Update: The American Counseling Association confirms that Richard Cohen’s expulsion occurred in May 2002.
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2005
website: www.WayneBesen.com
ANTI-GAY P-FOX PRESIDENT RICHARD COHEN EXPELLED FOR LIFE FROM THE AMERICAN COUNSELING ASSOCIATION
Revealing, Never-Before Seen Document Is a Devastating Blow For Outdated Pseudo-Science That Tries To Turn Gay People Straight, Says Besen
NEW YORK – Author Wayne Besen today released an explosive, never-before seen letter he uncovered from the American Counseling Association that "permanently expelled" reparative therapist Richard Cohen in 2003 for serious ethics violations. The ACA document can be viewed at www.rawprint.com/besen/012504_aca_letter.php.
As the outspoken president of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s ex-gay advisor, Cohen’s expulsion casts a dark shadow over the disreputable practice of trying to change sexual orientation.
"The Right wing should be ashamed for promoting the work of a therapist who has been officially rebuked for egregious ethical lapses," said Wayne Besen, author of Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth. "That Cohen is the best the far right can find in support of their position that gay people can change underscores the quack-like pseudo-science that they rely on. It is time they end the charade and admit that reparative therapy is harmful and ineffective."
According to the ACA’s letter: "Mr. Cohen was found in violation of the following code sections A.1.a; A.1.b; A.5.a; A.6.a; C.3.b, C.3.f, and has not elected to appeal the decision taken by the ACA Ethics Committee within allotted timelines." (Please see below for full explanation of violations)
The letter referred to Cohen’s violations which included inappropriate behavior such as fostering dependent counseling relationships, not promoting the welfare of clients, engaging in actions that sought to meet his personal needs at the expense of clients, exploiting the trust and dependency of clients, unethically soliciting testimonials from clients and promoting products to clients in a manner that is deceptive.
"It is no surprise that Richard Cohen violated the ACA ethics because reparative therapy itself lacks integrity and attempts to meet their agenda’s need, not the needs of client’s," said Joe Kort, psychotherapist and author of 10 Smart Things Gay Men Can Do To Improve Their Lives. "Of particular note is that Cohen’s violations are self-serving as he is accused of violating standard ethics of protecting his client from dual relationships, marketing purposes, and testimonials."
Richard Cohen is the president of P-FOX, a group that recently placed an ex-gay billboard in Virginia (www.pfox.org) and sponsored a controversial ad campaign in Washington DC’s subway system. His website is www.gaytostraight.org and he is a conference instructor for the National Association for the Research and Therapy for Homosexuality (NARTH). Cohen is also the author of "Coming Out Straight", a book in which Dr. Laura Schlessinger wrote the forward.
"With intellect and care, he [Cohen] offers invaluable insight into the reason for same-sex attractions and, for those willing to brave it, he illuminates a challenging journey from isolation," wrote Dr. Laura in Cohen’s book.
Cohen has also been prominently featured on Larry King Live, The Ricki Lake Show, The Salley Jessy Raphael Show and 20/20. The sound bite he often uses on these shows is, "Born gay? No Way!" Reparative therapy is rejected by every mainstream medical and mental health organization in America.
The Rules Violated By Cohen
https://www.counseling.org/Content/NavigationMenu/RESOURCES/ETHICS/ACA_Code_of_Ethics.htm
Section A: The Counseling Relationship
A.1. Client Welfare
a. Primary Responsibility. The primary responsibility of counselors is to respect the dignity and to promote the welfare of clients.
b. Positive Growth and Development. Counselors encourage client growth and development in ways that foster the clients’ interest and welfare; counselors avoid fostering dependent counseling relationships.
A.5. Personal Needs and Values
a. Personal Needs. In the counseling relationship, counselors are aware of the intimacy and responsibilities inherent in the counseling relationship, maintain respect for clients, and avoid actions that seek to meet their personal needs at the expense of clients.
A.6. Dual Relationships
a. Avoid When Possible. Counselors are aware of their influential positions with respect to clients, and they avoid exploiting the trust and dependency of clients. Counselors make every effort to avoid dual relationships with clients that could impair professional judgment or increase the risk of harm to clients. (Examples of such relationships include, but are not limited to, familial, social, financial, business, or close personal relationships with clients.) When a dual relationship cannot be avoided, counselors take appropriate professional precautions such as informed consent, consultation, supervision, and documentation to ensure that judgment is not impaired and no exploitation occurs. (See F.1.b.)
