In case anyone is curious, I’d like to fill you in on how I came to be an XGW contributor. It actually started with a negative review I wrote of XGW over at my own blog, questioning the notion that there is a need for a site such as this. That post initiated a conversation between Mike and me which led me, ultimately, to change my mind: I now firmly believe in the important work of sites like XGW. I think I can speak for Mike in saying that we are here not to bash individual ex-gays, but to call attention to the people pulling the strings behind the Ex-Gay Movement. It is with those people, not with individual ex-gays, that we take issue.
Here’s a portion of that original post:
In my experience, the singular distinguishing feature of ex-gay groups is their ongoing obsession with the gay community. I’ve always considered this obsession with gay people (and the specific focus on gay sex) a manifestation of the generally unhealthy atmosphere that accompanies the ex-gay experience.
I think we can all agree that one salient feature of happy, functional people is that they don’t spend a lot of time obsessing about groups of people they oppose and/or despise. My life is better for not having given much thought to what the ex-gays are up to.
I want to clarify that all of this is still true. I have no issue at all with individual ex-gays: their choices are their own, and those choices do not harm me one bit.
However, I DO have an agenda in writing for XGW, and that is to counter the campaign of misinformation that teaches that conversion to heterosexuality is the only route to happiness for gay people. There are many, many routes to personal happiness. As much as possible, I hope we can try not to judge how each person creates his own path.
Mr. Riddle says:
—However, I DO have an agenda in writing for XGW, and that is to counter the campaign of misinformation that teaches that conversion to heterosexuality is the only route to happiness for gay people—
And the notion that coming out as homosexual is the only route of happiness needs to be countered too. Ultimately, there are many routes to happiness. To completely favor one over the expense of all others doesn’t seem right, whether gay or ex-gay.
Martinez,
To some extent, XGW has indeed been countering both notions.
If by “coming out as homosexual” you mean “affirming and engaging in homosexual behavior” then I agree that’s not the only route to happiness (or morality), and that’s why XGW encourages celibacy for individuals who choose to disapprove of homosexual behavior or who decide such behavior is not God’s intent for them.
However, if you mean that people can be happy and moral by:
— falsely stating to the public that they are not same-sex-attracted when they are, or
— exaggerating the effectiveness of ex-gay therapy, or
— engaging in promiscuous, unsafe, same-sex behavior while claiming to be exgay (as Michael Johnston and blogger “Scattered Words” have done), or
— promoting prejudice and discrimination in the name of “freedom from homosexuality”
then, in those respects, I disagree with you.
Hi Mike,
I’m not sure that Ben has ever claimed to be ex-gay. Especially not in the way Michael Johnston ever did. Ben seems to be pretty open about falling into dangerous sexual encounters while Johnston pretended not to have any same sex attractions at all.
TA,
Your point about Ben’s self-label is understood and well taken. Nevertheless, Ben promotes and defends the exgay movement on his website; his blog motto “Questioning Homosexuality” is borrowed from Exodus; and his FAQ describes his journey as follows:
He is exgay in every respect except the self-label. Similarly, I could refrain from calling myself same-sex-attracted, but that does not change the reality.
I appreciate that Ben is sometimes honest when he puts himself and other people at risk. But, obviously, the more moral thing to do would be to refrain from sex, and use a condom more often if he can’t refrain.
To bring this discussion back on-topic:
Joe said:
I hope we can try not to judge how each person creates his own path.
That’s certainly a worthy aim.
Question: Am I violating Joe’s principle in my rejection of Ben’s path as unsafe, unhealthy, and prejudiced? I welcome feedback.
i know nothing about Ben, but i think it’s possible that he really is on the path that will bring him happiness. in any case, we can’t know his heart… just my $.02
Mike,
Let Ben be.
I kept a diary during my coming out period and wrote in it faithfully. Not long ago I re-read some of my thoughts from that time. It was the middle 80’s and the landscape on gay issues was entirely different… but I can recognize in some of Ben’s writing the same emotions that I had.
I never did any official ex-gay program, but lots of prayer and lots of denial.
Where Ben will end up on his journey is difficult to project. My guess (and it’s only just that) is that he seems like an intelligent kid that’s conflicted between what he knows and what he believes. If he reconciles those, he’ll find peace.
