Gay Men Discuss Problem of Unsafe Sex in Poz

Related Entries

Recently Published Research Counters Claims of Widespread Harm and Ineffectiveness of Sexual Attraction Fluidity Exploration in Therapy (SAFE-T)

An online survey of 125 men in the USA who had been or still were engaged in sexual fluidity exploration in therapy (SAFE-T) with licensed mental health professionals has recently been published in the peer- reviewed journal Linacre Quarterly. The study by Santero, Whitehead, and Ballesteros (2018) had participants rate their experiences of change, harm, benefit, and type of intervention at three intervals: before, during, and (where applicable) after their therapy experience.

What Freud Really Said about Homosexuality and Why

There is increasing public and professional debate over the normality and treatability of male homosexuality. This warrants a return to the earliest professional understandings of the condition, i.e., the origins of Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. While gay-affirmative theorists dismiss early psychoanalytic theory regarding the nature and causes of homosexuality, this perspective continues to offer a foundation for understanding same-sex attractions and for the application of effective therapeutic interventions. While often unclear about his views on homosexuality, in three primary and other peripheral writings, Freud depicts his diverse, perhaps ambivalent, views on the phenomenon. These views are summarized in seven categories: 1. The Reality of Reproduction. 2. The Theory of Universal Bisexuality. 3. Psychosexual Immaturity. 4. Homosexuality and Narcissism. 5. Reparative Concept. 6. Therapeutic Pessimism. 7. Homosexuality as “Perversion.” Working within the limited theoretical framework of the Oedipus Complex, Freud offered basic observations and fundamental principles which modern psychodynamic-oriented theories and therapies continue to develop.

My Conversation with a Typical Opponent of Professional Therapies that Include Change

In this article I present in conversational form a hypothetical interaction between myself and a Typical Opponent of Professional Therapies that Include Change (i.e., a Mr. Ty Optic). While hypothetical, this conversation is comprised of responses to common arguments frequently offered by people who are increasingly intent on legally restricting client self-determination and professional speech in the psychological care of unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors. Through the vehicle of this conversation, I hope to highlight the many difficulties with these arguments, particularly the incomplete or dishonest representation of the scientific record as regards to change in same-sex attractions and behaviors and the false caricatures of licensed therapists who do this work. Those who value clients’ rights to choose a professional course of care consistent with their moral, religious, and cultural beliefs are encouraged to familiarize themselves with these responses.