C.3. Advertising and Soliciting Clients
b. Testimonials. Counselors who use testimonials do not solicit them from clients or other persons who, because of their particular circumstances, may be vulnerable to undue influence.
f. Promoting to Those Served. Counselors do not use counseling, teaching, training, or supervisory relationships to promote their products or training events in a manner that is deceptive or would exert undue influence on individuals who may be vulnerable. Counselors may adopt textbooks they have authored for instruction purposes.
Cohen gets my vote for the creepiest of the reparative therapy gurus. He also was key in my becoming an ex-ex-gay. “Coming Out Straight” was just so absurd (especially the icky holding therapy) that it pushed me toward bagging the whole effort. The counselor I was seeing at the time – who told me to read the book but hadn’t actually read it himself – also urged me to move my family to an island off of Washington State to join the Wesleyan Christian Community, ardent practicioners of holding therapy (the nude part did sound fun.) The chapter in Besen’s book on Cohen and the Wesleyan Christian Community was pretty fascinating. Glad I chucked the reparative approach and just came out instead.
Not surprising. His market is desperate people who want to change something that:
a. is not likely to change
b. does not need to be changed
This is a scenario that can easily lead to all sorts of abuses of power.
“b. does not need to be changed”
This is for the individual to decide, Jason, as I’m sure you would agree.
Additional:
I don’t really know much about Cohen, but a lot of these “rules” (except maybe the ones under category C) seem awfully subjective and difficult to quantify OR qualify, thereby leaving the adjudication up to some panel who probably don’t like Cohen’s ideas very much…
I wish Mr. Besen would say things in a less rabid way. His tone can’t be doing ex-ex-gays any favours.
It would be very interesting to know exactly what Cohen did to warrant expulsion from the American Counseling Association. My hope is that the ACA did this because of genuine misconduct and not simply out of reflexive opposition to “reparative therapy.” It is perfectly proper for professional associations to police their own, and it is my suspicion that most reparative therapists are quacks who operate outside of any such standards. On the other hand, if a person wishes to obtain reparative therapy, they should be able to do so, provided that the therapists abides by objective ethical and professional standards.
If the counseling profession is anything like the medical profession, which has a peer disciplinary system and is therefore very reluctant to impose strict punishments on fellow professionals, unless the case is extremely serious, I would have to bet that Cohen is not being lightly tossed from this organization.
As for the rules, something like:
Positive Growth and Development. Counselors encourage client growth and development in ways that foster the clients’ interest and welfare; counselors avoid fostering dependent counseling relationships.
would clearly be violated by a counselor who continued advising a gay client to continue with change “therapy”, even though it was clear that a) change was not happening, and b) the client was experiencing more distress and an increasing inability to handle regular life. Particularly if the counselor were in a position of authority and respect in his/her field, and admitting failure could reduce the counselor’s power.
I certainly can’t speak to Mr. Cohen specifically, but some of the examples Wayne Besen gives in his book would certainly violate this rule.
Also, if Mr. Cohen did merit this expulsion, I would have to believe that violation of the rules happened with multiple patients. That would be the pattern in the medical community, at least – a practitioner has to show a pattern of mistakes for significant action to be taken.
Nathan, while I agree with you that people should have the right to choose treatment, I don’t think that the person performing the treatment is freed from obligations and I would have to say that reparative therapy is at best a moral mine field.
The underling trouble with reparative therapy is the fact that they are tying to “Fix” what does not need to be fixed. Homosexuality in and of itself isn’t going to kill you or do you any great personal harm. Your own emotions about your homosexuality CAN do you harm. Homophobes and your own behavior are what will do you harm. It is one thing for a doctor to treat skin cancer with lasers in hopes of saving lives. It is quite another for a doctor to use the lasers to treat a small mold. In the first the benefits of the treatment are great. In the second the benefit of the treatment is at best small. The risk/benefit equation has already shifted a bit toward risk simply by lack of benefit.
In addition the treatments are based on theories that at a minimum are no longer believed to be causes of homosexuality. Things are getting riskier. It is one thing to have theories outside the mainstream, but hanging on to old theories makes things worse. There was reason why the old theories were dropped. They didn’t fit the data.
The treatments themselves are claimed to work only 30% of the time and probably work about 0% of the time on average. In addition the “treatments” have a great tendency to cause unwanted ill effects such as depression. Heck, anything that does not work is likely to cause frustration. Way more shift towards risk.
