Another Attack on Marriage (UK Version)

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quite honestly, I have no basis to evaluate this, because while the sentence you quoted sounds quite scandalous, I believe it needs to be interpreted in the context of the profession for which it was written, and I simply don't have that background. 

In order to get a little bit of background on this, I posed the following question to the Claude model "Fable 5: High." (Fable is its latest-greatest model, has only been out a couple of weeks, and they charge you "usage credit" based on how much work it does. Generating the answer below cost about $3.00. With the prompt, I uploaded the manual and content of this thread)

Prompt: The poster "smac97" is a real estate attorney in Provo, Utah. He started a thread expressing concerns about the manual "Gender, Sexual, and Relationship Diversity (GSRD)" published by the British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy. As far as I know, smc97 doesn't have any background in counseling and psychotherapy and is only aware of this issue because he read about it in an editorial.

His concern with this appears to be that this document is a substantial step towards "ratifying hedonism" by "supposedly credentialed 'experts.'"

I've never been in a professional psychotherapy session, much less have had any training in psychology. Could you put this document into the proper context? Is it the role of psychotherapists to condemn "secret non-monogamy" and such things? Is the content of this manual consistent with best practices in therapy? Is it in harmony with how psychotherapy is taught at BYU?

Please keep your answer to under 1,000 words, and base it on recognized professional standards including, presumably, the professional psychology standards taught at BYU and written about by BYU professors.

...

Quote

Where the critique has some legitimate purchase. The sentence doing all the work in this controversy — non-monogamy is "an equally valid form of relating... and the boundaries between them are blurred anyway" — is genuinely loose writing for its placement in a section about secret non-monogamy, and the analogy "just as we would not attempt to stop a gay or trans person" is contestable. Sexual orientation is not analogous to a behavior that inflicts ongoing deception on a third party, and plenty of mainstream clinicians would balk at that framing.

I am wondering what @MustardSeed and @BlueDreams think of the foregoing assessment.

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The betrayal-trauma literature (Shirley Glass, the Gottmans) treats affairs as serious relational injuries with measurable harm to the betrayed partner, and a therapist can hold that clinical understanding without moralizing. Barker writes from a particular theoretical school (critical/queer theory applied to relationships), and the document reflects that school's framing more than a neutral survey would. A fair-minded reader can think the document's practice guidance is sound while finding some of its conceptual framing tendentious. That's a much narrower complaint than "ratifying hedonism," though — the editorial smac97 relied on was inflammatory, and to his credit he eventually conceded that.

 

I am likewise conceding, to an extent, my flawed initial interpretation as per my conversation with SU above.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quite honestly, I have no basis to evaluate this, because while the sentence you quoted sounds quite scandalous, I believe it needs to be interpreted in the context of the profession for which it was written, and I simply don't have that background. 

In order to get a little bit of background on this, I posed the following question to the Claude model "Fable 5: High." (Fable is its latest-greatest model, has only been out a couple of weeks, and they charge you "usage credit" based on how much work it does. Generating the answer below cost about $3.00. With the prompt, I uploaded the manual and content of this thread)

Prompt: The poster "smac97" is a real estate attorney in Provo, Utah. He started a thread expressing concerns about the manual "Gender, Sexual, and Relationship Diversity (GSRD)" published by the British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy. As far as I know, smc97 doesn't have any background in counseling and psychotherapy and is only aware of this issue because he read about it in an editorial.

His concern with this appears to be that this document is a substantial step towards "ratifying hedonism" by "supposedly credentialed 'experts.'"

I've never been in a professional psychotherapy session, much less have had any training in psychology. Could you put this document into the proper context? Is it the role of psychotherapists to condemn "secret non-monogamy" and such things? Is the content of this manual consistent with best practices in therapy? Is it in harmony with how psychotherapy is taught at BYU?

Please keep your answer to under 1,000 words, and base it on recognized professional standards including, presumably, the professional psychology standards taught at BYU and written about by BYU professors.

 

This is a very good, accurate analysis in my view based off of my own classes and research since university as well as discussions with working therapists.  Impressive.  But much of my stuff is out of date though this honestly feels like such a basic standard that has consistently been proven more effective and it intuitively more sensible, I doubt that it will ever get dumped.

