Warren Throckmorton

...it doesn't seem like a love story to me. It seems more like a tragic tale of obsession and broken people.

Not to be picky, but most of the tragic love stories I've read fall into that description...Romeo and Juliet, Madame Bovary, Anna Karenena, etc. Even biblical love stories have their share of obsession and brokenness.

I can see where you're going about the stereotyes of the main characters, however. I plan to see it, but King Kong is higher on my list for must-see in theatre movies.

Like I told a co-worker yesterday who wanted to see Syriana, it's winter, the nation is at war, the news is depressing, and I just want to go watch a big monkey and some special effects...
 

King Kong could have been helped by reparative therapy. He needed to repress his unnatural attraction to another species.
 

True. Probably due to the lack of a strong ape father figure on the Island.
 

CK - I don't think the father theory works here either. Mr. Kong (he likes to be called Mr.) would then prefer other ape-like critters to replace the father-ape he never had. That blond just doesn't strike me as ape-like. Indeed, I suggest he had an incredibly masculine alpha-ape for a papa, thus giving him the confidence to cross species into mating history. I love a good love story...and special effects.
 

Yes CK, a strong ape figure never goes astray...

Personaly... I blame fluoride in the water (or was it the interaction of Mars and Saturn?), but we all have our own ideas. All equally valid, of course.

I'm sorry Warren --but you do realise this is 1963 and Wyoming dont you??? Written by a 62 year old straight woman?

I wasn't there -- wasn't born actually -- but I'd hazard a guess this flick reflects an exagerated version of life for a gay man at that time.

Of course I'm only guessing, based on the 60-70 year old gay men that I talk to (two of which, a 37 year old couple, dropped by for pre-Xmas drinks this evening).

Perhaps professionally, and not religiously, you may wish to explan why these two nice cowboys felt guilt and/or shame?
 

grantdale - I do understand the context and that is my curiosity over the hoopla. I also see that just about everything that a reparative therapist would predict is referenced in the short story.
 

Well, I think that some of the abuse that Mr. Kong received at the hands of the villagers may have had something to do with it...

As far as Brokeback Mtn and obsessional love, it seems that when male-female love stories are characterized by neediness, filling voids, characters coming out of troubled backgrounds, etc., the presumption tends to be that the attraction in operation is normal--not a result of those backgrounds.

But put two people of the same sex together, and it's narcissicsm, or due to too strong/weak of a father. That, of course, is from my bias--but some of the explanations I've read of why certain gay people are attracted to other gay people (broad shoulders = strength) is just plain fishy.

We don't fault a woman for being attracted to a stereotypical "strong man" if she's come out of an abused family--that's OK. The presumption seems to be that for same sex couples, any trace of dysfunction in the past is explanation for the present state.
 

CK - I don't make that presumption; I would evaluate the relationship or the story in the same manner. Part of my discomfort with reparative theory is the double standard for heterosexuals.
 

Dr. Throckmorton,
Within your perspective, then, would you be able to evaluate a same-sex relationship as "normal" and different-sex relationship as "troubled"? Or would there be no circumstance in which a same-sex relationship could be classed as high functioning or normal?

I know your biblical perspective, but I'm curious as to how you integrate that with a psychological method that, as you say "evaluate[s] the relationship or the story in the same manner."

And if you were to find a "normal", "well functioning" (whatever term you want to use) same-sex relationship, would that in any way change your perspective?
 

I don't think my field has done a very good job of creating the kinds of ratings or classifications you are referring to. I also think religious practitioners confuse moral evaluations with functional or psychosocial ones. I think gay or lesbian couples can be quite high functional. I have really come to see the erotic orientation issue as distinct from the attachment dimension of life. I think they hook each other and are related in some way but there is such discontinuity in so many people that I think they are probably distinct functions. As I see it, moral evaluation of the rightness of couplings is a separate matter as well.
 

At the risk of pressing the issue, how do you square "high functional" LGBT couples with a) your understanding that same sex attraction is a dysfunction and b) your Christian viewpoint that it is sinful?

(I think I know the answer to at least b, but I would rather hear it from you than put words in your mouth.)

And you may be interested in this short blurb...

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/12/prweb322386.htm
 

a) I think I need you to be clearer about what you mean by dysfunction. I think SSA is statistically rare; compromises reproductive success; and a moral challenge for those who adhere to religions which teach it is improper to act on.

b) Regarding the sinfulness question, I do not think missing the mark morally means one will automatically experience psychological dysfunction.
 