To make things worse, far worse the people demanding the treatment are desperate to change. Desperation can lead to bad decision making on the part of the patient and manipulation on the part of the practitioner. Making things twice as risky.
There would have to be ONE HECK of a benefit to justify the risk and THERE MUST BE SOME COMPENSATION for those who have tried and failed. This is the part I find most disturbing about reparative therapy. The folks that are most for it tend to be the folks against doing things that can make the lives of gays, exgays and ex-ex gays easier. Instead of working for anti-discrimination laws, marriage (gasp! yes the m word) and acceptance in all ranks of religion they simply seem hell bent on doing their best to protect a very limited and I dare say outdated view of morality and apply it to situations where it does not make sense. Even when homosexuality was regarded as illness psychologists were often in the forefront when it came to anti-discrimination. I don’t see that coming out of them.
One factor that seems to argue against this being a politically motivated expulsion is that nearly two years on, those who would profit from proclaiming themselves martyrs are still silent. I would suspect that had there been a chance however small and faint to make political capitol out of the issue, PFOX would have been yelling from the rooftops about this when it was going on.
The fact, and it seems to be a very clear fact, that they have covered the whole issue up and kept the facts hidden, argues that the evidence was really overwhelming.
“Instead of working for anti-discrimination laws, marriage (gasp! yes the m word) and acceptance in all ranks of religion they simply seem hell bent on doing their best to protect a very limited and I dare say outdated view of morality and apply it to situations where it does not make sense.”
Jason, surely you can see that this sentence is completely subjective. I happen to agree about anti-discrimination, but I don’t extend it to marriage or the acceptance of same-sex sexual behaviour in all ranks of religion. Nor do I share your opinion that my choices demonstrate an “outdated” view of morality. Corners of our society have explored every extreme of conservatism and liberalism when it comes to sexual behaviour, so I don’t think ANYTHING can be classified as outdated anymore.
Regan – just what questions do you have? I seem to have been classified as an anti-gay by Mike himself, so perhaps I am qualified to answer your queries from my perspective.
regan,
“1. What I’d like to know is, why ARE such therapies allowed to thrive?”
It seems pretty logical to me. Therapies will thrive, with the approval or not of “professional” bodies, if people perceive a need for them. We have therapies for people who feel ashamed or just uncomfortable being fat, or being too thin, or any number of other things. The other obvious point is that some people have religious views that drive them to seek solutions to their perceived problem.
Here’s an example scenario:
I believe that pursuing a romantic and erotic relationship with someone of the same sex is not God’s best for me. [Disagree with me if you like. I think I’ve heard just about all the arguments.] From here, I have 2 choices:
1) I can live in celibacy.
2) I can explore avenues whereby I might grow more comfortable with an other-sex partner, and reduce my desires or temptations for romantic and sexual relationships with persons of the same sex.
Of course, both of these can be attempted simultaneously.
People try out ex-gay programmes as one avenue for number 2. They are not always successful. The fact that people will try things with questionable records and lack of peer review is evidence of the desperation some have to change. The motivations of those individuals could sometimes lead to a worse mental state (eg. if someone is doing it out of a deep emotional shame and not with a more clear head).
Good points, Nathan. My only addition and continuation of Regan’s points are- why aren’t many ex-gay ministries up front about their inability to change the sexual attractions of many (most?) of their participants? In my opinion, they should put the options down as straight forward as you have.
Having worked in health care for the past 16 years, and having grown somewhat cynical about it (yes, the man nicknamed Captain Doom is cynical – I know that’s a shock!), I have always thought one of the main reasons “ex-gay treatments” have not completely gone out of style is that there were/are a good number of “therapists” who don’t want to see their cash cow disappear.
Think about it, you “treat” people who will never actually see any results, but you convince them that the lack of change is their own fault for not trying “hard enough.” Although not all “ex-gay” therapists act like this, I have heard that same kind of story so many times that I have to believe it is a relatively common occurrence. So, you have “patients” who continue coming back to you for “treatments” that don’t and won’t work, but as long as the “patient” has hope, the $$ for “treatment” keeps rolling in.
IMHO the folks at NARTH, who allegedly are trained professionals, may be the most guilty of this, particuarly Socarides, whose own son is gay, but he won’t talk about how he failed as a father in creating his gay son.
