Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is concerned that the media isn’t reporting the details of reparative therapy accurately.
“During the past month, Montel Williams and Diane Sawyer have run features dealing with reparative therapy, but neither one of them invited a therapist on their shows to explain it,” said Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. “Both shows actually dealt with faith-based ministries, not reparative therapy–the approach I developed more than two decades ago. If the mainstream media has any interest in accurately reporting on our therapy, they should invite real reparative therapists to tell their stories.”
Considering Nicolosi’s own bizarre response to CNN’s rather basic questions during a recent Love Won Out event, it’s odd that he would now complain about a lack of investigative interest by the mainstream media. One can sympathize with his desire to save face after the aforementioned tantrum, but Dr. Nicolosi should be reminded that the press is unlikely to submit to his considerable ego in the manner he apparently expects from those around him.
NARTH President-elect A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., agrees. “Whenever any form of reorientation therapy is discussed in the mainstream media, it usually involves someone who either never went through such therapy, or went through a faith-based process and became disillusioned.
Both Nicolosi and Byrd mention faith-based conversion programs with apparent disdain. Is NARTH now officially expressing what has until now only been rumored — a disagreement with the effectiveness of programs such as Exodus which are not based on his reparative therapy model?
So Nicolosi has completely forgotten about all the attention that superstar Reparative Therapist Richard Cohen has received in the last couple months? This is, by the way, the same Richard Cohen that was declared “the future of reparative therapy” by Wayne Besen in his exhaustively researched book Anything But Straight, which was published a couple of years ago. Of course, the man that was once NARTH’s golden child has now been all but erased from their records.
Has Nicolosi also forgotten about the former clients (HIS former clients), such as gay rights advocate and YouTube star Daniel Gonzales, that have come out to the public (from the closet) about their experiences with ineffective and backward “treatments?” I’d say that non-faith-based reparative “therapy” is being WELL represented by the media.
I had years of reparative therapy in conjunction with the Exodus and Living Waters approaches. Of course, it was also faith-based, but I am not sure where I would have found a secular reparative therapist. They must be around…but most of the reparative therapists I’ve ever run across or heard of are faith-based.
I actually got some benefit from the therapy, but I sure could have done without some of the damaging side effects, and probably would have had the same gains just by doing regular therapy like many people do (and no doubt less harm).
I am wondering if the media is finally getting it that they don’t always have to talk to ex-gays or ex-gay “experts” whenever they talk about the ex-gay movement. When media talk to folks who have survived a harmful experience, I don’t think it is their job to find someone who had a similar situation and did not find it harmful, or someone who wants to go on camera saying the person who experienced harm just didn’t “do something right.”
I think Peterson was right when he mentioned on his blog recently that we were perhaps at a tipping point where a media outlet can feature a story (like they do with many issues) without having to trot out folks to denigrate the story tellers or attempt to poke holes in their stories (“well, I’m sure she didn’t have reparative therapy; that’s the real problem here–if it weren’t faith-based it would have worked”).
On a side note, Janelle Hallman has been affiliated with NARTH, and speaks for them (including this year’s 2007 conference). She’s a very Christian, faith-based reparative therapist, an Exodus “member ministry,” and was on the board. I almost ended up seeing her as a therapist in Denver (oh, and I have attended a conference where she spoke, have watched her on a video tape presentation, and still have all the notes).
Does NARTH consider her work as less important or less successful than someone who is not faith-based? It doesn’t seem so. Of course, it just goes to show you – you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t (imagine if I’d done non-faith-based therapy; I’m sure Exodus et. al. would have used that as a reason it didn’t work).
Christine,
I don’t know the contract particulars of Janelle Hallman becoming a part of NARTH. Although, she is a Christian and believes we live in a fallen world and that no doubt is where she comes from – her work over the years has provided her and others with valueable information that deals with women. As you know, most of the material, research etc… out there deals with men. NARTH has primarily focused on men in the past. This work with women may be at the center of her contract with NARTH – I do not know. And although she is a woman of faith – a closer study of her entire ( work from when she first began to lecture and teach on theis issue to present) work shows a a more practical approach (just like any other therapy) to dealing with this issue.
Having said that, if you look over her work historically you will see a woman who has grown in her understanding and approach to therapy for women on this issue. She does change in her lectures, videos, etc… and has corrected herself – unlike many others we see out there.
Too bad you chose not to go see her. Even if you were not working on same sex attraction and trying to change – I believe you would benefit greatly.
I find this patronizing, actually. I’m not saying she doesn’t have good things to say, and I did benefit from my own counselor (do people actually read what I write?) who was as respected a reparative and ex-gay therapist as Janelle in those years, and a subsequent Christian counselor (who is friends with Janelle and thinks she’s doing great work). I had many friends who saw Janelle and I’m sure she is a fine therapist in spite of some of the very odd things I heard in the late 90s, early 2000s. I am also familiar with her work and some of her current views versus some of her earlier views.
I’m curious why you think I need her counseling? What do you think I need, and where are you getting that from? Actually, I take that back. Honestly, I don’t want to know tonight.
Perhaps I’m a bit sensitive just now. You can imagine how many patronizing letters and feedback I’ve had from Christians in this last month, and from some ex-gays.
If I had a buck for every ex-gay and Christian who wrote to tell me what I didn’t do right, what I need, what I would benefit from, what I did wrong…I wouldn’t be looking for paying work right now in my field (being a “homosexual activist” and “avowed lesbian” doesn’t actually pay anything). So if anyone needs a good graphic designer 😉
In an aside, does anyone else find it ironic that the most crazy, manipulative, abusive and critical letters I’ve received are from Christians who are saddened that I “got bitter at the church and Christians” because I had some “bad experiences” and that’s why I’m ex-ex-gay now? 🙂 Hey, a girl’s gotta keep a sense of humor in all of this.
