Oh really! ............ Penile/anal penetration is NOT SEX Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society?

FIRSTLY It is a pleasurable experience I dare say with the right tools, preparation and protection. The anus can in fact is an erogenous zone.

SECONDLY I though “Sex” was more than just genitalia or orifices (mouth included) colliding but the psychological, emotional, the subconscious and pleasurable feelings that come.

Yesterday on Power 106FM’s Justice program host Marlene Malahoo Forte had as her guest a representative from the anti gay Christian membered group The Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society in a bid to challenge the recently launched conference on a campaign named Justice for All designed in part to deal with PLWHA’s dignity and so on the rep tried to show that there is a hidden LGBT agenda by the “Imperialist Gay Lobby” yes the name calling as usual led by the founder of the JCHS Dr Wayne West who has a fixation on anal SEX via his blog it seems and makes me wonder sometimes. He is transfixed on certain practices such as fisting (use of one’s fist to penetrate another’s anus for sexual pleasure) scat (playing with or use of faecal matter as lube for penile, object, sex-toy or fist penetration or eating of such residue) and felching (eating sperm from another’s rectum aka breeding for barebacking persons) while yet describing all of them as ANAL SEX of some type yet here comes a representative saying anal/penile penetration or any event with a toy or object is not SEX; said practices are more common in European or sub groups in MSM culture in the US for e.g. skinheads, White Supremacists, Biker and leather communities with the latter having some persons of African descent as members. I guess repeating it long enough it may sink in to his blind following as fact then he complains about deception? He has now added gay pride to his list of items he continually attacks with near belligerent name calling while focusing on nudists who make up a small percentage of the total number of types that attend the annual event all over. The event happens all over the world and which also includes curious heterosexuals (non sexual interest) who watch and laugh or jeer much to the delight or ignoring by the revellers or marchers.

Anal penile penetration (SEX) is not the untidy affair as he would want to make it out to be I have repeatedly said this via my own blogs and podcasts as many pharmacies nationally even in rural areas no longer hiding related paraphernalia behind the counter anymore where one would have to whisper to the clerk for them but now even in the caustic climate that we are in can purchase lube, fleet and disposable enema kits and flushing packages quite openly barring the failure of nerves and prying eyes of those who perceive such products are only bought by gays. I have had my own share of stares when making my purchase but I feel proud doing so at least I am fresh and prepared for any eventuality. After all enemas are not only for pre-anal sex cleansing but also for persons with bowel movement issues, persons with constipation problems and some elderly patients who need supervised living services via homes and a caregiver.

also see causes and symptoms of haemorrhoids 

Rimming (oral anal contact which does not necessarily mean penetration by such method – a tongue) is also not such a wide practice locally just by cultural observation, scientifically it may be difficult to capture how wide spread this is done but given the above mentioned enema methods now part and parcel of some of the HIV prevention strategies for MSM though much more is needed I can imagine there is some interest. As for chariot racing

Even if we were to look at fisting and the others that Dr West so readily use to promote his arguments not to free up buggery (when he could very well be promoting them for us and the public to become used to in the long run) fisters have their own set of products for preparation of such a far more painful but somewhat pleasurable episode as we know the anal region is lined with mucous membranes that assist with sensation (how else could you know if you want to use the bathroom?) just Google fisting products and see the results and to numb the pain the resourceful poppers are available which is also used by heterosexual couples who practice double penile penetration, Dr West is silent on that part where straight couples do other forms of penetrative acts. 

Worth repeating:

Fisters, felchers et al exists in sub sub cultures of the greater men who have sex communities mostly in Euro and Caucasian populations in such groups as bikers, skinheads (racist or not), leather communities (which may include persons of African descent in the US) and a few others so I just want to smash in any way this notion being paraded by the goodly doctor that such practices are universally practiced. His colleague Reverend Clinton Chisholm recently held a seminar on Homosexuality Clinical and Biblical Perspectives where old US based NARTH, National Association for Psychoanalytic Research and Therapy of Homosexuals commissioned studies were readily presented and believed by mostly supporters in attendance and of course the sanitised and monitored question and answer section showed the need to tailor the narrative dishonestly to suit the anti-gay push, very little room was allowed for pro-gay audience members to speak. Let us also not forget his Gleaner article on February 5, 2012 entitled Homosexuality: Clinical Realities where he promoted for the most part reparative therapy also using NARTH’s misrepresented studies bearing in mind several researchers have complained, distance themselves and even taken legal action against the entity but such studies are still being paraded as the pariah to justify their opposition to homosexuality and related matters.

