In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association concluded that homosexuality was indeed not pathological and struck it from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Although homosexuality was declassified as a mental disease, proponents of these conversion methodologies continue to treat patients despite miniscule success rates and unethical research result presentation. Sexual conversion therapies skew research results and ultimately show no evidence of success. This paper will explore how bisexual-inflation and self-reporting methods introduce bias, as well as, analyze the doubtful success of these therapies.
The inclusion of bisexual men and women into homosexual conversion studies introduce a bias that drastically misrepresents…show more content… In addition, a study conducted by Masters and Johnson attracted scrutiny as well, because of their sample composition. Douglas Haldeman outlines these statistics in his journal entitled “The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy” which reads: “Of 54 subjects, only 9 (17%) identified themselves as Kinsey 5 or 6. The other 45 subjects (83%) ranged from 2 to 4 on the Kinsey scale” (Haldeman 223). The Kinsey heterosexual-homosexual scale is a form of sexual orientation measurement presented by Alfred Kinsey. The scale ranges from 0 meaning exclusively heterosexual and 6 meaning exclusively homosexual. It is also important to point out that this scale could potentially be abused by patients who adjust their everyday lifestyles away from homosexuality due to internalized homo-negativity. One could simply deny their own homosexuality because of societal prejudice and identify as being bisexual to avoid potential discrimination. However, to…show more content… Nonetheless, it is very intriguing that many of its few supporters doubt it themselves. In addition, Birk admits that these therapies don’t in fact offer a conversion from one sexuality to another, yet they instead offer tools for adaptation to a sexuality that a patient doesn’t naturally identify with. Why are these therapies then advertised as conversions to those seeking help, when the realistic intended outcome is to adapt rather than cure? David Jenkins and Lon Johnston include a quote from an additional researcher, Throckmorton, that supports this epiphany: “more practically, I do not know with certainty if I have ever been successful in “changing” a person’s sexual orientation, since I do not know how to precisely define sexual orientation or if it is even a valid clinical concept” (Jenkins and Johnston 558). This revelation further supports scrutinized success of sexual conversion therapies. Throckmorton not only admits that he doubts his ability to successfully convert a patient that is homosexual to heterosexuality, but also clarifies that he doesn’t have a firm understanding of sexual orientation or if it could even be considered a clinical concept. In addition to skewed research results, the researchers themselves are admitting there are flaws with the practice of sexual conversion therapies. It remains ultimately clear that these therapies and their proponents
