The "Sissy Boy" Experiment | INFJ Forum

The "Sissy Boy" Experiment

Satya

C'est la vie
Retired Staff
May 11, 2008
7,278
562
656
MBTI
INXP
"In 1970, a five-year-old boy named Kirk Murphy was subjected to an ex-gay experiment. Under the care of Dr Ivor Lovaas and George Rekers, then a doctoral student, of UCLA, he underwent therapy to eliminate supposed effeminate behaviors. In 1974, Lovaas and Rekers jointly published a paper about the boy they renamed "Kraig," heralding his treatment for "childhood cross-gender problems" a success and claiming he had been transformed from a gender-confused homosexual-in-waiting to a healthy, heterosexual young man. On the back of this study, Rekers built a career as an anti-gay activist and a supposed expert in childhood sexual development. He co-founded the Family Research Council and championed reparative therapy to turn gay men straight. In 2003, Kirk, aged 38 years old and gay, committed suicide."

Read more: Watch: How 'Anti-Sissy' Therapy Destroyed a Man and His Family - Towleroad | #gay #news

[youtube]A-irAT0viF0[/youtube]
 
Yeah. Don't be fucking with kids' heads. Not a good situation. People are psychologically very vulnerable in childhood.

You may look at what happened in 1970 and be like "romg! That's terrible! what monsters!" but remember that in the 1970's cultural standards were different and acceptance of homosexuality was not mainstream. Humanity has only very recently become civilized as we know it today. We are animals, after all.

Honestly, if I personally believed that homosexuality was a choice, then what those doctors did makes 100% sense, and I would do the same. But the justification is based on a very strong assumption. And, if that assumption is wrong... well... heh.... disaster...
 
Horrifying. Nothing less than psychological and physical torture.

Based on my understanding of child development, the process of attachment, individuation, and on and on — if I consider the story in terms of what that experience would mean to those things — and how needs would go unmet — my sadness is overwhelming.


Namaste,
Ian
 
I've never subscribed to Homosexuality as a choice, it just doesn't make sense to me. Nor do I like the idea trying to make gay men straight.

I'm still interested to know what causes a homosexual as they are though.
 
It seems funny that any psychologist would be willing to attempt a major life change on an individual. In today's science, a similar experiment would never go over well and probably never be conducted.
 
Upon further consideration, I find that it would be understandable and justifiable for parents and psychologists, given the culture at the time, to attempt to influence a child's eventual sexual orientation. People make their decisions based on the best information that they have. It is easy to misunderstand homosexuality. However, I would expect that parents and psychologists would be able to realize that extreme measures can fuck up a child's head.

For example, a parent may believe (and rightfully so!) that broccoli is good for a child's nutrition. But that doesn't justify tying down and force feeding a child who refuses to eat broccoli.

Another example is that I remember that when my little sister was about 4, my parents would choose to buy more feminine toys for her. I doubt any kid's going to be fucked up because their mom bought them a barbie instead of a ninja turtle. My mother even explained to her some conventional wisdom about gender roles (i.e. girls act more like this, and boys act more like this). I would think this kind of thing is typical in many families.

I would say that the abuse lies in the extremity of influencing measures used, or the level of force employed.
 
this is just very very disturbing...
 
Aagh.

This is hard to watch satya. My gut is churning and I want to throw up. Absolutely horrifying.

Remember last year when a bunch of us in the forum got into it over that girl who was suing a social work department because she refused to adhere to methods that were verifiable with research? Evidence based practice.
This is proof of how wrong she was and all of those faith based proponents of this kind of "therapy".

So sad. So sad...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satya
Its sad but my reaction isn't as intense as other peoples I notice... I think its because there are still worse things I have seen happen, ultimately yes this guy was done terribly wrong by his family and our society, but he did still choose to kill himself. Some people dont have that choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saru Inc
This is sad. My wife knows a boy who played with dolls, used to even play dress up with her, and his family ignored it. He is a very loving, very caring young man, and very much straight. "Effeminate" behavior in a boy does not always mean they are gay. It might just mean that they are a more sensitive and sweet individual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Feelings
What do you mean?

Well in terms of the big picture, lots of people are massacred for their differences every day. This guy killed himself. That doesnt mean its less sad... but he sort of did have a choice.
 
My brother used to play with dolls all the time when he was little, he's grown up now and is about as straight and as masculine as you can get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Feelings
I totally understand why they thought it was ok though, if this was done to cure a fat kid (maybe not the beating part) people would be praising it.
 
it's just painful to watch. .
my brother was gay. . he grew up in the fifties, a time that did not treat gay men well. he was shipped off to grandma to "teach" him how to behave. . I never really understood how that would help. anyway,
his whole life was one of constant turmoil. looking for something to cling to. all because he was so missunderstood. he eventually moved to Seattle in the late seventies. and by the mid eigthies and got involved in the bath house scene. contracted AIDS. a death sentance at the time. all because society refused to treat him like ahuman being. it pisses me off. my brother had to die because society can not accept those that are not the "norm" whatever the fuck that is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billy and Kgal
If I were dictator, subjecting children to 'therapies' like this would be a severely punished crime.

