SCOTUS Decision: Ban on "Talk" Conversion Therapy is Unconstitutional

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

don't know what this means.

Possibly because you have never had to wonder about what people expect of you in this area.

Or possibly because your question/comment was kind of unclear.

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

On a very basic and simplified level…..

It means you don’t need to fear disappointing or angering someone because of your orientation.

Or, put another way, "It means you don’t need to fear disappointing or angering someone because of your sexual behavior."

As long as I obey the Law of Chastity, I don't need to fear.  Otherwise, I do.  The same goes for all of us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 4 by smac97

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

At those who are engaging in highly sexualized behavior in the presence of children, yes.

Otherwise, I don't give much thought to drag queens.  While I think they would be better off abandoning such behaviors, they are adults and can do as they please, within the confines of the law.

I reject the accusation.

I think there are large segments of the LGBT community are likewise disgusted by exposing children to highly sexualized behaviors.  I have previously provided extensive quotes from such community members.  I can track them down and re-post them if you like.

Drag queens who are exposing children to sexualized behavior and Mormon bishops convicted of child abuse have both done very morally wrong and reprehensible things.

Maybe you should reconsider your hobby of torturing puppies for fun and profit. 

I reject the premise.

But I will reconsider my position on whether children should be exposed to highly sexualized behavior.

<Pause>

Yep.  I stand by my position.  Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper.  And creepy.  And perverted.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Oh so your objection against drag queens is that they dress sexually.  Do you go on similar campaigns against women dressed in provocative bikinis, entertainers like Dolly Pardon, Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Cher, and well just about every other entertainer, playing with Barbie dolls, going to proms, perfume ads, movies stars, even old ones like Mae West, Marliyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, Gretta Garbo, and on and on.  Where are your rants for any of those sexualized behavior?  Why do you only focus on the LGBT community?  

Sounds so hypercritical to me.  Butt hey, if we could just make it illegal for drag queens to ready stories in the library, no child would be traumatized by seeing something like that. 

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, I think that is when things can become emotional.  Moral clarity can become more acute.

 

The murkiness comes because you suddenly don’t know what is in store for your child in the near or far future in one area that was pretty well laid out in your mind, even the obstacles and setbacks such as singlehood or childlessness, in part because you and your wife took that path yourselves (looking for a companion, likely marriage, likely children).

Of course things become emotional.  They often do when your kids face uncertainty and likely hurt.  That their life may also now include (more of) bullying and discrimination, patronizing, dislike, even hatred sometime because of who they are.  It’s not a happy prospect, especially if they are already facing significant struggles.

Quote

Is this "murky"?  Emotionally and logistically, yes.  Morally?  No.

Really?  You don’t think those involved aren’t struggling to know what the right thing to do for the baby is?  Will the child likely be safe in those parents’ custody?  No.  Will the child likely get its needs, emotional, physical, and mental…even social, met?  Unlikely.  So wouldn’t the moral thing to do be removed the child from the custody of the parents and place it in a safe and loving environment?  Maybe…

What about the parents though?  Couldn’t such an act of taking their child away from them hurt them?  Maybe even to the point they enter despair and spiral into total self destruction where if they keep the child, that responsibility may help them turn some of their life around and maybe eventually even become mature adults.  But the trauma the child will most likely experience during the early years of their life will be a burden that child will have to deal with the rest of their life for the possibility of helping their parents.

So is it moral to leave the child with the parents when not only is it guaranteed they will suffer trauma in that unstable and insufficient environment, but there is no guarantee things won’t get worse rather than better with the additional stress of caring for an infant?

PS:. I realize now you addressed this almost immediately after the comment I quoted, but I hadn’t bothered reading that before I addressed it and since you often respond in this way, without taking into account clarifications that follow, I figured it wouldn’t bother you to have to read a response questioning something that you had already clarified.

If by chance this is frustrating or annoying, then maybe you should reconsider your own approach of making comments and asking questions without taking into account everything someone has said.  Honestly, I don’t see how that habit got started with you being a lawyer.  If I saw my lawyer taking time to respond to something addressed in the next few lines of a document or conversation, I would at least think they were very inefficient and possibly wonder if they were trying to pad the bill with unnecessary hours.

 

Quote

And even then, the ambiguity is something to be resolved, in the end, by the mother, perhaps with guidance from trusted sources.

Why?  Sincere question here because I have never understood this belief in unearned parental rights when it involves the safety and well being of others. Why should a mother have that right simply because she carried the child when she is demonstrating so little maturity and capability for making sound judgments for her child so far besides being willing to carry the child to term.

Edited April 4 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As long as I obey the Law of Chastity, I don't need to fear.  Otherwise, I do.  The same goes for all of us.

We all should follow the chastity rule whether we are gay or straight or otherwise.  Zero sex outside of marriage.  I don’t think anyone needs to debate this on an LDS forum.  
 

The rule to never marry a same -gender -as -you person does not carry the same weight for you a hetero as it does someone who is gay.  So your life experience, and mine, is irrelevant and should not be held up as an example of righteousness against someone who is designed differently.  IMO.  

[california boy]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't claim to know "what it is like grow{ing} up hating that you are gay and why can't I just be normal like everyone else."  This also is a bit out of left field, as we have not been discussing "what it is like."

You seem to be clueless on this issue since you repeat the phrase "I don't know what this means"

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Also, I respectfully reject the premise, as I think sexual attraction is something a person experiences, not something a person is.

Of course you do.  Because every gay person just loves choosing to be gay and all the crap that comes with it.

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or they could view same-sex attraction as something they may always experience (or not, as "sexual fluidity" sure seems to be a thing), and then figure out how to address that without violating their covenants with God.