Obviously if a client feels uncomfortable with a therapist they are less likely to participate even if forced to go.  My daughter was a prime example of this, she just withdrew and refused to speak for the session.  This is one reason why ‘fit’ is so important in the therapeutic relationship, if the client won’t open up, not much to work with.  One of the fastest way to increase discomfort is for someone to feel judged.  Avoiding judgment while helping the client see realistic consequences of their behaviour as well as helping them recognize there are other options to choose from which will result in different consequences is the hallmark of a good therapist, imo.  A lot of therapists do personal therapy for themselves so that they learn to recognize their own biases, triggers, and also very important their own blind spots so as to make it less likely their own issues and own preferences prevent them from being effective with their clients, especially needed when it comes to judgment.  That way they are better able to do what most of them went into the field for, help those who reach out to them for help.

Edited July 24 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am wondering what @MustardSeed and @BlueDreams think of the foregoing assessment.

The role of the therapist is not to moralize.  After all, who decides what is moral? I suspect you would not like the results of that type of therapy. 
 

The role of the therapist is to create safety for the client to discover the defenses they have created (the lies they tell themselves, the lies they tell others etc) and undo them so that they can live more honest authentic fulfilling lives with more meaningful connections to others. 
 

A skilled therapist will not advise, preach, shame or punish.  That is not even therapy anyway.  That’s life coaching /church/ society/parenting etc.  
 

what I’m describing is not the same thing as heralding that “everything goes.”  This is  a common and tired cartoon version of what people imagine therapy is.  
 

You should come see me.  I’ll charge you double but it would be very effective lol 

[MustardSeed]

Ps just kidding.  Conflict of interest and all that jazz. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am likewise conceding, to an extent, my flawed initial interpretation as per my conversation with SU above.

 

I would like to further point out that this interpretation was caused by your unquestioning consumption of outrage porn. You may want to edit your news diet. 

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I would like to further point out that this interpretation was caused by your unquestioning consumption of outrage porn. You may want to edit your news diet. 

Not "unquestioning."  I do, after all, regularly post topics here which I know will elicit responses from people whose perspective varies from my own.  If I wanted to avoid questions, I would not do that.

Also, "outrage porn" is an eye-of-the-beholder sort of thing.  I think most of what I link to is not remotely that sort of thing.  Some articles are, and yet I post them anyway because, in party, I want them to be critiqued.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Some articles are, and yet I post them anyway because, in party, I want them to be critiqued.

It would be a good idea if you were upfront about articles you are not trusting in this way as sometimes, I will be blunt, you come across as way too uncritical about some links you post, something I have in the past found surprising.  I think everyone should be clear on what materials they are accepting as valid and what ones they have doubts on so others don’t waste their time or get sidetrack because they misunderstand the purpose of why someone posts something or gets the wrong impression that someone is more gullible on a topic than they really are.

Edited July 25 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I do, after all, regularly post topics here which I know will elicit responses from people whose perspective varies from my own.

I’ve long suspected that argument is a sport you enjoy. 

[longview]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I do, after all, regularly post topics here which I know will elicit responses from people whose perspective varies from my own.

I’ve long suspected that argument is a sport you enjoy. 

No. Because so many liberals and especially extreme radicals spout simple-minded knee-jerk one-line slogans, it actually would be beneficial for showing links that provide contrast and examine juxtapositions. Charlie Kirk was so wonderful in drawing out thoughtful debates. Because if we don't communicate, then there is a danger of increasing violence (as we are seeing among the doctrinaire communists).

[MustardSeed]

10 minutes ago, longview said:

No. Because so many liberals and especially extreme radicals spout simple-minded knee-jerk one-line slogans, it actually would be beneficial for showing links that provide contrast and examine juxtapositions. Charlie Kirk was so wonderful in drawing out thoughtful debates. Because if we don't communicate, then there is a danger of increasing violence (as we are seeing among the doctrinaire communists).

I think it’s good to create environments that foster sharing new ideas and opposing positions.  I’m often engaged in these conversations with my husband who is right, while I’m more left than center.  We seem to be able to say often enough, things like “that makes sense” and “that’s fair” and eliminate the need to assert opinions in a way that belittles the other.  We’ve learned and grown from these conversations.  
 

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

, things like “that makes sense” and “that’s fair”

A major clue to whether or not someone is listening to engage or there to argue.  I don’t find arguments that interesting.  They tend to be repetitive lists of talking points that often are shallow.  I find engagement fascinating and fun.

Edited July 25 by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

A major clue to whether or not someone is listening to engage or there to argue.  I don’t find arguments that interesting.  They tend to be repetitive lists of talking points that often are shallow.  I find engagement fascinating and fun.

I hear the distinction you are drawing between arguing and engaging. In my experience, a real argument is a form of engagement — it’s the exchange of ideas, evidence, and reasoning, especially when people start from different premises.

