Aggrieved-relatives group PFOX has launched an exgay billboard on Interstate 64 near Richmond, Va.
The billboard, an enlarged and repurposed version of its 2003 Washington, D.C., subway ad, declares that “Ex-Gays prove that change is possible.”
The billboard’s claim that PFOX seeks “tolerance for all” is curious, given PFOX’s history of activity in favor of discrimination. (Previous XGW coverage of PFOX.)
In a religious-right news article published today, PFOX executive director Regina Griggs is quoted arguing that, because evidence for a biological basis for homosexuality is inconclusive, homosexuality must be entirely a matter of choice.
XGW would like to know the identity, whereabouts and status of the model who posed for the original PFOX ad. Was the model exgay? Is the model still exgay? What is his opinion of the billboard? And who funded the billboard?
A PFOX press release for the billboard does not answer these questions, but it does cast a shadow over the organization’s call for mutual tolerance.
RICHMOND, VIRGINA [sic] – At a time when homosexual activists are seeking special rights, such as “gay marriage,” hate crime laws, adopting children and promoting homosexuality in schools, they are also attacking the freedoms of the ex-gay community.
The press release supports the exclusion of gays from hate crime and adoption laws and from antiviolence programs in public schools. Titled, “PFOX AND EX-GAYS WANT YOUR RESPECT,” the press release continues PFOX’s tradition of demanding tolerance and respect by shouting at the public and promoting discrimination. And it offers no evidence that (unnamed) “homosexual activists” are “attacking the freedoms” of the ex-gay community.
I’m not sure the status of the model is relevant. When we see TV ads for Zoloft or Claratin, we don’t ask if the actor really suffers from depression or allergies. PFOX has put together an ad campaign to sell their cause. Sometimes ex-gay ministries that use stock photos will apply a disclaimer such as FreeToBeMe.com but it’s not a legal necessity or even normal in the advertising world.
Gotta play devil’s advocate once in a while.
Whoa, looks like the PFOX billboard is being run on a LAMAR owned sign, which is the same company that refused to run Bennett’s scissors and paste produced ad.
Who is funding PFOX would be at least as interesting to know as who is funding the billboard.
Regarding whether or not the model is ex-gay, and apropos of Dan’s first comment, I am somewhat reminded of what people used to say about people who would appear in TV commercials in white lab coats recommending this, that and the other brand of over-the-counter drugs: “I’m not a doctor, I just play one on TV.”
I seem to remember PFOX interviewing or profiling the model character from the subway ad on one occasion, but I could be wrong.
Let me correct them if I may…
The evidence is more than conclusive that being gay is biological, and that conversion therapy doesn’t work. The only choice involved, as I see it, is to accept yourself and be happy with things they way they are.
But then, why am I not surprised that they would have it wrong??
This is off-topic, but: How old are you, raj? I only ask because you may not know that that stock joke started because it was a line from an actual ad for…Advil, maybe? I think it was some soap actor who spoke it, but he may have been from, like, St. Elsewhere. It has to be close to 20 years ago.
On the topic at hand, what “freedoms” of ex-gays would it even really be possible to “attack”? I’m not a fan of hate-crimes laws or touchy-feely public school programs, but it’s not as if they invalidate the marriages of ex-gays or assign their adopted children to foster care.
Sean Kinsell | September 24, 2004 10:56 PM
I’m 55. I’ve heard of St. Elsewhere, but never saw it.
I googled the line and apparently it was really spoken by a TV “doctor” who appeared in a commercial https://www.playoneontv.com/dedication.html
actually, it does work. but its all about motivation. you’d be amazed at the power of the mind. im glad there are billboards like that. i cant tell you the tears ive shed when all my life i was told i was born gay… i actually thought it was true. i mean, i didnt want to be gay but couldnt change for the life of me. i went to an exodus conference very sceptical, but hey, im my own proof.
Frank, I disagree that motivation alone is the key.
Many ex-ex-gays have been at least as motivated as you. They changed their behavior, but their attractions never did change. Please reconsider whether it’s necessary to denigrate others’ motivation simply because “change” is working for you at the moment.
