Holding therapy for homosexuality

[causalset]

I saw a link on youtube regarding holding therapy for homosexuality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJXWFZz0Qjo&feature=related
they propose that one man should hold the other man for a long time, and it should cure the homosexuality of the latter.

Anyway, I have two questions: one directed to the people who support the cure for homosexuality and the other to the people who oppose it:

1) IF YOU SUPPORT A CURE FOR HOMOSEXUALITY, didn't it ever occurred to you that by having one man holding the other one you only ENCOURAGE him to be gay, which is just the opposite to the goal of the treatment? I know it is "supposed" to be non-sexual, but if the man is gay it might feel sexual to him, even though it is supposed not to. I mean, men process things differently than women. Yes women do have non-sexual hugs with each other, but I never seen men doing that. Why not? Because for a man anything of this nature feels sexual. Besides, even if somehow this doesn't feel sexual to the patient, why encourage a behavior that doesn't fit the social norm of the straight society? After all, the whole purpose of the therapy is to make the client look straight; teaching him to hug other men only makes him look even more gay.

2) IF YOU OPPOSE THE CURE FOR HOMOSEXUALITY, you are likely thinking that such cures damage the patients. Now, why would holding therapy be damaging? If you watch the video, a patient described feeling "very safe" while he was undergoing holding therapy and he said he enjoyed it. So why do you still believe it damages them? I understand that anti-gay people believe that gay touch is damaging even if it is enjoyed. But, since you oppose cure for homosexuality, I presume you are pro-gay. So, as someone pro-gay, why do you think holding therapy would do any damage? If anything, it only shows love. Even though it is done for the wrong reason, still love is a good thing.

 

[John Creighto]

I reject the poll. The fact that you use the word cure is a value judgment.

 

[John Galaor]

I saw a link on youtube regarding holding therapy for homosexuality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJXWFZz0Qjo&feature=related
they propose that one man should hold the other man for a long time, and it should cure the homosexuality of the latter.

Anyway, I have two questions: one directed to the people who support the cure for homosexuality and the other to the people who oppose it:

1) IF YOU SUPPORT A CURE FOR HOMOSEXUALITY, didn't it ever occurred to you that by having one man holding the other one you only ENCOURAGE him to be gay, which is just the opposite to the goal of the treatment? I know it is "supposed" to be non-sexual, but if the man is gay it might feel sexual to him, even though it is supposed not to. I mean, men process things differently than women. Yes women do have non-sexual hugs with each other, but I never seen men doing that. Why not? Because for a man anything of this nature feels sexual. Besides, even if somehow this doesn't feel sexual to the patient, why encourage a behavior that doesn't fit the social norm of the straight society? After all, the whole purpose of the therapy is to make the client look straight; teaching him to hug other men only makes him look even more gay.

2) IF YOU OPPOSE THE CURE FOR HOMOSEXUALITY, you are likely thinking that such cures damage the patients. Now, why would holding therapy be damaging? If you watch the video, a patient described feeling "very safe" while he was undergoing holding therapy and he said he enjoyed it. So why do you still believe it damages them? I understand that anti-gay people believe that gay touch is damaging even if it is enjoyed. But, since you oppose cure for homosexuality, I presume you are pro-gay. So, as someone pro-gay, why do you think holding therapy would do any damage? If anything, it only shows love. Even though it is done for the wrong reason, still love is a good thing.

I do not support not reject the idea of a cure of homosexuality, because I do not believe it is a sickness.

It can be argued other different concepts to explain homosexuality.

We can have first different approaches to the concept of homosexuality.
Most males among the primates do not breed. Breeding is done by dominate males. Then it can be assumed that it happens like among flock herbivores, 85% of the males never have an opportunity to breed.

The case among human primates is different because the long span of time needed for a human child to reach maturity. Then, humans have a most extended potential for lust for most of the year. This helps to hold the males near their females, they have a more stronger need of copulating. This creates a bond between the male and the females that serves to help in feeding the children

Then, when it comes to life in fixed spaces like villages, humans began to have trouble with overpopulation, and society put some barriers to breeding. The most common barrier is to delay the time for breeding of the young people, and to segregate them by sex. The boys with the boys and the girls with girls. This way is is more easier to control their sexuality.

Then, it is a common observation than in general, human males have a more stronger lust drive than females. So, even lust, like hight, weight, or any other measurable variable, has a range of spread among humans. I mean, if you find a way to measure lust, it would show a natural distribution or spreading along a continuum spectrum of intensity. On the extreme a few people would have a null or very little lust, while in the opposite end of the spectrum would be the males with more intense levels of lust.