It’s difficult having sudden experts on my life, and while I can understand where it comes from (I just posted about this issue the other day), it still is frustrating. I guess the straw pile on the camel is reaching pretty precarious heights about now.
My point about Janelle was not to call into question her work and whether she’s a good therapist or not, but to say that NARTH has had articles from her on their site, and they have had her speak at their conferences on more than one occasion. So they clearly affiliate with her and find her work useful. I was making a point that if they do, they should not be so quick to make a distinction between the success of faith-based reparative therapy and non-faith-based and between themselves and Exodus.
When I get more time I will read your post in entirety (sp?) Anyhow – I don’t think you need her counseling but I think anyone could benefit from her insight.
Just so you know, I am ex gay and still bitter with the church.
And in no way did I mean to offend you. You sound like an open, honest person just doing what the rest of us are doing – trying to make our way in this world.
I’m tired tonight and if it is okay will respond more fully in the next day or so.
According to Elizabeth Moberly, Dr. Nicolosi is a plagiarist. *She* was the one who developed the entire “reparative therapy” model. Check the history.
And, no I do not personally know Moberly, but have had conversation with a friend of hers who goes way back into the annals of ex-gay ministry history.
Moberly is upset that the church does not stand up for her on this. And any chronological investigation, does indeed show that she predates Nicolosi for development of this theory.
This in and of itself should be bothersome; that Nicolosi freely takes credit for work that he did not originate nor for that matter truly develop — simply expanded upon.
Christine, I think your post on this is spot on. I’ve lived in that house of cards myself and it’s a very difficult and exhausting place to be. So many of us feel our faith, our entire world view, is called into question just because another human being has taken a slightly different path and has the audacity to believe they made the right choice. That kind of uncertainty is a harsh task master and not at all like what I see of the joy, security and peace presented in scripture.
As I read the stories of gay Christians, particularly ex-gay survivors, I can’t escape the conclusion that many, many of them are the most self-examined, spiritually aware, scripturally learned individuals in the church today. We have definitely worked out our salvation with fear and trembling, and it is precious to us. Remember that when you get the next flood of “well intentioned” hate mail.
Twighlight,
I’ve been thinking the same thing with respect to Elizabeth Moberly. I certainly seem to remember she had reparative therapy down pat 17 years ago. It would seem she must have started much earlier on the theory and practice. She was quite the darling to ex-gay ministries back then I believe. Michael Bussee could probably add to that thought and perhaps we will investigate further.
And Nicolosi’s Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic isn’t a faith-based ministry? His motivation isn’t just exactly that? Hypocrite. Nicolosi founded the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in 1980 in order to provide Catholic-based counseling.
It is to the media’s lasting embarrassment that they don’t avail themselves of the many experts NARTH has available who could explain the effectiveness of NARTH’s approach. Dr. Joseph Berger, for example, could do a fine job on Montel advocating the ridicule of gender variant children. Oh. Um… well, Dr. Gerald Schoenewolf could go on The View to talk about the benefits of slavery. Oh yeah… well, Dr. Sander Breiner could always go on CNN and explain how tolerance education causes brain damage. Yikes… hmm… I know! Nicolosi himself could go on Dateline NBC and make jokes about dropping bab…
On second thought, maybe they should be glad they aren’t in the media spotlight so much.
It really isn’t possible for Nicolosi or anyone else to argue that secular reparative therapy is more effective than religiously based reparative therapy. First, they need to demonstrate that reparative therapy in any form actually changes sexual orientation. Since there is no convincing evidence that any therapeutic model exists that can change a person’s sexual orientation, arguing that a secular approach is more effective than a religious approach is silly.
David Roberts is right. Nicolosi must have “a considierable ego” to make the statement that reparative therapy is the approach HE “developed more than two decades ago.” Really?
I remember that Elizabeth Moberly boldly took full credit for develping it back in the early 1990’s. In the documentary “One Nation Under God”, she says “reparative therapy is the name for the new therapy for homosexuals which I have pioneered”. And, of course, she ripped of her theory from her predessors…
(By the way, does anyone know what happened to Moberly? Neither EXODUS nor NARTH mention her anymore and she used to be all that and a bag of chips…)
As for her claim that SHE invented it, her theories were hardly “new”. As far back as 1940, American psychoanalyst Sandor Rado and his followers argued argued that homosexuality was caused by unhealthy parental relations resulting in feelings of anxiety toward heterosexuality. And, long before I heard of Nicolosi or NARTH, during my high chool years I was reading: Lawrence Hatterer’s Changing Homosexuality In The Male (McGraw-Hill, 1970), William Aaron’s Straight (Double Day, 1972), and Irving Beiber’s (1962) Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study.
So, how can either Ncolosi or Moberly take credit? And, is it any wonder why so many of us don’t trust a THING that comes out of the ex-gay movement?
Actually, we should all take credit for figuring out our lives.
I doubt Nicolosi would want to be in a media forum where another point of view would be given equal time.
Especially if it’s another straight person who confronts him. Nicolosi was very condescending to Wayne on Sean Hannity’s show. If a gay person is talking, it’s as if the gay person isn’t fit to be an expert and they are simply unaware of what they really are.
However, if a straight person, not impressed by Nicolosi and Co…who knows what questions to ask to reveal his own ineptitude, he will do just what he did to that CNN interviewer. He won’t talk to you.
I had that experience myself. In a court of law, confronted with a class action, he won’t be able to act like that.
He’s a wuss…and arrogant wuss.
And neither he, not the other so called doctors…nor any of his graduates who also don’t stand up to serious scrutiny, don’t move me at all.
I’m seeing cowardice and retreat…and for a good reason.
They SHOULD fear the real truth when it rolls right up on them, because it’s coming back to bite them.
Nicolosi should realize that a ‘real reparative therapist’ telling his story isn’t enough because that person has a vested interest in promoting reparative therapy. If Nicolosi really wants to convince the American people that his therapy works, then one of his success stories should be interviewed as well.
