The Nicolosi Farce & Its Enablers
In my further exploration of a book called “A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality,” I simply wonder at the invincible ignorance of the author, and his endorsers. It’s truly mind boggling. It’s by Joseph Nicolosi and Linda Ames Nicolosi. They are with a group called NARTH – National Association of Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. And you know, I just got to laugh. For rarely has such amazing mush been perpetrated on the American public – or directed at gay men. Well, not many of the public, for I wonder how many of these books have been sold? I doubt many. One of the endorsers, a Johanna Krout Tabin says: “What it provides that no parent can find in any library…” what garbage – I found the book in the library across the street for heaven’s sake, on Wilmot Road in Tucson, Arizona – which is hardly some research or rare book library – I see parents and kids all over the place – I doubt many have bothered to check the book out, though. For who would think such a book exists?
The book was published in 2002; I have the feeling that my book on the Czechs & Slovaks of Louisiana sold more copies. I don’t know; frankly, I don’t care. But when one publishes a book that purports to do something “good” well, then, what exactly does it do? Not much, but lambaste gay men for daring to say “Leave us alone, we’re fine.” It ignores so much that it’s laughable. Yet it harps on some “psychological” change that gay men undergo at some indeterminate point to go from the instinctual heterosexual procreative model to the “sick,” “warped,” “disordered,” and “evil” gay model. Meanwhile, the man’s most sickening advice is that dad’s should show their penises to their sons – ah, but only in the shower – perhaps the locker room where penises abound is not the place. Maybe that’s too many penises. Lord knows I got myself excused from high school gym for just that reason – too many – it was a smorgasbord, without a doubt.
Chief among what it ignores, however, are these questions, about which this couple has a complete and utter lack of interest in considering:
1) why are there boys who have this “predisposition” they so blithely talk about?
2) what is this predisposition? Where does it come from? They bring up and then dismiss any example or theory ever set forth by anyone, and the “predisposition” simply remains unexplained.
3) why is it that no matter what society one looks at, at any point in history, anywhere on earth, there is the exact same tiny percentage of men gay? Why are there 106 boys born for every 100 girls, and then there’s always 6 gay men to every 100 heterosexual men? Egad, that’s the 5% or so who are gay!
4) how come there are simply no gay guys who ever wanted to change, and why 99% of us simply refuse? And the 1% driven by religious pressure – who then drop out of whatever program they enter?
5) if it’s the father’s fault, why, in our time of 50% of boys growing up without fathers, has the numbers of gays not risen? This man’s theory virtually dictates that this would be the case. It isn’t.
6) if society keeps harassing and haranguing gay guys why is it a surprise that some gays are psychologically a bit verkempt? He avers it’s not society, it’s the gays themselves who are naturally demented, but, importantly, we’re “unnatural.”
7) how come unless a gay man says he’s gay then no psychological test can ever detect us? If you ask, and we don’t tell, then it’s not possible to spot us by any known test.
8) if it’s a psychological problem induced by the fathering, or the parenting, why have there been laws against being gay? And why do so many still want laws against gay folks?
9) how come no one thing is ever the cause, but it requires an endless range of different causalities in a bewildering jumble of conditions and probabilities and possibilities?
10) why is gayness the only human condition that is both psychological and psychiatric? And why has no one sought a pill to “cure” it?
11) why is there so much bleating about “choosing to be gay” if our fathers and predisposition did it?
12) why is there so much bleating about being “recruited” if our father’s and predisposition did it?
13) why do these people only study gay men who go to psychologists and never any gay men who simply have no problems with being gay?
14) why is there an element of “sin” and religion, if it’s a mere psychological/psychiatric problem?
15) how come not one researcher on “homosexuality” ever went to a gay bar to talk to well-adjusted happy reasonable gay men, but only look at basket cases who might wander into their office?
16) if the father is a bad dad, why is it that usually only one son is gay, and not all sons?
