Talk:Aesthetic Realism

Concerning Edits

Please discuss suggested changes on this talk page before making them. Braxton7248 (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Braxton7248,

The section on homosexuality is lengthy and, in my view, not NPOV-compliant. For example:

> In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.[^cite_ref-82][82] In 1978, ads were placed in three major newspapers stating “we have changed from homosexuality through our study of the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel.” They were signed by 50 men and women.[^cite_ref-83][83] With few exceptions, the press in general either ignored or dismissed the assertion of persons who said they changed. [citation needed]

> The gay press and gay reporters were generally hostile to Aesthetic Realism.[^cite_ref-84][84] A 1982 Boston Globe article written by “the first openly gay reporter” on its staff,[^cite_ref-85][85] interviewed primarily gay therapists and then reported that the “assertion” of change through Aesthetic Realism was “a claim staggering to psychiatrists and psychologists.”[^cite_ref-86][86] About 250 people protested the article on the Boston Common. The Globe’s ombudsman later wrote in his column that the article was biased against Aesthetic Realism and that it contained “strong, negative words without attribution” and “inaccuracies”.[^cite_ref-87][87]

> Some gay advocacy groups and gay activists presented Aesthetic Realism as “anti-gay”, accusing the philosophy of offering a “gay cure” and expressing skepticism that homosexuality could or should change.[^cite_ref-88][88] Persons within the gay pride movement associated the desire of a man to change from homosexuality with a lack of pride in a gay identity, and saw Aesthetic Realism as biased against a gay lifestyle. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation stated unequivocally that it supported full, completely equal civil rights for homosexuals, including the right of a man or woman to live their life in the way they chose.[^cite_ref-89][89]

Apparently, according to Aesthetic Realist interpretations of language, it’s technically correct to say they did not offer a “gay cure” because they framed it as “change from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism.” This subtle distinction, however, is not clarified in this whole 759-word section. To a lay-reader, phrases like “accusing the philosophy of offering a ‘gay cure’” seem contradictory given the preceding lengthy descriptions of orientation-change efforts by Aesthetic Realists.

The entire section psychologizes gay groups, framing their opposition as almost a misunderstanding or emotionally driven rather than a substantive disagreement with the philosophy’s aims. My edits, which you reverted in their entirety, included noting that sexual-orientation change is now widely rejected or even condemned by scientific, medical, and psychological communities. I also mentioned that it is illegal in some jurisdictions. This information seems essential for neutrality, given the apologetic tone around the supposedly voluntary, non-blanket-pathologizing conversion therapy as practiced by Aesthetic Realism.

Wikipedia should not be a platform for the messaging of any particular philosophy or quasi-religious movement. There should be a clear commitment to NPOV, providing balanced perspectives. Given the strong mainstream scientific view that sexual orientation cannot be changed—especially through philosophical methods—some concession to this view is the minimum required for a balanced perspective.

The section currently implies that gay advocates oppose orientation change efforts because of psychological issues or misunderstandings rather than well-documented concerns about ineffectiveness and harm. Here is an example of language I attempted to add, in an NPOV way:

> Some gay advocacy groups and gay activists presented Aesthetic Realism as “anti-gay”, due to its promotion of sexual-orientation change.

The reason for this opposition is that these efforts are widely viewed as ineffective and often harmful, a position strongly supported by mainstream science and the collapse of ex-gay organizations. While I avoided explicitly discussing harm in my edit, I noted that many jurisdictions ban the practice for minors, by medical professionals, or even outright. This indicates a broad societal discomfort with such practices in Western countries today.

And it’s not that gay groups had a psychological complex around insufficient “Pride™” or misunderstood the philosophy as a “gay cure.” Their opposition stems from legitimate concerns, yet the current section implies otherwise. Here’s another example of problematic framing:

> Some gay advocacy groups and gay activists presented Aesthetic Realism as “anti-gay”, accusing the philosophy of offering a “gay cure” and expressing skepticism that homosexuality could or should change. Persons within the gay pride movement associated the desire of a man to change from homosexuality with a lack of pride in a gay identity, and saw Aesthetic Realism as biased against a gay lifestyle.

At the very least, this section should be substantially shortened. It begins with a positive depiction of successful conversion therapy, followed by a long discussion on the approach. Here’s another paragraph for context:

> With the exception of a brief 1971 review calling The H Persuasion “less a book than a collection of pietistic snippets by Believers,” The New York Times never reported that men said they changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism. Students of the philosophy who said they changed from homosexuality or in other large ways accused the press of unfairly withholding information valuable to the lives of people. In the 1970s they mounted an aggressive campaign of telephone calls, letters, ads, and vigils in front of various media offices and at the homes of editors. Many wore lapel buttons that read “Victim of the Press.”

So, again, we're focusing on victimization and supposed bias in the press. The slant and selection of information here is pretty evident, particularly given what's *omitted*.

Additionally, my notes about the website “Countering the Lies” were removed. This gives insight into Aesthetic Realism views circa 2004, emphasizing a belief in orientation change as real. This is noteworthy, given that the page otherwise presents a highly selective narrative, omitting any clear acknowledgment of modern perspectives on orientation change.

I invite third-party input on this matter, as I believe the current section could be substantially improved to better reflect Wikipedia’s NPOV and Verifiability policies. An unbiased, concise summary that acknowledges mainstream scientific consensus would better serve Wikipedia’s readers. Borwse (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)