Since the matter of sexual orientation is often overlooked in their zeal to obstruct the discourse around the decriminalization or repeal of buggery in Jamaica let us examine anal SEX for what it is, oops I forgot it is not SEX so let us use anal penetration for now until otherwise when we get to an orgasm.

See my post on that and the audio on sister blog GLBTQ Jamaica: Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society continues its “HIV is a gay disease” campaign with more deception

However the representative made a comment that I had to do a triple take to digest it and it dawned on me that how a female heterosexual (I presume) woman who has never been anally penetrated perhaps begin to understand the pleasure of the “act” she and others find reprehensible? I know I run the risk of exposing myself legally to discuss this openly but Buggery’s proof if contingent on a doctor’s report closer to the time when the accused is caught in the act allegedly, firstly here among other things was what the representative said after she was asked about the history of the buggery law and what in their original legislators infinite wisdom made them draft it she answered: “One of the things that people confuse is that they try to suggest that anal penetration is sex and it is my understanding that the intestine is not a sex organ it can’t procreate, buggery, it is the misuse of the anus ......it can do physical harm to the recipient in terms of the sphincter muscle going, people say you’re not gonna get HIV AIDS if you use a condom but the person being penetrated has on a condom is at risk and harm because the insides of the intestine were not never meant withstand the types of friction from that type of penetration, it tears easily and then you end up with a myriad of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV which is most easily transmitted in this type of environment, it must be noted that HIV is not only an epidemic it is a pandemic ........ The buggery law must remain as a danger sign because it does harm not only to the individual but to society and the world at large ..........”

Questions come to mind:

So if millions of men (and women) who want to go into “.....the misuse of the anus” why the hell is that any concern to the JCHS providing it is private consent, why try to peek through my keyhole in effect to police my private decisions?

So when we hear of oral sex what it that pray tell? I want to ask her, (going to send the JCHS an email copy of this post) if we are to follow this logic the mouth would not be an organ either bas it too sometimes excretes voluntarily (spit, baby’s puke) or responsively (vomit) or takes in food but only her holy vagina, so what term must we give that kind of act then where oral anal or oral genital sex (oops there I go again) I mean stimulation or penetration is involved?

Intercrural (or fake penetration/leggings/dry sex) Sex; what should we call that seeing that the crotch of anyone is used for such a practice especially women when they are at their cycle and do not want either to be penetrated or their partner does not want to enter the vagina until the cycle has ended.

Tribadism: Vaginal rubbing though risky in terms of HIV, yeasts and other STIs transmission but that can be considered SEX then seeing if we are to go by the JCHS rep’s conclusion vagina’s are the holy grail here; by the way females can actually reach an orgasm while being penetrated anally I might add but I guess that is not SEX despite the possible pleasurable outcome. The anus and indeed rectum’s makeup includes many receptive modules it may have been intelligent design’s intent for pleasure.

What explains the pleasure a man feels especially with an erect penis placed squarely inside the rectum and the head of the member stimulates the back of the scrotum from inside? I forgot she is a woman and wouldn't understand as she sees the ass as a shit pit only, I though sex is meant to be enjoyed by various means then maybe it is no wonder why some of these marriages are boring and die or are lifeless as the only thing (if we are to go by the JCHS rep) sexual they know and practice is vaginal penetration (won’t call it sex)

Does the JCHS or this rep understand how buggery is proven? It is not simply by their disgust at anal SEX or breaking their necks to peek through my keyhole to cock block oops I am sorry, penis block (how remiss of me to use street language) to see if a cock/penis is in ones ass oops I mean rectum as assuming a copulative position is not enough; seeing that the above mentioned intercrural SEX is an alternate method of same gender male sex but a doctor’s examination is the determinant evidential material with certain key pointers on the report showing clearly that penetration took place with certain chemicals present. Having been charged falsely for the crime in 1996 I am all too aware of the procedural, judicial and legal manoeuvrings that entail having gone through them for three plus years in our sluggish court systems and understanding that precedence has been set at the level of common law of consenting adults caught (once proven in court) or charged usually have their cases adjourned sine die (lack of prosecutorial evidence but can be recalled within 7 years as my case was) or simply thrown out if it passes through the hands of a sensible resident magistrate.

