"Sissy Boy" part 2

[iago]

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/09/the-sissy-boy-experiment-part-two

[iago]

Part 3: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/10/the-sissy-boy-experiment-part-three

[CrAz3D]

Here is a comment from a psych phd friend:

Here is the article. I personally haven't had a chance to read it yet. However, I did watch the video a couple of times (haven't caught the most recent one), and as a psychologist I feel there are a few things I should clarify (in no particular order):
 
1. They keep talking about how it was an "experimental" treatment and not a "proven" treatment. Well, duh - how do you think we "prove" treatments are effective? (Also, there's an issue with indicating you've "proven" anything - statistics and research studies don't exactly work that way)
 
2. The video implies that sex, gender, and sexual orientation are the same. They are not. You can have a feminine straight guy, as masculine gay guy, etc. etc.
 
3. There is an implication that the methods themselves were inappropriate (e.g. only paying attention to behaviors you want from the kid, the use of poker chips as rewards/punishments). Actually, that is an acceptable, respectable method that is used in many different treatments for children. For very young children, often bad attention is better than no attention and many caregivers only pay attention when their children are misbehaving. It's basic learning principles - if you've learned an inappropriate behavior you can correct it by learning an appropriate behavior.
 
4. They seem to have lost sight of the fact that the study is almost 40 years old - the beliefs and practices of psychology (and society in general) were not what they are now. If I remember my timelines correctly, homosexuality was still considered a mental disorder at this time. A lot has changed since then: as a society we no longer put lead in our paint and we no longer believe homosexuality is a mental disorder.
 
5. They are upset about the published article. No IRB, even in 1974, would approve a study that didn't include informed consent. The parents were most likely made aware that it was a research study (and indicated so in the video), that they could withdraw at any time, and that the data could/would be published.
 
Having said that, obviously this treatment is completely inappropriate - you can't "undo" homosexuality; behavioral interventions work on learned behaviors, not biological ones. (Even Skinner indicated that!) For example, no matter how much training you give to a raccoon it will never quit "washing" objects. Furthermore, Skinner himself indicated that reinforcement is more effective than punishment - whipping a kid for misbehaving does not work and shouldn't be used, particularly to the degree that was described in the video.
 
I am not defending Rekers - it is obvious based on his published works listed in the video that he is biased and has not paid attention to quality research that contradicts his ideas. (Plus, he's generally an all-around creep it would seem).
 
 
So, this email ended up being longer than I intended. If you would like to have an intelligent discussion about it I'd be more than happy to discuss it.

She also emailed me the journal article Rekers and another prof wrote in 1974. I can upload that if ppl are interested. 18 pages total.

[Rule]

1. They keep talking about how it was an "experimental" treatment and not a "proven" treatment. Well, duh - how do you think we "prove" treatments are effective? (Also, there's an issue with indicating you've "proven" anything - statistics and research studies don't exactly work that way)

There is the implication that it was advertised as a proper 'treatment'.  It is also questionable to use such extreme measures on humans as part of an experiment.

3. There is an implication that the methods themselves were inappropriate (e.g. only paying attention to behaviors you want from the kid, the use of poker chips as rewards/punishments). Actually, that is an acceptable, respectable method that is used in many different treatments for children. For very young children, often bad attention is better than no attention and many caregivers only pay attention when their children are misbehaving. It's basic learning principles - if you've learned an inappropriate behavior you can correct it by learning an appropriate behavior.

I think what was outrageous was that these methods were used to suppress natural, harmless behaviour.  But some of the methods were quite brutal, for example, the beatings.  The constant monitoring and poker chip tally also seems somewhat sinister.  It's never good to feel like you're constantly being monitored and judged.

4. They seem to have lost sight of the fact that the study is almost 40 years old - the beliefs and practices of psychology (and society in general) were not what they are now. If I remember my timelines correctly, homosexuality was still considered a mental disorder at this time. A lot has changed since then: as a society we no longer put lead in our paint and we no longer believe homosexuality is a mental disorder.

I don't think they have lost site of it.  Yes, human experiments were a lot less ethical in the past, and this documentary is (seemingly) part of an effort to expose that.

 

5. They are upset about the published article. No IRB, even in 1974, would approve a study that didn't include informed consent. The parents were most likely made aware that it was a research study (and indicated so in the video), that they could withdraw at any time, and that the data could/would be published.

They were upset about what the published article said -- that the treatment worked.  Clearly it did not.

[CrAz3D]

But, again, in context, it was "proper treatment" since there wasnt really any treatment to fix feminine males.

Also, in context, the behavior might have been considered to be harmful, and the recourse likely wasnt "beating," but was punishment.

I think the videos showed that the dude never got into a committed homosexual relationship...yeah? SUCCESS!
/on some level

[iago]

By and large, I agree with your friend.

[while1]

HAY GUYS I'M A SISSY BOY BECAUSE I LIKED TO PLAY WITH BARBIE DOLLS WHEN I WAS A LITTLE BOY.  I LIKE TO TAKE OFF ALL THEIR CLOTHES AND TOUCH THEIR BOOBIES.

Ok, on a serious note, I don't understand why a boy playing with girl toys can be assumed that said boy is homosexual.  It's not.  Plenty of straight males wear women's clothing, aka cross-dress, or partake in activities society has deemed feminine.