"Unmasking the lies of Wayne Beeson [sic]" — that’s what more-or-less-anonymous exgay blogger Ben aspires to do.
But then he doesn’t do it. He and other commenters complain that Besen’s anti-exgay expose, Anything But Straight, is at times rude, sarcastic, snarky. All true, though the book has many strong points as well. Among them: Depth, factual detail, and compassion for ex-ex-gays.
Neither Ben nor his commenters disputes the actual facts raised by the book.
He’s on page 72, that’s hardly a review.
“snarky” I love that word 😛
Hehe. I think I’m among those who used the words rude, sarcastic, and snarky (I love the word ‘snarky’, too, Dan, and I think I got it from Mike 😉 I agreed at that point with Ben and others, BUT emphasized what they failed to mention, that Besen’s book made an overwhelming case for the inconsistencies, dishonesty, political entanglements, bad psychology, psuedo-science, and spiritual damage that has characterized much of the ex-gay movement since its inception. Not sure why someone as bright as Ben appears to be – or as critical of aspects of the ex-gay movement as he claims – is unable to get past Besen’s sometimes irritating style.
I too love the word “snarky” (I found it entering my vocabulary a couple of months ago).
And yes, Besen is very snarky and rude. While I agree with almost everything he writes, I find I have to double-check the factual stuff in order to really believe it. I haven’t found him to be wrong on anything I’ve checked out though. But still, sometimes his tone stretches credibility.
But if all it took to dismiss someone was their snarky and rude tone, then why would anybody accept anything coming out of Focus, Exodus, NARTH, or any other such organization? And as I check out their “facts”, I discover that, unlike with Besen, I often find them wanting.
When I first read Anything but Straight I too immediately noticed the sarcastic and dismissive tone that Besen uses about the “ex-gay” movement. However, upon re-reading it (I am one of those uber-geeks who re-reads almost everything) I came to the conclusion that his tone actually makes the book stronger, if more poorly written.
Besen’s book is simply a devastating attack on the “ex-gay” movement, albeit one that is amply supported by clinical data, anecdotal evidence and clear reasoning. For him to take any other tone might have sounded false, as, IMHO, his disdain for the movement becomes understandable after reading his arguments and evidence.
A better writer, perhaps, could have managed a more sympathetic tone in the book, but that does not in any way detract from its strength in debunking the “ex-gay” phenomenon. After all, most clinical research is written in the driest possible tone, often masking the truly revolutionary findings within.
The only problem I have with Besen’s book is that because of the tone in the writing, I can’t give it to the people that I’d most like to have read it. I really liked the content and the facts and the research (amazing when compiled in one place), and it’s a great resource when I need to pull out info about the ex-gay movement, but there are people who might benefit from the information there but will unfortunately dismiss it out of hand because they are feeling so attacked (and I’ve had at least two ex-gay folks say they wouldn’t ever read it because of insulting excerpts they’d read, and it sounds as though Ben – although he’s reading it – feels the same). If Ben does come up with proof of lies, I’d be interested to read them, since so far the only criticisms of the book that have been valid thus far have been about the tone of the author.
I’m glad to hear that Wayne’s such a great guy on a personal level, and I really do feel he’s done a great thing for those of us who are ex-ex-gay or who are already seeing through the many lies and distortions of the ex-gay movement. However, I do think there might be something in between dry, clinical research-reporting and a snarky, sarcastic and/or rude tone.
I have heard that Wayne Besen can be rude, and I take it personally when (in his writing) he sometimes dismisses gay men who aren’t as conventionally good-looking as he is.
Nevertheless, in my own brief interactions with him, I have found him to be quite friendly. And I find his book indispensable for its detailed collection and organization of facts.
Here’s what I think is one of Ben’s most telling criticisms of the book: “I thought he lacked an understanding of evangelical Christian faith.” One of Ben’s commentors picked up that theme also, saying “I gave up on reading it – it had such a poor understanding of what the Christian faith is.”
Well, that strikes me as an such an absurd criticism, since Besen’s book isn’t about Christian faith or evangelical Christianity. It’s about what Besen calls “the ex-gay fraud.”
But this is a debate tactic that seems to becoming increasingly popular all over the political spectrum. I call it the “You just don’t get it” strategy. You just dismiss your detractors by claiming that they don’t understand your worldview.
I gave up on commenting at Ben’s blog after about my ninth post, because I kept getting responses like “Read! Understand! Then comment!”
Mike- I know this might be a big undertaking, but have you read this https://www.witnessfortheworld.org/besenbook.html. DL Foster posted it as a rebuttal to Besen’s book. I wonder if anyone has given it any analyzation of its own.
“the difference between me and the ex-gay movement people is, I believe it when gay people say it’s not a choice”
It’s been my understanding that most people, even most ex-gays, accept that the direction of our attractions is not a choice. What we do is. All other things being equal (which they’re probably not) certainly people should be free to make a choice either way.
nathan: “people should be free to make a choice either way”
You talk a lot about the individuals freedom to choose. How do you feel about the pressure put upon those vulnerable gays and lesbians, particularly those isolated from other gays and lesbians in remote or religious communities, who feel that they should change because of the homophobic pressure put upon them? It seems to me the reason so many LGBT folk “choose” to undergo reparative therapy has a lot to do with parental and community disapproval rather than any inner desire to change.
Ricardo,
Certainly there are some who probably make the choice for the wrong reasons. This is sad. It has not been my experience, although some people have decided that I myself am an internalised homophobic, unable to see how I’m not really choosing what I’m choosing to do.