Is the JCHS aware that nearly every pharmacy in Jamaica one can get anal hygiene implements (seeing the rep is preoccupied with faeces or the presence thereof in anal SEX) to purchase and that sex toy stores popping up all over do cater to the same gender sex male communities as well for not only toys but hygiene and care products?

Does the JCHS’s rep understand the delicate nature of mucosa linings of the ass oops I mean anus or rectum and the sensations that obtain during SEX when they are stimulated repeatedly and that a man while being penetrated can reach an orgasm or ejaculate without self pleasuring or masturbation? I have had such luck many a moons with various types of men, the “G” spot principle also applies here too but not all SGL men who practice receptive sex

Maybe someone needs to send these people a copy of the Joy of Gay Sex book/DVD or Greek Homosexuality or better yet some hardcore black gay porn as they need a rude awakening here additionally a monthly newsletter or something to save these people from their own ignorance and fear, going beyond sexual orientation one must fulfil their urge for sexual pleasure. Bearing in mind also that non penetrative sex between same gender attracted or curious males is real for e.g. that found in prisons (situational homosexuality/prison wife phenomenon/substitutional sex) places of safety, barracks.

Anal SEX has been happening for oh so long if one checks the documented sexual history one will see either via hieroglyphics, papyrus scrolls, pottery or carvings in caves and condoms from as early as 2500 years ago as sheep intestine through to the latex and other materials we see today.

related post with anti gay positions from associated names/groups: 

SHIRLEY RICHARDS: NO TO REVIEWING THE BUGGERY LAW …..

Perception of Jamaican LGBTQ lobby bullying continues

and

Anal sex does not complete us as male homosexuals

Peace and tolerance

H

IRS Revokes NARTH tax exempt status ................

A recent homosexuality seminar (see ad below) that was hosted by theologian and talk show host Reverend Clinton Chisholm and which also had as guest speaker Counseling Psychologist Mrs Joan Pinkney used among other sources flawed US noted National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality conclusions to suggest all kinds of anti homosexual posturings. Bearing in mind that the group has run into serious challenges in recent times with some of its own researchers who took them to court regarding alleged misuse of studies done on reparative therapy etc.

For example the age old narrative that lesbians become so due to a lack of a male father figure was used or neglect even if the father is present in the home

Now comes news that the once powerful NARTH has lost its tax exempt status and will now have to pay up on any donation it gets.

One wonders eh?

Ex-Gay watch reported recently:

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has lost their tax-exempt status, for failing to file form 990 three years in a row. Dr. Warren Throckmorton confirmed this with the Internal Revenue Service and reported it on his site on March 12.

“Even though the full name of the organization is not listed, the Employee Identification Number and address match up with the 2009 990 form. A call to the IRS also confirmed it.

NARTH’s website advises prospective donors that their donations will be tax deductible but it appears such deductions after September 15, 2012 may not be allowed.”

This means that donations to NARTH will no longer be tax-deductible. The IRS says their status was revoked in September of 2012; it can take a little time before the information becomes available to the public, which is why this is only making news now. NARTH has not responded to request for comment from Throckmorton, and there is no evidence that NARTH has tried to get their status reinstated.  To do so would require starting the application process over from scratch.

Some commenters on Warren’s blog observed that NARTH has continued to claim on its website that donations are tax-deductible, despite IRS assurances to Throckmorton that they are not.  One commenter, Roy Peterson, received the following response to an inquiry via email:

“We’re working on that. The information provided from the IRS does not match our own records. We believe it to be a misscommunication [sic] and have no reason to suspect that we won’t continue to operate under the 501 non profit tax deduction.”

However, a follow-up with the IRS by Warren confirmed that the organization had indeed lost its status as a nonprofit.

NARTH has existed for decades as virtually the only secular reparative therapy organization in an industry made up largely of conservative Christian denominations. On the surface, they seemed to offer a “scientific” approach that contrasted with religious efforts to become “ex-gay” through prayer and other rituals. However, NARTH’s underpinnings have always been religious. Joseph Nicolosi, who has been a prominent NARTH figure for decades, is a devout Catholic. He helped popularize the phrase “The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality – it’s holiness.” NARTH’s “research” has always been lacking, using such dated and disproved hypotheses as the “absent father/overbearing mother” explanation for homosexuality. They have also consistently and deliberately misused the results of important, scientifically valid studies to justify bigotry and civil inequality against the queer community.