For me I had to find a way to align what I knew: I was gay, with what I believed: God requires that I follow lots of rules. Fortunately, I had seen a lot of religiosity discarded over the years and so I wasn’t inflexible in my dogma. I was able to come to an understanding of God that was based on something other than the giver of rules.
I don’t know if this is of any help to Ben (or anyone else) but for me, I used the Bible’s own allegorical imagery and realized this: (and please forgive the side-trip into religion)
The Bible teaches God as a father. One thing I’ve noticed about children is that they have a strong need for structure. Watch children at play and they will create games of rules “…first you have to hop here and then run there and then say this…”
We give children boundries for their own good: bed time, don’t talk to strangers, etc. These are rules that we insist on. However, as they grow, they learn the reasons and purposes for the boundries and that rules have exceptions.
Paul understood this “when I was a child I thought as a child… but now that I am grown I’ve put away childish things…”.
This is the pivitol point of the message of Christ, ironically missed by many churches. Christ fulfilled the law of sin and punishment (rules for the sake of rules) and introduced the law of love: for God and for your neighbor. The reason for the rule became more important than the rule itself. The new law required that you act from love not condemnation… actually a much tougher requirement. Jesus’ explanation of who would make it to heaven (Matthew 25) made it very clear that he did not consider the keeping of Leviticus as a factor, but whether you visited the sick, helped orphans, fed the hungry (loved your neighbor) was the new criterion.
Some Christians are like children. They need rules: “no drinking, no dancing, no rock-and-roll”. But at some point they grow spiritually and come to realize that a relationship with God is far more important than simply following a list of rules. A father wants a child to grow to understand the why of things and not just the what. Understanding the why is a sign of growth and maturity.
I personally think God is disappointed with churchs that never question whether their teaching is consistent with the mission of Christ. But I think he’s pleased with those that are ever seeking to better know him. Currently the Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian chuches are in conflict between those who want to live by the rules and those who want to apply the principles behind the rules. And both sides are being challenged to know God in a greater way, and that pleases him.
For me, my reconciliation meant changing what I believed and understanding that what God had given me, my sexuality, could be consistent with the purpose behind the rules and that the gender of my helpmate was less important than how we treated each other.
Ben may come to some other understanding based on his relationship with God, which is fine. But right now he’s in conflict and really and truly trying to work it out. So for now, he should have our sympathy and care.
(I appologize to those who are not of a Christian belief. And I know this is not a religion site. But as Ben’s issues are so closely tied to his Christian faith, that’s the only way to address this. So please no anti-Christian rant in response, ok?)
—-XGW encourages celibacy for individuals who choose to disapprove of homosexual behavior or who decide such behavior is not God’s intent for them.
Uh…riiight. Then you go on to say that you do not agree with those who promote “prejudice and discrimination in the name of “freedom from homosexuality.” Contrast this statement with the one above that you made.
Both statements contradict each other. This is because most who would opt for an ex-gay path do feel that they are setting themselves “free from homosexuality.” They view homosexuality in a different way; this should be obvious even to YOU, because if they didn’t why would they want to change? And judging from the 100’s of posts here, no reason for wanting to change is ever seen as anything but homophobic and misguided.
You obviously are biased (strongly) for gays, and biased (strongly) against ex-gays. You don’t care about “mutual respect for gays and ex-gays”, even though you claim this in your mission statement. To deny this would be like James Dobson trying to say that he is not “homophobic” with a straight face. There is nothing wrong with your beliefs. However you guys oughta be more honest, especially when people like Mr. Riddle make prejudiced statements such as
—-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.
With this low opinion of ex-gays, do you guys really promote mutual respect for ex-gays and gays?
To drive home the point: imagine if someone were to come on this website and say: “You don’t have to spend much time in the ‘gay lifestyle’ to realize that it is a bunch of suicidal people who will eventually get AIDS and die of depression and self loathing.” Would you still say that this person promotes mutual respect for gays and ex-gays?
The scimitar cuts both ways.
This site is not supportive of ex-gays in any way, shape or form.
There is nothing wrong with that. (I do not support the religious right type of ex-gays myself.)
But don’t try to pretend otherwise.
The statements do not contradict one another, Martinez.
