Welcome!

Hello, Mark242, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 15:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socarides[edit]

Hey there! You said: Please, I am curious to know what makes you believe that it is glaringly obvious that Socarides was wrong. Although I don't want to convince you, I would like to know more about your point of view.

In a nutshell, yes, there are some people who engage in homosexual behavior who are actually heterosexual and would be happier if they could admit it, just as there are those who engage in heterosexual activity who would be better off if they could admit they were homosexual. This is nice in theory, but unfortunately, in practice, it contributes to bias against gay people. Gay people are not inherently sick, although we are as given to mental health issues as straight people are, and we don't need "compassion" from people like Socarides and the whole reparative therapy kabal to "cure" us. Socarides's theories about the causes of homosexuality are decades out of date and widely discredited, a fact which I plan to point out in the article as soon as I can get my sources together.

Basically, it's clinical gay bashing, and it pisses me off.

I don't mean to sound harsh. Well, actually, I do. But you asked my opinion, so there it is!

Thanks! Cate Cabbers 17:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==[edit]

Dear Cate, You say, "there are some people who engage in homosexual behavior who are actually heterosexual and would be happier if they could admit it, just as there are those who engage in heterosexual activity who would be better off if they could admit they were homosexual." Do you want to prevent these people from being happier just because the idea that change is possible contributes to gay bashing? I think that the problem we must fight is gay bashing (which is wrong), not the possibility of a change (which is right). As you say, there are people who are basically trapped in an unwanted gender identity and sexual orientation. People who became homosexual because they were sexually abused when they were little. We cannot prevent them from healing! We cannot claim that, for them, homosexulity is normal. Homosexuality is a refuge for them, because they don't want to be molested again, but they would not have been homosexual if they had been loved and treated with humanity. These people need compassion (yes, Socarides's compassion too) because being trapped in an unwanted gender identity or having been sexually molested is a tremendous source of conflict. Socarides was a very compassionate man. He claimed that homosexuality can be treated. He never said a word against homosexuals. In fact, he wanted to help them. However, he was attacked by those people who reject the idea that homosexuality can be treated ("If it can be treated, then who is going to protect me?"). Please, let's fight the real problem, gay bashing, but let's not fight the only person who tried to offer real help. I would like to talk to you more. Thank you, Mark

Mark- You're failing to make an important distinction. Yes, there are a lot of sexually confused and unhappy gay people out there. There are also a lot of sexually confused straight people. No sane person would suggest that the solution for most or even a signifigant portion of those straight people is that they should turn gay. So why make the reverse statement?

If I believed for a second that all Socarides was trying to do was help all people sort out their sexuality equally, with no bias towards one orientation or the other, I wouldn't have a problem with him. But I can't believe that. Take a look at this executive summary of one of his papers, in which he argues against the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Sexually confused gay people should be treated exactly the same way sexually confused straight people are. If the end result of therapy that is that they figure out that they're not really gay after all, then I have no problem with that. But suggesting that homosexuality needs to be classified as a disease in order for confused gay people to get help is just the same as suggesting that heterosexuality needs to be classified as a disease in order for confused straight people to get help.

I don't doubt that Socarides thought he was helping gay people. But perpetuating the stigma of homosexuality and suggesting that the solution for sexually confused gay people is always, usually, or even frequently to turn straight can ONLY be harmful.

Homosexuality CANNOT be treated. Gay PEOPLE can be treated for childhood sexual abuse, and other sexuality-related problems. But they should never be treated with the initial, stated, outright goal of changing their sexuality. And that's exactly what Socarides did. -Cate

Dear Cate, The only reason Socarides insisted that homosexuality be not removed from the list of mental disorders was that he was afraid that by removing it, it woulod become illegal to treat it. That would have prevented homosexual people troubled over their orientation from getting treatment. I do not believe homosexuality should be classified as a disease because a homosexual person is a fully functional human being. So I agree with you about the list of mental disorders. But I agree with Socarides when he was afraid that confused people should be given the right to be treated if they are not happy with their sexual orientation. There are people who are addicted to pornography or to eating or are depressed. Those are not classified as mental disorders but fortunately nobody argues that if a person is unhappy then that person has the right to get treatment. A homosexual person can become depressed if he/she is not happy and if he/she believes that he/she was born to be heterosexual.

You say, "Homosexuality CANNOT be treated." What makes you say that? Have you ever tried? Even if you have tried and not succeeded, I still believe that your insuccess would not be a reason for others not to try. If you haven't tried because you are happy the way you are, why don't you want to give others the freedom to try and to be as happy as you are?

You say, "Gay PEOPLE can be treated for childhood sexual abuse, and other sexuality-related problems. But they should never be treated with the initial, stated, outright goal of changing their sexuality." First of all, what if they themselves had that "initial, stated, outright goal of changing their sexuality"? Why do you think that it is wrong? Second, what if that child sexual abuse was the reason behind their homosexuality? Let me tell you that if I had been sexually abused when I was a child and I had become homosexual as a consequence, I would like not only to be treated for the abuse itself, but I would like to become heterosexual too -- since I would not want to leave my abuser with the victory of having changed what my original sexuality was supposed to be.

Cate, I believe you and I are, after all, in agreement -- only we see things from two different points of view. We are both convinced that homophobia is totally wrong. We are both convinced that everybody should have the freedom to choose his/her own sexual orientation.

I would like to talk with you more. Mark

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Charles Socarides.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Charles Socarides.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]