04/23/2009
Masters and Johnson 'Gay Conversion' Studies Exposed as Fraud
Oft-cited by right-wing religious groups and the Catholic church, the 1979 Homosexuality in Perspective book by sex researchers William Masters and Virginia Johnson, has nothing to back it up, we learn, 30 years later...
"Back in 1979, on Meet The Press and countless other TV appearances, Masters and Johnson touted their book, Homosexuality in Perspective—a
14-year study of more than 300 homosexual men and women—hoping to build
on their groundbreaking sex studies of heterosexuals that had helped
ignite America's sexual revolution...When the clinic's top associate, Robert Kolodny, asked to see the files
and to hear the tape-recordings of these 'storybook' cases, Masters
refused to show them to him. Kolodny—who had never seen any conversion
cases himself—began to suspect some, if not all, of the conversion
cases were not entirely true. When he pressed Masters, it became ever
clearer to him that these were at best composite case studies made into
single ideal narratives, and at worst they were fabricated. Eventually Kolodny approached Virginia Johnson privately to express his
alarm. She, too, held similar suspicions about Masters' conversion
theory, though publicly she supported him. The prospect of public
embarrassment, of being exposed as a fraud, greatly upset Johnson, a
self-educated therapist who didn't have a college degree and depended
largely on her husband's medical expertise..."
(via the awl)
Posted 12:58 PM EST by Andy Towle in "Ex-Gays", Books, Catholic Church, News |
Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Post a comment
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"right-wing religious groups AND the Catholic church"? redundant?
Posted by: rick in robbinsville | Apr 23, 2009 1:16:29 PM
The news that this study is suspect is hardly news. Though it was nearly 30 years aog, I remember reading the book and commentaries on it saying, "BS. The majority of these guys all appear to be bisexual."
What is news is if the whole tihng was bogus to begin iwth.
Posted by: Ben in Oakland | Apr 23, 2009 1:38:17 PM
The full Scientific American article by Thomas Maier can be found here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=homosexuality-cure-masters-johnson
Posted by: Mark | Apr 23, 2009 1:48:22 PM
they're always trying to figure us out and then to "fix" us. they'll never learn that what is natural is not a "disorder" and cannot be fixed...
Posted by: STEVE RICHMOND | Apr 23, 2009 2:35:42 PM
".....Robert Kolodny, asked to see the files and to hear the tape-recordings of these 'storybook' cases, Masters refused to show them to him..........."
+ his joint (non-credentialed) researcher never saw them
LOL
This is why psychology is still called a SOFT science at best
The HARD sciences (biology, physics, chemistry) would laugh their asses off at any researcher that did not submit their findings in full for peer review. Repeatability of results by other groups of researchers proves or disproves findings
A great example being the much publicized 1989 Cold Fusion bruhaha. fleischmann and pons submited everything to their peers and the results were NOT repeatable consistently by any research team = purposeful FRAUD, self delusion, or simple mistakes and the whole thing was tossed into the dustbin of history.
psychology = SOFT science and this craptastic study reinforces that. The whole thing would have been laughed into oblivion within days of reporting it if psychology was more like the hard sciences which mandate peer review = repeatability= proof or results or fallacy
LOL
If psychologists were HARD scientists/ real scientists they would have silenced the guy on day 2 for not releasing info
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Apr 23, 2009 3:20:15 PM
i meant fleishmann and pons had either commited purposeful fraud , self delusion, or simple mistakes due to no other group being able to repeat their findings
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Apr 23, 2009 3:22:35 PM
Actually the problem with cold fusion is that no excess energy is produced--you need more energy to start the process than you get out of it in return.
Masters and Johnson were discredited a long time ago. Their research went straight to the popular press, just like Kinsey, rather than go through academic channels and was more an attempt to gain popular favor than get at the truth.
Posted by: anon | Apr 23, 2009 4:18:30 PM
Psychologywas just as damaging to gays as Religion (judeao-christianity) in demonizing homosexuality through their delusions and lies.
Posted by: nikko | Apr 23, 2009 4:57:45 PM
Jimmyboyo, careful, you're starting to sound like a scientologist! lol I do kind of agree with you. I think psychology CAN be a legitimate science but there are so many variables it's incredibly difficult and easily subject to the power of suggestion. If psychologists would actually take the time to get to know their patients rather than throw meds at them things might be better.
Posted by: Mr. E | Apr 23, 2009 9:57:22 PM
Total BS! Conversion does not work and everyone knows it! There is nothing about this that is new or news....gay is not a perspective.
Posted by: RB | Apr 23, 2009 10:01:00 PM
Excuse me? Kinsey's report was vetted by a panel at Indiana University and his research was found to be sound. That's why Kinsey's Report had so much impact in the 1950s--because it was scientific.
Posted by: mike | Apr 24, 2009 2:01:55 PM
Then his(Masters) actions are criminal-and the consequences serious for those who believed him. Why aren't these bogus psuedo-scientists charged?
Posted by: nikko | Apr 25, 2009 3:28:45 AM
MR E
Agggggggggggggggghhhhh
fairytale gods forbid I sound anything like a scientolocrazy
:-)
I do like psychologists and some things about psychology are spot on. Even some meds are good.
I just wish psychologists as an entire field would be more stringent like Biologists, physicists, and chemists.
Most likely this might be due to psychology being a relatively young field of study as compared to the others. The others have a longer history which worked out the mandatory / just accepted fact that one must ALWAYS submit everything for peer review by independent researches otherwise whatever is just dismissed as being fraudulent.
Psychologists hopefully will move as a body to such. There are many psychologists who would never promote anything not peer reviewed but as a body they let slip too many with no peer review.
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Apr 25, 2009 11:06:08 AM