17) why do these people keep insisting that there’s a “biological” cause of some unknown type, and a “predisposition” but yet there can’t be a “gene(s)” and the biology is “unnatural”?
18) why are they so sure it’s a “masculinity” problem, or a “gender identity disorder” when we gay men insist that we know very well that we are men and have no confusion about the matter whatsoever?
19) why do these people ignore the many others of their kind who are equally insistent that it’s the mother’s fault?
20) why are these people so insistent that our tiny bunch is a threat to family, society and civilization itself?
21) why do these people keep quoting Kinsey, when Kinsey was disproved and discredited long ago?
22)why do these people keep quoting “research” when the only sort ever done is developing theories – not a single research study, genetic study, or a large scale study of gay men has ever been done – at the most there’s a mere dozen “looks” at less than 100 gay men compared to a 100 straight men.
23) why do these people never bring up Evelyn Hooker, who proved over and over again that she nor any other psychologist could ever find a gay man in a bunch, and that what they did find was that gay men are better psychologically balanced than any straight men?
24) why do they, along with evolutionists, keep looking at our procreative abilities and simply refuse to consider the idea that evolution wanted gay men to not reproduce?
25) why do these people keep bringing up the three or four inconclusive (and some not even finished yet!) Twin Studies by saying twins are 100% identical when identical twins don’t even have the same fingerprints? Nor are “identical twins” ever really identical, there’s always physical differences. And, too, from personal experience, I’ve never met twins with the same identical penises. They are obviously not “identical” in any true sense of the word “identical,” such as “the” is identical to “the” or two iPods are identical when leaving the factory.
26) why have these people never asked themselves why heterosexuals are instinctual – evolutionary and Godly so – and yet gay men simply override this, squash this, throw it away, who knows – how the hell do we do this? Because our father’s weren’t nice to us or something? It’s beyond logic and into willful fantasy.
Those are just a few of the questions I have; I have more, many more. But amazingly, and sadly, Mr. Nicolosi and his no doubt fine wife simply never bother to ask the questions. They are apparently so set in their conclusions that they are bereft of any intellectual curiosity dealing with any of these questions I raise. I don’t think these even occur to this dense couple or their cohorts. Indeed, Nicolosi repeatedly, every dozen or so pages, simply states: gays are wrong about “homosexuality” – well, maybe we are. But we’re not living in the fantasy of “homosexuality” constructed by Nicolosi, we’re living the reality of gayness. Frankly, not only do we not understand what this man and others are saying, but because it is so serendipitously ludicrous we reject it completely. I’d call us rational, but they insist otherwise. Ah, for we’re to be ignored because we’re craaaaazzzzzyyyyy! Yeah, sure, dude, sure.
Not only that, the endorsers and the Nicolosis keep referring to all these “many” gay men they speak to, and all the “many” they’ve “cured” and all the grand research they have done on “many” gays – and then, astoundingly, the couple comes up with only 7 or 8 actual “GID” examples (we’re not gay, we’re Gender Identity Disordered!, Egad, mindless – we’re men, sir, men who like men – try listening for once.) He look at kids – well, no, teens – not even any child, babe, or anything younger than one 8 year old brought in to this demented psychologist for “Treatment.” The rest are teens who say this or that, as if teens know a darn thing. The majority of the book is simple castigation of anything gay men say, and utter dismissal of anything positive whatsoever – it’s a political polemic, not a psychological treatise. There’s no study, no research, no facts, no charts, figures, controlling tests, or testing of the hypothesis – instead it’s a statement of belief. And nothing more. The Nicolosis even bring up the religion angle, as if religions, which for centuries eschewed psychology, are now of a sudden psychology experts.
Then there are 12 more of these intellectually unquestioning people who endorse the book with large quotes. So let’s take a look at some of these people, for that is just so illustrative of the mush.