It "seems" to you that "the whole world wants," in 2026, "to shame you"?

Really?  My sense is that support of gay people has never been higher in the history of the world.

Thanks,

-Smac

Have you read your comments not only on this thread but every single thread you start that is designed to attach the LGBT community?  Any support for the LGBT community is certainly not coming from you and your ilk.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Oh so your objection against drag queens is that they dress sexually.  

Again: Drag shows are not inherently “sexual” in the strict sense that every single one must involve explicit sex acts or pornography-level content.  However, the honest answer is, I think, more nuanced: Drag shows are very frequently and deliberately sexualized, and the art form itself is built on gender parody, exaggeration, and adult-oriented performance traditions that often incorporate sexual humor, innuendo, and provocative elements.

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Do you go on similar campaigns against women dressed in provocative bikinis, entertainers like Dolly Pardon, Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Cher, and well just about every other entertainer, playing with Barbie dolls, going to proms, perfume ads, movies stars, even old ones like Mae West, Marliyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, Gretta Garbo, and on and on.  Where are your rants for any of those sexualized behavior?  Why do you only focus on the LGBT community?  

I reject the premise.  My comments have been measured and reasonable, not a "rant."

I think any sexualization of children is wrong.  

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Sounds so hypercritical to me.  

I think you meant "hypocritical." 

I reject the accusation.  

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Butt hey, if we could just make it illegal for drag queens to ready stories in the library, no child would be traumatized by seeing something like that. 

Again: “Family-friendly” or “kid-friendly” drag story hours are the ones that spark controversy. Performers usually tone down the raunch, but they still feature exaggerated sexualized costumes (breast pads, hip pads, heavy makeup, high heels, etc.) and read books that introduce gender/sexuality concepts to children. In my view, this is still sexualizing because it exposes kids to adult gender performance and ideological messaging about sex and identity.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Also, I respectfully reject the premise, as I think sexual attraction is something a person experiences, not something a person is.

But isn’t it about self perception?

And kids don’t have the maturity of thought to separate what they do and experience as being somehow separate from who they are.  Plenty of adults don’t either.

After all, you seem to see being a husband and father is something you are.  But isn’t husbandhood really something you experience?

Being an American….seems more of an experience than who I am outside of a legal definition…and even there that affects what I experience and not who I am.  When I lived in Canada, outside of paying taxes once a year and not being able to vote as opposed to not choosing to vote, being born in America had zip immediate effect on my day to day life.  My daughter is a great example as an American and daughter and grand daughter and great granddaughter of American citizens…but she has lived only the first month of her life in the States and the rest up north outside of vacations and 6 months in Russia when she was five.  Her lived experience was pretty much identical to her friends who were Canadian citizens.  Outside of her legal status, what made her American?  She lived in the same kind of houses, ate the same foods, was taught the same lessons, breathed the same air, watched the same shows, etc etc as her Canadian friends.  There would be no way she could show anyone around her she was American unless she had a birth certificate.  So how was being American part of her being at that time?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you meant "hypocritical." 

“Hypercritical” works too, imo.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Really?  You don’t think those involved aren’t struggling to know what the right thing to do for the baby is?  

Again:

Quote

Is this "murky"?  Emotionally and logistically, yes.  Morally?  No.

The decisions being made are mostly morally clear.  The substantive moral ambiguity, I think, is the "best interests of the child" (give him up for adoption or have him stay with his mentally ill and destitute and unemployed (by choice) mother with substantial substance abuse issues).  And even then, the ambiguity is something to be resolved, in the end, by the mother, perhaps with guidance from trusted sources.

 

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

What about the parents though?  Couldn’t such an act of taking their child away from them hurt them?  

Again:

Quote

Is this "murky"?  Emotionally and logistically, yes.  Morally?  No.

The decisions being made are mostly morally clear.  The substantive moral ambiguity, I think, is the "best interests of the child" (give him up for adoption or have him stay with his mentally ill and destitute and unemployed (by choice) mother with substantial substance abuse issues).  And even then, the ambiguity is something to be resolved, in the end, by the mother, perhaps with guidance from trusted sources.

Yes, giving the boy up for adoption could be very difficult for them.  Hence the "best interests of the child" comment above.

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

PS:. I realize now you addressed this almost immediately after the comment I quoted, but I hadn’t bothered reading that before I addressed it and since you often respond in this way, without taking into account clarifications that follow, I figured it wouldn’t bother you to have to read a response questioning something that you had already clarified.

If by chance this is frustrating or annoying, then maybe you should reconsider your own approach of making comments and asking questions without taking into account everything someone has said.  Honestly, I don’t see how that habit got started with you being a lawyer.  If I saw my lawyer taking time to respond to something addressed in the next few lines of a document or conversation, I would at least think they were very inefficient and possibly wonder if they were trying to pad the bill with unnecessary hours.

This is a message board.  I'm often writing quickly and off-the-cuff.

I do anticipate that you would read and grasp what I write before responding to it, but no biggie if you don't.

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

And even then, the ambiguity is something to be resolved, in the end, by the mother, perhaps with guidance from trusted sources.

Why?  

That's the way the law operates.

I should have said "by the mother and the father," since the father is known and in the picture, and both have parental rights.

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sincere question here because I have never understood this belief in unearned parental rights when it involves the safety and well being of others.

I am not speaking of "belief."  Parental rights are a matter of law, and they are presumptive, not "earned."

Broadly, a parent has parental rights until and unless the State takes action to limit or terminate those rights.

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why should a mother have that right simply because she carried the child when she is demonstrating so little maturity and capability for making sound judgments for her child so far besides being willing to carry the child to term.

I should have said the mother and the father.  Does that clarify?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My comments have been measured and reasonable, not a "rant."

