I’m just musing here, but it occurs to me that in some ways the existence of the ex-gay movement does the gay movement quite a bit of good.
Consider: there was a time when the leaders of the Religious Right would sooner cut off their hands than admit to having a friend who is homosexual. Now, ex-gays are bona fide Prodigal Sons for the fundies. Whether they mean to or not, ex-gays are our ambassadors–to some degree–reaching the hardest hearts in Christendom in a way we never could. Because of them, the fundies are at least considering gay issues, and having conversations about the topic. Is homosexuality inborn? We gays know the answer, but would Dobson ever listen to one of us? No. He listens to them…and it does affect the rhetoric. The absolutes aren’t quite so absolute. "Love the sinner, Hate the sin" may not be much, but it’s a start. Even if it’s primarily negative, I think any ongoing conversation about gay issues on the Right is better than none at all. It’s a lot more than was happening 20 years ago, and it’s actually quite a big thing.
For the average religious person, especially one who has a gay child, the existence of the ex-gay movement can provide a needed context in which to learn about gay issues. Once people start to learn, they soon see that the evidence in support of reparative therapy is so slight (and the counter-evidence so compelling) that many, if not most, will come around to full support of gay rights. Isn’t that the very journey most gay peoples’ parents take? First clinging to a hope that their child will change; then eventually realizing that change isn’t really possible and wasn’t meant to be… Before you know it, we’re loved just for being who we are.
And that’s the thing kids, change really isn’t possible, at least for most gays. Straight people who spend time with ex-gays are fully concious of the fact that ex-gays are…well…gay. "Those who have eyes to see will see, and those who have ears to hear will understand." If something is TRUE, it doesn’t stay secret. Ex-gays? Yep, they’re gay. And everyone knows it.
For gays who are confused, the ex-gay movement is its own worst ambassador. You don’t have to spend much time in the movement at all to realize that it’s filled with a bunch of deeply troubled people. The happy, well-adjusted ex-gays are few and far between. Most ex-gays end up coming out eventually, anyway, and living their lives as gay. If the ex-gay movement provides some gays a half-way point that makes them feel better about the whole issue, and eases their transition, just as well.
What we have on our side, ultimately, is Truth and Liberty. We are who we are, through no fault of our own, and we shouldn’t be forced to lie about it. That’s the whole issue, in a nutshell.
I admit this thought is sort of half-formed, so I’d love to hear some other voices weigh in…
Interesting post, but I suspect there’s more than a bit of wishful thinking here. I suspect that the experience related in this interview https://www.voicesweb.org/voices/cu/exexgay699.html is probably a bit closer to reality.
raj, there’s no doubt that the exgay movement does some inexcusable harms on the individual level. i was talking more about the macro level…how the existence of one movement impacts the efforts of the other.
i hope those who had a rough time in the exgay world will not feel insulted by my post. i don’t mean to minimize what you’ve gone through.
Well my opinion is going to sound harsh here…
I don’t think ex-gays are valid ambassadors to the fungelical right. The way I see it, it’s sort of like Jews branching to the Nazis with kapos; despite the kapos doing some of their dirty work, the Nazis despised them and considered them even lesser than mongrelized shepard dogs. With the way ex-gay organizations had scandals and had their funds cut off by the major religious conservative groups; it seems hard to believe that the religious right is taking them seriously, even though they love to use them as an excuse to marginalize queers in society.
As for confused LGBTQ trapped in a religious conservative setting, I think it’s horrid that most of them have to go through the ‘ex-gay’ step and waste good part of their youth, if not all of it. I know there have been positive aspects for ex-ex-gays to go through this step, but this is comparable to war veterans having gained wisdom in war. It’s a step we know that has an alarming high probability rate of being hazardous. They should not have to start their lives at a later period. I think ex-ex-gays should ally and combat this step by showing these families the real facts about ex-gay organizations that seldom tell the truth.
I think one problem with exgays in churches is the stereotypical stories they tell. The church members often apply these stories to all gay people. (I actually see these stories in the same context of the Satanic Panic stories of the 1980s–often therapist driven). For example, all gay people are seen as unhappy (even if they are not aware of it). They are seen as secretive. They are forced to say that their father was a bad father and that the mother was overwhelming. They are forced to say they were molested as children. They suggest all gay people use drugs like coke and meth. They suggest that gay people sleep with hundreds and thousands of others. I mean these are the stories that fellow Christians are given over and over.
I have such a problem with stories. Sure, some may be true. However, my life is nothing like that–but many will assume my life is based on that exgay. Even if the person fails in their exgay struggle, he or she is seen as going back to his or her demons. It is not seen as a failure of the exgay movement. I have heard evangelists describe homosexuality as the hardest demon to exercise.
As someone who was in Evergreen (which often seemed like a gay dating ground), the leaders would force us to try to admit to something that happened in our past. Everyone, except me, in my counseling group said at one point he was molested. Even if it was denied previously, there was serious social pressure to admit to molestation. I was really looked down upon because I would not admit to molestation. In fact, I was told I was molested and did not know that I was. It would eventually rise to the surface they said.
