Thursday, April 23, 2009


Can Psychiatrists Really "Cure" Homosexuality?
Masters and Johnson claimed to convert gays to heterosexuality in a 1979 book. But did they?
By Thomas Maier


M. Bouffant said...

From what I've read (not much, really) most of this "conversion" or whatever stuff consists of convincing lesbians to wear more lipstick & play less softball, & convincing gay dudes to wear less lipstick & play more softball.

In other words, more about fitting into hetero gender stereotypes than anything else.

Or: "Back to the Closet, Inverts!!"

Righteous Bubba said...

Yup. "What you do with your genitals is important to me!"

herr doktor bimler said...

OMG those heterosexual predators are converting our children to their life-style!!

Mendacious D said...

The captcha "sockjoc" compels me to comment.

M. Bouffant hits it on the head. It is more about "normal" people feeling threatened when their gender roles and identities are challenged.

The DSM listed homosexuality as a psychological disorder up until far too recently. No doubt for their own good.

herr doktor bimler said...

From what I've read (not much, really)

I too have little-to-no interest in the topic, and I have sedulously avoided reading about it, and I certainly don't own a collection of lavishly-illustrated magazines that showcase the wonders of heterosexuality and unclothed girl-on-girl wrestling.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

well, if they figure that homos can be 'converted' the obvious fear is that too much homo in the water will 'convert' them the other way.

Righteous Bubba said...

The cootie theory extends to catching socialism from Venezuelan presidents.

herr doktor bimler said...

I have to say that the Maier article you link to was a content-free bit of fluff even by SciAm standards. Basically Maier plugs his book; notes that "most of [Masters & Johnson's] staffers" did not deal with the alleged conversion success-stories (with the implication that some staffers did); and repeats someone else's complaint that Masters did not give him access to records of the alleged case-studies. There's no suggestion that Maier himself tried to follow up the question in Masters & Johnson's archives, so he's simply retailing second-hand allegations. It seems weak ground to be accusing someone of fraud.

For such a short piece, the writing itself seemed cursory, awkward, and poorly-structured, with important information hidden in parentheses. Don't know whether to blame Maier for that, or a hatchet-chop by an editor.

Righteous Bubba said...

The blame is probably on both for the article, but the M&J two-week conversion process seems so ridiculous on its face that I am prepared to accept lazy abuse as gospel.