Homosexual Conversion Therapy

Legislature considering ban on gay conversion therapy for children

http://www.king5.com/home/Legislature-considering-ban-on-gay-245916191.html

(Sent from KING_5)

Is there any form of sexual proclivity for which 'conversion' might be desirable or necessary? The methods sound abusive and barbaric as described in the article. So I am curious if sexual interest can be imposed or programmed at all, on anyone. To me the question of whether sexual interest can be imposed on someone is key to understanding sexual 'orientation' and what mechanism is responsible for installing it into each of us in such diverse and distinctive ways. If a sexual orientation can be determined to be 'artificially imposed', then it only stands to reason that it can be uninstalled,  or deprogrammed... or converted to something different.

Pedophiles are often sentenced to "chemical castration."

The reason conversion therapy exists is that most people's proclivities are somewhat fluid, and you can sorta/kinda redirect your nature. Repression is commonplace, it's even part of the Roman Catholicism practiced by 1.2 billion people.

These do not, of course, change the zebra's stripes.

What possible value could that serve?
I think we seal what we like in childhood. It just clicks. What clicks and when is a combo of wiring and environment and theoretically could be stopped if one were psychic to know what direction the kid was inclined before any expression of it. So realistically- no.
But even if we could, why? Who cares? Who the fuck is so obsessed we need the ability to alter sexual interest and attraction?

If we really wanted to be humane we could find a way to serve even the pedophiles and bestiality and necro people that society finds so offensive. Why on earth go to such an extreme when simply encouraging age play and automatons could go so far? People won't ever really change, it's society that has to adjust to the people who make the contract to have one.

The fact is that certain sexual proclivities, depending on who one listens to of course, have the potential to do harm. I see no other reason to require any kind of re-programming for anyone, assuming it could even be effective if implemented.
The other problem is that simply supplying automatons or toys/dolls, or whatever, just isn't enough. It might help for a few, but for the vast majority who resent being supplied with artificial means to satiate, while all other orientations get their fill the real and all-natural way... just won't cut it. You've heard Markaba discuss this I'm sure. There are some very troubling (that's my word) organizations out there that will not sit back and just allow society to dictate what they can and cannot do sexually with anyone, regardless of age, gender, species, whatever...

It really all comes down to where we as a society are willing to draw the line - if we are willing to draw any line at all. That line separates what is acceptable from what is, or can be, or will be, harmful.

If some form of 'conversion therapy', whether psychological, chemical, or both, could be done less abusively/intrusively, and still be effective, then I see that as a better option than simply becoming ultra-sexually liberal and allowing everyone to do anything, with ANYONE, regardless of age, gender, species, pulse, etc,... no holds barred. Anything goes. But then there is the problem of it being self-administered voluntarily, which I think is highly unlikely.

Homosexuality is presumably in the "non-harmful" category. Hence, conversion therapy is not warranted.

What behaviors would warrant deprogramming, do you figure?

Of course. You and I, and I would assume everyone on this forum would agree that consentual homosexuality is in the non-harmful category.

Behaviours warranting deprogramming? Sure, give me the can opener to open the can of worms...   

Personally, I can't say with any confidence that any form of deprogramming or conversion therapy would be effective, in the short or long term. But assuming there were some hypothetical, morally sufficient way to do this that was "effective"... I'd have to say paedophilia is one such candidate. For reasons I hope are obvious to most people. Others might be bestiality; because some, I bet many, would object to the cruelty imposed on the animal (not the human sexually imposing him or herself on the animal). Many might feel necrophilia is harmful; not for the corpses, but for the loved ones of the deceased who might be deeply offended by the abuse of their deceased family member or beloved friend or spouse at the hands of someone who simply wants to use their corpse as a sex doll.

Aside from the question of harm... the parameters of which really must be defined. There is ultimately the question of whether deprogramming or conversion isn't simply a clinical sounding term for what is essentially brainwashing and clockwork orange style, forced stimulous/repetition-behavioural re-enforcement. Pavlovian conditioning with the threat of severe nausea, or worse. Torture, iow.

There are no easy remedies, or answers to these problems (well... that aren't immoral themselves).

So, can i assume through this little exercise that you came to realize, or re-inforced your already-held belief, that the "harm" talked about in these discussions is not harm to the perpetrator or harm to the participant, but "harm" to the morals of the people thinking about somebody else performing the act?

No, you cannot, or at least should not assume that.