Shoddy scholarship and thinly-veiled religious antipathy for gays have been benchmarks of NARTH from the beginning. Although they’ve been the go-to group for all ex-gay organizations that want to claim that science is on their side, NARTH is little more than a cottage industry – a conference they held in Philadelphia a couple years ago yielded about 40 attendees.

At this point one can only speculate about why they failed to file for three years in a row, but this incident bears a striking resemblance to what happened to Peter LaBarbera’s organization, American for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH). He too failed to file form 990 for three consecutive years, and AFTAH’s tax-exempt status was also revoked by the IRS. At the time, blogger Timothy Kincaid commented that for nonprofits, every expense and donation must be listed. This means that donor names must be disclosed, and all of this information becomes available to the public. A copy of a nonprofit’s tax return is made available simply upon request, with all of this information.

“990′s provide a good deal of information: major donors, expenditures, grants, officers, compensation, programs, etc. And, most likely, Peter had something which he simply could not publicly reveal.

I’m guessing it was ‘major donor’ info. We would, of course, leap on disclosures from ‘legitimate’ organizations and Peter may have had no choice.

Going forward, AFTAH will have to decide on their corporate structure. They will have to file assomething. I wouldn’t be surprised if some new entity is created.”

NARTH will have to make these decisions as well, if they are to remain “in business,” so to speak. Who knows if the things they wanted to keep hidden (if that is indeed the case here) for the past three years will come to light some day soon.

Overall, this is a major blow to the ex-gay industry in America. If they become a defunct organization, the “studies” and “research” attributed to them will become that much more worthless, even to those most vehemently opposed to equality.

ENDS

Below is a video of Dr Lisa Diamond who claimed NARTH distorted her research - 

Lisa M. Diamond, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Gender Studies in the Department of Psychology at the University of Utah. She has won a number of awards for her work.
In 2000, Dr. Diamond published a study, "Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual minority women over a 2 year period."

This study was distorted by the so-called ex-gay therapy group NARTH. They claimed that Dr. Diamond's work shows that sexual orientation is "amenable to change."

Dr. Diamond also produced a second study, "Female Bisexuality From Adolescence to Adulthood: Results From a 10-Year Longitudinal Study" in Developmental Psychology (2008, Vol. 44, No 1., 5-14).

NARTH recently cited this study to support its anti-scientific belief that homosexuality is a mental disorder that should be treated.

Rev Clinton Chisholm on Homosexuality: Clinical Realities ..... relying on NARTH ????

“…the genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today.”

(W.H. Masters, V.E. Johnson, R.C. Kolodny, Human Sexuality, 1984, 45)

Homosexuality as a discussion topic often provokes controversy but there are some indisputable aspects of the topic that are beyond controversy.

One such is whether there is clinical evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality. The other is whether a homosexual can change orientation. We have learned much from cross-cultural studies and psychotherapy about both indisputable aspects mentioned here.

Let’s begin with cross-cultural studies.

Despite the remarkable similarities in the genetic characteristics of different ethnic groups, researchers have found quite a variety of sexual norms and customs in the cultures studied. There is variety in heterosexual customs as well as variety in homosexual customs and these varieties seem largely influenced by what a particular group reinforces in the raising of the young. If sexual orientation was essentially genetic then cultural anthropologists would have seen a greater degree of similarities in sexual expression within, between and among the various ethnic groups studied.

Focusing on homosexuality, it needs to be said that cross-cultural studies indicate cultural patterns that have little to do with an individual’s genes.

The evidence in this regard is available from Neil and Briar Whitehead in My Genes Made Me Do It! A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation, 1999, 100, drawing on The Many Faces of Homosexuality: Anthropological Approaches to Homosexual Behaviour, edited by E. Blackwood, 1986, 19-33.

For instance, one prominent aspect of ancient Greek culture was that an older married man was expected to have a young boy as a lover. He would share sexually with the boy and would assist in finding him a wife when he was of marriageable age. Interestingly, the Greeks, though comfortable with homosexuality between a mature man and a boy, frowned on homosexuality between adult men because it was degrading for a mature man to be ‘receptive’ in the sex act.