Wasn’t Moberly British, Cambridge? Everyone knows it’s not a proper theory until a red-blooded American champions it and makes money off of the pain and suffering it causes!
Michael Bussee asks what happened to Elizabeth Moberly.
The last news of her that I can find on the internet was from the stub on an article (for ‘First Things’) written in 1997:
“Elizabeth Moberly is retired from ministry to homosexuals as Director of Psychosexual Education and Therapy for BCM International. She is the author of Psychogenesis and Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. Dr. Moberly is currently working full-time in cancer research.”
I too would like to know what happened to her. Considering her small output on the subject (two books in the early ’80s, of 111 and 56 pages, plus a handful of articles) she had an enormous impact on the growth of the ex-gay ministries – perhaps because from her Christian background, she was saying just what they wanted to hear.
Her views certainly deeply influenced the two UK ministries I was most involved with, and I spent fifteen years of my life trying to follow the “reparative” guidelines she set out.
I only delved deeper into her credentials when I finally accepted that (like the vast majority alongside me in the ministries) I wasn’t going to change sexuality.
The most revealing item I found on her at that time was from former ex-gay leader Jeffry Ford who met Moberly. He noted:
When asked how many clients she had treated, she admitted she had seen none. When asked about her “research” she honestly reported she had done no new research. Elizabeth was a philosopher more than a psychologist. Her challenge at the time was for “ex-gay” ministries to take her unsupported theory and implement it. And implement it we did!”
I am still somewhat astounded that, despite my scientific background, I put so much faith in such meagre evidence for so long. I guess my Christian enculturing had given me such a phobia of anything gay, that I was prepared to grasp at any straws which suggested a way out.
In retrospect, I’m one of the guinea pigs who her theories were tested out on. Seeing the compounded results of that testing in hundreds of other people’s lives as well as my own, and the frustration it has caused, I think it is fair to say that her theories need to be swiftly consigned to ‘failed’ pile, where they belong. It was a Christian attempt to find an answer for something which I no longer consider a problem.
It looks like Elizabeth no longer wants to appear publically to defend her corner. Perhaps that says all that needs to be said.
PW commented: “If Nicolosi really wants to convince the American people that his therapy works, then one of his success stories should be interviewed as well.”
It would take more than one of his success stories to do the convincing. If Nicolosi wants respect as a scientist and therapist, he should do what others in any scientific field must do — present EVIDENCE, in the form of a well-thougt-out, well-designed and well-conducted scientific STUDY. Why should reparative therapists be trusted based only on what they BELIEVE to be true? Everyone else has to prove it.
Michael, you make an important point. The actual methodology and techniques are not put before the public. We’re seeing these people like Nicolosi in interview, same for Moberly at one time. Their videos are without alternate or challenging questions or subjects.
Nicolosi’s book, “How To Prevent Homosexuality in Your Child”, presents a lot of problems right away.
Children tend to be malleable, and you’d have to follow your test cases for years before making a determination on the results.
So one would first think he’s done all this already to prove his claims are true and efficacious.
And the book came out about five years ago, and I haven’t heard that he’s followed up with a survey of who used his book and to what effect.
You’re right Michael, believing what’s true, doesn’t make it so.
And considering what he’s messing with, he should be held HIGHLY accountable.
Very.
As for their concerns about image…their sow’s ear of a work ethic, cannot be made into a silk purse. No matter how much PR or media payola they put out.
I wonder, maybe a gay person who is trained in statistical research and methodology should define a research (specifically) that should be conducted by a group such as NARTH or other therapist or whatever that would be acceptable as definitive information about people who go through therapy for homosexuality and want to change.
Does anyone know of such a person?? That would be great.
Mary,
The burden is on the reparative therapists to show that their methods are efficacious. The same applies to the religious groups. They don’t appear the least bit interested in following their patients over time and presenting the results of their practice in peer reviewed psychiatric journals.
A gay person who is interested in studying the efficacy or lack of efficacy of ex-gay therapy would never be given access to the subjects of the therapists or religious groups. If Love In Action or Nicolosi were to offer to allow a gay or otherwise skeptical psychatric or psychology grad student to follow all of their clients/patients for several years to independantly determine whether their practices actually converted people from gay to straight, they would be overwhelmed by the response from researchers.
They haven’t done it after all these years, despite the fact that they claim to be effective, but reputable scientists and the general public don’t believe them. If they really were effective, they would jump at the opportunity to prove themselves. The fact that they haven’t done so can only be seen as a public admission that they know that what they are doing doesn’t work. They only continue to ex-gay therapy/ministry for political and religious reasons.
Really?
That is why someone should design a study, define the the study subjects, define what success means.
It seems to me that every time a study is produced someone knocks it down for some reason. Granted. Okay so if both sides feel strongly about their work then (just like when we were kids and our parents made two squabbling siblings work together) then have one group design a test for the other.
A person can quib about why it won’t work or to whom the onus belongs – but it would move us all further along the truth line than anything we have seen so far.
In addition, perhaps a blog can be created to discuss the design of this study where the public and everyone can watch and put in their two cents worth.
As I see it, our biggest problem is in defining the study group and finding those individuals. The other problem is that the gay community and the “ex gay” community define sexuality and therapuetic success differently. Maybe because those two definitions really are different for the two groups???
So perhaps we all need to agree on what sexuality means??
Can we start here??
BTW, I am ex gay.
Out of curiosity Mary, what does “ex-gay” mean to you? It seems that different individuals and groups define the term differently. For some people they’re ex-gay if they’re celibate. For others, marriage to the opposite sex after forming homosexual relationships. Some claim to have absolutely no same sex attractions, some claim that they’re severely reduced, some describe it as a struggle daily. So out of curiosity do you fit into one of these categories? More than one? Would you describe it entirely differently?
Ex gay for Mary: attractions to the opposite sex, seeking relationship, no physical attraction to women ( as in no longer seeing women as potential partners), was gay all the way at one time.