First up is Charles Socriades – a learned man, he’s M.D., and Clinical Professor of Psychiatry hither and yon. He says: “Utilizing an eclectic form of psychotherapy based on psychoanalytic principles …” Yes, well, it’s Ptolemaic in the numbers of concentric circles which must be woven together by Nicolosi – eclectic? It’s more like throwing wet spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks for heaven’s sake. “… has shown how homosexual impulses and enactments [Enactments? What on earth? We’re like Civil War enactments?] can be modified or, in some instances, removed.” How many instances were these “enactments” removed? Zero. Absolutely zero. Modified? Hahaha! Their modification is celibacy or else while heteros screw themselves to high oblivion. “This gives hope to parents of gender-disturbed children who have previously succumbed to despair” – it certain has not – not a gay man was ever prevented by this political Ptolemaic polemic, nor could they, because, well, see, we’re not “gender-disturbed” nearly as much as Socriades and company are “gay-disturbed.” We just disturb them, beyond doubt; they admit it repeatedly. “There are numerous clinical vignettes…” What? There are 7 or 8 – it’s hard to count, for Nicolosi confuses and conflates at least two of them. “… in a highly readable” – yeah, so was Mein Kampf, but I don’t exactly view that as a good sign. And in a “scientific manner” – what nonsense – there’s no “science” in the book – it’s theory, it’s politics, it’s trash gay folks – every other page is a political statement and “don’t believe gay men.” He calls us liars, connivers and activists and nothing more, this is science?
But you know what is the most dishonest thing about this guy is? His own son Richard is gay! Yep, the man who claims to be an expert, and a man who claims to be able to see the brilliance and effectiveness of Nicolosi is simply a failure for having A) not spotted the “pre-homosexual” right there in his own friggin’ home, but B) failed utterly to “prevent homosexuality.” And nowhere do Nicolosi or Socriades ever mention this! – And Socriades is quoted elsewhere in the book too – nothing like the blurber being quoted both as promoter of the mush, and as expert within too! – It’s disgusting how a father can be so damn sure his son is a mental midget for the father’s actions – and then not take claim for it, nor responsibility. It’s just despicably unscientific, intellectually dishonest and basic perjury and fraud. Egad, what a mush head. What a horrible father.
Ah, A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. – of NARTH itself. Sure, publish a book and get your co-worker to endorse it. Self-serving birds if you ask me. “In writing this book, the authors have broken important ground.” What? It’s a rehash of all the mush that’s ever been said “scientifically,” theoretically and politically. The only thing broken is the book itself. Meanwhile, he admits in his blurb: “… and the possibility of modifying their child’s gender identity” – what, just a possibility eh, doc? And of the not possibles? Well, I guess those are the really crazy gays, those who don’t have a gender identity problem bone in our bodies. But again, he presupposes we must, we just must, be “confused” on gender – how friggin’ moronic – how dismissive of the reality in front of you, while you retreat to “It is a commonsense approach to parenting that fits the value systems of many families.” So, now it’s a “value system,” eh? What happened to the “predisposition”? What happened to the lousy daddy? What happened to the “Sissy boy” and the “Effeminate boy” – what happened to the “biological,” the “maybe some genetic,” and maybe, maybe a dozen other things? It’s reduced to “We don’t like the gay kid, throw him out.” Yikes. What a lousy father he must be.
Then there’s John Paulk – a “homosexuality and gender specialist” at Focus on the Family – a group which is quite insistent that gay men be rounded up and imprisoned! For being screwed over by our dads? Is he serious? Well, yes, and well, no – for he’s the former “chair of the North American Board of Exodus International” – and what does Exodus admit? Why they admit to a 100% failure rate of ever changing a gay guy straight. And nothing, absolutely nothing says “I know what I’m talking about, and I’m qualified to make an assessment of this book” than being the chair of a group of 100% admitted failures. Why, he couldn’t conceivably know what the hell he’s talking about. He’s a chair alright, alas, one with three legs, and one of them broken.