Also, many Christians have believer’s syndrome, meaning that only evidence that supports their viewpoint is used. Any time something may contradict that view, it is rejected. Exgays support that view. It does not generally lead to progression, and, as in the case of Randy Thomas, exgays are used for political agendas.
The stories are
Re: “For the average religious person, especially one who has a gay child, the existence of the ex-gay movement can provide a needed context in which to learn about gay issues… Isn’t that the very journey most gay peoples’ parents take? First clinging to a hope that their child will change; then eventually realizing that change isn’t really possible and wasn’t meant to be…”
I came out rather late in life, but not via the “ex-gay” route. I cannot compare my experience with those of “ex-gays” to know what role the movement played in their coming out. But I would imagine that it would in many cases make the process much more difficult, because not only is there as sense of “letting down” family and friends, but now there is an additional cohort of support people you are leaving behind. — Just a thought; don’t know how valid or common it is.
Also another thought — the existence of the ex-gay ministries, however, may give families of ex-ex-gays added resolve to break contact. After all, there are some very influential people, including so-called “experts” with Ph.D’s after their name, touting research and suggesting that ex-ex-gays simply didn’t try hard enough — or worse — turned their backs on God and change.
It is a shame there are so few studies of this area. It seems there are some critical pieces of missing data: 1) success rate of conversion therapy, 2) Impact of conversion therapy on those who went on to become ex-ex-gay, 3) Attitudes of families of ex-ex-gays. Lots of questions unanswered.
the “scattered words” trackback took my words out of context, so i’ll clarify. i said:
“change really isn’t possible, at least for *most* gays.” it’s an important distinction and i mention it because i avoid absolutes on purpose. for all i know, this particular ex-gay guy really is straight now. if so, great for him! but clearly, gays that can change are in the minority.
he also says (bizarrely) that we have yet to offer biblical evidence in support of homosexuality. why on earth would we want or need to provide such a thing?
jim, you raise some good points, i’ll have to think about them. my parents are like the ones you mention, having used the ex-gay movement as justification for cutting off contact with me.
on the larger scale though, most gays (and their parents) seem to move through that phase once they see what a sham the ex-gay thing is.
There is one positive aspect to the ex-gay movement that I’ve noticed. I know a number of people who have come through the process and come out the other side as happy healthy gay people. Having confronted the doubts that they were raised with, they made the attempt to “change” and can now lay aside those doubts knowing that they are as the Creator intended them to be.
While it would be better for the societal/religious burden never to have been placed on them, or alternately for them to be able to see the condemnation for the limited contorted dogma it is, I can’t ENTIRELY fault a process that results in many happy ex-ex-gays who now have a firm understanding of their relationship with God and the people around them.
i hope those who had a rough time in the exgay world will not feel insulted by my post. i don’t mean to minimize what you’ve gone through.
I don’t know whether this part is intended to be a response to what I posted, but, just to let you know, I haven’t been through anything. I post here mostly as an intellectual exercise. Although my parents dragged me to church every sunday, it wasn’t a bad experience. The church was an American Baptist church, not one of the silly fundy Baptist churches. And, besides, I took science fiction books with me and read them during the services. No, I’m not kidding. The SciFi books had more reality to me than anything that was being ranted about during the services.
I’ll amend that. A couple of times, at my request, we went to a fundy Baptist church. I was curious about it. The Landmark Baptist Temple in Evendale Ohio. (We lived in a nearby suburb of Cincinnati.) That experience cured me forever of anything to do with organized religion. It was obvious that it was nothing more than theater. They would have various obviously itinerent preachers come in. Some were wailers–crying and weeping. Some were fire and brimstone types. It was nothing more than theater. The telling event for me came once when they held an “offering.” The preacher said that they wanted to buy another bus so that they could bus people in from Kentucky. They held the “offering.” And they counted the take during the service. And they determined that they hadn’t taken in enough. So they announced that they were going to hold another offering. At that point, it became clear to me that these fundy religious operations were nothing more than about money. Money for the itinerent entertainer/preachers who came to entertain the masses. Money for the buses to truck in the people from far and wide. Nothing more than about money.
And that’s only one reason why I’ve harped on the money issue.
When I was a kid, I heard nothing about gay people or homosexuality. Absolutely nothing. My cynicism about organized religion–particularly of the conservative sort–stems from the fact that it is mostly about money. Nowadays, conservative religion makes a lot of money from bashing gay people, but, hey, what the heck? That’s nothing new. Conservative religion has murdered more people than they would want to admit. Just consider the Cathars.
Political ex-gays are kapos for the theofascists.
Nothing more; nothing less.
If exgay political activists are “kapos for the theofascists,” then perhaps “progressive” gay political activists are “shills for communism” — bloated federal bureaucracy, runaway welfare programs, and abortion-on-demand.
Both political movements are reactionary — it could be argued that both seek to take society backward several decades.