I don’t lust after men but I never really lusted after women (just my make-up). Of course, sometimes we all lust. I do notice an attractive man or a man with definite relationship potential. When I see attractive women my response is more in the line of “Wow, she really takes care of herself, or dresses nicely or has an attractive personality. And is my butt like her size or bigger, would you say?”
A few years ago, I did have some struggles and felt uncomfortable. I was lonely, not dating at the time, never sought counseling for why I had been gay. There was a young woman at my coffe house who had a really cool tatoo on her arm. (yeah, I know great decision making and selection process) I was not really attracted to her as much as I was thinking about the old days – which had it’s ups and downs – like anything else – and I was caught up in daydreaming. But I knew it was not the direction I wanted my life to go in.
How I left gayhood: I was sitting in a group of women – all lesbians – thinking, “I wish I could tell them that I wanted to date men but I am afraid they will laugh at me” That stayed on the back burner for a couple of more years and then I just decided that I wasn’t gay! Odd. Can you imagine my fear of having to tell my mother who marched in the parades with me and who on her own joined PFLAG and sat on panels with me??? Argh!
Background: Raised liberal RC. Consider myself Catholic by tradition not faith. After leaving gayhood – about 3 or 4 years I became a Christian.
So it was like coming out in the reverse.
Hmmm… definitely an interesting response, thank you for that Mary. Just to clarify though, is it that you felt you were never really attracted to women, or that you wanted to try dating men? I only ask because using conventional definitions as I understand them if you were never attracted to women in the first place would you consider yourself gay?
I can certainly understand deep confusion over sexuality issues though. In my case though I never identified as ex-gay I certainly wasn’t eager or quick to identify as gay or to do anything about it for a while once I did realize. Ironically I was worried about exactly what you seem to be describing, that I might have been wrong, because afterall, I “couldn’t” be gay, I must be straight. But in my case I wasn’t straight and wouldn’t remotely identify as such despite my early protestations to myself (which went something like “ok, I’m not really gay, I’m not really gay… oh, he’s cute. Ok, its just one cute guy, I’m not really gay, I’m not really gay, oh he’s cute too. Ok, its just 2 guys its just, oh he’s…”).
In any case, I respect your right to self identify and I hope that you remain satisfied with your life and your decision, I truly wish you well.
A gay person who is interested in studying the efficacy or lack of efficacy of ex-gay therapy would never be given access to the subjects of the therapists or religious groups. If Love In Action or Nicolosi were to offer to allow a gay or otherwise skeptical psychatric or psychology grad student to follow all of their clients/patients for several years to independantly determine whether their practices actually converted people from gay to straight, they would be overwhelmed by the response from researchers.
John, actually there was one person given access to an ex-gay ministry. Tanya Erzen was given expansive access to New Hope, Frank Worthen’s group in Northern California. She wrote the book Straight to Jesus as a result of her observations, which I highly recommend.
I think it would be fair to say that Erzen was complementary (or at least fair) to the persons involved, many of whom became friends. She was not impressed with the efficacy of the ministry.
While that isn’t quite what Mary is proposing, it’s about the closest that has occured
Mary,
I’m sure you know that the vast majority of people will not equate “physical attraction” with “seeing as a potential partner” or even “attractive” with “relationship potential”.
For example, I don’t see Keanu Reeves as being a potential partner or having relationship potential. But I do think he’s darn cute. 🙂
The language with all this stuff is so confusing. We all use the same words but they never seem to mean the same thing to gay and ex-gay people.
Mary,
If a researcher cannot talk to the participants in Love In Action or the participants in any other ex-gay program, then no study can take place. Love In Action would have to agree to the study before any work can be done. This isn’t about both side being equally at fault for the lack of information.
You said that the biggest problem would be defining the study group and identifying the individuals. That is simply not true. The ex-gay side knows who the people are who have participated in their programs. Outside researchers, short of illegal break-ins like Watergate, do not have access to client lists. Outside researchers would also have ethical reasons that would prevent them from creating their own reparative therapy programs just to see if they could generate any conversions to heterosexuality. I am sure that many outside researchers are interested, but ex-gay programs and therapists have not allowed the research to occur, because they are not interesed in the results.
You said that every time there is a study, someone knocks it down. I am not aware of any prospective longitudinal study of participants in an ex-gay program. As far as I know, this information has never been presented in order to be knocked down.
Exodus and the ex-gay groups have already set the standard for success publicly as the conversion from homosexuality to heterosexuality. That is what they are trying to convince the public, so that is the standard that they should be held to. Reporting the group with partial success (primarily homosexual orientation with some heterosexual attraction) would also be interesting, but I doubt that Exodus would be the least bit interested in declaring bisexuality a success. In fact, they might even have a dimmer view of bisexuality than homosexuality. I am also sure that it wouldn’t be much of a selling point to heterosexual Evangelical parents of gay participants in their programs.
You also said that the gay and ex-gay community define sexuality differently. The problem isn’t due to definitions, it is due to honesty. Ex-gay groups will declare that someone is not gay/homosexual even though that person is still attracted to members of the same sex. That is called teling a lie. Ethical researchers would be unwilling to go along with calling these people no longer gay/homosexual, so that ex-gay groups could count the person as a successful conversion.
Any study of all the people who approach these programs with the intent of changing their orientation would likely result in a much less than 1% success rate. The programs already know this. They would derive no benefit from public scientific confirmation of their lack of success.
Mary said:
A statement like that leads me to question the nature of your experience, or at the very least it suggests something else is going on there. Even the most positive and aggressive statements from those involved in ex-gay organizations such as Exodus or Narth would pale next to what you describe. I can’t image even they would suggest that someone order their lives with that kind of expectation.
If you are happy, more power to you, but in light of everything else we know, I can’t in good conscience give a lot of weight to this. As an aside, could you not have found a less flippant phrase than “how I left gayhood”?