Nathan:
Re Item #2.
Could be very risky for the other sex-partner and possible offspring, if your attempts to become more comfortable lead in that direction. What if the change isn’t lasting? I guess you could say there would have to be some sort of knowledgeable consent on the part of the other party, but, gee… the marriage-scape is littered with the carcasses of those who thought they could just tough-it-out when it came to their same-sex attractions and the impossibility of change.
Nathan, I think there is a third choice exam your beliefs, exam your strengths and weaknesses and make careful choices from there. If you don’t want a same sex partner fine, just be honest with yourself and don’t fall into sin/repent/sin. If you can’t then get a same sex partner and forgive your human weakness.
If you feel called to celibacy embrace it and all it has to offer understanding that you will always feel attracted to the same sex and that those “temptations” although annoying at times are not “evil” but are just a normal part of life.
If you want opposite sex marriage, fine, just be honest with yourself and that person and be pretty dammed sure that person understands what it will entail (i.e. the possible lack of opposite sex attraction). By the way there are legitimate therapies that can help in this department. You won’t find the other sex more attractive or the same sex less, but you won’t feel so conflicted and that in and of itself can stabilize things a bit. Also exam your beliefs for wanting an opposite sex partner. I.e. would you do it if there were no God or no penalty for having a same sex partner. If the answer is no then this is going to be a marriage in even more trouble than it already is.
If you should choose to have a same sex partner, fine, just understand that nothing/nobody is perfect and go on from there.
I’ve just been reading through all of these posts and find them quite interesting. First, let me lay some ground for what I am about to say. I grew up in an ultra conservative, christian home. Second, I tried for years to change who I am, , ,including ‘reparative therapy.” Lastly, I am about 6 months away from being a doctor of clinical psychology. There are many other nuances of who I am that has bearing on what I say here, but I’ll leave them out for now.
1. People must look at the reason repartive therapy is around. It is mainly around because it is rooted in a judeo-christian heritage that probably has been taken way out of context. This heritage (whether one believes it or not) states it is WRONG for an individual to pursue a gay lifestyle. In so much, then it is necessary to help those ‘entangled’ in such deception to heal and become what they were created to be. Since this is one of the largest religious movements in the world, it won’t likely change for quite sometime. Whether we agree with it or not, they have their right to believe it is wrong and something they are mandated to help change.
2. To follow up on that, we as gay professionals really do not have any evidence that being gay is genetic. There are a few studies out there that at best alludes to a genetic link. However, if you look at the methods and techniques of these studies, they can be seriously questioned. So, neither side can be definitive about their claims.
3. Professional boards do not hand out violations like they are candy. Review boards look at every aspect and do a thorough investigation before any decision is made. For someone to be kicked out of a professional organization for life, something drastic has occurred. Most organizations give a reprimand and probation or time limited expulsion before such drastic measures are taken.
4. Repartive therapy should be done outside the scope of professional counseling. Sure, it should be an option, (because that is how our constitution is built) but because it so heavily linked to one’s personal agenda, it should be left to the religious counselors who do not, in many states, have any professional standards they must meet. However, repartive therapy should not be confused with a therapeutic alliance in which the counselee admittedly wants help because they feel it is wrong to pursue their homosexual tendencies. In this instance it is perfectly legit for a therapist to use cognitive behavioral interventions to help alleviate the individuals distress. Even as a gay therapist, I cannot ultimately decide for an individual that it is okay to be gay. They are the ones that have to make that decision because they wake up and look in their own mirror in the morning. I recently would have loved to tell a gay client it was okay to be gay, but she has to discover it for herself. A journey that might be painful, but in the end makes us who we are.
5. The American Psychological Association (APA) has all kinds of policies, procedures, and committees promoting equality for gay individuals. The Georgia Psychological Association (GPA) even devoted one of its issues before the last election providing information to the psychologists in the state to vote for gay marriage/union and rights. The professional psychological associations are indeed trying to protect clients (gay & straight) from abuse.
6. I’m sure I have a lot more to say on the subject, but will stop here, for now. I know for me, accepting my sexuality has been a long journey. Because of my staunch, religious parents, and me initially espousing their views, to have started off trying to do anything else but change my orientation would have done more damage simply because I would have estranged myself from my heritage without knowing the whys of doing it. By starting the reparitive therapy route, I saw more and more descrepancies between my God image and my God concept. The more these two differed, the more I searched for truth and the real. The more I searched, the more I was able to reconcile the fact it is okay to be gay. My long journey has given me a foundation that I would not have had had I not had the opportunity to challenge the very core of my being — spiritually, psychologically, and sexually.