In my opinion, both types of sweeping accusatory generalizations get us (society) nowhere.
Here’s what I said back to “Scattered Words” after his intentional misquote:
Even Alan Chambers has said that perhaps 30 percent of ex-gays experience significant “change.” So even according to a leading exgay activist’s own account, a large majority of exgays are still gay — that is, predominantly or overwhelmingly same-sex-attracted.
Furthermore, XGW has on many occasions cited the Shidlo/Schroeder and Spitzer studies, among others, as evidence that few exgays experience significant “change.” Links to the studies do not need to repeated in every single post at XGW in order for them to remain valid and relevant.
Ben, if you are a sincere blogger interested in building your relationship with Christ — and modeling Christian love and truth to others — then I trust you will:
1) not misquote people, as you did,
2) commit to long-term professional therapy for your sexual compulsions,
3) commit to long-term professional therapy for your unwanted romantic or sexual attractions,
4) model self-control and free will, not “powerlessness” and “victimhood,”
5) model constructive criticism, not cynicism
For the most part, XGW covers the religious right’s political exploitation of exgays.
No doubt the religious right’s activities offend you, Ben, just as they offend Jesus. Therefore, complain about them — stop blaming XGW, which is just a messenger.
“Political ex-gays are kapos for the theofascists.
Nothing more; nothing less.”
That is inaccurate as a matter of political philosophy and history, “…not ten percent of those men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal….”
(The Memoirs of a Sexologist
By LUDWIG L. LENZ
(New York: 1954) pp. 429 ff)
Fascists were drawn together by a shared psychology, as the “bundle of sticks” (fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis) bundles itself together based on victimization scripts and shared memes. It seems that the weak sticks bundle very tightly and then feel that they are strong.
Those who fall into victimization scripts and emotional conditioning easily,
“The people who are most subject to the wiles of Nazi propaganda are those who have….the psychological position of the homosexual.'”
(Journal of Modern History,
Vol. 47, No. 2, Jun., 1975
Psychohistorical Perspectives
on Modern German History
By Peter Loewenberg :238)
Fascism is not Scripturalist, as the focus is drawn down to immanent things, in Japan through Shinto and in Germany through narratives based on evolutionism. Regardless, it will be a practical and violent resistance to transcendence. The Scripturalists were the Confessional Church in Germany, and note:
“The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany.”
(The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich: A History
of Nazi Germany
By William L. Shirer
(Simon and Schuster) 1990 :238-40)
The religion is one of immanence,
(The Nordic Pagan Chant Grows Louder
By Albion Rossberlin
The New York Times, Aug 4, 1935; pg. 3-4)
The sentiments being expressed here about so-called “theofascism” are historically and philosophically inaccurate. The National Socialists wanted to eliminate the “ethical code worship of the Jews” and so on.
“What we have on our side, ultimately, is Truth and Liberty.”
That is an ironic statement. The way that modern Gays© seem to get to the “truth” and define the truth is by their own sexual desires or orientation. Is being defined by and so ruled by your own feelings really a way to liberty, or is it actually the way to bondage as Socrates argued? Heraclitus seems to note a stygian stench emanating from religious hedonists, as he notes that Hades is the same as Dionysus “…in whose honor they go mad and rave.”
Life and liberty, or death and bondage…note what the Marquis de Sade thought,
“Montesquieu’s ideal of justice is unacceptable in Sadean politics. It must be replaced by an implacable judicial relativism, by private passions and interests….”
(Original Vengeance: Politics, Anthropology,
and the French Enlightenment
By Pierre Saint-Amand
Eighteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 26,
No.3. (Spring, 1993), pp. 399-417)
As in Nazism, in sadism there is no transcendence, no Natural Law. There is nothing that a sadist will admit is “unnatural.” All is natural, as it occurs in Nature. Is this the philosophy of Truth and Liberty or of bondage and death?
Note, “…replaced by an implacable judicial relativism, by private passions and interests…”
The American Republic has begun to come to know an implacable judicial relativism, similar to the jurisprudence built up in the Weimar Republic. It seems to always be the same philosophy at the end, as a civilization begins to end. It is the same attitude toward text Scripturalist vs. Hedonist.
Note Sadean philosophy when it comes to sexual ethics,
“The Marquis de Sade reverses the Rousseauean use of nature: Sade uses the category “nature” to affirm bisexual aristocratic libertinage.
….Sade asserts that sodomy is within the boundaries of nature and adds,’Those who wish to denigrate the taste or proscribe its practice declare it is harmful to population; how dull-witted they are, these imbeciles….'”
(Erotic “Remedy” Prints and the Fall of the
Aristocracy in Eighteenth-Century France
By Mary L. Bellhouse
Political Theory, Vol. 25, No. 5. (Oct., 1997), pp. 680-715)
Of course, it always has been harmful to the population.
What is the Truth and Liberty of which you speak? Are you sure you have not confused the libertinism with liberty?