Timothy,
I am aware of Tanya Ezren’s book. She focused on the participants primarily while they were still in the live in program. I was actually thinking about a much longer observation period with much larger numbers and some statistical analysis. That being said, Ezren didn’t report much in the way of heterosexual conversion.
Statements like Mary’s and Rev. Daniels’ – statements that present an ‘easy’ exit from gaydom a la “i just decided not to be gay!” are statements that I cannot fathom applying to the majority of those who identify as being exclusively same-sex attracted. Sexuality is more complex than NARTH and Exodus will ever admit. Daniels was propositioned by an older man when he was a kid, and somehow that equates to being tempted with homosexuality (despite the fact that Daniels did not once mention struggling with any attraction to other boys his age at that time) and by rejecting the man’s abuse, he “decided to be straight.” Some women date other women, then date men for a while, then date women again. I’ve known several of these women- many find happiness is a man for the rest of their lives, many find it in a woman. But since their sexuality is complex (“bisexual,” “polysexual”…) they can APPEAR to be conciously changing their preference through willpower alone. Maybe they are simply “going with the flow.” Many get lost trying to find their sexual identity, but that’s because they try to fit into neat little categories rather than follow their hearts and feelings. As a result, many arrive to conclusions (i’m 100% gay! or I’m 100% straight!) that probably do not apply to them. I’m very thankful that when I came out as same-sex attracted as a young teen in high school, I had all the support of my friends, family, and even community. i wish everybody could have this kind of safety in their lives.
Mary,
What surprises/confuses me most about your story (and it’s awesome you were able to figure all this out sans the expense, time, and potential risk of bad therapy experiences) is that you have alluded to therapy situations and experiences in comments here and at Dr. T’s site. In particular, you stated that you’d never experienced anything like what I described in Part II of my series, when in reality it sounds like you never experienced ex-gay therapy of any sort. Can you clarify this for me? I’m just really curious now as to exactly where you’re coming from in all this. Some of your previous statements just seem inconsistent and possibly misleading in light of what you described above.
I think we need to make a major distinction between people like Reverend Daniels, Stephen Bennett, Alan Chambers, etc, in other words groups of people that represent ORGANIZATIONS and individuals like Mary who perceive a benefit from reparative therapy. Although I don’t agree with reparative therapy as a practice, I certainly have nothing against individuals who share that they had a positive experience from the practice, or even those that recommend it to others.
I do however have major issues with groups and individuals who represent organizations as part of a larger movement that doesn’t stop at individually promoting there particular therapies (by itself such advocacy isn’t necessarily harmful) but rather when they actively campaign against the rights of individuals based solely on a quality they have moral disagreement with, and seek to divide families as Stephen Bennett does here (scroll down to the 11/23 posting) where he says:
THAT is when someone crosses the line, not an individual that feels they’ve found peace, even if its a peace I don’t quite understand and would not work well for me as a happy and content gay man.
There is a major difference between visual sexual attraction (VSA) and physiological sexual attraction. I wish I had documented the source of the book where I found the description of physiological sexual attraction (PSA) as related solely to determining one’s sexual orientation. But, I do vaguely remember that either a psychiatrist or a PhD psychologist who specialized in sexuality issues related to sexual orientation used those 3 words in his writing.
When one’s body experiences a PSA, the person does not even have to be thinking about sex nor the person toward whom the PSA is directed. Personal academic-style research and even talking to openly gay men who were blind have verified that vision is not required either to experience a PSA.
When I experience a PSA, I have to be almost close enough to smell the other guy for that to happen and the feeling is first registered in the area of my prostate. But, the PSA felt sometimes is contrary to the other person being a VSA type for me. In those cases, I have said to myself, “Him, no way! Ya’ gotta be kiddin’. Ain’t gonna go there.”
Because of growing up around farmers, ranchers, cowboys and construction workers my VSA preferences lean in that direction. While I did not understand it at the time, when I was 12 going on 13, I experienced a PSA directed toward a real working cowboy who was the son of neighbor rancher but did not work for his father usually. That did have an effect on me and while I still did things with boys my age, I became strongly interested in older men who were built like that slim cowboy after that experience. Oh, one of them was only 17 but to a 13 year old the next summer, he was a man.
Sexual lust requires the use of the eyes and thoughts in the brain. And that’s what the “ex-gay” experts think is sexual orientation attractions.
Hmm. Hi Pam.
First of all, to anyone I may have offended with the words I used – it was not intentional – sometimes the rights words that offend no one just cannot be found.
Pam, yes I left homosexuality long before ever walking into a therapy session. Long before I ever became a christian or believer as some would say.
I cannot explain everything – I just knew that being gay was not for me. ( If that sounds flippant to someone, anyone – then I am sorry. Afterall, I am talking about myelf and not anyone else.) It was hard to make the move because of the intimidation (once gay always gay – or you’re born that way mentality) that pervades the gay community. I lost a lot of friends because of my wanting to be who I want to be. I felt like I had betrayed my community – and they made me feel that way, too. Still do.
As far as therapy goes – I do go to a christian therapist because I know full well that if you go to a regular therapist, then they are going to try and get you to accept your homosexuality. But it wasn’t me. And no matter how I try – people just don’t seem to want to hear that. At that time, I thought I was just temporarily confused and (it – meaning homosexuality- no longer fit my faith system ) I wanted support for my being straight and moving my life in that direction not more of the same “towing the PC line” but someone who would let me direct me and help me get to where I wanted to get to.
Though I do not follow all the politics of christians or the exagerrated behaviors of christians, I am still a believer and knew that I could find someone on my side – albeit – just a little bit from a christian therapist.
She never performed some voodoo wierd thing, or suggest I masturbate and think about Jesus, or ask me to wear more feminine underwear – I doubt we have ever discussed my underwear – , she never suggested an exorcism, or anything wierd to me.
