link)
I read the first bit and that was it. I refuse to read any more - it's outrageous. If Pax Draconis sees that there''' be a ranting tonight!
ant_girl From: ant_girl Date: November 11th, 2003 05:09 am (UTC) (Link)
I think the first paragraph is badly worded -- if you read the whole thing, it doesn't come across as if anybody's advocating psychiatric treatment for homosexuality (except for some loony bishop), just discussing some of things that ~used~ to be done.
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: November 11th, 2003 05:18 am (UTC) (Link)
Yeah - I was actually more upset by the reports on the treatment, and the fact it happened like that than some senile bishop making ill-thought out comments.
ant_girl From: ant_girl Date: November 11th, 2003 05:28 am (UTC) (Link)
It does discuss some pretty horrendous things.

But I don't find the article offensive -- it's important to bring these things out into the open I think, so that we can learn from them, and hopefully never go there again.
ikkleblacktruck From: ikkleblacktruck Date: November 11th, 2003 05:33 am (UTC) (Link)
It's always been a recommendation for any non-vanilla sexual behaviour. Don't fit the mould? Must be mental abnormality!
fuzzygoth From: fuzzygoth Date: November 11th, 2003 05:12 am (UTC) (Link)
i think you said it all there mate.

nyarbaggytep From: nyarbaggytep Date: November 11th, 2003 05:15 am (UTC) (Link)
Homosexuality was only removed from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - Psychiatrists bible for diagnosis) in the 60's. Things change slowly. It is sickening though that anyone, least of all someone professing to be a priest of a God that is Love can still publically say htis and keep their job...
ikkleblacktruck From: ikkleblacktruck Date: November 11th, 2003 05:31 am (UTC) (Link)
It's in accordance with the Bible. Doesn't it also fall under freedom of speech?
venta From: venta Date: November 11th, 2003 05:18 am (UTC) (Link)
mainstream medical orthodoxy in the UK is, increasingly, that sexual orientation is hard-wired from birth. "Behaviour can be modified, but not the essential being," he says.

I wouldn't expect this sort of thing can be conclusively "proved", but if it were to become accepted fact, I wonder if this would change the anti-gay section of the church's attitude towards homosexuality. Sadly, I suspect not.
ant_girl From: ant_girl Date: November 11th, 2003 05:51 am (UTC) (Link)
Speaking from personal experience, I would say that sexual orientation is not entirely immutable anyway. I am less attracted to women now than I was when I was younger, so I think it can change a little bit, but I wouldn't expect a swap from completely gay to completely straight to happen very often!
venta From: venta Date: November 11th, 2003 06:03 am (UTC) (Link)
A fair point.

Hmm. I wonder, though, if you accept that orientation *can* change whether you have to then accept that it can also *be changed*.

(Ignoring for the moment the issues of whether or not it's acceptable to try and change someone's orientation.)
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: November 11th, 2003 06:14 am (UTC) (Link)
I think that's a logical conclusion though the means might be complicated (I'm thinking "Boys from Brazil" here with the attempts to replicate a personality through circumstance).

I'd want to find out more about what has actually changed - what is a feeling, inclination or desire?

Is it something biochemical?

I think a lot of "lifestyle" changes (opening myself to misinterpretation here) are by their nature going to be susceptible to social factors.

Is it easier, in our nice neat heterosexual society, to become "less gay" than to become "more gay"?
load_of_flannel From: load_of_flannel Date: November 12th, 2003 04:04 am (UTC) (Link)
Id say twas easier to become more gay due to the backlash against any suggestion of 'homophobia'

But then is an odd discussion see below....
ant_girl From: ant_girl Date: November 11th, 2003 06:18 am (UTC) (Link)
An interesting question... I have no idea what caused the changes I've experienced, although it did seem to go hand in hand with going out with "blokier" men.

I have wondered since whether bisexuality was an affectation on my part, but I don't think so, as I had a major crush on my french teacher at school, and spent a lot of my teenage years afraid that people would "find out" that I was a lesbian (despite the fact that I also fancied boys). Maybe I'm still attracted to women, and just haven't met any that I like for a while. ;-)
venta From: venta Date: November 11th, 2003 06:26 am (UTC) (Link)
I'd have expected that bisexual people might be less inclined towards same-sex relationships as they get older... after all, if you want a family, an opposite-sex partner is by far the easiest way of going about it.

