Jeanette Bartha

Thanks for coming back. I’m having difficulty understanding and responding to your position. I have never said that homosexuality is an illness. Indeed, the central theme of this blog is that none of the behaviors outlined in DSM are illnesses (including homosexuality). Please come back and clarify, but I would be grateful if you could leave the rancor and vituperation outside.

It is self-evident that homosexual behavior is a choice (as is heterosexual behavior). If a person goes to a gay bar and chats up an individual of the same gender, this constitutes homosexual behavior, and it is obvious that this is a choice. Unfortunately, however, the word “choice” has acquired an emotional loading which militates against rational discourse. The point I have made repeatedly is that choice is simply descriptive of behavior, not explanatory.

Thanks for coming back.  In the “old days” homosexuality was generally considered to be a pathological condition, and attempts at remediation were practiced by various agencies, including mental health, church, general medicine, schools, etc.. I don’t think it would be accurate to characterize behaviorists as having had a lead role in these kinds of endeavors.  Indeed, by stressing the somewhat arbitrary nature of ethical standards generally, it could possibly be argued that it was behaviorists who paved the way for the increased acceptance of homosexual behaviors that we see today.

But – to answer your question – behaviorists did indeed “treat” homosexuality – not because they considered it an illness – but simply because the individuals concerned asked for help in making these kinds of changes.

The methods varied, of course, but the general principle was that sexual arousal and satisfaction were occurring in contexts that were considered inappropriate by the standards of the day.  So the “treatment” was three-faceted:  pairing the inappropriate stimulus with an aversive experience; teaching an “appropriate” reaction to the homosexual encounter; and teaching sexual reactiveness to a heterosexual context.

Obviously this whole area is a minefield in the present political climate. Strictly speaking the behaviorist position generally is that behavior that is learned can be unlearned.  Now, of course, the PC people will assert that homosexuality is not learned.  But of course it is.  (As is heterosexual behavior).  The only truly “natural” sexual reaction is orgasm.  Everything else has to be learned – how, where, when, and in what context.  All these factors are a part of what is termed sexual behavior.

Here are some references on homosexuality “treatment”:  Feldman and MacCulloch: Homosexual behavior: Therapy and assessment 1971; Gold and Neufeld: A learning approach to the treatment of homosexuality (in Behavior Research and Therapy, 1965, 2, 201-204).  Interestingly Albert Ellis (of rational-emotive therapy fame) wrote Homosexuality: its causes and cure (1965).

The critical difference between then and now from a behaviorist perspective is that then many of the individuals who practiced homosexual behavior actually expressed a desire to change those behaviors. Today they are more likely to feel OK about their homosexual preferences.  It wasn’t an illness then, and it isn’t an illness now.

Thanks for an interesting comment. A number of writers over the years have discussed the difference between an explanation and a description, and I think the topic is still addressed in first year logic/philosophy courses (or at least it should be). But psychiatrists and other mental health professionals don’t seem to get it. A great book that I have relied on heavily over the years is Ullmann and Krasner’s A Psychological Approach to Abnormal Behavior (Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1975)

Once again, thanks for coming in.

Thanks for an interesting comment.  A number of writers over the years have
discussed the difference between an explanation and a description, and I think
the topic is still addressed in first year logic/philosophy courses (or at
least it should be).  But psychiatrists
and other mental health professionals don’t seem to get it.  A great book that I have relied on heavily
over the years is Ullmann and Krasner’s A
Psychological Approach to Abnormal Behavior (Second Edition, Prentice-Hall,
1975)

Once again, thanks for coming in.

[...]Behavior Therapy « Behaviorism and Mental Health[...]…