Then you can get a distribution of how fast develop sexually the males of the same age. Some develop much faster than others. This is elemental.

Then you have to consider a differential for dominance. That is, some are more dominant than others that are the opposite end, they are submissive.

Then, when the lust start to appear in young males, the most lustful adolescents have not an opportunity to satisfy their new sex urges, for the females are corralled in special places and well watched by some appointed authority.

Next, the more lustful males would discover that some of their peers, the less developed, looked like females. Then, it is probably that they began to see the younger looking peers as females.

Then, the more developed males have most testosterone and probably they are also dominant. Can have a direct relation, except in rares cases who suffer some anomaly.
There can be also the case of "the less developed males are probably more submissive and have less testosterone". Son, these former group can be more easily been pushed toward accepting a submissive role, like they were females.

From this point onward, a submissive male can hear the moans of pleasure of the dominant male utters as he is using him as a female.
This moans of pleasure have the potential of being "behavioral reinforcers". Then, the male doing the submissive role can have a "rewarding feeling" as he realizes his body is giving pleasure to another male.
I have read also some talking about "mirror neurons". These neurons makes a person feel what other people is feeling thanks to some perceptible signs. Then the feeling of the other is reenacted of reflected in the his own mind. That is why we feel the same as the characters in a movie or a novel. We can feel the fear, the passion, and the pleasures of the characters on the plot. That is why literature movies are a great business, we can feel like we are chasing happily after the pretty lady of the story.

Another possibility to explain homosexuality is that a submissive male, in cases of anal intercourse, can receive some form of reward in form of pleasure, for the mechanics of the anal intercourse is giving him a massage in the prostate gland.

All this, together or in part, would concur to produce a case of "conditioned behavior".

<<A behavior that is rewarded with pleasure gets reinforced and becomes more or less permanent.>>
The most often a submissive male plays the role of a female, the most probably is that this behavior would be fixed permanently for his whole life.

It can be considered other special cases to explain homosexuality. For the possibilities can be diverse. It can be considered also some genetic aspects to this case. Too long to explain.

In my opinion, the best way to prevent homosexuality in a shy or submissive adolescent, is to give him early on, opportunities to practice heterosexual sex with an also timid girl of his age. They could be encouraged to play sexually and have intercourse. You must let them total freedom to do what they would.
Even if their levels of lust are lower compared to other people of his same age, they soon would develop more lustful desires as they keep playing naked in a bed alone day after day for several weeks or months.

Of course this is quite contrary to the customary norms of behavior for adolescents in all agrarian or technological societies. But I think these young people would be doing natural. You can avoid pregnancies by putting the young female a IUD or with the help of condoms.

In this way, with a lot of experience, the submissive young male develops more faster, would had an stronger conscience of his maleness, and would know quite well he is an heterosexual adolescent and he likes to copulate with females. Even if he had experience with only one.
John Galaor
.

 

[Monique]

I see no merit in continuing this discussion.

 

[LudusRex]

I must first state that there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that homosexuality needs to be cured. Sexual orientation is a complex and innate aspect of a person's identity, and attempting to change it can be harmful and unethical.

Regarding the proposed therapy of holding one man for a long time, there are several issues that need to be addressed. First, as the video itself suggests, this therapy is based on the assumption that homosexuality is a choice or a learned behavior, which is not supported by scientific research. Additionally, the idea that same-sex physical contact can somehow "cure" homosexuality is not only misguided, but also reinforces harmful stereotypes about same-sex relationships.

To address the first question posed, it is important to recognize that holding therapy is not a legitimate treatment for homosexuality. As you mentioned, even if it is supposed to be non-sexual, it can still be perceived as sexual by the patient, especially if they are already attracted to the same sex. This can lead to further confusion and internalized shame, rather than "curing" their homosexuality.

Furthermore, attempting to change someone's sexual orientation goes against the principles of informed consent and autonomy. People should be able to make their own decisions about their identity without pressure or coercion from others. Encouraging someone to act against their true feelings and desires can be damaging to their mental health and well-being.

To address the second question, it is important to recognize that even if a patient may enjoy the experience of holding therapy, it does not mean that it is a valid or ethical treatment for homosexuality. Just because someone may feel "safe" during the therapy does not mean that it is a healthy or effective way to address their sexual orientation.

In conclusion, as a scientist, I must emphasize that there is no scientific basis for holding therapy as a treatment for homosexuality. Furthermore, attempting to change someone's sexual orientation goes against ethical principles and can be harmful to their well-being. It is important to support and accept individuals for who they are, rather than trying to change them to fit societal norms.