Once I did tell her about attending a Living Waters program in my city and she supported me. I thought, it’s good to get other ideas and experiences. After about five weeks, I thought the facilitators were whacked, unbalanced and lacked boundaries. I expressed my concern to her and dropped that group but not before letting my concerns be known to the facilitators. To say the least, the husband and wife facilitating team were very, very rude to me. They “pitied” me for my lack of motivation to understand. My therapist told me later that she did not know what to make of my decision – if I was being defensive or hostile, or accurate in my assessment of them – until she met the woman facilitator and thought I had made a good decision.
So, I have been very fortunate to have my counselor. And yes, I treat her like a very valued possession. Definitely a rarity in the world. She is part of a group that comes by referal from my then church. When I called, I requested from the woman answering the phone to be matched with a woman counselor, someone older than myself, and someone with at least 15 years of experience.
When I spoke with the to be therapist on the phone, I asked about her experience, her schooling and education. And then I checked her out online and tried to learn as much as I could before our first meeting.
After our first couple of appointments, I started feeling a huge relief. She’s a bona fide therapist with a degree, licensing, experience. There are no marks against her license, from what I can tell she seems like a committed christian (activites, background, career choices etc..), and I remember her question to me – What do want (our first meeting) and my answering “Courage”. More than anything I want courage to be myself.
Sounds kind of strange coming from a gay activist doesn’t it?
In this world, so many people want to belong and fit in somewhere – so do I. Sometimes, it doesn’t work out that way. I have experienced hostility from christians, from gays, from people whom I thought were friends. In the end, I guess we have to keep trying to make friends and bridge gaps in understanding because we are all scared of being alone and misunderstood.
And maybe we all need courage – um with some hope that it will come together someday.
To Kendall,
At one time, you could have tortured me and I would not have said anything remotely close to wanting to be with men. I was a devout lesbian with all the accoutrement’s – a truck, a cat, a double axe, a softball glove and team, etc…
To David,
I use the word gayhood – not to hurt or offend – but just to use something other than lifestyle, SSA acting out, etc… as those are terms that I know offend people. I used gayhood like womanhood. Sorry, truly.
As far as the epectations, let me clarify – I will always remember what it is like to be with a woman, to feel that comfort and natural feeling that I once felt. And I am grateful for the strong women who have been in my life. I can imagine there will be times when I question my sexuality again or may feel strong feelings towards another woman – but I have a different perpsective on what that meant in my past and what it means now. I will probably act differently when those feelings arise.
To Emily,
A realization, is far different from working on my thoughts, actions, desires, expectations of self, faith system etc…
Nothing about this journey has been easy. For the first years, I just disqualified myself from dating knowing that I had to get used to the idea of dating men. I did not have to prove to myself or anyone that dating men or sleeping with men made me more straight or less gay. ( God, I thank my parents for instilling in my heart and soul the guts to obstinate in the face of ridicule). To be honest, my desire to be with men and my fear of men seemed like strange bedfellows to me. I struggled with the forming idea of not being gay. I struggled to understand and be gentle with myself as my emotions and thoughts would go gyrating in every way. So, no it isn’t easy to just walk away. So far this has been about a ten year journey.
And yes, I came out in high school. My friends, family and community supported me. My parents respected me and treated me just the same as the other kids. My girlfrineds were always invited etc, etc… My second coming out was much more difficult since the common thought of today is that you are born gay.
I don’t know – as a child I was a tomboy, loved sports and still do, I always wanted to be my girlfriend’s boyfriend’s. And yes, I always felt different.
Life is strange.
To Ex Gay Watch,
My reason for coming here is to:
1. Be supportive of those who are gay.
2. Demonstrate that not all ex gay christians are anti-gay mongers with a politcal agenda or financial backing
3. Bridge the gap for the next generation of folks should they have to endure pressure from anyone
4. Get wrong doers exposed and righteous people credit
5. Share my story – someone else might have it too (who knows?)
Kendall said:
As I said, if someone is content with how they have best chosen to live their lives, more power to them. We have always said we respect an individual’s choice to do as they see fit (though we want them to be fully informed), but that is distinctly different from imparting any unwarranted validity to the idea that one can expect to change their orientation – or even should.
My personal view is that the time and effort would be much more wisely spent helping a person integrate who they are with what they believe.
Mary said:
I’m trying to stay with you here Mary but it’s not easy. For instance, from the way you have described your life, you are about my age (44) or a bit older, and you’ve already said you went to a private Christian high school. So even if you waited until your senior year, we have you coming out and proud at a parochial school in the late 1970s. That is indeed an unusual event.
Can you show me where that is written?? Perhaps you misread?
I did not go to a chritian high school.
oops, christian.
Mary said:
My mistake then, I thought you had written somewhere that you went to a Catholic High School. So when did you graduate? Teens around here (Florida) didn’t dare come out on purpose until the early 90s, and even then it was shaky (even now, really). Your experience sounds pretty smooth.
It’s never smooth – really. Everyone wants you to be what they want you to be. The fundamentalist christians were an issue in my day, too.
Believe me David, I am thankful most days.
For the sake of my family I don’t like to give out specifics like where, who, when. Sorry.
It is impossible to leave a sexual orientation which you did not have in the first place. One can cease doing sexual activity with those of the same gender which one had been doing for various reasons. Being sexually confused because one has been sexually molested has no connection with sexual orientation.
I have Mic Hunter’s book, Abused Boys: The Neglected Victims of Sexual Abuse New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1990. Hunter’s book is a great resource for the discussion of sexual abuse of boys who were made to feel that the were “gay.” Some of the men who tell their stories were sexually abused by women.
Another good book is by Mike Lew, Victims No Longer: Men Recovering from Incest and Other Sexual abuse. New York : Harper Collins, 1990. Ellen Bass wrote the forward for the book. Bass is a resource person for women who were abused as girls. I found out about her from Judy, my first therapist in June 1993.
