Thread: The "Sissy Boy" Experiment

Originally Posted by Carls

this subjket it is to terrible for me to talk about but i think the mother she was made to think this doctor will help her child. some people will say she should know better then to do this but this person he was professional and she beleive him. so i agree with you this should be look for ethical considerations but i think this doctor is to blame for what happen to the child.

I was not seeking to blame the mother at all.

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

George Reker says he was unaware that Kirk had committed suicide but that it was wrong to blame it on the therapy. He argued that other psychologists had verified that the boy was "functional" in his teenage years but Kirk's family argues that Kirk had learned to lie to the psychologists to avoid punishment. Reker says that he grieves for the boy's family. Anderson Cooper reports that Reker has been publishing Kirk as a successful example of preventive therapy up until 2009, a full six years after Kirk's suicide.

It's sickening that he defends this..

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

George Reker says he was unaware that Kirk had committed suicide but that it was wrong to blame it on the therapy. He argued that other psychologists had verified that the boy was "functional" in his teenage years but Kirk's family argues that Kirk had learned to lie to the psychologists to avoid punishment. Reker says that he grieves for the boy's family. Anderson Cooper reports that Reker has been publishing Kirk as a successful example of preventive therapy up until 2009, a full six years after Kirk's suicide.

then how can Reker he say he did not know Kirk had die? Reker was publishing Kirk in his book as t o be successful therapy after his death. Reker is he a liar?

Originally Posted by Carls

then how can Reker he say he did not know Kirk had die? Reker was publishing Kirk in his book as t o be successful therapy after his death. Reker is he a liar?

I would say he was uninformed. He has been publishing that Kirk is a successful case of preventive therapy under the assumption that he was. If he continues to publish that Kirk was a success now that he knows about his suicide then Reker would be a liar.

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

I would say he was uninformed. He has been publishing that Kirk is a successful case of preventive therapy under the assumption that he was. If he continues to publish that Kirk was a success now that he knows about his suicide then Reker would be a liar.

Well, a bigger liar then he already is.

Reparative therapy can, at times, include aversion therapy. Aversion therapy has been denounced by the APA in 1994 as dangerous and ineffective. Having seen, first hand what can happen when someone unethically performs aversion therapy, I can tell you that what Rekers did was unethical, and if he did it today, not only would it be rejected as invalid, but he would have been thrown out of the APA.

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

The question is, and I don't disagree these folks were very wrong... what do you charge them with?

I'd go with intentional infliction of emotional distress. Two things about this:

1) This is not a criminal action, but rather a tort, which means that the best the family could hope for would be some kind of money damages, and possibly an injunction (e.g. preventing the defendants from pursuing activities like this in the future), as opposed to a jail sentence.

2) "Intentional" in this context doesn't literally mean that the defendants deliberately tried to cause emotional distress to the kid. It could mean that, but it could also mean just that the defendants acted with reckless disregard for the probable outcome of their actions. In other words, if the probable outcome of their actions is emotional trauma, they're at least potentially on the hook for this poor guy killing himself.

To be clear, there'd be a lot of legal barriers to successfully prosecuting this case. If you're curious, let me know and I'll give you the details.

Originally Posted by Aderleth

I'd go with intentional infliction of emotional distress. Two things about this:

1) This is not a criminal action, but rather a tort, which means that the best the family could hope for would be some kind of money damages, and possibly an injunction (e.g. preventing the defendants from pursuing activities like this in the future), as opposed to a jail sentence.

2) "Intentional" in this context doesn't literally mean that the defendants deliberately tried to cause emotional distress to the kid. It could mean that, but it could also mean just that the defendants acted with reckless disregard for the probable outcome of their actions. In other words, if the probable outcome of their actions is emotional trauma, they're at least potentially on the hook for this poor guy killing himself.

To be clear, there'd be a lot of legal barriers to successfully prosecuting this case. If you're curious, let me know and I'll give you the details.

Let's take a moment, the AMA regarded homosexuality as, what was it, a mental disorder back then..so you are right, a civil/tort venue has far better chances of success. I just... dislike retroactively applying today's standards to actions of the past.

That's all.

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Let's take a moment, the AMA regarded homosexuality as, what was it, a mental disorder back then..so you are right, a civil/tort venue has far better chances of success. I just... dislike retroactively applying today's standards to actions of the past.

That's all.

That's one of the legal barriers I was talking about.

Having said that, whatever medical standing homosexuality had in the early 70's, encouraging a parent to beat their child probably wasn't considered reasonable advice at the time. To be clear, I'm not at all sure that anyone could successfully pursue this case legally. I'm just saying that if I were the family's lawyer, I'd advise them that their best option is intentional infliction of emotional distress.