Then there’s George Rekers – Professor of Neuropsychiatry – a man who has said some of the most outrageously nasty stuff about gay men – like, oh, we’re child molesters, pedophilia freaks, against the family, out to destroy society – the list of “crimes” which we are committing as contended by this man is too lengthy to put here. He’s into slander and libel; I think he should be brought to justice.
Then there’s “Dr. James Dobson.” – president of Focus on the Family – a doctor of what? Of “get rid of the gays” and that’s about it. He and his group simply have called for our extermination, incarceration and any other punitive measures that could conceivably be created. He says here: “Its purpose is not to condemn but to educate and encourage moms and dads.” Well, I suppose he certainly doesn’t want to condemn the parents who “made” us gay, oh no. But he sure is into condemning gay men, that’s for sure. He makes a living at it, for Christ’s sake. He quite sure we “choose” to be gay, that we “forsake Christ,” that we are enemies of the people. How on earth is putting us in jail for the rest of our natural lives not “condemning” I don’t know. Why we should be condemned for what was allegedly done to us, I can’t fathom. How he can say with one side of his mouth that we were “made” gay at tender age, but also “choose” to be gay as adults I can’t even deal with – it’s so two-faced, it’s ludicrous.
Then there’s seven other “psychologists” and “psychiatrists” with a track record of stopping gayness of Zero, and a track record of “curing” gayness of Zero. Yet, Nicolosi is quite concerned that those professions have succumbed to the “gay agenda” and “propaganda.” Hell, he’s got 7 right there, and himself. Obviously these two professions did not fall to our entreaties, but remain conflicted. Why? Because rational people realize there’s no evidence of psychological problem, but no one will look for anything else.
Yet, they all proclaim themselves experts in a field in which there are no clients. No gay men go to get “cured” – all these people, and NARTH, and AFTAH (Americans for the Truth About Homosexuality – which blames the Mother, not the father!) and Exodus and “Love won out” etc, etc, simply have no clients. They have Zero success because no one seeks their services. A restaurant with no eaters can’t claim to have great food, can it? They don’t even bother to advertise in the gay press to induce us to buy their services. They are so nasty and stupid towards gay men that they are clearly clueless as to how to get clients. They have no sympathy or concern, nor decency or compassion towards gay men – and then they expect us to rush to them to pay them for their imbecilities – astounding people, with psychological problems of their own, without doubt. So concerned are they for the perils of gayness that they don’t give away their services, no – they charge cash money for it. And then, because they have no customers they have to seek grants from the Chick-fil-a’s of this world. The money is used to sit in their offices to hound yet more dupes for cash – and still, not a client in sight!
Meanwhile, in this book’s 7 or 8 “case studies” – not one shred of evidence is given that it works, nor true. Not one of the guys/boys so treated by the genius Nicolosi is ever followed up on to see if their efforts worked. Not one of the case studies is looked at years later to see if the boy is gay, or to see if the gay guy changed. Not a one. In all the long history of “reparative” therapy – using a word which doesn’t quite exist along the way – nor of any medical intervention, electro-shock therapy, beatings, prayer, harangues – nothing has ever changed a gay man straight. Such “success” is to be marveled at. Such continuation of persistence in claiming they are correct in light of 100% failure is – well, I don’t know – I’m sort of out of words to describe adhering to a theory with 100% failure over hundreds of years. In our modern world, with “modern techniques” and “up to date therapies,” 50 years of attempting to make gays straight have continued the 100% failure rate. They persist still, amazingly.
Still, it was a great joy to read, for I like satires, fantasies, science fiction even, and this fit the bill. They’re against gay men so much they won’t even talk to us – but simply demand we stop being gay, or else. Yeesh, mush heads. Well, folks, you’ve got your work cut out for you. Good luck, failures!
I have returned the book to the library due to the taxing nature of the mush — it would require a book to refute it all.
- Posted in: Uncategorized