7. I know I said #6 was the last one, but #7 has to be thrown in here. Everyone is on a journey and as much as we try to legislate and protect others from harm, crap happens. Our world will never be perfect and the human plight necessitates caring individuals step up to the plate and help the hurting. Although we may not agree with repartive therapies, just as we ask those on that side to be tolerant, we have to be tolerant of their ignorance.
**These are simply my opinions. They should not be taken as advice or professional guidance. Anyone experiencing psychological distress should, of coure, seek the services of a qualified mental health professional.
Jason,
I agree with most of your points there. I generally have that attitude to my choices, except that I wouldn’t purposefully enter a same sex sexual relationship with a plan to just keep “forgiving myself”. To me, this makes a mockery of God’s grace.
Almost Doc says:
“To follow up on that, we as gay professionals really do not have any evidence that being gay is genetic. There are a few studies out there that at best alludes to a genetic link. However, if you look at the methods and techniques of these studies, they can be seriously questioned. So, neither side can be definitive about their claims.”
Somehow my understanding is that gays do not claim that being gay is genetic. Rather, we state that being gay is deep within us, in other words inherent. The idea that there exists a reason for being gay and the search for a such a mechanism seems incompatible with the simple statement of intuitive reflection. Which is: I am gay, I have always been gay, this exists in my deepest and innermost being.
AFAICT, the idea that gayness is ‘genetic’ is a staple of right wing propaganca. Not a feature of gay people’s self reflection.
Dalea,
I would say that I agree that it is inherent; however, something being inherent does not necessarily exclude it from being genetic. Many gays and many in the scientific world do in fact argue that being homosexually orientated is genetic. There was even an article posted at “365 Gay” a couple of days ago stating scientists had found several areas on the genetic code that may point to a gay predispostition. This type of research may not be appealing to many and possibly goes against one’s intuitive reflection. However, there is still a huge stake in ‘establishing proof’ that a gay gene exists. By doing so, gays would have a concrete reason for the ‘rights’ they are seeking through legislation. And the ‘right wing,’ which is mainly a judeo-christian group, would likely be more apt to become a tolerant group if scientific facts demonstrated a genetic link. (They have rearranged their views for years from issues such as the earth being flat, to it revolving around the sun, to mental illnesses not being demon possession, etc.)
Either way, we ourselves can say, “We’re here and we’re queer.” 🙂
Almost Doc says:
‘They have rearranged their views for years from issues such as the earth being flat, to it revolving around the sun, to mental illnesses not being demon possession, etc’
I would not be so sure of this. The Christian church is still trying to fit the heliocentric concept into its teachings, with mixed results. And Besen reliably reports that many exgay ministries teach a theory of demonic possesion to explain gayness. Love In Action is apparently prone to exorcisms of its clients.
As for this being a Judeo Christian thing, well then why are so very few Jews inovolved? It seems to be almost entirely low church protestants, primarily southern version. The ones described by Mencken long ago as ‘believers in a theology degraded to the level of voodoo’.
I really question the adaptations allegedly made to science.
When referring to judeo-christian, I personally am looking more at the christian foundation on Judiasm. Most Jews do not worry themselves with the morality of gayness. I have a close, straight Jew friend, he thinks it is absurd to bring God into gayness. As mentioned earlier, he would say being gay just is. Reparative therapy often does bring in the concept of possession and or demonic influence. However, as science hasn’t proved that being gay is linked to genetics, I wouldn’t suppose they would change this theology until a concrete scientific discovery has been found. As far as the heliocentric controversy, I personally am unaware of christian sects still promoting it. That doesn’t mean they aren’t out there. I just haven’t heard of any. And the antigay sentiments reach way beyond the “low” southern churches. The “High” churches also continue the debate. Big division right now in the Angelican church. Many brands of Lutherans would state it is sinful. Catholics call one to celibacy b/c acting out is sinful. And the more “middle” churches, if I can use that term, also have difficulty (i.e., Some Presybeterians and Methodists would say it is ok where others of the same groups would say it is sinful.)Yet, in all of these, there are gay members practicing their faith and reconciling their christianity. And there are some churches that are almost exclusively gay (Metropolitan Fellowship of Churches or some name close to that).