I don't know what kind of discussion you're expecting out of this thread.
 
You know, I just wanted to point out that those of you who are familiar with "The Stanford Prison Experiment," it occurred in 1971 and also resulted to a lot of psychological and some physical abuse of people, however children were not involved. The reason I am pointing this out is that they are a year apart and both driven by the same sort of notion of human experimentation and could never occur with today's regulations if it were in proper knowledge of the public. It appears that during this time period the common attitude of society was that scientists and specialists and psychologists ,etc, were willing to put people at risk. I think back then they did not know as much about emotional/psychological impact of things as we do now and because of that there are a lot of studies dated during this time period. I think people of the age group 37-46 can relate to this in a lot of ways that they might have been mistreated by their parents whom didn't seem aware of the effects of their actions, I'd say people in this age group are MOST LIKELY to feel the immediate effect of these attitudes we see reflected in this study. The parents are from the generation born about 1945-1953, so they grew up in a generation which sort of encouraged to listen to authority blindly- no questioning things, and THEIR parents, the grandparents, were raising them with traditional male/female gender roles. So when the 1970's babies were young the attitudes of the baby boomers, I think, was responsible for allowing these types of beliefs to go over their head and to accept authority and dangerous experiments so easily because the general public was not used to questioning the authority of things and also did not know the harms that could come from it.

I assume part of the reason there are so many restrictions and regulations now is that the ones who had these extremist attitudes forced on them, sometimes coined "Generation X" has rebelled from these points of views and seen the wrongness and mistakes in them and have started to correct that. This least to the more recent generation born in the 1980s-present, "New Boomers" the MOST LIBERAL OF ALL because they are the furthest from the conservative and extreme views of "Lucky Few" generation and "Baby Boomers" who have kind of ignored/had no knowledge of emotional/psychological wellbeing and development.

In regards to this video....

I think many people of that time period suffered similar fates. Perhaps not as extreme ones, but I think people growing up in that era might be able to relate to those attitudes and you either embraced them or rejected them. I think that in today's society, such shunning and trying to turn gay to straight is mostly seen as outrageous and ridiculous....even though religion is dominant in the United States and elsewhere, it seems that a lot of Christian talk shows I've been listening to lately acknowledge that they don't think homosexuality is a choice but instead of succumbing to it you should just not indulge in homosexual relations and you can be saved [and other things to that effect]. So I think that even though there are extremist groups like the researcher's group, for the most part, even the Christians and other religious denominations are admitting they don't think it's a choice but still trying to salvage the textual beliefs in other ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saru Inc
I totally understand why they thought it was ok though, if this was done to cure a fat kid (maybe not the beating part) people would be praising it.

Not me...

Research shows that Positive reinforcement works better on children before about age 12 - than Negative reinforcement. They have a really difficult time comprehending the process at all.
 
Not me...

Research shows that Positive reinforcement works better on children before about age 12 - than Negative reinforcement. They have a really difficult time comprehending the process at all.


I'll bite.

This 'ignoring the kid' method is still sort of used modernly. Except, in this case they were ignoring the kids UNTIL he threw a fit, and in most cases the modern method is to ignore the kid if they throw a fit. When I was reading this, I knew exactly how the little boy was behaving when he was throwing that fit from being ignored because of hours of watching Nanny 911 where kids will be put into the naughty corner or told to go to their room and they wont, so instead of forcing them physically the parents continue to tell them to do it and state consequences of what privileges will be taken away if they don't, and when they throw a fit and wail and cry and crawl on the floor the parents turn their back until the fit is over and will confront the kid later. This is so the kid is not rewarded for acting out and they know they will not get attention if they do so. When a kid DOES what they are asked to do, goes to their room and is punished, after the punishment it is encouraged for the parent to go over and hug the child and remind them that they aren't mad at them and that they did a good job going through with their punishment. Of course, positive feedback is not only recommended here or else kids would misbehave just to get punished so they would get that praise afterwards. The praise is supposed to be for every chore/task completed. So, I know this wasn't you point, but I wanted to add that on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saru Inc
I think the major issue was the punishment eventually became beatings when it became apparent that the child wasn't going to change. That is a major issue with punishment. It only works for a short time and once the child is able to deal with, the parent has to escalate the punishment to get the same effect.
 
Well in terms of the big picture, lots of people are massacred for their differences every day. This guy killed himself. That doesnt mean its less sad... but he sort of did have a choice.

It's not just the death that is tragic, it is the pain and suffering prior to death, and pain and suffering that would have occurred had he not killed himself as well. And, in this way the man did not have choice.

If I were dictator, subjecting children to 'therapies' like this would be a severely punished crime.

I don't know what kind of discussion you're expecting out of this thread.
Do you want to know how I know that you're a feeler? :D