Patterns similar to the Greeks have been found in ancientChina,Japan, medievalPersia, theSudan, etc.

There is also what is called the ‘Melanesian model’ of homosexuality seen in Papua New Guinea. According to this model of homosexuality “…men pass through three compulsory and sequential stages: passive exclusive homosexuality, active exclusive homosexuality, and exclusive adultheterosexuality.” (Whitehead, 101)
The culture not only requires homosexuality through the adolescent period and up to the age of marriage but requires a cessation of homosexual activity after the required period had elapsed and a switch to heterosexuality. As Neil and Briar Whitehead say about this cultural reality, “Two such radical shifts in behaviour in one lifetime would not be possible if homosexuality were genetically mandated.” (Whitehead, 101).

Why the dismissive statement about the genetic theory of homosexuality from Masters, Johnson and Kolodny above?

From a clinical standpoint, it is notoriously difficult to prove that any human behaviour is genetic in an exclusive sense. Additionally, clinical research on identical twins has been damaging to the ‘genetic’ or ‘born homosexual’ thesis. Why are studies on identical twins so important for homosexuality research?

Just think a bit, if one’s genetic makeup is the essential factor which makes one homosexual, then if you have identical twins (of the same genetic makeup) and one is found to be homosexual then the other must also be homosexual. You would have to have a concordance rate of 100%. You should not find a discordant pair at all, where one is homosexual and the other heterosexual. So what are the clinical results of the studies done on identical twins like?

Let it be clear that no study of twins, that still attracts respect in the scientific world, has come close to the 100% concordance rate needed to prove that homosexuality is genetic.

What of studies done on the brains of homosexual men? Dr. Simon LeVay, a gay neurobiologist is alleged to have found a difference in the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals which some assumed helped the ‘born so’ or genetic thesis. It is critical though to hear LeVay’s comments on his own work. He urges,

It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. (quoted in an article by Dr. A. Dean Byrd et al in the Salt Lake Tribune, May 27, 2001)

However politically correct it might be to claim that homosexuals were born so, the claim is clinically incorrect.

Can the homosexual orientation and practice be reversed?

Homosexual activists and others would say no, but there is contrary clinical evidence.

One of the persons providing a slice of the contrary evidence is Dr. Robert Spitzer, a gay-affirmative psychiatrist and the architect of the 1973 decision to declassify homosexuality as pathological, in the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association. His preliminary comment on a study he was doing about the possibility of change in the homosexual orientation is this,

I’m convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they

have made substantial change toward becoming heterosexual…I think that’s

news…I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained. (cited in an article by A. Dean Byrd et al, in the Salt Lake City Tribune, May 27, 2001. The article isHomosexuality: The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science by A. Dean Byrd, Shirley E. Cox and Jeffrey W. Robinson, see http://connellodonovan.com/not_innate.pdf)

There is much clinical evidence of change in homosexual orientation and practice on the website NARTH, the American National Association for Psychoanalytic Research and Therapy of Homosexuals.

Therapist Jeffrey Satinover reported a 52% success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction. Masters and Johnson, the famed sex researchers, reported a 65% success rate after a five-year follow-up.
One can indeed be an ex-homosexual because the homosexual orientation, though complex in its etiology, is neither genetic nor is it an essential or immutable aspect of any human’s personhood.

ENDS

As one comment said "Quoting the website of the"National Association for Psychoanalytic Research and therapy of homosexuality"(NARTH) shows how weak and your sources are. NARTH is an organisation made up of about 1000 members of which only a quarter are mental health professionals. That means 75% of this activist organisation is made up of lay people who know little about mental health and have no qualifications to do mental health research on homosexuality. NARTH is also an organisation discredited by all mainstream health and mental health organisations because of their constant misuse of people's studies against their will to suit their anti-gay agenda often angering the researchers they quote." And I agree and what about the DSM?

Some of those same researchers have taken legal action against the org.

NARTH is also had a member that was caught hiring a male prostitute very recently, another that was arrested for sexually abusing his clients and another one who wrote an article justifying slavery. NARTH uses old studies on homosexuality (some over 100 years old) to advance their agenda and also promotes "reparative therapy" to so called "cure" homosexuality despite the fact that ALL mental health expert professional organisations not only discredit and disagree with this type of pseudo-scientific "therapy" but warns of its harmful effects.