Just reading the posts here and thinking about things, I am really glad, thankful, that I live in the U.S. where controversy can abound but we can still live together, work together, and through process (although it may be long at times) see circumstances generally evolve for the better.
Actually, the evidence for a genetic link has become overwhelming over the last year. As explained in this article, there are now three new chromosome regions that correlate to homosexuality in males. (Female homosexuality is probably governed by a completely different set of genes.) Combining that with previous research, scientists are now reasonably sure that there are “gay genes” in regions 7q36, 8p12, 10q26, and Xq28. The last one is the one that made a premature splash in the media as “the” gay gene, which was bogus media hype; this new study looked at Xq28 again and confirmed it.
On top of that, the Italian fertility study demonstrated that male homosexuality is related to increased fertility in maternal female relatives. That is, a gay man’s mother, aunts, etc. are more likely to have larger families. (Genes are heavily interlinked with each other, and often have unexpected side effects.) Because the benefits only extended to female relatives, that provides clear-cut proof that homosexuality is genetically linked, because no family environment could *only* come from the mother.
Er, let me refine that. The benefits only extend to maternal female relatives in the Italian study.
Chronos,
In my opinion, none of this shows that “homosexuality” has a direct genetic basis. It merely shows that some winding line can be drawn, but cannot eliminate or control for environmental and social effects. eg. we could say that the link is to effeminate or non-gender-conforming males, who may be more likely to experience social treatment which might result in an eventual sexual orientation towards the same sex. This is a crucial distinction – one is a direct link (ie. the actual attractions are built-in, smells, pheremones and all, like some blueprint), the other is a link which extends only to traits and behaviours that might more easily precipitate an eventual orientation.
Chronos, thanks for the post.
WOW! Intresting study that follows up a lot of previous work and raises some intresting questions. Looks like they have gone from “Is there a gay gene?” to “Which of many ways does this work.”
Nathan, while I certainly wouldn’t argue that homosexuality is entirely genetic — identical twin studies peg the heritability of male homosexuality at 50% — I strongly suspect that the remaining 50% is entirely accounted for by the age of 2-3 or so, most of that before birth. A big chunk of it likely has to do with the process of masculinizing the brain (the human body starts off female by default, and a somewhat fragile chain reaction causes the transformation), and random chance that something goes wrong in the chain of dominoes. Drugs and diet of the mother during pregnancy probably affect the odds (NSAIDs like aspirin interrupt masculinization in rats when taken at just the right time in pregnancy, resulting in asexual males). The birth order effect, whereby the mother’s immune system intentionally disrupts masculinization in younger sons, accounts for an estimated 7% of the total non-genetic cause (as estimated by the Italian study).
Nathan,
We must remember that all “genetic” traits are in fact the direct result of both genetics and environment.
For example, thalidomide, which caused those horrible birth defects in children in the 60s, turns out to have had that effect because it shut down the production of new blood vessels that were meant to feed the arms and legs developing in a fetus. Thus, the “genetic” programming for arms and legs was disrupted because the correct hormones needed to start the process were affected by the thalidomide (as an aside, it turns out that thalidomide, because of this very effect, shows great promise as an anti-cancer drug).
The “environment” that affects sexuality is far more likely to be the pre-natal environment, not the child-rearing environment, for two key reasons. Firstly, parents do not create their childrens’ personalities, and secondly, the other biological differences between gay and straight people – differences in lesbian ear structure, gay male finger length and the generally higher ratio of lefties in the gay community (by some reports, gays are 3X as likely to be lefties as the general population) occur pre-natally, so the development of homosexuality is more likely to be pre-natal.
Chronos – I believe the correct % of genetic influence on homosexuality would be 2/3, not 50%, based on twin studies. I remember seeing the math – based on the same statistic that, if one identical twin is gay, the other is also gay about 50% of the time – but for fraternal twins the rate is between 1/4 and 1/3. I will have to see if I can find that link again.
“Firstly, parents do not create their childrens’ personalities, and secondly, the other biological differences between gay and straight people – differences in lesbian ear structure, gay male finger length and the generally higher ratio of lefties in the gay community (by some reports, gays are 3X as likely to be lefties as the general population) occur pre-natally, so the development of homosexuality is more likely to be pre-natal.”