I think any sexualization of children is wrong.  

That answer still doesn’t address your hyperfocus on drag queens of the sexualized versions**** when the reality is kids are much more likely to be exposed on a daily basis to sexualized portrayals of women and men for that matter.  How many music videos have drag queens, sexualized or not, in them vs highly sexual portrayals of women and men?  How many magazines have drag queens on the cover, how many books in schools and libraries are about drag queens engaging in sexual behaviour vs the usual heterosexual escapades?  How many tv shows and movies?  How many billboards?  How many dolls?

What portion of each kid’s life has them exposed to drag queens at all vs heterosexual sexual portrayals?

***you should add this nuance because you just refer to drag queens often enough it seems the very act of biological males dressing up in glamorous women’s clothing is offensive to you.  Glad to see it’s the sexualized version you have an issue with.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Also, I respectfully reject the premise, as I think sexual attraction is something a person experiences, not something a person is.

But isn’t it about self perception?

Yes.  That is how I can reject the premise.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

And kids don’t have the maturity of thought to separate what they do and experience as being somehow separate from who they are.  Plenty of adults don’t either.

I acknowledge that.

Also, the separation may be controversial, as I think there are people who conflate the two concepts and find the differentiation of them as offensive and wrong.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

After all, you seem to see being a husband and father is something you are.  But isn’t husbandhood really something you experience?

For my part, I do claim an "identity" of "husband and father," among others.

"Sexual identity" is not one of them.  

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Being an American….seems more of an experience than who I am outside of a legal definition…and even there that affects what I experience and not who I am.  

As you like.  Some people, though having American citizenship, are ashamed of it or indifferent to it, or else otherwise do not think of it as an "identity."

I served in the U.S. Army National Guard, and my parents raised me to love America, so I do value my citizenship, and so consider that an "identity."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Quote

My comments have been measured and reasonable, not a "rant."

I think any sexualization of children is wrong.  

That answer still doesn’t address your hyperfocus on drag queens of the sexualized versions**** when the reality is kids are much more likely to be exposed on a daily basis to sexualized portrayals of women and men for that matter.  

I reject the "hyperfocus" premise.  The discussion did not previously involve discussion of sexualization of children via "sexualized portrayals of women and men."  Now that this has been introduced into the discussion, I have said: "I think any sexualization of children is wrong."

I have elsewhere condemned pornography and other sexualized materials and events.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Quote

Of course you are equally repulsed by people who take their 8 year old sons to Hooter’s for their birthday party and take pictures with deliberately sexualized women.

Yes, I am repulsed at that.  Same goes with Mardi Gras and other public displays of sexual licentiousness and depravity.  

Quote

This happens a lot more of course. Only a few pride parades and events have that level of sexualized content.

And those are the events I find problematic.

Quote

For some reason I don’t see the same level of outrage about exposing kids to that kind of sexualization.

I think plenty of people are repulsed at any sort of efforts to sexualize/groom children.  

Consider these:

• Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it.
• Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids
• Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade
• ‘GROOMING FESTIVAL’: Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride
• Children as Sex Objects: Why NYC Gay Pride Parade Is Being Called a 'Celebration of Pedophilia'
• DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing
• Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance
• Pride Month Jumps the Shark
• Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’

And on and on and on.

If and when you find articles endorsing the sexualization of children in a "heterosexual" context, feel free to post them and I will join you in condemning them.

I have never previously excused or rationalized exposing children to other-than-drag-queen sexualized behaviors.  Yet your implication here seems to be that I have.

Just now, Calm said:

How many music videos have drag queens, sexualized or not, in them vs highly sexual portrayals of women and men?  

How many posts can you find where I have endorsed or excused such music videos?

Just now, Calm said:

How many magazines have drag queens on the cover, how many books in schools and libraries are about drag queens engaging in sexual behaviour vs the usual heterosexual escapades?  How many tv shows and movies?  How many billboards?  How many dolls?

How many posts can you find where I have endorsed or excused any of these things?

Just now, Calm said:

What portion of each kid’s life has them exposed to drag queens at all vs heterosexual sexual portrayals?

Fallacy of Relative Privation.

I reject the premise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do anticipate that you would read and grasp what I write before responding to it, but no biggie if you don't.

Great, I will no longer bother to go back and edit my responses if I impulsively respond to you before reading your entire post.  I hate doing that for several reasons.   In fact I will probably not try to get through a post before responding as it’s much more fun to just respond immediately than try to get the big picture of your posts…and sometimes that is massive.  I am not being sarcastic here.  It requires significant effort for me not to “interrupt” and go post before reading the whole, but I have tried to do so out of respect for the effort others have put into framing their thoughts because that is what I wish people would do with my posts.

But I have been thinking this may not be the way you think about things given how often you don’t seem to have read and everything I wrote before writing your response, even after I have expressed my preference you would.

And given others’ remarks, they are experiencing the same thing.  I get that people process things differently, so not insisting you have to do this or it means you are disrespecting me.

Since you have confirmed now it’s not a biggie for you, it will be nice not to have to worry about this, especially given the length of many of your posts where I may forget the way I wanted to say something before I finish it and it gets complicated to track where I am in your post if I pause to respond to something so I don’t forget.

I appreciate you making this easier for me (seriously).  There are a few in my family where we interrupt each other all the time midresponse and that just adds to the fun.

Edited April 4 by Calm

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

As long as I obey the Law of Chastity, I don't need to fear.  Otherwise, I do.  The same goes for all of us.

We all should follow the chastity rule whether we are gay or straight or otherwise.  Zero sex outside of marriage.  I don’t think anyone needs to debate this on an LDS forum.

And yet, here we are.