I think SSA is statistically rare

As with CK, without laboring the point -- there are more openly gay men and women than there are jewish men and women. And we must not neglect all those "rare" people who considered to be highly functional. Musicians. Nobel prize winners. Surgeons.

The proportion in society, nor their actions, plainly does not determine (psych) dysfunction.

I know you've used Laumann et al for a 2-3% figure, but you also do not use the 10% that they found for SS attraction. Others have found higher figures for the % who are non-heterosexuals.

2-3%, let alone 10% or more, is not "statistically rare".

compromises reproductive success

Bisexuality, of course, does not. Most SSA people are bisexual.

I'm also not sure how reproductive success measures dysfunction. Are those couples with 8 children more functional than those with 2? How about those couples who (deliberately) decide against having children?

But most curiously...

A view that proports "a moral challenge" also offers celibacy as the way to live.

In terms of reproductive success, wouldn't celibacy also be dysfunctional?

those who adhere to religions which teach

Perhaps those who adhere to such demands, despite them being at odds with their nature, are really the dysfunctional ones.

The evidence: the mental health and life-satisfaction data, and pair-bonding success, is quite clearly in favour of those SSA people who accept their sexuality and integrate it into both their identity and the choices they make in life.

Some, of course, never will. But the outcomes for them are much less favourable than either heterosexuals, or self-accepting gay men and women.

And that alone directs attention back to real source of GLBT "dysfunction" (and skews data for SSA people as a group).

It isn't homosexuality, per se.
It's the anti-gay attitude.
 

Interesting question. Not sure of the answer. As a teen, I was taught that rock and roll was wrong but I still liked it. Must be my rock and roll gene.
 

It may seem creepy and unnecessary but it is not up to me to determine someone's religious beliefs. Sexuality is just one area of value conflict; there are many.
 

Gays/lesbians as a group are less likely to have children. This shouldn't be surprising.
 

Maybe you haven't read my other stuff on here but I don't medicalize value conflicts. I do not view homosexuality as a mental disorder.
 

Creepy for Boo: Career counseling, relationship enhancement, religious counseling, any change counseling not involving a recognized pathology. Even saying this, the lion's share of what I do is help people figure themselves out, what they do after that is between them and their beliefs. No one cares about this unless what the person wants to figure out and possibly avoid or yes even change is homosexual feelings. Then holy ground has been soiled.
 

While anyone can change behavior, there is no evidence anyone has ever changed sexual orientation?

I don't agree with this. I do believe there is evidence no matter how you define sexual orientation (and this is the real fly in that ointment).

Every mainstream mental health organization has claimed that attempting to change sexual orientation is ineffctive and possibly dangerous?

I tell my clients what the groups have said, most specifically what my group (ACA) has said which is that they frown on people who say homosexuality is a mental illness and that change for that reason is unnecessary. They support a client's right of self-determination as do I.

There exist many happy, faithful gay and lesbian couples?

I don't know how to characterize how many there are, but I do inform them of this, yes.

There is no one "homosexual lifestyle?"

Of course.

Their desire to change their sexual orientation may well be the result of self-loathing caused by internalized homophobia?

I do not tell my clients why they feel what they feel. I leave this directive stance to NARTH and gay affirming therapists.

And to touch back on the original point of the post, if Brokeback Mountain isn't a love story than neither is Romeo and Juliet, West Side Story, Lancelot and Guinevere, Buffy and Angel, and every other story where the heterosexual lifestyle leads to madness, destruction, and suicide.

This hasn't come up yet but I would not recommend relationships such as described by the short story, either gay or straight. But then I do not recommend my clients believe like me so they would have to put up with my endless questioning of destructive behavior and make their own conclusions.
 

I am not going to go over the change evidence again here. We have been over that issue lots on here and elsewhere. We either agree or don't.

I agree that sexual compulsions need to be assessed and I do this. I do not see homosexuality and sexual compulsion as having a necessary relationship.

Well, it was the only gay Western people were talking about at the moment :)
 

Boo, you're being just plain silly. Take 20 people who say that their "orientation" has changed over time, and 20 who say theirs hasn't. Ask the 40 of them, "is there any evidence that orientation can change over time?"

Now why on earth would any rational person beleive the 20 who insist that change is impossible (because they've tried and failed) over the 20 who tried and succeeded? That's madness man, pure madness.
 

That is why people have to come out and accept themselves, If they were true totheir hearts, maybe they could get married in canada by now!
 

Interesting link I found:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48247

- Raven