CPT_doom, again all of these could easily be ascribed to non-gender-conforming traits and behaviours. We could probably find that male artists and male interior designers are more likely to be lefties, or more likely to have different fingers, however this does not provide us with some truth that all hairdressers are gay.
This is less a matter of parents “creating” their children’s personalities as the way they respond to the child, and the way the child reciprically responds.
Regan, I never said that the ex-gay movement was benevolent. I am quite convinced that much of it is not. The very purpose of this site is to provide evidence to prove this. Nor have I ever claimed that gay people are not able to sustain relationships sometimes.
I’ve mentioned this before, but my upbringing was not particularly homophobic. My parents “just want me to be happy” and have said so. So I find it difficult to relate to the kind of “conditioning” you describe. I do hope that people will be allowed to make choices which enhance their freedom without affecting others adversely.
My role here, as I see it, has been to point out when some people “go too far” in their criticism and in their rhetoric.
nathan,
I am not really sure what your “role” here is, but I’ll simply say this – from all the evidence that I have seen, and all the objective scientific analysis I have read (and I am in health care, so it’s sort of my job), the available evidence points to a biological cause for nearly every trait human beings have. The idea that parental or any other social or environmental force could create such a specific “change” in a human being, such as a “change” in sexual orientation, goes against everything we know and understand about human/fetal development.
Humans, as well as hundreds of other animal species, include homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender ambiguity in our collective make-up. The only question is whether we will allow people to act and live according to the belief that acting on such a characteristic is appropriate or not. And that is fundamentally a religious, not scientific, question.
“The only question is whether we will allow people to act and live according to the belief that acting on such a characteristic is appropriate or not.”
Of course we should, unless it’s particularly threatening someone else in some way. We don’t, for example, allow people with explosive violent tempers to act on such a characteristic, even if they do believe it is appropriate.
We’re not really talking about a “change” in the first place, but a development. Straight attractions develop too, I would say, to a large extent.
In the case of “development”, it would all depend on how the genetic basis works. I very much doubt a theory that is based on the idea that genders non-conformity leads to homosexuality. Too many gays are gender conforming for that to be true. I think there is a link between gender non-conformity and homosexuality, but the link is probably just a side effect of the wiring of the brain. By the way not all hair dressers are gay. I have known of at least two str8 guys who were hairdressers. I think the genetic basis probably works like the genetic basis behind vision, hearing or taste.
jason,
“I very much doubt a theory that is based on the idea that genders non-conformity leads to homosexuality. Too many gays are gender conforming for that to be true.”
Gender non-conformity is probably not the only factor here. Also, it is difficult to show whether specific individuals were gender-conforming (or whether they FELT gender-conforming) in their youth, when sexual identity was developing.
regan,
re: genetics, I’m glad you have decided to be agnostic on the subject. I’m of the opinion that there is a combination of biological, environmental and social factors.
“However, celibacy should be a personal choice, not a suspension of emotions for heterosexual sensibilities.”
Of course it should not be forced. I never said it should. I believe it is the right choice for someone in my situation, but I don’t say that everyone has to do it. How would I force them anyway?
You seem to think celibacy means your emotional life stops (“eunuch” is a particularly sharp description) and you cannot love. I would challenge that, and say that you perhaps you are limiting people in our expression and the myriad ways in which we can be sensitive, vulnerable and passionate.
Nathan:
How exactly do they specifically develop?
I am thinking that they develop largely through a person’s day-by-day self-reflection on their own emerging sexual feelings.
These self-reflections are given some extra “direction” in societies with strong gender initiation ceremonies. In our society, they are largely unguided but influenced by the media, etc. In either case, there will be some individuals who are not well-served by these human-made systems.
The point is that I believe the biological impetus ceases to dominate very quickly, once the psychological reinforcing comes in, right throughout childhood and adolescence. Our belief that everything is happening because of uncontrollable hormones is something of a myth of our age. By the time adolescence is over, the hormones provide little more than a vague erotic push “this is about sex”, which our minds take over. It is then our minds which begin to produce the erotic feelings we are more familiar with “she has nice breasts, he has a v-shaped body”, etc. The mind is now directing the body. Anyone who has had erotic fantasies would agree.
These factors (body shape, etc.) may appear to be directly biologically derived, but may merely be the broad cultural momentum of less direct impulses. Hence different cultures, and, of course, individuals, have very different things for what “turns them on”.