Mynym,
You fail to substantiate the suggestion that “modern Gays seem to get to the ‘truth’ and define the truth … by their own sexual desires or orientation.” That is a baseless argument — in fact, sometimes it is the antigays (Exodus, Focus on the Family, and affiliated groups) who define gay people, and morality, solely by sexual desires or orientation. The antigays purposely exclude key social, economic, and environmental concerns (including key themes of the Bible) from their supposed discussions of truth and morality.
As to how gays define truth: I see no consistency among gay communities regarding the definition of truth — some gays define truth through Christianity, some through pure science, some through various philosophies and non-Christian faiths.
I also see little consistency among gays regarding the definition of “gay.” Some (including yours truly) see the word as synonymous with same-sex sexual and/or romantic attraction and nothing more — such attractions being just one aspect of a person’s life.
Some affiliate the word with an affirmation of same-sex attraction, but again see sexual orientation as just one aspect of a person’s life and do not affiliate it with political causes. Some profess celibacy, some profess fidelity in monogamy, and some — like heterosexuals — profess serial monogamy or a preference for multiple simultaneous partners. If so-called “libertinism” is to be found, it is in the third category. Many or most gays seem to be apathetic or noncommittal about politics — the combined budgets of the national, state, local, liberal, and conservative gay-equality groups add up to less than the annual budget for Focus on the Family alone.
A relatively few gays actively affiliate the word “gay” with a “progressive” ideology encompassing antiracist, antisexist, anticapitalist, and pro-environmental activism and rooted, depending on who one asks, in science, Christianity, or various other religious or philosophical perspectives. It is this fringe, permanently relegated to the sidelines of politics by their own, rather exclusive brand of inclusivity, that exgays like Randy Thomas like to cite as proof, somehow, that all homosexuals comprise a intolerant “liberal” or libertine “elite.”
Mynym also extrapolates from individual, isolated philosophers to the beliefs and values of entire populations. That, by definition, is bigotry.
(But then, so are some of the sweeping statements to which Mynym was responding.)
Mynym, you seem to suffer from some black-and-white thinking, pitting people and values falsely summarized as “Scripturalist” against counterparts falsely summarized as “Hedonist.” Your efforts to associate Nazism with same-sex attraction are based on a mix of 1) your own false assumptions about diverse gay political beliefs, and 2) a wide and superficial scattering of links to decades-old ramblings that were also based on largely undocumented assumptions about gay persons’ beliefs and values.
You find the notion of equality under the law threatening, Mynym, so you associate gay people weakly with Nazis. That says more to me about your values, than it does about the values of gay Americans and their families.
I know of no modern gays who seek to salute the Fatherland, oppose democracy, or abolish the judiciary that protects America and its Constitution from tyranny. Nor have you cited any gays who do.
On the contrary: It is apparent from the recent statements of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and Exodus’ Randy Thomas that these particular antigay activists seek to undermine the judiciary’s prime role of defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights against legislative and executive abuses.
That does not make them “theofascists,” nor does it make exgays “kapos,” but it nevertheless raises alarm among supporters of U.S. constitutional liberties.
… All that said, the charges and countercharges of fascism are entirely beside the point of Joe Riddle’s very constructive post:
What are exgays good for?
Just to let you know, this “mynym” creature trolls various blogs to advertise his anti-gay blog on verious web sites. He trolled Ed Blayton’s blog “Dispatches from the culture wars” for a while.
One of the things that one learns from playing around on the internet is that one should not pay a whole lot of attention to everything that one reads on the internet. Sad, but true. The internet allows people to bloviate a number of idiotic opinions. Ad nauseum and ad infinitum. To recall a recent post here, I’m reminded of the idiotic opinions of Throckmorton, but, hey, he has access to the internet, too. Recognize that the idiocies of persons like Throckmorton are intended for their commercial gain. But, what the heck? They’re making money. Regardless of whatever damage they do to real people.
For people like Throckmorton, it’s all about money. And it’s only about money.
Mike says: “Furthermore, XGW has on many occasions cited the Shidlo/Schroeder and Spitzer studies, among others, as evidence that few exgays experience significant “change.” ”
It’s important to understand what the Shidlo/Schroeder study tells us. To use it as evidence that few exgays in general can change is incorrect, as even Shidlo/Schroeder themselves admit that their study cannot be used to make claims about Ex-Gays in GENERAL. After all, Shidlo/Schroeder specifically sought out gays who felt they were harmed. What the study does tell us (and perhaps the most important thing) is that getting harmed by undergoing such therapies is a very REAL possibility, and should not be ignored.
The same goes for Spitzer. His study says nothing about change in general, as he specifically sought out people who claimed they changed, as his goal was to see if their claims would hold up under detailed questioning. We cannot make any significant general claims based off his study, other than the unspectacular claim that some people can change their orientation to a certain degree.
–Nate
Presented for your pleasure, a third grade playground arguement:
Small Boy One: “You’re a Nazi”
Small Boy Two: “No! You’re a Nazi”
Small Boy One: “Hun-uh!! You are”
Small Boy Two: “Am not!”