I belong to the Yahoo Group, Courageous Men. Sam, the moderator of the group is openly gay. But, at least half of the members are definitely not homosexual, although some are bisexual. It takes a courageous man to admit to anyone that he was sexually abused as a child, especially to another man, even a male therapist. Both Lew’s and Hunter’s books are recommended reading for group members.
When a boy tells another man or his father that he was sexually abused by a woman, he is told that he should be proud that a “real” woman was sexually attracted to him. But, the boy actually felt ashamed that he did not feel right when the woman abused him and he was confused by those feelings and that made him think that he must be “gay.”
Mary, the only people here who know your email address are the moderators of this Blog forum. So, why should you be afraid of your family members even finding out what you are posting here?
While you might feel that you are being honest in what you are posting, you seem to be attempting to leave out details because those who are really ex-ex-gays and ex-ex-lesbians because those of us who are exclusively homosexual in our sexual orientation would not understand.
But, some of what you are writing reminds me of what certain leaders of various ex-gay ministries write about homosexuals when they, the leaders, were never homosexual in they first place, they never even had sexual activity with members of their own gender.
Some in this group who might know Bob Davies personally probably would disagree with what I know about him by reading his co-authored book, Coming Out Of Homosexuality : New Freedom For Men And Women. From what Davies wrote about himself in the book and the fact that as a graduate Education student who took a course called “Literary Criticism of English Literature,” I would say that Davies has always been a heterosexual. Davies was the CEO of Exodus when Paulk was exposed in Sept. 2000.
I have notes which I wrote while reading the book stored away in another place; but, I will write some things I remember. While Lori Rentzel is “co-author,” I feel that it was basically Davies’ own biography.
When Davies writes about being in early puberty, he states that he saw some pictures of naked men and that sexually aroused him, making him homosexual. But, when he writes about his high school years, he claims that he never felt that he was different from his high school buddies who talked about girls.
The odd thing here is that when Davies was in his 20s, he admitted to guys that he was addicted to heterosexual pornography. When did that start? Well, he wrote when he was going through puberty, he saw some pictures of naked women.
Using my own terminology here, Davies the same as admits that he never actually experienced a physiological sexual attraction towards another member of the same gender in person.
When boys are in the beginning stages of puberty, they can be sexually aroused at hearing or seeing the word sex. Besides, boys that age can have erections in the most embarrasing places. I know, I have had them in church and one of those times, I was glad my parents were not there when some ignorant Charismatic preacher in a service in an office building told a couple of people who where assisting him in picking out people to pray for to bring me up to the front. I didn’t have whatever it was that he thought I had. And when he told them to bring me forward, he couldn’t see the rise in my Levi’s anyway. I certainly was not thinking about sex at that time.
Y’all neeeeeeeeeed to stop being so RELIGIOUS!!! Religion condemns and separates ppl. Jesus was never religious. He taught us to be spiritual. If most of us were being spiritual then we wudn’t be wasting time dwelling on homosexuality. We need to stop accepting ppl’s dirty lifestyles yes, but we also need to stop condemning ppl for being gay. We all know homosexuality is wrong. Gay ppl know that too. But satan is deceptive and messes up ppl’s lives and mind-making them think that they were born homosexuals.no-one is born homosexual. Satan targets ppl and messes up thier minds. Even when they are delivered by God from homosexuality, satan still comes back and convinces them and the whole world that they’re still gay. STOP FIGHTING AGAINST GAY PPL… FIGHT AGAINST THE AUTHOR OF HOMOSEXUALITY…The Devil.
When we learn to fight spiritual warfares…we wud have no time to be condemning ppl. Gay ppl are normal ppl. Just like everyone they have a struggle- a major stubbling block in their lives- their struggle is homosexuality, some ppl struggle with heterosexual fornication and others with stealing. THEY”RE ALL SINS…instituted by that nasty old deceiver the devil and his lil’ nasty demon frenz…WAKE UP AND TARGET SPIRITUAL BATTLES.
WHO THE SON SETS FREE IS FREE INDEED and ONLY JESUS has the authority to deliver ppl. Let us pray for all the ppl who have been affected by homosexuality and show them that we care…just like Jesus cared.. instead of treating them like they’re outcasts.
WE NEED TRUE CHRISTIAN LOVE…which is unself-righteous love… Which of you have never sinned?…
Well if you’ve sinned SHUT UP!!! and deal with your problems then tackle satan and his devices on innocent ppl. HE”S THE REASON FOR ALL THIS HOMOSEXUAL FOOLISHNESS.. PPL WAKE UPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!
Gay ppl are gay not becuz they are born they. They’re not.
Mary said: “It seems to me that every time a study is produced someone knocks it down for some reason.”
Yes, Mary, and that “reason” is because the study is typically so flawed in its design that it would not pass an introductory, Junior college research design class homework assignment.
Back to developing a study.
Who would qualify as a good subject to being with??
Mary,
I have already answered your question. Not sure why you are ignoring that
Mary: Before picking a subject, they would need to understand the scientic method of inquiry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Also, Mary, if you are sincere (and I am not saying you are not) about your desires to:
“1. Be supportive of those who are gay. 2. Demonstrate that not all ex gay christians are anti-gay mongers with a politcal agenda or financial backing”, then are you willing to clearly denounce NARTH and EXODUS for using Cameron’s anti-gay, hate-mongering in support of their organizational agendas?
How about EXODUS’s own political agenda? Focus on the Family? How far are you willing to go?
Mary, I certainly appreciate your contribution here. Most often it’s been hard to either understand or trust what a person DOES mean by identifying as ex gay.
And then I tend to read between the lines when background is presented. I dunno, I don’t want to contradict another person’s experience,
But I’m confused too.
I’m thinking, that at this phase of your life…perhaps you might be relationship EXHAUSTED and retreated someone to get more of a grip on your own self fulfillment.
Which to those ministries invested in you not being gay, is to be celibate until the right man comes along…no matter if he NEVER does.
I am a straight woman, navigating the dating pool for the first time in nearly two decades. I am in my late forties, and the pickings are small for us….regardless of if we’re gay or not.