[Please note I've got no grounds for saying this, other than it seems plausible to me, and am definitely not saying it applies to you!]
ant_girl From: ant_girl Date: November 11th, 2003 06:35 am (UTC) (Link)
Hmm, don't know. I suspect that many bisexual people might be more inclined towards opposite relationships full stop -- because of what kneeshooter says about it being easier to be "more straight" than "more gay" in our heterosexual society. Of course this is a generalisation, but thinking about the bisexual people I know, I think almost all of them spend much more of their time in opposite sex relationships than same sex ones.
xullrae From: xullrae Date: November 11th, 2003 05:20 am (UTC) (Link)
As the future head of the church of England maybe Prince Charles should volunteer to test the bishop's theory?
caddyman From: caddyman Date: November 11th, 2003 05:38 am (UTC) (Link)
The role of history is to inform the present and serve as lesson. Tolerance is not something that humanity is strong on; a person may be tolerant, but people generally are not. Positive change takes a long time coming, but negative change will happen over night.

Don't get angry about what's over, but don't forget it either. Remain vigilant and challenge intolerance in hypocrisy at each and every opportunity.

Get angry about what's happening now and what may happen in the future. Don't waste your energy railing at the past.

Learn from it.
load_of_flannel From: load_of_flannel Date: November 11th, 2003 08:12 am (UTC) (Link)
Interesting thing that...

My initial reaction was to rant at it but then I thought about it a bit more.

I have certain problems with certain 'conditions' and have long been of the opinion that there are those people who for example deserve to be classified as 'mad' 'insane' or 'loony' rather than 'special or 'ill' not all people you understand just some. This is not PC as a lot of my views are not. Thats not relevant to this its just background.

Here is a thing...

Transexuals are not, I feel, entitled to treatment on the NHS. Whilst I can appreciate that it may cause suffering for some its something that is not life threatening and can be coped with nor does it debilitate their ability to live normally.

Many people whose opinions I respect differ from my opinion however.

If we feel that Transexuals are entitled to counselling and advice and even operations to alleviate their condition then I can not say in all conciense that Homosexuals should not recieve counselling to attempt to reassign their preference IF (and only IF) that is their wish. If I accept that people can be unhappy with their biological gender (present from and as of birth) and can suffer mental trauma from this I must accept the possibility that Homosexuals may feel severely traumatised by their mindset and may actively seek to have what they consider as a problem sorted out.

It is not for me to determine for them how they choose to address this problem. The situation at the moment is not as for other disorders where people are encouraged either to address their problem OR learn to deal with it. Homosexual counselling in this country is near exclusively of the "this is how to cope with it variety" it is considered very bad generally to suggest to people that they could possibly adjust thought processes to make life easier by effectively redefining their sexuality.

This is in a free society an entirely valid choice. If not particularly wholesome. However it is surely not for us to decide whether that service should be made available. If that was the case then (as per the example) all transexuals should be taught to "cope with their problem" rather than ever being offered Gender reassignment.

Suggesting that this is not possible (Homosexuality is basic Genetics not mindset) is a blatant fallacy as repeatedly people have proved brainwashing is effective at all levels of base instinct (C.f. Cult Behaviours) and can be altered. Although Psychiatrists back away from the idea that they brainwash people because the term is unsavoury even though successful counselling is effective brainwashing (even if its of the "maybe it isnt neccesary to wash your hands 3000 times a day" variety)
Brainwashing works both ways and only isnt brainwashing where Society considers it the norm.

I believe the issue is of personal choice and if the person in question wishes to attend that counselling then they should be allowed to and not villified by Gay Rights Groups anymore than the doctors offering the services should be. Nor does this mean that those doctors should cut them off from suggestions and alternatives made available by those groups.

I hope that makes some vague sense... please feel free to comment and Ill try and formulate my thoughts more cohesively....
choccoweeble From: choccoweeble Date: January 21st, 2008 03:19 pm (UTC) (Link)
Somewhat after the event it must be said, but at the time I was at University of Chester, of which this pointless imbecil was a Governor.

Just thought you might like to know that we had a EGM of the student body to discuss the fact that we were unhappy to have such a bigot representing us in any way, shape or form and conducted a vote of no confidence.
20 lies or Lie to me