Small Boy One: “Am too!!”
Small Boy Two: “Am not!! I’m deconstructing the Gay identity”
“It is written in the cultural scripts of self defined gays. Who “comes out” and self defines by their own sexual desires? Who says that they define what “living a lie” vs. living the truth is? This is all done based on sexual orientation, i.e. sexual desires. You can blame the psychologists for the original reduction and dehumanization in classifying a supposed “type” of person by their sexual desires, as you like.”
In a way, I agree with this. I used to buy into essentialist arguments of homosexuality, but eventually upon closer inspection, I found many of them to be severely flawed. I have reason to believe that to a large degree, the homosexual identity is a cultural construction, although same sex attractions are not.
For example, in ancient Japan, bisexual behavior was considered the cultural norm. Yet, they felt no need to label people on the basis of this fact. Also, men who slept exclusively with women were considered a “sexual” minority by society. So sexual practices can be greatly influenced by culture. So, it seems that the tendency and pressure to “come out” is a recent phenomenon, as the category “homosexual” is as well.
But the old school essentialist would argue, “Sure, culture can influence behavior, but can culture truly influence sexual orientation? after all, sexual orientation is this innate, inborn ‘thing’ within in us that’s immutable.”
My reponse would be: “yes but what is this ‘thing’ that you speak of? Has it ever been isolated through a rigorous scientific study? Furthermore, if it really is a unified ‘thing,’ why do most researchers continue to disagree as to the exact definition of ‘sexual orientation?’ Both Kinsey and Fritz Klein have their different definitions and measures. So what of it?”
I’ve recently read Daryl Bem’s “Exotic becomes Erotic” theory of homosexuality, and I find it highly convincing. He doesn’t completely disregard biological antecedents, but he does attempt to explain homosexuality as a Bio-Psycho-Social phenomenon, putting a key emphasis on socialization (as it might interact with a person’s biological, innate temperaments).
Go to Google and type in Daryl Bem Exotic becomes Erotic if you are interested. The full study is available at his website.
-Nate.
Just an observation, folks, but have you ever noticed that those whose positions lack in intellectual integrity also are difficult to read.
I’m guessing that the more obscure the quote and the more unusual the words selected (what we used to call “mental masturbation”), the more likely it is that the ninny doesn’t want us to realize exactly what a pile of crap he’s spewing out.
For example, I’ll offer a little gem from mynym:
“But anyway…I point out a proto-Nazi predisposition because it is historically accurate to do so, not because I feel a little fearfully fearful right now. The association has something to do with immanence and transcendence, one political philosopher has noted that fascism is the practical and violent resistance to transcendence. Certainly, those who self define as gays in America have not been violent in a vastly mobocratic sort of way, although there are a few small scale examples.”
As I once was taught, if you can’t explain your position in easily understood terms, you don’t believe it.
Re: I’ve recently read Daryl Bem’s “Exotic becomes Erotic” theory of homosexuality, and I find it highly convincing. He doesn’t completely disregard biological antecedents, but he does attempt to explain homosexuality as a Bio-Psycho-Social phenomenon, putting a key emphasis on socialization…”
Coincidentally, I read this again over the weekend again and find the theory that he espouses somewhat fascinating but not entirely convincing, particularly in light of his bias towards socialization. This emphasis so completely permeates his writing that it appears (to me at least) as more of a bias than an observed fact. But it is very refreshing that he managed to avoid the whole “distant father/domineering mother” dichotomy that so many others fall prey to.
He speaks very convincingly of the eroticisation of the exotic, but offers very little in the way of supporting studies that makes this conclusion. Just as one simple example, he points to surveys in which many gays report being estranged from other children of the same gender when they were growing up, but he speaks very little to the possibility that the other children respond to what may be the innate difference of the gay child. Who is estranged from who? And what is the source of the estrangement? Bem assumes it is the gay child who is estranged, but he doesn’t begin to address how this estrangement comes about. I present this example because I remember playing baseball with reasonable competence on the playground and losing interest when the other boys stopped picking me for their teams. No gripes here (believe me!), and I seriously don’t think getting ignored on the playground made me gay, but I am merely pointing out that relationships and estrangements are often a two-way affair. This is a key missing link in the theory and its implications are immense.
As I posted previously, overlooking dynamics like this one I think comes about because so many researchers try to test theories of “what went wrong” to make people gay. If they would spend a little bit of energy to study “what happened” to make people straight, maybe we might really begin to understand what is going on.
That is just one example, but it is indicative of his approach. After I finished Bem’s article, I was still looking at a chicken AND an egg. Except for a quick acknowledgment of possible biologic origins for some people, he essentially spent the bulk of the article talking at chickens.
Yet his theory is fascinating to say the least, and I don’t think it can or should be swept aside so easily. It will be interesting to see it tested (if any such theory can be tested) and modified further in the decades to come.