I think it might be more helpful if, instead of questioning the willpower of people you don’t know, you told us more about how you have experienced change and what your motivations are.
Other people are capable of speaking for themselves about motivation.
I would like to to a story on this topic. I too saw the billboard in Richmond VA where I live and was Shocked!. I would love to talk with some other key people who may help me complete this story in it entirety.
Tye
earshotent@yahooo.com
Someone mentioned that the programs to help gays become ex-gays don’t make the people available who used to be gay (such as mentors, testifiers, etc)
They don’t tell who they are and don’t introduce you to them. There’s a reason for that. Some gays could try to use it as a dating service. If you can openly admit you’re gay and sit down with an ex-gay and have the ex-gay testify of what their weeknesses were and their vulnerabilities, it can be a recipe for disaster… it’s like the ex-gay would be asking for temptation. I can see how it’d help, but it’s still dangerous, especially when the whole purpose is to engage in sex talk. Jesus prayed “lead us not into temptation.” –Matthew chapter 6
Matthew – here’s the thing – if someone “used to be gay” then they should no longer be gay. They should be straight. That is the meaning (to the real world) of the term “ex-gay” – the ex implying that one is no longer gay.
A straight person would not be tempted into any kind of homosexual behavior simply by talking to a gay person, even if the talk turned to sex.
Therefore, if this would be a problem for a self-described ex-gay person, then they are not truly “ex-gay” – they are still gay, but repressing their homosexuality.
Hi Matthew,
I think Annika makes a good point. Given your point, though, I think many gays would be willing to let a straight person do the interviewing to avoid any sort of temptation.
Annika…
The whole ex-gay movement exists because of the way they twist words. As in Orwell’s world, there are two meanings to all the terms, the obvious meaning that the rest of the world intuits, and the code meaning that is used by the movement. Generally, the code meaning is the opposite of the obvious meaning.
Examples of the real world (RW) vs. ex-gay (XG) meanings:
Sexual Orientation:
RW: the distinction between people based on whether their internal desires, fantasies, and attractions are directed toward the same or the other sex
EG: a self determined identity based on what one decides should, could, or will be the sex of one’s object of desire, fantasy or attraction
Gay:
RW: a description used to identify a person for whom the ODFA (object of their desire, fantasy, or attraction) is of the same sex.
EG: a self established label used to identify a mindset that is accepting of a desire to engage in same sex behavior regardless of ones ODFA.
Change:
RW: a distinction between what was one’s internal ODFA and what is now one’s internal ODFA.
EG: a decision to not be accepting of sexual activity with anyone of the same sex. This may or may not have anything to do with what one internally desires. It may also not be completely in sync with one’s actions. In the EG definition, one can still occasionally engage in same sex activity as long as one feels guilty for it and wishes to no longer do so.
Ex-Gay
RW: someone who no longer has internal desires for someone of the same sex but now desires the opposite sex.
EG: someone who has chosen to no longer identify themselves as gay. This may or may not have any correlation to ODFA (past or present) or to actions (past or present).
In fact, I doubt anyone on this site would disagree with the claims of the ex-gay movement if they were translated into the common vernacular. For example, when the ex-gay movement says “Anyone can change – Anyone can become ex-gay” what they are saying is “Anyone can decide to relabel themselves. Anyone can feel guilty about sex and try to reduce it”, which is obviously true.
The real problem with the ex-gay movement is that they deliberately chose to use existing words and give them opposite meanings. It’s not that what they say isn’t true IN THEIR LEXICON but rather that what they say isn’t true in the obvious and commonly shared meanings of the words.
They know that they are deceiving the public by implying something other than what they mean. And yet they continue it. And that is what makes them dishonest and immoral.
Yup, Timothy. I absolutely know what you mean. I’ve been through the ex-gay movement and am out the other side. I was just trying to make that same point since the post from Matthew played so perfectly right into it…
But you are quite correct and have done a great job in outlining the truth of what everything means in the “real world” versus the world of the ex-gay movement.
I’m always (sadly) amused when ex-gays will describe themselves as ex-gays in one breath, and then with the next talk about how they’re struggling with temptation. And they just don’t get it…