Lisa M. Diamond, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Gender Studies in the Department of Psychology at the University of Utah. She has won a number of awards for her work.

In 2000, Dr. Diamond published a study, "Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual minority women over a 2 year period."

This study was distorted by the so-called ex-gay therapy group NARTH. They claimed that Dr. Diamond's work shows that sexual orientation is "amenable to change."

Dr. Diamond also produced a second study, "Female Bisexuality From Adolescence to Adulthood: Results From a 10-Year Longitudinal Study" in Developmental Psychology (2008, Vol. 44, No 1., 5-14).

NARTH recently cited this study to support its anti-scientific belief that homosexuality is a mental disorder that should be treated.

Enough said.

Peace and tolerance

H

UPDATE APRIL 2013 he hosted a seminar on the issue in Kingston using the same NARTH studies as reference alongside guest presenter Mrs Joan Pinkney. (see ad from the Gleaner below)

Researcher Blasts NARTH Official for “Blatant Misquotation”

(NARTH accused yet again of mirepresentation, how many more are out there? the Jamaica supporters better take heed) - thanks to the effecient Box Turtle

NARTH is an American Association = National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality

A researcher has blasted a prominent NARTH official for misrepresenting his work, calling it a “blatant misquotation.” That denunciation has led one conservative Christian psychologist and supporter of Sexual Identity Therapy to call for an apology and retraction by the NARTH official.

Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton discovered a lengthy undated book review by NARTH Past President A. Dean Byrd, Brigham Young University Social Work professor, Shirley Cox, and private practitioner, Jeff Robinson for a Mormon apologetics web site. In the book review Byrd and company blasted the book’s authors for offering a realistic portrayal of the unlikelihood of changing one’s sexual orientation. Never mind that the 2004 book was not in any way gay-affirming — the book was published by LDS publisher Deseret Books and the authors come down squarely on LGBT people conforming to Mormon teachings which condemn same-sex relationships — Byrd was upset that the books authors chose not to distort science in the process similar to what Byrd and his co-authors used in their book review.

The book review itself is a classic anti-gay polemic which not only provides an untenable view of the certainty of “change,” but also goes through great lengths to try to demonstrate that homosexuality is a mental illness — a core NARTH position that is in direct odds with professional psychiatry, psychology and psychotherapy. In the book review, Byrd and his co-authors assert that gays and lesbians have a much higher incidence of mental illness, and that this incidence is not explainable by stigma:

Activist researcher J. Michael Bailey offered other hypotheses: “homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness,” or “the consequences of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation” leads to mental illness or “behavioral risk factors associated with male homosexuality such as receptive anal sex and promiscuity” leads to mental illness.
In Byrd’s highly selective quotes, the reader would be led to believe that these “other hypothesis” better explain the incidence of mental distress in LGBT people than stigma. It’s normal for researchers to examine all hypotheses and evaluate their relative viabilities. It doesn’t mean the researcher endorses them, believes they have merit, or that they outweight the primary hypothesis. And that’s the case here. Warren Throckmorton contacted Dr. Bailey and received this reaction:
I was dismayed to read Byrd, Cox and Robinson’s summary of my views. In the context of a debate about the reasons for higher rates of mental illness among homosexual individuals, Byrd et al cites me as “offering” several hypotheses other than the increased stigmatization of homosexual people. It is unfortunate and misleading that they did not indicate that I discussed some versions of the hypotheses they mention alongside the stigma hypothesis. I was noncommittal about the merits of the hypotheses, because the required scientific research had not been conducted (and still hasn’t for the most part). I concluded: “it would be a shame—most of all for gay men and lesbians whose mental health is at stake—if sociopolitical concerns prevented researchers from conscientious consideration of any reasonable hypothesis.” But I also wrote: “It would indeed be surprising if antihomosexual attitudes were not part of the explanation of increased suicidality among homosexual people, but this remains to be demonstrated."