Jim,
“I read this again over the weekend again and find the theory that he espouses somewhat fascinating but not entirely convincing, particularly in light of his bias towards socialization. ”
So far there hasn’t been one theory which serves to show how constitutional biological factors may interact with the environment. His theory is the first one I believe, and I feel that though it has its ambiguities, it is definitely a step in the right direction. After all, the interaction of genes with environment is incredibly complex, and not much is known about it at the moment. In terms of sexual orientation, I do not feel that it is as simple as assuming that there is some essential biological “something” within us (that is yet to be found) that automatically makes a person gay, in the same way that having two recessive alleles of a particular gene would automatically give us blue eyes. However, to assume that same sex attractions develop purely out of socialization also seem narrow minded. Bem avoids this by taking into account inborn factors.
“And what is the source of the estrangement? Bem assumes it is the gay child who is estranged, but he doesn’t begin to address how this estrangement comes about.”
Here is where inborn factors come into play. Bem believes that there are certain inherent temperamental traits that we are born with, which predispose us towards estrangement from the same or opposite sex. These traits are not homosexuality or heterosexuality per se, but pave the way for the exotic eventually becoming erotic. His evidence for this is the fact that many gay men report feeling different from other boys when they are young, even before the onset of sexual feelings.
“so many researchers try to test theories of “what went wrong” to make people gay.”
This is another area where Daryl Bem succeeds. He avoids presuming the superiority of heterosexuality over homosexuality, something which most developmental theories of homosexuality do not do. He views both homosexuality and heterosexuality neutrally.
My concluding thought is that if in the future, people do find out the precise mechanism for sexual orientation, we may find socialization to play a significant role.
After all, a very recent twin study done by the Bailey (who was also the author of the now classic 1995 twin study which everyone refers to) showed the concordance rate between identical twins and homosexuality to be 20-25%, much lower than the 52% figure from 1995. And, these results came about using a more superior survey methodology than the one he used in 1995. Clearly, genes are only part of the picture (but they cannot be discounted).
Nathan | April 10, 2005 07:21 PM
I’ve recently read Daryl Bem’s “Exotic becomes Erotic” theory of homosexuality, and I find it highly convincing.
I read a couple of papers of his on the subject a few months ago and found it rather silly. He seems to mean well, but the actual evidence that he presents for it is highly unpersuasive particularly in regards the purported transition from “exotic” to “erotic.” His theory has internal logic, but internal logic doesn’t mean a whole lot when it comes to science. Science also requires evidence, and that is what was sorely lacking in the papers.
Nathan | April 11, 2005 12:44 PM
So far there hasn’t been one theory which serves to show how constitutional biological factors may interact with the environment.
This is a joke, right? Hint: consider nature and nurture to be a feedback loop. Nature (genetics and other biological factors) in one generation affect nurture (how that generation rears a subsequent generation). It’s far more complex than that, but it is impossible to distinguish much between nature and nurture but it is clear that the nature/nurture dichotomy is something of a fraud.
I think it’s clearly Narture.
Raj, I think we are talking past each other. I agree that our nature affects our nurturing to a degree, but sorry, this is not what I’m talking about.
Suppose someone had the gene for lung cancer. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s automatically destined for cancer. If he were to smoke, this would probably exacerbate the chances of cancer. That is, a segment of his chromosome might be predisposed to breakages and mutation (inherited defect), but they need not mutate, and their mutation might be contingent upon environmental triggers. This is what I mean.
A strict black and white dichotomy does not exist when it comes to nature and nurture. They do influence each other–I agree, our nature might influence how we nurture behaviorally/psychologically speaking, but what I’m saying is that genes can and do interact with the environment to bring about a phenotype. Most scientists would agree that the environment plays a role in whether or not a gene is expressed. That is why a given genotype does not always lead to the purported phenotype, which is often the case when we look at twin concordance studies.
Nate
I rather doubt that socialization plays any role in the development of homosexuality because you can not find any social environment that is more likely to produce gays than another.
“I rather doubt that socialization plays any role in the development of homosexuality because you can not find any social environment that is more likely to produce gays than another.”
I think you may be oversimplifying the issue. Read what I had to say about Bem’s theory above.
Also, to say that socialization does not play any role flies in the face of current research, as even the APA asserts that sexual orientation is a result of bio-psycho-SOCIAl factors.
Nathan | April 11, 2005 03:36 PM
I agree with this for the most part, but I believe that you’re missing my point. My point is that one cannot readily differentiate between nature & nurture because nature begets nurture, and vice versa. I’m referring to over generations and populations, not necessarily in regards any particular individual. So, I agree that there probably is no gene that will inexorably lead one to be same-sex-attracted. And there is probably no gene that will inexorably lead one to be opposite-sex-attracted. But it is probable that one’s genes, coupled with the nurture (which is also affected by genes) of one’s parents, and coupled with the external environment (which is also affected by society, among other things) likely tilt one to same-sex-attracted or opposite-sex-attracted. And, it’s even more complicated than that.
