Alert Reader Regan DuCasse brings a story at Southern Voice titled “Leading mental health group backs same-sex marriage” this to my attention. Yes I know that’s old news, but there’s a twist so read on:
Dr. Robert Spitzer, credited with spearheading the movement to remove homosexuality as a disease from the psychiatric diagnostic manual more than 30 years ago, said he is pleased the APA is supporting same-sex marriage.
“I think the APA has always been concerned with social issues and how they affect mental health and marriage certainly affects how gay couples live,” he said Tuesday. “It’s hard for me to be against that. It will make a lot of gay couples happy.”
Spitzer is professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and chief of the New York State Psychiatric Institute’s Biometrics Research Department. In 2003, he presented research at the APA’s annual meeting stating that gay men and lesbians can successfully change their sexual orientation.
“I don’t see that as a contradiction,” he said. “Marriage does certainly affect self-esteem and mood and becomes a psychiatric issue.”
Queer how NONE* of the religious, mainstream or even gay media chose to quote Spitzer when reporting on this story when it broke a week ago.
*ok I do like to have a life, if someone finds an exception please post a comment
I will never downplay Dr. Spitzer’s role in getting “homosexual” removed from the DSM. But it should be acknowledged that the decision was not due to him. It was largely forced on him. Spitzer just happened to be there when it was being done.
A lengthy description of what transpired was provided by Ira Glass’s This American Life program. It is still available through https://www.thisamericanlife.org/ (try https://207.70.82.73/pages/descriptions/02/204.html and if that doesn’t work “81 words”)
I applaud Spitzer’s worldview.
It is NOT contradictory to believe that some people can change, but at the same time believe that those who do not want to change deserve equal rights.
PM,
I agree with your comment as far as it goes. I simply wish Dr. Spitzer would be more proactive in protecting his work from misuse, and in confronting exgay pundits when they extract half-truths from his study and turn his research into a tool for antigay discrimination.
Hm. I think that the article is mistaken–as far as I can determine, the paper was presented in 2001, after which the APA disavowed it, and published in 2003.
Not that this really makes any difference. Just mentioning.
You certainly got a point, Mike Airhart.
Spitzer could’ve been more vocal and more clear about what he really felt.
That is, he could’ve stated his opinion that sexual orientation can change for some people, but at the same time make it clear that the issue is not whether people can or can’t, the issue is that all people are human beings and deserve respect.
However, I believe that he has made efforts: I believe he wrote a letter to the Finnish government regarding misuse of his study; he publicly turned down an award by NARTH because he didn’t agree with their philosophy; he publicly supports gay marriage. Perhaps he wasn’t vocal enough, but he did DO something. To crucify him for not becoming a full blown, Wayne Besen-esque gay advocate doesn’t seem right, in my opinion.
Phallus Maximus
The APA states:
“Officially, the APA opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy, which is based either on the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the patient should necessarily change his or her gay orientation. ”
The wording is very precise. Re-orientation therapy NEED NOT proceed from the premise that being gay is fundamentally wrong and evil. To do so increases the chances of harm.
-PM
Actually, I believe the APA statement can be interpreted in two ways: firstly, as you interpret it and secondly, possibly more likely, that reperative therapy (or “re-orientation” therapy as you call it) is always based upon the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that a patient should necesarily change their orientation and is thus opposed by the APA.
Ricardo says:
“reperative therapy (or “re-orientation” therapy as you call it) is always based upon the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that a patient should necesarily change their orientation and is thus opposed by the APA”
This interpretation is moronic. You should know that extreme statements, such as saying that ANY attempt to change one’s sexual orientation is ALWAYS based on the assumption that one’s orientation is a disorder, are hard to defend, and hence moronic. The APA is very precise with their language. If they believed as you do, they would have said it explicitly. Otherwise, why not just say that they oppose any attempt to change one’s orientation, regardless of the intention? Why are they so specific? The answer is because they are responding to a very SPECIFIC form of re-orientation therapy that is potentially harmful and scientifically unproven, and has recently received a ton of media coverage.
On this latter point, it is incorrect to use the terms re-orientation and reparative therapy interchangeably, as you do. “Reparative therapy” is a term given to a SPECIFIC form of re-orientation therapy that is rooted in Freudian psychoanalytic assumptions. It was given a Judeo Christian twist by Elizabeth Moberly in her book “Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic.” As such, it operates off the assumption that gay is a disease of the soul that must be cured.
I’ve corresponded with a psychologist from the APA. He does re-orientation work, but he also does gay-affirmative (helping to build a strong gay identity) work. It depends on what the patient wants, and the patient’s potential for success in the aforementioned therapies. He does not view himself as a “re-orientation therapist” or a “gay affirming therapist”, but rather just A therapist who is neutral (or as neutral as humanly possible).