One of Byrd et al’s out-of-context quotations is so egregiously wrong that it amounts to a blatant misquotation. They suggest that I believe that “behavioral risk factors associated with male homosexuality such as receptive anal sex and promiscuity leads to mental illness.” I do not. I brought up receptive anal sex and (relative) promiscuity as factors that help explain increased rates of HIV infection among gay men. I said explicitly that it was unclear how these could help explain the increased rates of suicidality and depression among homosexual people. I favor open debate on controversial issues, including those related to sexual orientation. But constructive debate depends on responsible, accurate reporting of facts (and facts include what other people actually said and meant). In these remarks Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox and Jeff Robinson fail to live up to these requirements. For those interested in what I really said, please see the actual article that Byrd et al mischaracterize.

Dr. Throckmorton, who supports Sexual Identity Therapy (which may or may not include goals for changing sexual orientation identity and/or behavior) calls for an apology and a retraction:
In my opinion, Byrd, Cox and Robinson owe Bailey an apology and a retraction. Here I have only dealt with the misrepresentation of Bailey’s views. According to this rebuttal by Ty Mansfield, the entire review is a lengthy misrepresentation of his book. And I am not the only one who believes Byrd et al have done an injustice to this book and to the science of sexual orientation.

USA - NARTH Publishes Fake “Study” In A Fake “Journal”

American organization, National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) accused of "fake studies" yet again.

Jim Burroway (My friend at The Box Turtle)

Focus On the Family has issued a breathless article claiming that a “new study” has proven that sexual orientation can be changed:

A new report in this month’s issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Sexuality finds that sexual orientation can be changed — and that psychological care for individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions is generally beneficial and that research has not found significant risk of harm.
The study, conducted by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), examined more than 100 years of professional and scientific literature from 600-plus studies and reports from clinicians, researchers and former clients principally published in professional and peer-reviewed journals.

The problem with all that? Well first of all, this isn’t a study at all. It doesn’t consist of an experiment with study participants, methodology, measurements, analysis or results. Instead, according to this so-called journal — which I have a copy of — NARTH mined nearly 100 years of research on attempts to change sexual orientation. Of course, the vast majority of those studies were done when aversion therapy was commonly practiced, when many people sought therapy because they were convicted of homosexual offenses before Lawrence v. Texas to avoid jail, when few clinicians bothered to do any kind of follow-up, and when the APA still considered homosexuality a mental illness. Much of this paper is an updated regurgitation of several other articles already posted on NARTH’s web site.
Also, the so-called “peer reviewed” journal is not actually a journal. The Journal of Human Sexuality is actually a booklet published by NARTH themselves. In fact, it’s structured more like a book than a journal, with only one article whose title matches the title on the front cover. This journal is billed as “volume 1,” and was, according to its acknowledgment, conceived back when Joseph Nicolosi was still president at NARTH. At this rate, I would expect volume 2 to show up sometime in 2011.

This is very similar to another stunt pulled by George A. Rekers in 1996. He too created a one-off journal, also called The Journal of Human Sexuality which seems never to have made it to a second volume. It looks like NARTH decided to recycle Rekers old idea.
And as for this new journal’s “peer reviewed” status? Well, I guess when you have a paper written by an anti-gay activist posing as a therapist, and you send that paper off to other anti-gay activists posing as therapists, all of whom are members of your tight little NARTH club with no possibility of an actual independent review taking place, then maybe I would have to concede that the effort was “peer reviewed.” Unfortunately, that’s not the definition accepted by the scientific community.
This publication is not a dispassionate study of changes in sexual orientation. It is a cannon-blast of anti-gay animus in a long 94-page screed, a veritable anti-gay propaganda omnibus touching on all sorts of unrelated subjects including HIV/AIDS, alcohol and drug abuse, violence, psychiatric disorders, and “promiscuity as the new social norm.” As far as anti-gay propaganda goes, there’s little that’s missing here.

Anyone can write a “journal” and select the studies to prove their point as I illustrated in my satire, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.” (Hey, I had my partner read it before I published it; that must mean it’s peer-reviewed!) A quick look at NARTH’s “journal” shows that they pulled the same tactics as I did when I wrote my satire. Unfortunately, they didn’t intend for their publication to be read for satirical purposes. They are pushing it as legitimate science, and others are likely to be taken in by it.
Over the next several months — it is, after all, 94 pages of text — we will be going into greater detail to show just what a fraud this so-called journal really is. Stay tuned.