So, my point is, that to differentiate between nature & nurture is a fraud. I stand by that.
Bem’s theory is interesting, but the evidence that he provides for the transition from “exotic” to “erotic” is sorely lacking.
“But it is probable that one’s genes, coupled with the nurture (which is also affected by genes) of one’s parents, and coupled with the external environment (which is also affected by society, among other things) likely tilt one to same-sex-attracted or opposite-sex-attracted.”
Fair enough.
Nathan
Bottom Line:
SSA is an abnormal condition. Fact. With any other abnormal condition we generally provide the option to change. Why not with SSA? Just because we’ve been conditioned to believe we shouldn’t even try to change still doesn’t mean that advice is gospel [pardon the pun]. If we want to change, great. If we don’t, okay. But lets stop the ridicule of those who want to and do successfully change. At least give them the OPTION. It’s all in the desire and attitude of the individual in the end and the TOLERANT thing to do.
dot | April 14, 2005 05:20 PM
Why, thank you, dot for your comment. Now, if your comment had anything to do with reality, someone might want to pay attention. Since your comment doesn’t (have anything to do with reality, that is) it’s unlikely that many sane people will.
Dot,
Sorry but I don’t agree with your stated “fact” that being gay (or SSA – same sex attraction – as you put it) is “abnormal”.
If by abnormal you mean not occurring under “normal” conditions, I’m sure you are aware that throughout recorded history and in every culture, same sex attraction exists. This appears to be fairly evenly distributed without relation to race, class, or economic factors. In fact, there don’t seem to be any cultural conditions that eliminate occurrences (although the politicos claim a lot that cause occurrences: distant father, distant mother, distant cat, etc.).
If by abnormal you mean not in the majority, that is a pointless argument. All minorities of any sort would be abnormal. Accountants are abnormal. Red-headed persons are abnormal. People named Fred are abnormal. That definition of abnormal is implied and would never be stated as an argument so I really doubt this is what you meant.
If by abnormal you mean not occurring in nature, then you don’t read the news.
If by abnormal you mean bad, wrong, or undesirable (which I suspect), then what you are stating is an opinion, not a fact.
So you see, dot, it is NOT a fact that SSA is abnormal.
Finally, I think this site strongly supports “those who want to and do successfully change”. It’s just really hard to find very many who successfully “change” (at least by the way most people define “change”). Just about the time some ex-gay “changes” and slaps their face up on a billboard, they end up cruising in some seedy dive.
But to the ones who do successfully “change” I think I can speak for everyone when I say… you go, girl.
Timothy
We are all born heterosexual by nature as either a man or a woman. SSA is an abnormal condition of that fact.
The Choice to Change the behavior as a result of the ‘out of the norm’ attraction is an option not offered to gays early on and why not.
raj
Your “Intolerant Opinion” Noted!
dot,
just for your future use… you don’t retain much credibility if you make statements that are not supported and then just call them “fact”. Not to be rude, but it makes you seem either very young or not very bright.
But if you want to think through your argument, and support it by premises on which we can agree, I’d be glad to discuss it with you. But an argument without a common basis is pointless.
Idiots…
Dot: you need to realize that what you say may sound reasonable in an abstract sort of way, but in reality, religious right ex-gays are involved in depriving gay people of their rights. In other words, that’s their (not so subtle) way of saying “You gays are deficient. You do not deserve equal rights. You are all sinners. Change is the only way you can ever be whole.”
That said, Christian ex-gays clearly do not support the right to self determination. I wish that they would, as I am an ex-gay myself (but I’m agnostic), and I’d hate to see these brain dead conservative activists fuck it up for the rest of us.
Hell, I believe that people should have the right to seek out therapy to modify sexual orientation (and I believe it can be effective for some people). But I also believe that living a gay life is perfectly acceptable and healthy as well. Either way is fine, either way can lead to happiness and fullfillment. This is sentiment I do not readily get from fools like Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas, and all those other imbeciles.
On the subject of normalacy, one can be a “normal” gay or an “abnormal” gay. Gayness itself is not necessarily abnormal or deficient. Some gays I know are the most boring, mundane people, and are normal in every way except for the fact that their long term partner is of the same sex. Where as other gays do seem to personify the religious right’s stereotypical view of the depressed, drug addicted, wacko homosexual.
So any talk of what is normal and what is not is moronic.
dot | April 14, 2005 07:18 PM
We are all born heterosexual by nature as either a man or a woman. SSA is an abnormal condition of that fact.
Why, thank you for your input. I’ll be sure to call for your opinion the next time I have a question about biology.
/sarcasm.
(NB: I really should stop feeding the trolls. But I’m always amazed that trolls waste their time posting on boards such as here and the NYTimes gay rights board. They must lead such sad lives that they feel they have to harrass the–um–fags.)
I obviously hit a nerve with some of you. We disagree. That’s okay by me. No need to ridicule and assume who I am or what I believe. That is the glaring intolerance folks on the other side of sexual orientatin see in us… the supposedly “tolerant group”. I now understand what they mean. Have a super day!