The law of Chastity prohibits same-sex behavior.  Some participants here find that problematic.

36 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The rule to never marry a same -gender -as -you person does not carry the same weight for you a hetero as it does someone who is gay.

While I reject the premise (of "sexual identity"), I understand, but still reject, your overall point.

The Law of Chastity is the same rule for all of us, but it has a disparate impact on each of us based on our choices and circumstances.

I am married, and one of my best friends is divorced.  I can engage in behavior he cannot.  That doesn't mean there is some separate Law of Chastity for him, just that there is a disparate impact of that law.

36 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

So your life experience, and mine, is irrelevant and should not be held up as an example of righteousness against someone who is designed differently.  IMO.  

I don't know what you are referencing here.  I have not presented by "life experience ... as an example of righteousness against" anyone.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The discussion did not previously involve discussion of sexualization of children via "sexualized portrayals of women and men."

Yeah, it was about conversion therapy.

And then it got into the definition of queer.

At which point you introduced the topic of drag queens.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113354-scotus-decision-ban-on-talk-conversion-therapy-is-unconstitutional/page/2/#comment-1210268870

I wonder how many board discussions follow this pattern as I don’t remember anyone else using drag queens consistently as part of their argumentation.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Yeah, it was about conversion therapy.

And then it got into the definition of queer.

Yes.  Nehor started that.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

At which point you introduced the topic of drag queens.

Well, not quite.  From "queer" we went to gender dysphoria:

Quote

I appreciate that we currently have a broad spectrum of viewpoints regarding fundamental elements of Gender Dysphoria and sexual orientation/behavior.  It just seems odd to me that "talk only" therapy geared based on one area of that spectrum is per se "twisted."  I think that area of the spectrum is entitled to the same sort of legal treatment as most other areas of the spectrum.  What are your thoughts?

Nehor responded:

Quote

We don’t have a broad spectrum of equally valid viewpoints.

I responded:

Quote

I didn't say they were "equally valid."  I think I would agree with you that the spectrum would entail a hierarchy, with some viewpoints more reasoned and principled than others.

For example, I think that viewpoints endorsing things like the sexualization of children, justifying hugely impactful medical treatments for minors based on "If we don't do it they'll kill themselves" rationale, alienating children from their parents, subverting parental authority, unelected persons using the power of the State to do these things, etc., are all problematic and less valid than viewpoints opposed to these things.

Nehor responded:

Quote

Sexualizing children? So another assumption that it is always about sex acts and sexual desirabllity. And we are supposed to be the perverts? Really?

And here:

Quote

Quote

 Sexualizing children. 

An unsubstantiated charge that is assumed to be true because all non cishet people are assumed to be child predators. This despite the evidence that in our society on a per capita basis pedophile predators are most likely to be cishet white men. And the people in power are the ones sexualizing children and who is in power?

Stop blaming marginalized communities with limited power for pervasive social problems. This is just blood libel style anti-semitism with a new coat of paint.

I responded:

Quote

Yes.  Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper.  And creepy.  And perverted.

And here:

Quote

Quote

An unsubstantiated charge

An apparent and clearly accurate charge.

Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper.  And creepy.  And perverted.

Quote

that is assumed to be true because all non cishet people are assumed to be child predators.

Nope.  Just the ones that are exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on.

Note that this is not just about sexualizing children at "drag queen" events, but also "at Pride parades" and "in literature, and so on."

Nehor responded:

Quote

Quote

Yes.  Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper.  And creepy.  And perverted.

A guy crossdressing is highly sexualized behavior? Ummmmm……you’re weird. Is everything about sex with you?

I mean, I’m a pervert but you are in a league of your own if seeing a guy in a dress is making you think sexy thoughts. And you imagine that seeing that makes prepubescent kids think about sex? That is REALLY WEIRD.

It was Nehor, not me, that narrowed the discussion to "drag queens."  Indeed, he started to ask prurient questions:

Quote

Quote

An apparent and clearly accurate charge.

Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper.  And creepy.  And perverted.

Do you get turned on by Drag Queen Story Hour where a crossdresser reads a cute children’s story? What do you think is going on in the heads of children in that setting that would warp them?

How does this sexualize the children? You are just throwing around the word because you happen to think crossdressing is deeply deviant. Children really don’t.

I responded:

Quote

Quote

Queer people are depraved sex fiends.

No.  Just the ones exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, or endorsing such things.  This, in my view, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper.  And creepy.  And perverted.

There are plenty of "straight" people that are likewise engaging this in wholly improper and creepy and perverted behavior.  The difference, I guess, is that the sexualization in the LGBT community seems to be much more "mainstream," as evidenced by the public events (Pride parades, drag shows, etc.) at which children are being sexualized.

Again, please note that I acknowledged and addressed the sexualization of children by people in Pride events (typically involving gay people engaging in sexualized behavior), drag shows (trans people engaging in sexualized behavior), Mardi Gras ("straight" people engaging in sexualized behavior), and so on.

My condemnation of the sexualization of children has been plenary.

It was Nehor that focused on "trans" in this context ("Do you get turned on by Drag Queen Story Hour...").

1 hour ago, Calm said:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113354-scotus-decision-ban-on-talk-conversion-therapy-is-unconstitutional/page/2/#comment-1210268870

I wonder how many board discussions follow this pattern as I don’t remember anyone else using drag queens consistently as part of their argumentation.

I think you are mischaracterizing what I have said.  Substantially.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

law.

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

So your life experience, and mine, is irrelevant and should not be held up as an example of righteousness against someone who is designed differently.  IMO.  

Expand  

I don't know what you are referencing here.  I have not presented by "life experience ... as an example of righteousness against" anyone

Then I’m glad we agree.  