Wanting to explore one’s sexual orientation (and potentially change it) is NOT ALWAYS based upon homophobia or hatred of oneself. It can also be due to wanting more variety out of life, as some bisexuals (formerly gay and straight) have indicated to me.
There are many therapists like the one I described above who quietly do what they do and who do not receive any media coverage. In fact, their beliefs would probably be reviled by the religious right as well for their refusal to label homosexuality as a disorder that MUST be cured.
PM at June 1, 2005 10:33 PM
I’ve corresponded with a psychologist from the APA
I believe we need to be a bit careful here with the terminology. Unfortunately, there are two APAs. The American Psychiatric Association, which, I believe, Ricardo was referring to, and the American Psychological Association, which, I believe, PM was referring two. They are two different organizations. Psychiatrists purport to be medical doctors, whereas psychologists (as far as I can tell) don’t.
Spitzer’s paper was presented at a conference of the American Psychiatric Association in 2001 (or so) and was not published until several years later, as someone has noted.
Spitzer’s paper was presented at a conference of the American Psychiatric Association in 2001 (or so) and was not published until several years later, as someone has noted.
And, IIRC, the paper was published without peer review, more as an example of qualitative work than quantitative. Because Spitzer did not undertake peer review, or did undertake it and then failed it, the results of Spitzer’s study are highly questionable – they have not been given the scientific community’s stamp of recognition.
I do appreciate Spitzer’s comments about gay marriage, because they can help further belie the improper use of his survey results by “ex-gay” organizations. However, I still think his largest mistake, and a nearly unforgivable one for a scientist, was allowing this survey of “ex-gays” to be conducted so poorly. He failed to follow many of the basic structures of the scientific method, and the format of his survey – the convenience sample, the untested survey instrument, the over-the-phone data gathering method, the arbitrary decision to state that “change” occurred after only a 10-point movement on a 100-point scale – largely makes his data useless for proving anything. He also refused requests to use physiologic testing of this subjects, which would have given more objective data.
For so long the anti-gay movement has used the failure to find one specific “gay gene” as sufficient to dismiss the entire genetic argument. Personally, I think until they show that physiologic evidence of orientation “change” – and I mean PET scanning, CAT scanning – whatever it takes, they really can’t make the “change” argument.
PM says, “Wanting to explore one’s sexual orientation (and potentially change it) is NOT ALWAYS based upon homophobia or hatred of oneself. It can also be due to wanting more variety out of life, as some bisexuals (formerly gay and straight) have indicated to me.”
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that there are people who try to reorient their sexuality so that they have a wider variety of sex life?
I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to defend this assertion. It seems silly on the surface, and I can’t think of any way of making it sound any less silly. Why would anyone try to fix what ain’t broke? Why would anyone try reorientation if they did not think there was something wrong with the orientation they already have? Perhaps the problem is that you really do little but hint at these reasons and you just need to explain them a bit more.
Robis, you are still hung up on the preconceived notion of “fixing what’s broke.” The issue isn’t an assertion of fixing anything. It’s an assertion of broadening one’s repertoire, or horizon. I’ll only report on what I encounter. Many of these people become bisexual, and still relish having same sex encounters. This is what I mean.
PM
You say: “Wanting to explore one’s sexual orientation (and potentially change it) is NOT ALWAYS based upon homophobia or hatred of oneself. It can also be due to wanting more variety out of life, as some bisexuals (formerly gay and straight) have indicated to me.”
However, if one is shelling out cash for a therapyst, there’s usually some motivation. And frankly, I sincerely doubt that there are many folks (gay or straight) who are perfectly happy with their own orientation but are willing to pay $150 an hour to learn to get more variety out of life.
They could just go to a food tasting…. it’s a heck of a lot cheaper.
Sorry. But I just don’t have much patience for people who aren’t honest with themselves and then demand that I treat their absurdity as though it made sense.
Timothy, the motivation isn’t always due to self hatred. Are you so arrogant to assume that you, like Robis, know everybody’s intentions?
Are you God?
You must be.
You may not have any patience for my so called “absurdity.” That’s fine, but I don’t have patience for arrogant, presumptuous people.
Wanting to gain the capacity to love beyond their preferred gender isn’t only limited to gays. Some straights make a choice to explore their bisexual potential out of philosophical/spiritual reasons, and may use therapy to assist in this. I know this for a fact because I know such people.
The world is wider than the narrow confines of your computer screen, and the confines of your television.