Aaron, I loved your post. I’ve faced all the same pressure without going to an ex-gay group — just from ordinary evangelical Christians who are anxious for my life to fit into their theories of gayness. I didn’t realize, though, that anyone would say “You were abused whether you remember it or not.” I’m used to people drawing presumptuous and disrespectful conclusions about my life, but the way you describe it, it sounds pretty manipulative too. Ick.
I guess I don’t have a problem with exgays telling their stories, whatever these may look like. My only problem is when they or others seem to expect these stories are representative. And often it sounds like all their problems of the past are portrayed as What It Means To Be Gay. That gets annoying.
Nathan, the Spitzer study does reveal something about exgays in general — namely, that they’re hard to find, even tapping into Exodus and NARTH as resources. He had a lot of trouble finding subjects, and that tells us something — even though it wasn’t the actual focus of the study.
Oops, forgot to sign that post a minute ago. That was me.
Dot, with all due respect, I think you’re reaping what you’re sowing. You can’t just post poorly-thought-out arguments in a self-righteous tone and expect a high-level discussion to ensue. I’d be happy to talk about this further if you’re interested.
“You can’t just post poorly-thought-out arguments in a self-righteous tone and expect a high-level discussion to ensue.”
Judgemental and opinionated.
You proved my point. Later…
Hi Dot,
Earlier you said, “Bottom Line:
SSA is an abnormal condition. Fact.”
I think the reason that you have “hit a nerve” with some people is because your first post in this post states as fact that which is not proven. Not only is the “fact” that homosexuality is abnormal not proven, but you basically came on to the site and told a bunch of people that they were abnormal.
People jumped on you for their own reasons, not the least of which (I assume) is that there are many people that do “fly-by-posting” on this site trying to do nothing more than rile people up. In my opion, the sarcasm may have been a bit strong, but I can see why it came out.
If you would like to discuss why your assertion of abnormality is a fact, please feel free. I am sure both Matt and I would be willing to discuss via email or otherwise. However, to state as fact an opinion that is contrary to what most posters on this site believe without any explanation or discussion does seem to be disregarding the opinions of those you are speaking too.
In your last post you were quick to call “the other side” intolerant. I’m not sure if you came here to prove that point or not, but I would encourage you to refrain from generalizations like that because it does little for discussion.
TA | April 15, 2005 03:39 PM
Hi Dot,
Earlier you said, “Bottom Line:
SSA is an abnormal condition. Fact.”
I think the reason that you have “hit a nerve” with some people is because your first post in this post states as fact that which is not proven. Not only is the “fact” that homosexuality is abnormal not proven, but you basically came on to the site and told a bunch of people that they were abnormal.
To point out the obvious, being left-handed is an “abnormal condition,” too. That doesn’t mean that everyone was born right-handed, though. Although that would be the logical conclusion that one would draw from from dot’s “We are all born heterosexual by nature” comment.
The norm is heterosexual [we are ll born a man or a woman]. Homosexual condition is not the norm. Therefore it is an abnormal condition of the norm. No offense intended.
Left handedness, eye color, skin color are all immutable traits. Same sex attraction may be a condition not asked for but the behavior is definitely a choice. It is not an immutable trait. We, however, have and are not given, the ‘choice to change’ but barraged, like here, with ridicule and criticism. I find that hypocritical of a group that constantly tauts tolerance as a focal point.
Dot,
You’re calling for tolerance of people who choose to change. That is perfectly fine. However, people need to show tolerance towards those who do NOT want to change, and are happy being gay. By denying gays their civil rights (which Religious Ex-Gay groups are trying to do)seems to be a strong show of intolerance towards those who do not want to change and are happy with their condition.
Agree, however where the difference comes is in discussing what is a “ciivil right”. Just because we have SSA doesn’t mean we have a right to demand all laws be changed to accomodate “my” choice of sexual behavior. Otherwise polygymist, sex addicts, even pedophiles could then say they have a right, based on their chosen behavior, to have all laws accomodate them. I believe we have every right everyone else does. Marriage for gays is not a civil right in my mind. Gays can live in peace but many need to flaunt their sexual choices and want to force others to accept it. That is where we are off track. Society does not have to like or accept the same sex choice nor do we have a right to demand they do.
Dot, take the time to figure out where everyone here is coming from before you decide who’s intolerant about what. I think you’ll be surprised.
dot,
In Texas, the legislature is voting to disallow gay persons from being foster parents. This would be done by asking “are you homosexual or bisexual” to the questionnaire. It appears (as best I can tell from the reports) that it is not based on behavior but rather on identity.
This is but one small example of where you are clearly mistaken when you state “I believe we have every right everyone else does.”
Whether you approve of separate rules for gay people is one thing. You may do so. (Though, of course, I will actively oppose any efforts you or anyone else make in that direction).
But to state that we have the same rights currently is either naive or deceitful.
Regan — I think Dot may be attracted to the same sex.