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

As long as I obey the Law of Chastity, I don't need to fear.  Otherwise, I do.  The same goes for all of us.

We all should follow the chastity rule whether we are gay or straight or otherwise.  Zero sex outside of marriage.  I don’t think anyone needs to debate this on an LDS forum.

And yet, here we are.

I don’t see anyone arguing against you on this point. I’m glad we agree on this as well. 

Edited April 4 by MustardSeed

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Great, I will no longer bother to go back and edit my responses if I impulsively respond to you before reading your entire post.  

I would prefer you read my post first, as otherwise you seem to end up imputing things onto me that are incorrect, as you did here.

But do as you please.  This is just a message board.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Since you have confirmed now it’s not a biggie for you, it will be nice not to have to worry about this, especially given the length of many of your posts where I may forget the way I wanted to say something before I finish it and it gets complicated to track where I am in your post if I pause to respond to something so I don’t forget.

Not a biggie.  Just a preference.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I appreciate you making this easier for me (seriously).  There are a few in my family where we interrupt each other all the time midresponse and that just adds to the fun.

Sounds good.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BCSpace]

On 3/31/2026 at 5:02 PM, Notatbm said:

Along with that acknowledgement a double down by oaks that it absolutely never happened while he was president at byu… well the shocking part of it. 

Wasn't the accusation about electroshock therapy as opposed to what was actually being researched, aversion therapy? Also, aversion therapy was mainstream at the time.

Edited April 5 by BCSpace

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

Wasn't the accusation about electroshock therapy as opposed to what was actually being researched, aversion therapy?

There were electric shocks involved. People assume that means it’s electroshock therapy…which it isn’t. 

Electroshock therapy, technical name electroconvulsive therapy. is a specific type of psychiatric treatment where they are knocked out to avoid the unpleasant sensations and then a short shock is sent through the brain, which would cause a massive reaction in the body if they let it, the brain being quite sensitive and all. The body is paralyzed though first to protect it.  My daughter had a mouthpiece in to prevent biting the tongue. Her jaw was always killing her later. She was hilarious when she was coming out of the anesthesia, but tended to want to throw up on the way home. Fun times. 

Aversion therapy that uses electrical shocks somewhere on the body is called Electrical Aversion Therapy.

I get why there is the confusion.  Still I would have really liked it if people were clear on the difference so I wouldn’t have to go into detail when they were curious about my daughter’s treatment.

Edited April 5 by Calm

[Notatbm]

12 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Wasn't the accusation about electroshock therapy as opposed to what was actually being researched, aversion therapy? Also, aversion therapy was mainstream at the time.

At BYU, gay men were subjected to electroshock therapy, having leads put on their arms and a girth measuring device placed on their penis in order to measure arousal or lack thereof. Once placed, the person was then shown nude images of males and then their “reaction” was measured. If there was an erection, they were shocked on the arm. 
 

anyway real choice stuff being done at byu at the approval of the church. Touching penises and showing college boys porn pics. 
 

The very last paragraph of this is interesting. 
 

 

“Aversion therapy at BYU

edit

See also: Sexual orientation change efforts and the LDS Church

BYU's Honor Code office required some students reported for homosexual behavior to undergo electroshock and vomit aversion therapies in the 1970s.^{[8]: 155 [96]: 84} The on-campus program lasted into the mid-90s.^[97]: 90

An intervention-style approach to "curing" homosexuality by therapists and unlicensed individuals gradually emerged in the LDS community as it became clear that the church leaders' self-help recommendations were not working.^[97]: 89 One of the main efforts was BYU's aversion therapy program from 1959^{[5]: 377, 379} to the mid-90s^[97]: 90 which used mostly electrical shocks to the arm or genitals, or sometimes induced-vomiting while showing the participants erotic imagery.^[98]Shortly after the May 21, 1959, meeting of BYU president Ernest Wilkinson and apostles on the executive committee of the Church Board of Education discussing the "growing problem in our society of homosexuality" BYU began administering "aversion therapy" to "cure", "repair", or "reorient" homosexual feelings among Mormon males.^{[5]: 377, 379} The on-campus aversion therapy program lasted through the 1960s, 70s, 80s,^[100] and into the mid-1990s.^{[97]: 90 [101]} BYU mental health counselors, LDS bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, general authorities, and the BYU Standards Office (equivalent to today's Honor Code Office) all referred young men to the BYU program.^[102] Because of religious considerations, on September 22, 1969, BYU administration decided to reduce the amount of the on-campus "electrical aversive therapy" used to treat (among other things) what was deemed "sexual deviancy", though, the program continued.^{[103][45]: 82}

From 1971 to 1980 BYU's president Dallin H. Oaks^[45]: 32 had Gerald J. Dye over the University Standards Office^[104] (renamed the Honor Code Office in 1991). Dye stated that during that decade part of the "set process" for homosexual BYU students referred to his office for "less serious" offenses was to require that they undergo some form of therapy to remain at BYU, and that in special cases this included "electroshock and vomiting aversion therapies."^[8]: 155

In an independent BYU newspaper article two men describe their experience with the BYU Aversion therapy program during the early 1970s.^[105]: 162 After confessing to homosexual feelings they were referred to the BYU Counseling Center where the electroshock aversion therapy took place using pornographic pictures of males and females. Jon, one of the individuals, implied that the treatment was completely ineffective.^[65] The experiences match most reports which state that shock therapy was ineffective in changing sexual orientation.^{[106]: xxvi}