I’ve been on this board for 22 years. My usual approach is to listen carefully to what someone has actually said, respond to the specific points raised, explain where and why I disagree, and try to keep the discussion grounded in evidence and reasoning rather than talking points. When I push back, it’s almost always because I’m testing an idea, clarifying a distinction, or trying to separate facts from assumptions.

This board is peopled by people with strongly-held positions on some topics, so there is little chance of reaching consensus.  I am nevertheless interested in listening to these folks, as I want to test my own perspective.  As Joseph Smith put it: "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest."

If something I’ve written has come across as shallow or purely oppositional, I’m open to hearing which part felt that way. I’m generally more interested in understanding the strongest version of a position than in scoring points.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

My usual approach is to listen carefully to what someone has actually said, respond to the specific points raised

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113398-troubling-allegations-against-former-sheriff-in-pinal-county-az-church-mbr/page/5/#findComment-1210271079

Since you appear to be explaining your process as part of helping me better understand your reasoning and comments, I am going to point out an example of how I often don’t feel listened to because you appear to respond as soon as you think of a response without further reading.   This is not an issue in and of itself, I do this a lot.  But then when I realize the point gets covered, I go back and edit my remark to reflect the additional information/comment.

But it appears you on occasion at least don’t go back and remove questions or points that are dealt with later in my post even when you quote clarifications as well later on, so sometimes it appears you are not reading for understanding or maybe just not paying attention, ie “listening” to the rest of what I say once you form an idea about a specific comment I made.

Quote

Quote

How about collective responsibility?  

 

Could you clarify what you mean here?

In the above link you quote my first sentence and then ask me to clarify it.  But I already did that immediately following my question.  “As in…” is a phrase that introduces a clarification.  You then follow the request for clarification with a significant amount of response with additional questions that have nothing to do with my own point since I wasn’t talking about collective guilt, but a collective duty as is clear in my “as in” addition.

My post that precedes yours that is linked above:

Quote

How about collective responsibility?  As in all men should proactively and seriously consider what they can do to change our culture to one that is safer for women and children…and men as well and not just dump it on the women as the ones most affected (as too often happens in response to raised threats).

Can you explain what is happening in your post as a response to mine?

PS:  I had brought up this behaviour before, but finding an example was too time consuming and I understand it can be hard to understand a criticism without an example of what is being criticized.  I got sensible and kept track of one in case it came up again, so you would understand what I was talking about.  I just have the one, so I hope it’s enough.

Edited July 26 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 7/24/2026 at 6:24 PM, smac97 said:

Not "unquestioning."  I do, after all, regularly post topics here which I know will elicit responses from people whose perspective varies from my own.  If I wanted to avoid questions, I would not do that.

You could just do basic due diligence before posting the article so you don’t look like a fool for posting trash.

On 7/24/2026 at 6:24 PM, smac97 said:

Also, "outrage porn" is an eye-of-the-beholder sort of thing.  I think most of what I link to is not remotely that sort of thing.  Some articles are, and yet I post them anyway because, in party, I want them to be critiqued.

When you post the article and unabashedly agree with it and use it as a weapon against a group it is hard to believe you when you backpedal and suggest that you are just looking for a critique.

[MustardSeed]

On 7/25/2026 at 4:01 PM, Calm said:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113398-troubling-allegations-against-former-sheriff-in-pinal-county-az-church-mbr/page/5/#findComment-1210271079

Since you appear to be explaining your process as part of helping me better understand your reasoning and comments, I am going to point out an example of how I often don’t feel listened to because you appear to respond as soon as you think of a response without further reading.   This is not an issue in and of itself, I do this a lot.  But then when I realize the point gets covered, I go back and edit my remark to reflect the additional information/comment.

But it appears you on occasion at least don’t go back and remove questions or points that are dealt with later in my post even when you quote clarifications as well later on, so sometimes it appears you are not reading for understanding or maybe just not paying attention, ie “listening” to the rest of what I say once you form an idea about a specific comment I made.

In the above link you quote my first sentence and then ask me to clarify it.  But I already did that immediately following my question.  “As in…” is a phrase that introduces a clarification.  You then follow the request for clarification with a significant amount of response with additional questions that have nothing to do with my own point since I wasn’t talking about collective guilt, but a collective duty as is clear in my “as in” addition.

My post that precedes yours that is linked above:

Can you explain what is happening in your post as a response to mine?

PS:  I had brought up this behaviour before, but finding an example was too time consuming and I understand it can be hard to understand a criticism without an example of what is being criticized.  I got sensible and kept track of one in case it came up again, so you would understand what I was talking about.  I just have the one, so I hope it’s enough.

I think this deserves a thoughtful response