The Exodus and Focus on the Family political activists who preach “freedom from homosexuality” are doing very little, that I see, to aid exgays in achieving that worthwhile freedom from unwanted sexual urges or compulsions.
They are not lobbying for the freedom to choose celibacy, the freedom to buy advertising from sympathetic advertisers, or the freedom to seek the peer counselor or minister of one’s choice. While all those freedoms would be worthwhile causes, none of those freedoms has ever been in dispute. Nor are Exodus and Focus lobbying for newer, more thorough studies of the efficacy of reparative therapy.
Exodus officials and Focus on the Family are lobbying for the unseemly freedoms to discriminate against gay people in employment, housing and health care; and to suppress the already-limited free-speech rights of same-sex-attracted and questioning teen-agers. Focus on the Family and FRC and their political offshoots are seeking to force federal and state governments and private businesses to single out gay people for the denial of benefits and services offered to everyone else.
They are lobbying to recriminalize gay couples’ private consensual sex, in order to resume the prosecution of gay couples based on the surveillance of nosy neighbors and police-run-amok. With the moral support of Exodus’ Randy Thomas, Focus is lobbying to cripple the federal judiciary. Meanwhile, the activists at PFOX are lobbying against the freedom of Maryland schools to teach comprehensive sex ed, including abstinence. All these activities have been covered previously by XGW.
As I see it, none of these legislative efforts to promote “freedom from homosexuality” actually advances exgay freedom.
Also, Martinez, you claim that in hundreds of posts here, “no reason for wanting to change is ever seen as anything but homophobic and misguided.” But I am the primary writer at XGW, and I have never said (or believed) that wanting to change is inherently homophobic or misguided. In fact, I have often said some people, who are not emotionally equipped to cope with sexual relationships, are better off staying celibate.
Martinez, you seem to be judging XGW on the basis of some of its commenters, but when I look over the comments, I see a range of opinions. Some obviously see all exgay individuals as homophobes; I see others who are considerably more thoughtful and nuanced.
Is XGW biased? Yes — but not in the ways that you suggest.
martinez writes:
“‘—-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…’
With this low opinion of ex-gays, do you guys really promote mutual respect for ex-gays and gays?”
actually, i DO respect ex-gays. i’m still very close to some ex-gays friends. but i also call a spade a spade when i see one.
i freely admit: this is my own observation–based on my 3+ years in the exgay movement. it is an observation, not an insult, and not meant to be taken personally. i wear my biases on my sleeve, and you’re welcome to agree with me or not, as you please.
i’ve met thousands of ex-gays (during my time i attended some big national conferences, met many movement insiders–Nicolosi, et al). of the ex-gays i met, only a handful claimed to have been cured.
i met just *two* ex-gays in my entire time in the movement who shared convincing stories of conversion to heterosexuality. interestingly, both of them stopped identifying as ex-gay and started identifying as straight, and left the movement. one of them actually began to voice support for gay rights.
incidentally, i don’t disagree with your observation that the gay community has quite a few “suicidal people who will eventually get AIDS and die of depression and self loathing.” you’re right, it certainly does. but, in my observation, those people are in the minority.
“The Exodus and Focus on the Family political activists who preach “freedom from homosexuality” are doing very little, that I see, to aid exgays in achieving that worthwhile freedom from unwanted sexual urges or compulsions.”
Where is your support for this?
“Nor are Exodus and Focus lobbying for newer, more thorough studies of the efficacy of reparative therapy.”
Actually, NARTH, a strong affiliate of Exodus, has lobbied for more research on issues of sexual re-orientation. NARTH has urged the Gay-P-A…er…I mean the APA to join them in designing a comprehensive research study that would hopefully settle the issue of re-orientation efficacy once and for all. But, APA refuses. NARTH and Exodus came real close to having a scientific debate with the APA’s gay affirmative psychologists, where both sides would lay the evidence on the table and go at it. But, the gay psychologists backed out at the last second.
“Exodus officials and Focus on the Family are lobbying for the unseemly freedoms to discriminate against gay people in employment, housing and health care; and to suppress the already-limited free-speech rights of same-sex-attracted and questioning teen-agers.”
Again, I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but you’re missing the point.