From 1975 to 1976 Max Ford McBride, a student at BYU, conducted electroshock aversion therapy on 17 men (with 14 completing the treatment) using a male arousal measuring device placed around the penis and electrodes on the bicep. He published a dissertation on the use of electrical aversive techniques to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality.^[107] The thesis documents the use of "Electrical Aversion Therapy" on 14 homosexual men using a "phallometric" apparatus, "barely tolerable" shocks, and "nude male visual-cue stimuli."^[108][107] Although it is not publicly published whether all top LDS Church leaders were aware of the electroshock aversion therapy program,^[109]: 1 it is known that apostles Spencer W Kimball, Mark E. Peterson, and now apostle Dallin H. Oaks were,^[5]: 379 and leaders involved in LDS Social Services thought the therapy was effective.^{[110][53]: 164–165}At the time, homosexuality was considered by the medical community as a psychiatric condition,^[111][112] and aversion therapy was one of the more common methods used to try to change it.^[113] In 1966, Martin Seligman had conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania that demonstrated positive results, which led to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community."^[114] After flaws were demonstrated in Seligman's experiments, aversion therapy fell out of popularity, and in 1994 the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians."^[115]

Participant in the 1975–76 BYU study Don Harryman wrote that he experienced "burns on [his] arms and ... emotional trauma."^{[106]: 26–28 [116]}Another participant, John Clarence Cameron, who wrote a play called "14" about his experiences, said "it didn't change anything except increase my self-loathing. I didn't know the ramifications of the experiment until years later."^[109]Cameron stated that he "would like everyone to tell the truth, admit the mistakes that took place, and stop trying to act like it didn't happen"^[117]Another one of the test subjects described his experiences, stating "No one wanted to change more than I did. I did everything within my power to change, and it didn't alter my homosexuality one whit. All I had learned to do was suppress much of my personality ... I was shutting down, turning off.... I was making my life miserable by a pervasive denial of who I am."^[118]

Connell O'Donovan,^[119] Val Mansfield and Drew Staffanson described undergoing aversion therapy and Raymond King describes his involvement as an intern with the BYU psychology department's electroshock aversion therapy program in the 1996 short documentary Legacies.^[120][121] The documentary 8: The Mormon Proposition also contains an interview wherein Bruce Barton states that BYU coerced him into vomit aversion therapy, as well as electroshock therapy, which later precipitated his suicide attempt.^[122] Jayce Cox also reported his experience with BYU shock therapy^[123] and suicidal ideation in articles and an MTV documentary.^[127] Scott Burton discusses the burn marks on his wrists he developed when undergoing electroshock therapy from ages 13 to 15 at the hands of a Mormon therapist by request from his Mormon parents.^[128]

In 2011 BYU admitted to the past use of electroshock therapy but denies that it had ever used vomit-inducing therapy "in the BYU Counseling Center"^[108] (which has been in the Wilkinson Student Center since 1964). However, the students that underwent the treatment have stated that the vomit therapy took place in the basement of the Psychology department's Joseph F. Smith Family Living Center (built in 1957, demolished in 2002).^[120][129] In 2021 Dallin Oaks claimed that electroshock aversion therapy "never went on under my administration" at BYU while he was the university's president from 1971 to 1980, while a BYU student produced a master's thesis on the electroshock program at BYU in 1976.^[130][131]“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University_LGBTQ_history

[Calm]

It is disappointing to see the informal and incorrect term for electrical aversion therapy in the wiki article.

McBride’s research was an attempt to be able to avoid having to use nude pictures (are all nude pictures porn in your view?) in research and therapy, hoping to demonstrate the efficacy of clothed models over nude.  At least according to Thorne and I would assume McBride since Thorne was his supervisor on this research, the pictures were nude only, pornographic were not allowed.  It’s BYU, they had to wear leotards in the art classes teaching how to draw nudes during this time (or so I was told by participants) for goodness’ sake.

And if I understand correctly the pictures may have been chosen by some of the subjects to ensure they actually worked for them.

Quote

No. Well, they were. It was almost hilarious. I thought, well, now what would attract a male

homosexual? And in my mind, I thought, well, now what is really manly, and it occurred to me,

football players, people in the muscle magazines and things like that with these huge bulging

biceps, that that would be what they would really be attracted to. And I showed these to a

couple of my first subjects saying to them, would any of these pictures arouse you if you...?

They laughed at me. I mean, I was embarrassed. They just says this, these turn me off. And so I

said, Well, I don't know what turns you on. I only you do. So can you get me some slides made

of pictures that would be of males and females that are attractive and could maybe even be

used to arouse or stimulate sexual interaction thoughts with the pictures, and I says, but they

cannot be prurient, they can't be salacious. They must be... if it's a nude, for example, It'd be

like something like the statue of David. I mean, you know, it's a piece of art or something like

that….

Yeah. If it was pornographic, it was never used.

Steve Densley 38:24

Okay. And so you asked them to bring in pictures of males?

Dr. Eugene Thorne 38:31

And that was so that was such a an enlightening for me. I mean, I finally realized, we don't

know what it turns these people on. We think we know what turns them on. They know what

turns them on, what gets them to think about approaching somebody for an interaction or

something that's inappropriate. And so I finally awakened to the fact that, you know, it's not

just a muscley, manly looking man, if -- most of the pictures that they had were like college

freshmen, dressed neatly and cleanly, and they and they had nothing to do with the kind of

thing I thought was, what would attract them…

Never a movie, never ever used a movie. We didn't have facilities, and I don't think I would

have used one. Well, I don't know that I wouldn't have, if it was an appropriate subject and and

you could decide on the place that and allow them to deliver the shock to themselves as they

observe the movies.