And surely happiness is a fair goal, I’m looking for it too, from other than a relationship.
I know that women who choose to be child free, or never marry…are as much of a project for a church community as the orientation of someone gay.
All of which is busybody work, and can’t really work to help an individual find their own levels.
Women, especially get the busybody/nanny treatment.
At any rate, I appreciate you working with us here, to understand you.
IMHO…we seem to both be on a continuum of what a mature woman, who has seen a lot of life will inevitably go through. Especially if she’s single again, gay or not.
I know though, that I am VERY suspicious and don’t trust those unaccepting church communities, that never respected or knew your needs as a lesbian, don’t want you to have them or encourage you to deny or ignore them.
I think that’s an unfair burden at best. A nanny assumption that gay adults should relinquish to the church and thus have the status of a child.
“We know best what’s best for you’, attitude, so to speak.
I wish you well, dear. Don’t get me wrong.
But it’s hard to be a woman OR gay in religious societies, period.
oops, typo
I meant to say retreated SOMEWHERE…
sorry.
Mary,
I hesitate to write this because I fear it will appear like piling-on. Please know that I am happy you participate here and am glad for your perspective. I am not trying to challenge you or your life. Nor do I have some litmus test about your idealogies before I will believe you.
But I would, if you are willing, like to clarify some confusion i still have about your testimony as presented here so that I can better understand what your are saying.
I am still uncertain whether your therapy was in relation to your sexual orientation. On the one hand it seems that you simply decided that you are not gay, and on the other it seems that you have been in therapy for 10 years over the issue. Also, you went to Living Waters AFTER you had your instantaneous reorientation.
Or am I misunderstanding the instant nature of the long journey.
And I’m confused about what sex you are sexually attracted to. You are “attracted” to men but this seems to me to be more of a decision – ie. you are attracted to the idea of being with a man or are attracted to the type of man he is and how he would be in a relationship. But I don’t know if you are attracted to him sexually. Some of your comments suggest you have little sexual attraction at all. I’m just not certain.
I’m not trying to make this all about you. I just want to understand when you talk about your life what it is that you are saying.
As I have said in the past, language can be confusing when we are all using the same words but giving them different meanings. And the gay culture and the ex-gay culture have almost opposite definitions to the same words so I don’t know which meaning you are using some times.
Thanks and I hope this didn’t come across as accusatory or hostile.
Mary, I hate to pile on here, it seems rather unfair in a way, I think you are sincere in your beliefs and about your good intentions, but have another question if you don’t mind somewhat related to the first I asked. Why did you decide being gay “wasn’t for” you? You stated that you became a Christian 3 years after you came to that conclusion, you also stated that you received quite a bit of flak for your decision, that it was a painful experience for you to attempt your transition.
Was it because you experienced discrimination as a lesbian? (You only mentioned the discrimination you faced as an ex-gay, nothing about anti-gay actions by people) Was it from a moral sense that it was wrong? Did you have a bad break up? Some other reason?
Your experience seems very similar, and yet very different than the patently formulaic stories put forth by various ex-gay groups. Perhaps the only element I found hitting a major “wrong” note with me was your sense that you had a “fear of men” which I believe is a common element listed by ex-gay groups as part of their belief as to the cause of their sexuality. I’m not here to judge your experience, but I will say I do not believe any studies that follow proper methodolgy on lesbians have indicated that is a significant cause or common element among lesbians. Nor do I think if you wore a dress, dressed up, and owned a Honda and a Labrador Retriever that it would indicate anything either way about your sexuality, just like your cat said nothing about it.
I haven’t even read all the entries in this very long blog. Just chiming in at this late point in reference to one of the earliest exchanges between Christine and Mary.
I actually did receive counseling from Janelle Hallman at Where Grace Abounds in Denver about 1993. I believe she was basically training at that time–the counseling was as a part of a team with a more experienced WGA leader. (Steve Armstong? Am I remembering the name correctly?)
Janelle was (and I’m sure still is) a very sweet, well meaning person. And of course, her counseling skills and approach have probably developed quite a bit from that early point. But unless she has changed her approach radically, I will agree with Christine that she should be identified as offering a “faith based” ministry. I don’t mean that as a criticism or slight on what she offers, just as a realistic evaluation of her approach.
The point Christine makes, which I will echo, is that it is hypocritical of Nicolosi to criticize the media for confusing his therapy with “faith based minstries” when people who practice faith based ministries speak at the NARTH conference.
NickC said:
And there I think is the core issue, a basic, pervasive, double-standard, i.e. hypocrisy.
I want to thank everyone for being so polite to me. That is a true pleasure. And in response to the many valid questions and thoughts, the post have been printed out so I can give time and consideration to the inquiries.
As work ( you know – the way I earn a living) has increased a little more this week, I doubt I will be able to respond before this thread moves on. Later, I will provide a word doc and an e-mail where those who are interested can access.
Again, thank you for being so generous.
Mary
Mary, this is an open forum and it isn’t appropriate for you to take questions to you generated here and only offer to answer them privately. Scrutiny is part of the process of keeping things honest. If you do not want to answer, then say that, but please don’t solicit private discussions through us instead.
I find it a strain to believe that mentioning the era in which you graduated, especially to back up one of your own statements, could possibly be a threat to your family. And what family are you talking about?
Again, if you aren’t going to substantiate something, then say so. Please don’t couch your reasons in this kind of nonsense. I still find it hard to believe that you could have come out and proud with such enthusiasm and acceptance (as you described) during high school if you did so in the late 70s or early 80s.
David,
I’m not trying to hide anything or take it to a private forum – I am trying to avoid a very long post that may take time to write.
Thank you for advising me.
I just re-read the tile of this thread. NARTH Concerned About Their Media Image? Hardly. If they truly were concerned, they would publicly disavow Cameron. That they don’t (and won’t) tells you all you need to know.