It is also wider than this unfortunate black white polarization of gay-rights versus religious rights, which is perhaps clouding your perception of what I’m saying
the last post was by me. sorry, typo.
Personally, I think until they show that physiologic evidence of orientation “change” – and I mean PET scanning, CAT scanning – whatever it takes, they really can’t make the “change” argument.
I don’t recall the name of the instrument, but there’s a little device that measures penile blood flow. That’s the device that had previously been used to suggest one’s orientation, when the subject was observing gay or straight porn. (The obvious problem with the straight porn is that there is usually a male involved, as well as a female, although it is questionable whether the male would be all that enticing to a gay guy, if you know what I mean. NB: I’m being cheeky) There is no need for a CT or PET scan. If a guy’s penis gets enlarged while watching gays making out with each other, that’s a pretty good sign that the guy has homosex tendencies. If the guy’s penis remains deflated while watching, say, a Girls Gone Wild video (I haven’t watched any, but I’ve seen them advertised on cable TV), that’s probably a pretty good indication that he isn’t particularly interested in women. Seriously, what more needs to be said?
I’m going to be specific, and it might be raw. A scientific test might have included a penile blood flow test. Over a few decades. On the same subjects. Using the same or at least similar stimuli. On thousands of people. The world-renowned Framingham Heart Study did something like that. And they have produced reams of information. Not regarding sex–regarding the heart. But if someone wanted to do a truly scientific study regarding sexual orientation, and, given the rather small percentage of homosexuals in the population, he (or she) would have to (sorry ladies, I’ll be referring to male homosexuals)
(a) select a sample population,
(b) make a preliminary determination regarding their likely orientation, based on penile blood flow,
(c) randomly divide them into two groups, one of which will be allowed to progress without “therapy” and the other of which is “therapy-ized” and
(d) follow them for decades to determine whether the “therapy” has stuck. Gentlemen, present your penis!
Such a study will never be carried out. The Framingham Heart Study has provided remarkable insights, and it continues to do so. But nobody really cares about sexual orientation. It’s an issue that politicians want to use.
Hi raj
It’s a penile plethysmograph.
“>https://www.parksmed.com/plethysm/plethysm.htm
Can’t say the thing looks very arousing at all, of itself.
Raj,
The efficacy of the penile plethysmograph is still being disputed. Click on this link for an interesting discussion regarding it.
https://www.allencowling.com/false13.htm
The study you propose, although excellently designed in principle, would seem to be compromised and limited if it were to be based on an instrument whose efficacy is still under considerable debate.
I conclude with this quote from the above link:
“There is a substantial difference of opinion within the scientific community regarding the plethysmograph’s reliability to measure sexual deviancy. See e.g., Barker and Howell, The Plethysmograph: A Review of Recent Literature, 20 Bull. Am. Acad. of Psychiatry and Law 13 (1992) (identifying several problems with the reliability of the plethysmograph, namely “lack of standards for training and interpretation of data, lack of norms and standardization and susceptibility of the data to false negatives and false positives,” and concluding that “despite the sophistication of the current equipment technology, a question remains whether the information emitted is a valid and reliable means of assessing sexual preference”). ”
Tom A.
I have been imprecise, and I apologize.
I’ve been hinting around the edges. But I’ll stop hinting. As far as I’m concerned, the question is, what does sexual orientation mean? And what does change mean?
I have a background in a real science–physics–so I have some idea of the scientific method. It’s no mystery to me.
First, define “sexual orientation.” Does it refer to arousal? If so, figure out a way to determine when and how much someone gets aroused by various stimuli. (That was what I was referring to by the plethysmograph, irrespective of the debate over its efficacy.) Stimuli such as gay porn? Videos? Pictures? A guy sitting on top or underneath of you? What does it mean?
Or does sexual orientation refer to performance? I guess that, in a pinch, even a (male) homo can impregnate a woman. (They’ve done it for centuries, btw.) But what does that mean, if he’s running around with guys in between the impregnations? And, with In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) a homo male can impregnate a woman merely by whacking off into a cup. And more than a few of them have. What does that make him? A hetero? Or a gay guy posing as a straight guy? There is a difference.
Define the terms. Propose a theory based on the definitions. And provide evidence for the theory. That’s what we did in physics. Newton’s laws of motion. Newton’s law of gravitation. Define the terms. Propose a theory based on the definitions. And provide evidence for the theory.
Nota Bene: when Einstein presented his papers regarding relativity (100th anniversary for special relativity this year) he proposed experiments to confirm his theories. The experiments proved to be remarkably successful. One might seriously wonder why those in the “ex-gay” operations don’t do the same. Perhaps they want to keep it imprecise so that they can pull the old “bait and switch” on the general public.