6 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Don Harryman wrote that he experienced "burns on [his] arms and ... emotional trauma."^{[106]: 26–28 [116]}

I have no doubt the emotional trauma is real, it’s not an appropriate type of therapy when triggers are complex and multilayered, imo.  I find the vomiting version physically dangerous as well.  While the shocking/self stim devices would have an upper limit for intensity, teaching someone pain is a solution for intrusive thoughts and unwanted behaviour…I see that as a disaster waiting to happen.

I have less confidence in the claim of burns.  Those devices have to be approved and typically have safety measures.  Perhaps he had unusually sensitive skin though and a high pain tolerance or had extreme self loathing at the time such that he believed he deserved the pain (remember intensity is set by the subject since pain is variable).  Still from the description of the device and treatment, there was no obvious noticeable physical reaction of the body apparently unless the electrode was placed on a muscle (think TENS, but not exactly).  Subjects also controlled the strength/intensity themselves and could turn it off at will. 

 I can see burning occurring if self limiting was the only safety control given depressed and desperate individuals have been known to willingly hurt themselves in hopes of getting better or even out of self hatred or just to feel something that tells them they are alive, but from what I have read that wouldn’t be the only control.  Unless it was a faulty machine, burning seems unlikely.  Doesn’t mean it wasn’t painful, of course.  Pain level doesn’t even always match the physical stimulus, it’s not so easily measured (ask anyone who has fibro how the littlest thing can cause stupidly significant pain, it’s a bizarre experience at times).  And then there are people with high pain tolerance (wonder what that experience is like) and thus the need for a intensity limiter on such devices.  But that was why it’s necessary for the subjects to be in control of the intensity (up to the point it might actually inflict harm) as well as being able to shut down the research/therapy if it becomes too painful.

Malpractice lawsuits were happening even back then, after all, though embarrassment might prevent someone going to court in many cases.

The shock shouldn’t have even left a red mark.  The cuff might on its own if too tight (anyone else hate blood pressure cuffs?).  If the cuff was on the arm, the person might need assistance getting it placed.  Apparently some required help with the leg as well.  I can see a subject accidentally having it too tight . Would be foolish for the administrator to intentionally have the cuff tight as that would likely skew the results as the discomfort would be distracting at the very least. 

Quote

The most I would do is help them put the cuff around wherever part of their

arm or their leg that they wanted to, where they wanted it placed. Some of them would do it on

their own. And their leg was very easy, it was hard for them to do it on their arm. And the cuff

was like a blood pressure cuff. I mean, you know, it looks like that. And as far as the intensity

was concerned, they were instructed,

"alright, now, turn this knob, red knob, and you deliver it,

it will deliver to you a shock, that will increase as you increase the rheostat in movement, and

you stop where you find it uncomfortable or barely tolerable.

" So they had total control of the

intensity.

Steve Densley 40:45

Not, not intolerable. So something short of intolerable.

Dr. Eugene Thorne 40:49

No, no, they wouldn't have stayed in research, I don't think, if it had been intolerable. But at

any rate, and then the duration in some of the trials were like being a split second. So you

didn't make it very long. I think the longest shock was on would be maybe a 10th of a second, I

suppose, if I guessed. So ...

Steve Densley 41:15

Nobody was strapped down to a table?

Dr. Eugene Thorne 41:17

No no no, they were sitting in a chair, the only thing was on them, was the cuff. And they had

little controller by their hand. And they had a switch to turn up the or down the intensity and to

turn off the shock altogether.

Quote

• Subjects were shocked only on the arm or leg, and never on the genitals. The study participants had control over the amplitude of the current, and gave full informed consent to everything that happened. There are FDA-cleared devices purchased for voluntary use today that use far stronger shocks to treat pain.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu
The patients themselves placed the measuring device in private, as I understand it.  There was no inappropriate touching or exposure.  Still was likely humiliating.

Thorne didn’t even use a measuring device in his work, just asked his clients to rate their own reaction (think pain scales, but for arousal or attraction….how I dislike numerical scales for internal sensations).

Quote

Okay. And so did you use any kind of apparatus to measure their physiological response to the

photographs?

Dr. Eugene Thorne 41:44

No, I didn't. I asked them at the end of each session, the aversion session, to go through the

slides, and give them a rating as to how attractive they, how easy they could find these

thoughts of interacting with these subjects in them pictures -- attractive. And instead of 10 or

nine, they were beginning to report three, two, even none. I even find it aversive. I mean it's

negative.

Steve Densley 42:15

So there's just a subjective report.

Dr. Eugene Thorne 42:17

Right. And then later, some of my graduate students had acquired I think it's called a

plethysmograph. And they described to me, they allow the subjects to place this on -- the male

subjects -- on their penis. And it was -- the more the penis engorged, was a direct

demonstration of arousal. The more the attraction was there, then no matter what number they

gave us, those numbers gave them you know, something about engorgement. That doesn't

happen unless you're becoming aroused, at least as far as I know.

Steve Densley 42:58

Right. But this was an apparatus that was attached by the subject.

Dr. Eugene Thorne 43:02

Yes.

Steve Densley 43:03

And to your knowledge was any subject that was involved in any kind of aversive therapy at

BYU ever asked to disrobe?

Dr. Eugene Thorne 43:11

No, no, I guess to put that apparatus on, that plethysmograph, they would have to, you know,

unzip or whatever, but...

Steve Densley 43:19

Right, but presumably, they would do that in private, and...

Dr. Eugene Thorne 43:21
There was a screen…

There was a screen, like in a in a clinic, that they could step behind.

Steve Densley 43:27

Right. So they're given privacy. And so the therapist was not involved in placing that

apparatus?

Dr. Eugene Thorne 43:34

Not that I'm aware of. I never have been aware of anything like that, and the people that I

worked with, I just think had too good of ethics to do anything like that.