If you truly want mutual respect for ex-gays, then you really should make that a bit more obvious. Rather than continually attacking the ex-gay MOVEMENT, why not post something constructive about ex-gay INDIVIDUALS? If you look a little harder, you may find some people that present the “other side” as something that is not inextricably tied down to religious right activism. From your site, it is very hard to distinguish between your opinions of ex-gay individuals and the ex-gay movement. Just as there is the gay rights movement (or “gay lifestyle” depending on who you are), there are also individual gay people who do not fit denigrating stereotypes. You would urge the religious right to focus more on looking at gays as individuals, rather than as a cohesive political movement, or lifestyle.
I’d urge you to do the same with ex-gays.
Martinez, it has been quite difficult (nearly impossible) to find moderate or politically independent exgay individuals willing to publicly assert independence from Exodus, Focus on the Family, and other political extremist groups.
I am, in fact, studying Chad Thompson/Inqueery at the moment, and hope to have constructive commentary about that shortly.
If you know of other exgays who are clear in their opposition to antigay discrimination and prejudice, then by all means please point them out.
I’m sure that Mike is going to delete this post, but I’m going to go for it anyway…
Martinez | April 12, 2005 12:56 PM
Actually, NARTH, a strong affiliate of Exodus, has lobbied for more research on issues of sexual re-orientation.
Um, this is a crock. A total, complete and thorough crock. If NARTH really was really a serious scientific operation, they would have “lobbied for more research on issues of sexual re-orientation” from opposite-sex-attracted to same-sex-attracted, and not just from “same-sex-attracted to opposite-sex-attracted.” Since they haven’t–actually, they haven’t lobbied for either–it is clear that they are not a serious scientific operation. Not in the least.
It should be clear to any sentient being that NARTH has an agenda, and that agenda is a religiously-oriented one–generally along the lines of the Roman Catholic Church, Inc. (RCCI) and other conservative religionist operations. Indeed, one of NARTH’s founders–the nut Nicolosi–is a self-styled “psychologist” at an RCCI facility. I don’t particularly care–I really don’t–too much about poor suckers that they can seduce to enter their religious web, but the fact is that they want to extend their web to the secular realm, and that’s what I object to.
Martinez,
Where are these ex-gay individuals that do not support the anti-gay political movement? Why haven’t they found each other and started at least a few ex-gay support groups that did not allow themselves to be political mouthpieces for the religious right?
I suspect the reason has to do with the very nature of being “ex-gay”.
An ex-scateboarder may simply have gotten busy with other things. An ex-Catholic may have drifted away from church or found his beliefs to have changed over time.
To be an ex-gay, however, one has to make a significant effort. And, more importantly, be motivated.
So an ex-gay has to believe that being gay is a negative thing, not just a neutral thing or something that’s “not really for me”. To have the level of motivation to either “change” or become celibate requires that you view being gay as absolutely unacceptable.
So, thus, it isn’t too surprising that nearly all (as best I can tell from their websites and press releases) of the ex-gay groups actively campaign against the rights of gay people.
I’m sure you can see, Martinez, how that could make us a bit suspicious of the ex-gay movement. I think this site tries to be as fair as possible towards ex-gay individuals that are not actively taking steps to make our lives more difficult. It’s just hard to find them.
Raj, I thought you were too easy on NARTH.
At official NARTH and Focus on the Family events, Nicolosi frequently makes comments about women that are a bit lewd and adamantly sexist. I know there are some moderate, intelligent doctors who are members of NARTH — but in my opinion, their choice of leader and spokesman, their collective choice of extremist political and religious allies, and their admitted biases nullify the clinical credibility that the organization could have had.
while we’re on the subject of NARTH and J. Nicolosi…
when i was ex-gay i attended a conference where Nicolosi spoke. man, was i psyched, this guy was my hero.
but when i saw him, he seemed so condescending and dismissive. i remember him talking at length about men repairing their natural heterosexuality through relationships with surrogate father figures, and how he played that role for his patients in counseling.
this is purely my opinion (total hearsay) but he seemed to get some erotic charge out of his patients’ infatuation with him. not that he struck me as gay, far from it. he seemed like the masculine frat guy who is aware that other men find him hot and who finds it both flattering and repellant.
my ultimate takeaway: he’s a very strange guy.
