Did Masters and Johnson fake 'gay cure' data?

Homosexuals, when asked, invariably report that their sexuality developed naturally, independent of any choice they could have made. This is endorsed by the best scientific opinion, which suggests that our sexuality is, indeed, something we are born with, or else acquire very early in life, once and for all, unchangeably.

This is, of course, very different from the traditional view of homosexuality as a sin or crime, and, moreover, a sin or crime of choice.

Nowadays it is generally agreed that there is no scientific support for the traditional view; it derives whatever legitimacy it has from folk culture, religious prohibition and homophobia, which is both the fear of homosexuals and, crucially, the fear of being oneself a homosexual.

Yet once upon a time, the idea that gayness was a choice and that homosexuality could be cured had support from two of the weightiest scientific names in popular culture: William Masters and Virginia Johnson.

Or possibly, only from one of them... and therein lies a tale.

In 1979, Masters and Johnson published Homosexuality in Perspective, ostensibly the results of a 14-year study of 300 homosexuals, including some who expressed 'dissatisfaction' with their 'condition' and who, following a course of 'therapy', were 'cured' of their condition.

The results of the study were certainly a one-off. And now it looks as if it may have been faked. In fact, nobody seems to have known about the study except Masters - Johnson, his wife, was not involved and recently distanced herself from it, even suggesting that the whole thing had been fabricated.

There's more information in this short Scientific American article, which suggests the entire study may have been a fabrication.

Was it? Did the mighty Masters fake his results? And if he did, how trustworthy can the rest of his work be?

It has a towering reputation. Many people still refer to Masters and Johnson as the gold standard of sex research. Is that reputation now compromised? And if it is, where does that leave most of the popular 'knowledge' concerning sex and sexuality that permeates our culture - and is largely derived from their magnum opus of all things venereal, Human Sexual Response?

I say: Of course it is a fabrication!

The only people who care about 'fixing gays' are not acting out of a scientific mindset, in my opinion.

There are more important things to solve (like hard-ons and hair loss), the last time I checked 'gay' didn't start with an 'h' or cure something that older men deal with.

But seriously, it is really sad to see people so desperate to 'fix the gay problem', that they resort to making stuff up or having some religous intervention.

Oh well, when you are operating deep within a world of choosen ignorance, I guess we should expect some 'Pray the gay away', or some other ridiculous crap, to poke its head up here and there.

Since it is mostly the religous who have a 'problem' with gay people, I think it is best to just ignore it. You can't fight a pick-and-choose literalist...it is like throwing rocks at a tank.

That or start feeding homosexuals to the lions...you know, really bring this whole thing full-circle.

Originally posted by Astyanax
In 1979, Masters and Johnson published Homosexuality in Perspective, ostensibly the results of a 14-year study of 300 homosexuals, including some who expressed 'dissatisfaction' with their 'condition' and who, following a course of 'therapy', were 'cured' of their condition.

Sorry for the double post:

This part really gets to me. I am not a professional by any means, nor am I gay or claim to understand what it is like to be gay in a culture that, while improving, is still 'against' homosexuality.

Some of the studied expressed dissatisfaction...maybe it would be that, many times, they are living in a hostile enviroment where the reaction of 'coming out' can result in damaging their family ties and stunting their trust, comfort and self-acceptance.

I know more than one gay friend who was kicked out of the house in their teens, because they liked members of their own gender.

Gee, I wonder why certain gay people would be feeling constantly uncomfortable and dissatisfied with their situation.



Alright, enough from me this morning.

Speaking as a bisexual ex-christian, I find that the belief that homosexuality (and by association, bisexuality) is a sin which a large proportion of christian Churches and denominations teach is incredibly destructive.

The rationale ends up like this: Since homo[bi]sexuality is a sin, it must be a choice (contradicted by the evidence science has uncovered) because God wouldn't punish someone with eternal damnation for being as god made them. So if one is somehow, for some reason choosing this sinful behaviour then he or she must being able to choose not to.

For five years I tried to be straight and for five years I failed! I thought I was weak and that somehow I was sabotaging myself. I thought I was sinful and damned. I became deeply depressed and selfloathing. It wasn't till I deconverted that I finally got some peace in this matter when I accepted myself for who and what I am.

I know that this is a very similar story to many others.


How evil is it to taunt a desperate and fearful person with a cure that doesn't exist???
And these people claim to have higher morality!

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Welfhard]

What a sad day for scientists and psychologists eh?

You know I wish I could be straight, what a relief would that be? Nah, actually that would have been 20 years ago, when I gave a damn about what others thought.

I don't think this issue will ever be put to rest. Simply because people are so bothered by the idea of a dynamic society, that anything which presents itself as difference, althought really not, is oppressed.

I can't wait to see my kid's kids to see if they still have to deal with this BS...

~Keeper

reply to post by Astyanax

Originally posted by Astyanax
This is endorsed by the best scientific opinion, which suggests that our sexuality is, indeed, something we are born with, or else acquire very early in life, once and for all, unchangeably.

You're pretty much right but I'd like to just add a little pointer. I've talked to quite a number of other bisexuals on my little journey to understand myself, many whom were older. One common theme I've seen time and again is that for those of us with less well defined or polarised sexualities, the lean or preference can drift over the long term throughout one's life, a number of people say it's fluid and can polarize on the spot.

... Not to detract from your point. ^_^

reply to post by Welfhard


To tell you the truth, I have had dreams of past lives where I was with women.

For me I think it's a matter of having chosen my preference over different lifetimes and existances, and now I've just found my preferance.

Strange way to look at it, but just a thought.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower

And you give credence to your dreams? I've noticed a tread, my dreams get weird and wild when I eat to much cheese or spicy food.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Welfhard]