Interesting bit about how Throne got into using shock for therapy at first…to disrupt chronic sneezing for one client and hiccups for another.  I can see why it would work in those cases (a very simple physical response).

Quote

Well, I don't remember from the start, I remember that I had another psychologist from Salt

Lake who had a machine that would deliver shock. And they asked me to consult with him for a

person who had chronic sneezing, and another one who had chronic hiccups. And we, we

designed a way of delivering the shock. We figured it was a sort of neural circle that, because it

was constant, you could time it. And so we wanted to interrupt the circle with a shock. And both

of us received national press, by the way, the shock stopped these two people -- not that they

were together, but at different times. And so I that was my first I think exposure with shock

itself. And I found it very easy to work into a therapeutic kind of a scheme.

Most quotes from here:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Eugene-Thorne-FAIR-Examination_otter_ai.pdf

Edited April 5 by Calm

[california boy]

On 4/4/2026 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

Again: Drag shows are not inherently “sexual” in the strict sense that every single one must involve explicit sex acts or pornography-level content.  However, the honest answer is, I think, more nuanced: Drag shows are very frequently and deliberately sexualized, and the art form itself is built on gender parody, exaggeration, and adult-oriented performance traditions that often incorporate sexual humor, innuendo, and provocative elements.

I don't quite understand this.  You admit that drag shows are not inherently "sexual" but you object to them because Drag shows are frequently and deliberately sexualized???  Yet you seem to object to any child even seeing a drag queen.  Not because it is inherently sexual, but because the person in drag is a gay man dressed as a woman.  Would that be correct?  Do you also object when women wear male clothing like suits, tuxedos, mens shirts etc?  

Every drag show that has adult humor I have ever seen that were all held in a bar or night club that served alcohol.  By the very nature of their location, no minors are allowed into bars, so no children are seeing drag shows that are meant for adult entertainment.  Have you ever seen a "drag show" of this nature somewhere other than a bar?  If you have seen such a show, were the child's parents present also?  Have you ever seen a drag queen read a story in a library to children where the parents were not also present?  

On 4/4/2026 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

I reject the premise.  My comments have been measured and reasonable, not a "rant."

How about instead of rant, a regular bringing up of the evils of drag shows and how harmful it is to children because, well, they aren't inherently sexual, children should not be exposed to anything you disapprove of.  

On 4/4/2026 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

I think any sexualization of children is wrong.  

Yeah me too.  But as you said, drag queens are not inherently sexual.  So why do you keep attacking them as harmful to children?

On 4/4/2026 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

I think you meant "hypocritical." 

Hypercritical is definitely the right word.  Hypocritical is how you label your remarks.  I can see your point.

On 4/4/2026 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

I reject the accusation.  

Yet, it seems pretty accurate if you have this campaign against drag shows as being inappropriate for children because it is sexual, but don't pick up the crusade against women dressed in provocative bikinis, entertainers like Dolly Pardon, Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Cher, and well just about every other entertainer, playing with Barbie dolls, going to proms, perfume ads, movies stars, even old ones like Mae West, Marliyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, Gretta Garbo, and on and on.  and are only hypercritical of anything LGBT related that you think is sexualized.

On 4/4/2026 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

Again: “Family-friendly” or “kid-friendly” drag story hours are the ones that spark controversy. Performers usually tone down the raunch, but they still feature exaggerated sexualized costumes (breast pads, hip pads, heavy makeup, high heels, etc.) and read books that introduce gender/sexuality concepts to children. In my view, this is still sexualizing because it exposes kids to adult gender performance and ideological messaging about sex and identity.

Thanks,

-Smac

Usually town down the raunch reading stories to children in a library????  How often do drag queens get raunchy in libraries ready stories to children???

Seriously, you have some issues you really need to evaluate more carefully 

[The Nehor]

On 4/4/2026 at 1:31 PM, smac97 said:

Again: Drag shows are not inherently “sexual” in the strict sense that every single one must involve explicit sex acts or pornography-level content.  However, the honest answer is, I think, more nuanced: Drag shows are very frequently and deliberately sexualized, and the art form itself is built on gender parody, exaggeration, and adult-oriented performance traditions that often incorporate sexual humor, innuendo, and provocative elements.

Yet you insist they “sexualize children” which is a term you won’t define because it is useful rhetorically but doesn’t commonly mean what you keep trying to make it mean.

Also drag reading hours are not deliberately sexualized because obviously. Also why no mention of drag kings? Boo to drag king erasure!!!!!

On 4/4/2026 at 1:31 PM, smac97 said:

I reject the premise.  My comments have been measured and reasonable, not a "rant."

Nope.

On 4/4/2026 at 1:31 PM, smac97 said:

I think any sexualization of children is wrong.  

By your weird standards any movie ot TV show with sexual innuendo would be ‘sexualizing children’. You have made this concept so broad it is useless. This is a common rhetorical trick you learned from propagandists. See also “grooming”.

On 4/4/2026 at 1:31 PM, smac97 said:

I reject the accusation.  

Bur not refute it?

On 4/4/2026 at 1:31 PM, smac97 said:

Again: “Family-friendly” or “kid-friendly” drag story hours are the ones that spark controversy. Performers usually tone down the raunch, but they still feature exaggerated sexualized costumes (breast pads, hip pads, heavy makeup, high heels, etc.) and read books that introduce gender/sexuality concepts to children. In my view, this is still sexualizing because it exposes kids to adult gender performance and ideological messaging about sex and identity.

Do you know all this is happening or are you just guessing? They read a story about two married male penguins and this is “sexualizing children”? So mentioning marriage to a child is “sexualizing” them?

Uh-oh, the church’s Primary program is GROOMING CHILDREN!!!!!!!!