Actually, NARTH, a strong affiliate of Exodus, has lobbied for more research on issues of sexual re-orientation. NARTH has urged the Gay-P-A…er…I mean the APA to join them in designing a comprehensive research study that would hopefully settle the issue of re-orientation efficacy once and for all. But, APA refuses. NARTH and Exodus came real close to having a scientific debate with the APA’s gay affirmative psychologists, where both sides would lay the evidence on the table and go at it. But, the gay psychologists backed out at the last second
First, please provide proof of the last statement here, about “gay psychologists” backing out.
More importantly, as I have previously stated, the APA is not the sole, nor is it the primary, driver of research in the field of psychology. I co-authored two original papers in the field of psychology and the law with a professor in college, and we didn’t need any permission or even work with the APA to get the research done (although we did present one paper at the APA convention in 1988). The “ex-gay” movement could easily launch its own comprehensive study if it chose – after all, they have the information on members of programs who claim heterosexual conversion for follow-up studies.
NARTH or any other organization touting “change” therapy could also partner with any research facility or university. As long as they follow strict scientific guidelines, the results would be valid.
The APA is not responsible for creating research that supposedly supports all sides in an academic debate. Hiding behind this excuse only serves to continue to undermine the “ex-gay” movement.
I’ve made known my opinion of “psychology” as a “science” here many times. I’d repeat it, but it would be boring. For those of us who have studied real sciences, “psychology” isn’t a science. It might be one day. But it isn’t now.
And “therapists” like Nicolosi make psychology appear to be even more pathetic. Quite frankly, if psychologists believe that psychology is ever to become a science, they need to try to figure out a way to separate the “therapy” side from the science side. And that’s only a first step.
“Martinez, it has been quite difficult (nearly impossible) to find moderate or politically independent exgay individuals willing to publicly assert independence from Exodus, Focus on the Family, and other political extremist groups.”
I think it is more complicated than how you frame it. After all, an ex-gay group may affiliate itself with Exodus, simply because it needs support, and simply because it may not be able to find support anywhere else.
However, this does not necessarily mean that they share the same beliefs. For example, Chad Thompson lists Exodus as a link on his website, and can even be said to be “down” with Exodus. However, they are very different in terms of how they feel about homosexuality in the schools…Chad believes that students struggling with sexual orientation deserve special protection, while FOTF and Exodus believe that they shouldn’t. To me this is a HUGE difference.
Raj:
“Um, this is a crock. A total, complete and thorough crock. If NARTH really was really a serious scientific operation, they would have “lobbied for more research on issues of sexual re-orientation” from opposite-sex-attracted to same-sex-attracted, and not just from “same-sex-attracted to opposite-sex-attracted.” ”
Um, you oughta read the posts more carefully. You conveniently missed the point. My point was not to debate the credibility of NARTH, rather I was debating Mike’s statement that the religious right has not “lobbied for newer, more thorough studies of the efficacy of reparative therapy,” when clearly religious right affiliated NARTH made a major effort to reach out to the APA in 2001. Like I said, they wanted to do study with the APA that would conclusively show whether or not change was possible. But the APA refused. You may continue all you want about the credibility of NARTH. I do not disagree, but I think you are wasting your breath.
Cpt. Doom, check out
https://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_spit.htm
Although it doesn’t explicitly say that the psychiatrists who cancelled were gay affirming, we can infer this with little effort because they were to be on the opposing side (in relation to Nicolosi). You can even go to Narth’s website and find an article about this, but I have a feeling that you’d refrain from this. Lastly, sadly you also missed the point in the same way that Raj did. I did not claim that the APA was responsible for anything. You saw what you wanted to see. Again, I was merely debating the Mike’s contention that the religious right HASN’T lobbied for more research on sexual re-orientation.
Mike, you say: “At official NARTH and Focus on the Family events, Nicolosi frequently makes comments about women that are a bit lewd and adamantly sexist.”
Care to show some evidence?
martinez | April 13, 2005 01:23 AM
Um, you oughta read the posts more carefully. You conveniently missed the point. My point was not to debate the credibility of NARTH, rather I was debating Mike’s statement that the religious right has not “lobbied for newer, more thorough studies of the efficacy of reparative therapy,” when clearly religious right affiliated NARTH made a major effort to reach out to the APA in 2001.
