Talk:Same sex attachment

The relation to Harville Hendrix is Imago Therapy. Hilde Weiman, a therapist who trained with Richard Cohen:

"bases most of her work on the teachings of Dr. Harville Hendrix and Imago Therapy (www.imagotherapy.com). [1]

If your objection to mentioning Dr. Hendrix, is that it implies an endorsement of Cohen's theories, then by all means lets ensure the article avoids this implication. I am aware that SSAD is unpopular and I wouldn't want to give a false impression that it has more supporters than it really does. --Uncle Ed 14:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are there any research studies on this in any psych journals? Mentioning any such articles might strengthen the case here. --DanielCD 16:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condemns SSAD

Although I myself would never support Cohen's beliefs, the tone of this article may give readers the wrong impression. First, the article never identifies the anti-SSAD critics more clearly; a licensed psychologist and a gay teenager in eighth grade may both criticize Cohen's theories, yet the second critic isn't as well-informed as the first. Second, the use of quotation marks around some words could suggest sarcasm--not the specialized use which the article writer had in mind. (Even non-psychologists speak of emotional detachment; that sense of the word is common enough not to need quotes.) ISNorden 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"An attempt to re-pathologize" and assertion that SSAD is not scientific smack of a pro-gay rights attempt to mainstream homosexuality.

That's nonsense. It is not a socially motivated statement, it is literally true. Homosexuality was removed (depathologized) over thirty years ago from the APA's list of mental disorders, it is already acknowledged to be a fixed sexual orientation by the vast majority of mainstream scientists and medical practictioners, and the methods pseudoscientists use to determine that homosexuality is a disorder are indeed unscientific because they deviate from the scientific method (making them pseudoscience). Rather than begin with objective observation, they all begin with the assumption that homosexuality is something negative that should be cured, and the primary source of that belief is religion. In short, SSAD is literally not scientific, and homosexuality as a neutral, fixed sexual orientation rather than a sin or sickness is already accepted by the mainstream.

It would be better to describe SSAD fully first. Then explain how Cohen came up with the concept, i.e., his own formative experiences followed by membership in the Unification Church; how he originally created an elaborate lecture series based on UC theology. Next explain Cohen's success (and/or failure) with therapy based on the non-sexual fulfillment of homo-emotional emotional drives, i.e., friendship with "straight people".

Any statistics he or like-minded others have come up with, attempts to submit papers, statements by psychiatrists or organizations, should also be added.

The article on Reparative therapy suffers from similar problems, mixing in blatantly abusive pre-modern, involuntary "methods" such as aversion therapy. Whereas Cohen says his methods are "for those who wish to change" only.

Also yet to be addressed is the concept that a person's "sexual orientation" is not changeable; i.e., fixed at birth (which is one theory) or by early childhood (which is a second theory contradicting the first!). Cohen argues in his book that homosexuality is not so much inborn as developed in childhood. His idea is that it is a disorder which can be overcome with hard work, determination and the right kind of support.

Psychology is still an emerging science. It has not had the centuries that physics (astronomy), chemistry and the other hard sciences have had. Even biology (medicine) only began emerging from pre-scientific dogma 180 years ago. Scientists reviled Ignaz Semmelweis and refused to examine his research on his theory of an invisible substance that transmits childbed fever and his proposed prevention method (wash your hands before touching the patient!). --Uncle Ed 13:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream scientists base their belief that homosexuality is a neutral, fixed orientation based on over three decades of evidence and there is no indication whatsoever that this will change. Those who believe it is a sickness or a sin begin from a place of anti-gay bias, usually religious in nature, and have no reliable scientific evidence or documentation to back it up.

Neutrality

It would actually hurt the article's neutrality to pretend that pseudoscience is on par with real science. If we pretend to ignore that the APA depathologized homosexuality decades ago, then the article suffers from missing information. This is not a socially motivated comment, it is a purely objective and logical one. Cohen does not use reliable scientific methods and his "research" and terminology has been rejected by nearly every reputable medical and scientific organization in the country. His pseudoscience is deeply flawed and biased and in this case, neutrality does not equate with giving equal time and consideration to his theories. --SIGN AND DATE

I completely agree. I wasn't even aware this 'disorder' existed until I found this article, and frankly, I'm not impressed with Cohen admitting he bases his theory on 'anecdotical' evidence. The info about the APA depathologizing homosexuality decades ago must stay to provide a context. I wonder if we should also include Spitzer's recent research line, or if that would exceed the purpose of this article. Raystorm 11:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, it is not even a theory, but a (still) untested hypothesis. IMHO Cohen would be in the clear if he called it SSADH (hypothesis). I think a LINK to Spitzer's recent research would be helpful , if it's not already under Homosexuality and psychology --Lexein 13:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]