The point is that I believe the biological impetus ceases to dominate very quickly, once the psychological reinforcing comes in, right throughout childhood and adolescence. Our belief that everything is happening because of uncontrollable hormones is something of a myth of our age. By the time adolescence is over, the hormones provide little more than a vague erotic push “this is about sex”, which our minds take over. It is then our minds which begin to produce the erotic feelings we are more familiar with “she has nice breasts, he has a v-shaped body”, etc. The mind is now directing the body. Anyone who has had erotic fantasies would agree.
These factors (body shape, etc.) may appear to be directly biologically derived, but may merely be the broad cultural momentum of less direct impulses. Hence different cultures, and, of course, individuals, have very different things for what “turns them on”.
Which can do NOTHING to explain the existence of homosexuality, since until recently every culture under the planet had strong, and often fatal, taboos on the subject.
I can assure you that, after 20 years of trying, there was no way that my erotic/romantic/sexual impulses could ever be turned toward women, no matter how much social/family/religious pressure I was under (and back in the 80s, they kicked the fags out of my high school, which I consider pretty strong pressure to conform).
Society, really up until the last decade, did not for one minute “promote” homosexuality or give any other kind of encouragement to gay people, but we are still here. More importantly, we are in every culture (in relatively stable numbers), no matter how strict the taboos on same-sex love, and no matter how little information about gay people is allowed in the culture.
Nathan:
Yet what evidence can you give that proves us that the biological foundation of sexual orientation is overidden by psychological factors?
Also how do you explain the sex atypical characteristics discovered among queer individuals (eg: feminine/butch facial structure, hypothalamus clusters, pre=pulse inhibitions)?
“Which can do NOTHING to explain the existence of homosexuality, since until recently every culture under the planet had strong, and often fatal, taboos on the subject.”
I just made the point that many individuals are not well-served by gender-culture in most societies. They don’t fit in – or they don’t feel like they do. Whether a society has a taboo against a behaviour that is engaged in much later has very little to do with it, since most children hardly know what it means.
“back in the 80s, they kicked the fags out of my high school, which I consider pretty strong pressure to conform”
I’m sorry you saw that kind of intolerance in high school, but that was probably counter-productive action anyway.
I’m not sure why you think a culture that rejects homosexuality would end up with less children having same-sex attractions.
“Yet what evidence can you give that proves us that the biological foundation of sexual orientation is overidden by psychological factors?”
I’m not a psychologist, but I would first point to the lack of evidence to show that it is not, and the fact that our minds are involved in every other aspect of our lives, except for automated activities like breathing.
“Also how do you explain the sex atypical characteristics discovered among queer individuals (eg: feminine/butch facial structure, hypothalamus clusters, pre=pulse inhibitions)?”
I would say that it’s a high possibility that individuals growing up with sex atypical characteristics may be less well-served by gender culture. Having these characteristics would affect, in both conscious and subconscious ways, your treatment from peers and elders with respect to your gender.
>>>
The old nature vs. nurture crops its head. Scientists on both sides of the argument recently got together at a syposium and for the first time decided to work together…on other issues but it still applies here. It is both nature and nurture…or rather biology and the psychological result of environment.
Also, one can never say that our minds are not involved in EVERY aspect of our lives, including breathing. Even our breathing and other “automated” activities are relate back to the brain, which is our mind/psyche/psychological makeup/soul/whatever you want to call it. (I can hold my breath. I can alter my breathing pattern. If I trained myself well in biofeedback, I could raise the temperature of my body. Even some of the monks in the mountains melt the snow around them and never get frost bit as they meditate.)If you don’t want to say our brain, which is biological, is connected to the psychological, then somehow you would have to infer our brain is separate from our psychological being which would mean our psychological makeup is spiritual meaning that homosexuality is spiritual, according to the conversations I’m reading here on this post.
Regan, could you please do paragraphing? An extra line or so between paragraphs. I count 23 lines in your last post. A lot of what you post is interesting, but it is very difficult to read.
If, according to Richard Cohen, a man is homosexual because he wants to bond, i.e., have sex with his father, then if a man is heterosexual does it mean he wants to have sex with his mother? If so, how can a Christian condemn one and not the other? According to Mr. Cohen’s theory either a homo or heterosexual male is either screwing his surrogate mother or father. Tsk! Tsk! Richard.
…then if a man is heterosexual does it mean he wants to have sex with his mother?
Isn’t that what Freud said?