Sorry, but this is silly. NARTH could engage in a study themselves. They wouldn’t need to engage the APA in their effort. All they would need to do was to document their methodology and provide their data–all their data, including the identities of those who were involved in the study–along with their conclusions. Other researchers who might have been interested could then try to replicate their presumed results. It’s unlikely that NARTH would have agreed to that–particularly identifying the identities of thos who were involved in the study. It’s fairly clear that NARTH’s endeavor that you were referring to was merely to bait the APA, so that they were able to cry foul when the APA inevitably rejected them. There’s no way that a short-term “study” could have been considered scientific. A scientific study would have required decades–and would have appeared something like the Framingham heart study. BTW, even that study’s methodology has its flaws, but it is better than anything that NARTH would have engaged in.
It’s fairly obvious that NARTH was merely baiting APA, and apparently APA wasn’t as dumb as they (NARTH) thought it would be. But NARTH could claim victim status with APA’s rejection, which is probably what they were looking for.
“I mean the APA to join them in designing a comprehensive research study that would hopefully settle the issue of re-orientation efficacy once and for all. But, APA refuses.”
That is your direct quote Martinez, and you must see how many of us assumed you meant the APA had to direct any research into “reparative therapy.” Certainly the history of the movement to decriminalize and de-list homosexuality as a mental illness proves that the APA does not stand in the way of research that goes against scientific consensus, as the consensus in the 50s and 60s was that gays were mentally unstable and had to be “cured.” It was pioneering researchers such as Evelyn Hooker who actually researched that point and found it scientifically indefensible.
The fact remains that NARTH, or any such organization, can and should be sponsoring research on its own to prove its case. In fact, it did so in using Dr. Spitzer and advocating for his survey of “ex-gays” a few years ago. Of course, that “research” has been pretty thoroughly debunked because of its methodological weaknesses and Dr. Spitzer’s own faulty conclusions based on his findings (e.g., the scale of heterosexuality/homosexuality he used has never been proved to demonstrate real differences in individuals in the range of measures that he claimed demonstrated “change” – 10 points out of 100 possible).
It seems that this weak study is the farthest extent that the “ex-gay” movement will go to prove its case, which to me demonstrates the “therapists” are well aware of the weakness of their own position. After all, the English version of Exodus closed up shop and admitted that likely no one that when through their program ever changed.
“Just as there is the gay rights movement (or “gay lifestyle” depending on who you are), there are also individual gay people who do not fit denigrating stereotypes. You would urge the religious right to focus more on looking at gays as individuals, rather than as a cohesive political movement, or lifestyle.”
Two points on this statement – the gay rights movement in no way is synonymous with a specific “lifestyle” as any study of the lifestyles of the early gay rights pioneers shows (from Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, together for over 50 years, to Frank Kameny, who apparently has never had a long-term partner). I am not sure if you are agreeing with that comparison, or simply stating that others make it (and if there is a gay “lifestyle,” I’d like to trade mine in for either Ellen DeGeneres or Ian Mackellen – they live far more interesting lives than I do).
Secondly, I think you are missing a huge issue here in regards to the “ex-gays” we discuss on XGW. Nearly every one of them is in some kind of professional or leadership capacity with an “ex-gay” organization, and their individual histories demonstrate many of the fallacies of their positions. The commentors on this site are not attacking “ex-gays” in general, for the most part, but rather individual “ex-gays” who a) use their own sad pasts as a model for ALL gay lives and b) demonstrate the misinformation about “change” that the “ex-gay” movement often promotes – these people nearly all report a continual “struggle” with same-sex attractions, demonstrating that any “change” is slight at best.
Re: Raj’s comment, emphasis is mine: “All they would need to do was to document their methodology and provide their data–all their data, including the identities of those who were involved in the study–along with their conclusions. Other researchers who might have been interested could then try to replicate their presumed results.”
This is the catch-22. They can’t ethically reveal identities without the study population becoming severely self-selecting. If they did, they’d be drummed out of every professional organization that hasn’t kicked them out already, not to mention opening themselves to massive lawsuits.
Yet this why clinical psychology’s claim to being a science is so weak — particularly psychoanalysis and other therapeutic disciplines. They necessarily rely on confidential reports which cannot be independently replicated and verified. We end up having to take the researchers’ word for it that they are telling the truth in their observations. We’re supposed to trust them not to be biased. This presumed impartiality is the lynch-pin holding everything together for studies like these.
No other scientific field would tolerate relying so heavily on a researcher’s word like this — they’d be laughed out of the room. Remember Pond’s and Fleischman’s cold fusion fiasco? Remember the wacko organization a few months ago that claimed to have cloned a human baby? Nobody took anybody’s word for anything. Independent replication is the key. Yet taking a researcher at his word is the starting point for evaluating psychological therapies.
I don’t have the papers in front of me. If someone wants references I can provide them, but this is at the heart of a raging debate, particularly within psychoanalysis, as to whether they can claim to be “scientific”. There are a few brave therapists who aren’t afraid to point out that the emperor’s clothes are, at best, skimpy.
I don’t know, Jim, I think there could be a way to do it.
Perhaps if
1. all persons participating in some “therapy” were given confidentiality and an identifying code (patient abc34)
2. there were objective identifiers of “change” (I’ve no idea what that would be)
3. there was independent oversight
4. there was follow up to determine if there was long-term effectivity of the therapy
then there could be some reliance placed on the results.
There would still be some ability for fraud (a researcher fudging the results) but it could be a start.
And it might be hard to get all participants to agree… but if it was explained from the beginning the extent of the contact and follow-up you might get enough of a response to make some limited conclusions.
I suspect that the real reason no comprehensive study has been done is because no change therapist wants to admit to such an abysmal result.
Imagine if some drug company put something on the market that had a 17% success rate (I think that was Spitzer’s result), costs tens of thousands of dollars, was disapproved by the AMA, and had side effects including severe depression and suicide. They wouldn’t be in business long.
I have been reading the posts and links in Ex-Gay Watch now for about 3 months. I have really learned a lot. I read a wonderful (yet somewhat controversial) book about 10 years ago entitled AFTER THE BALL by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. The book was not only about the persecution and injustice toward gay and lesbian people, but about the gay communities own problems and areas where growth was needed.
I see (especially through reading this blog) where the gay community has grown a great deal in many aspects. It is so refreshing to see gay people question their direction in life and their spirituality and to embrace a spirituality that is extremely enlightening and in helping others do the same. I think that the most powerful tool that we have against ex-gay ministries is through embracing our whole selves as GLBT people. When we do this we won’t need drugs, alcohol, religious acceptance, sexual addiction and so forth in order to feel whole.
Our community is coming of age. Even the ex-gay organizations have done some good for us. They have taught us to question. They have kept us on our toes and helped us see things about ourselves that maybe we really should look at. Joe Kort writes about overcoming sexual addiction. His writings are very enlightening and another evidence that we are finally ready for something great and equal to our heterosexual brothers and sisters.
Martinez, you seem to be judging XGW on the basis of some of its commenters, but when I look over the comments, I see a range of opinions. Some obviously see all exgay individuals as homophobes; I see others who are considerably more thoughtful and nuanced.”
MikeA,
I’d like for you to qualify this statement. Remove it from its overwhelming ambiguity. Are you saying you are responsible for the content of XGW? Are you accepting responsibility for allowing continued disparaging, snide, evil portrayals of both the exgay movement, individuals and its allies? I think you hide behind a thin veneer of complete disdain, perhaps even obsession with former homosexuals. If you didnt you would make use of the delete option to excise the syrupy hate spewed out by the MAJORITY of the “commenters” on this site. If you had credibility, your tolerance of such “commenters” sandpapers it away with every post that engages in speculative denigration and the saturated fat of derision.
Be an [honest] man and be consistent. On any given day you sit by and let these “commenters” do your dirty work and then declare youre fair. Yeah, and Hitler was fair the the Warsaw Jews.
Since you are the esteeemed impartial curator of XGW, why don’t you name the “commenters” who see “all exgay individuals as homophobes” Then name the ones who are more thoughtful and nuanced. Let’s just see what the balance is. It doesnt even have to be scientific or approved by the GAY-P-A. You name the angels and the demons.
Mike,
I’ll help ya with the categorization.
Anyone using phrases like “…continued disparaging, snide, evil portrayals of both the exgay movement…” and “…If you had credibility…” or describe the majority of us as spewing syrupy hate most definitely is NOT thoughtful and nuanced.
That help ya any?