BTW, my (male) same-sex spouse was hit on by the choir director at his (orthodox) church when he was in his mid teens. The choir director claimed to be banging one of his male friends, and one of his female friends. The choir director was married, and had several children. How would the choir director be categorized?
PM says, “Timothy, the motivation isn’t always due to self hatred. Are you so arrogant to assume that you, like Robis, know everybody’s intentions?”
Really, PM, this is completely uncalled for. I don’t think Timothy was being arrogant at all, nor was my intention to imply that I know everybody’s intentions. I think my questions still stand, because it is beyond logic for anyone to decide one day that what they really want to do is try and make themselves bisexual, especially through therapy. That doesn’t mean I’m saying people DON’T do it, just that it doesn’t, on the face of it, seem to make much sense. Obviously being bisexual is not a prerequisite to enjoying sex with both men and women. It isn’t even a prerequisite to feeling affectional attraction to both sexes at the same time. So why anyone would choose to engage in therapy to accomplish that is beyond the understanding of alot of people. Rather than getting so defensive, perhaps you can go into a bit more depth to explain it. That will go alot farther towards understanding than just accusing others of arrogance.
PM,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are trying to convince me of the following:
1. Some person (let’s call him Joe) is perfectly happy with his sexual orientation
2. Joe decides that he wants more variety in his sex life. This decision was NOT based on dissatisfation with his orientation but instead on something else (whim, maybe?).
3. Joe goes into therapy to pursue this direction and is willing to pay going rates for this quest.
Basically that Joe is fine being gay (or whatever) but – without any dissatisfaction – whimsically spends time and money to change his orentation.
Maybe you mean something else entirely. But if you are trying to convince anyone of the above scenario, it seems on the surface of it to be irrational.
I don’t think I’m alone in saying that it’s very unlikely that any one is seeking change without any motivation whatsoever. It sounds much more like denial.
says:
“That doesn’t mean I’m saying people DON’T do it, just that it doesn’t, on the face of it, seem to make much sense. Obviously being bisexual is not a prerequisite to enjoying sex with both men and women.”
Well, for starters, go to queerbychoice.com. Read everything there. It is a sighted dedicated to straight people who want to explore their queer/bisexual potential. It doesn’t specifically address therapy, but I can easily imagine one of these people wanting to explore their queer potential with a therapist of some sort. And again, it works both ways. We can easily imagine an individual who wants to explore his heterosexual potential (assuming that he has some to begin with) based on a sound philosophical choice, that transcends the narrow homophobic self hatred which many here seem to suggest is implicit within such a choice.
The motivation to change one’s orientation can be based on a sound philosophical choice to love beyond gender. It is not always based on self hatred. Again, queerbychoice.com explains it pretty well.
Further, you say that being bisexual is not necessary to “enjoying” (the wording here is important) sex with both men and women. You’re suffering from a bit of confusion here. Simply put, a man who GENUINELY enjoys sex with men and women is a bisexual (And I use the word “genuinely” to exclude those men who have sex with women while fantasizing about men.) Now, such bisexual men may either label themselves as “gay” or “straight,” with the choice of label being dependent upon many different factors. Now, if a man were to say to me that he’s “gay,” but GENUINELY enjoys the occasional roll in the hay with a girl, I’d respect his choice of label, but in my mind he’s a bisexual. The reason why I say this is because to me, being gay is about being exclusively attracted to the same sex, with little or no attraction to the opposite sex. If there was significant attraction there, well, the man would be more accurately described as bisexual.
******************************************
I guess I haven’t been direct enough.
The original point I made, which was lost, was in relation to the Spitzer post, that re-orientation therapy does not necessarily have to be based on the premise that we are fixing something broken. Instead, it can be based on wanting to expand one’s options to meet one’s goals in life, in other words, expanding one’s repertoire. The homosexuality is not assumed to be broken.
In fact, a good way to help someone trying to make sense of his sexual orientation would be to first take away any sort of anxiety towards being gay and to make him realize that being gay is okay and that there is nothing wrong with it.
In a sense, we are doing gay affirming therapy at this step.
THEN, if he wants to explore his heterosexual potential, the therapist can assist him.
I seriously don’t understand why someone who wants to “explore his heterosexual potential” needs a therapist in order to do so. Why doesn’t he (or she) just do it? What does he (or she) need a therapist for? As far as I can tell, the therapist is nothing more than a cheerleader.
I’m quite serious about that. I have said before that I have known people who have gone from being apparently hetero to apparently homo (based on their relationships), and from being apparently homo to apparently hetero, and from being apparently hetero to apparently homo to apparently hetero to apparently homo again. And none of them needed a therapist to do it. So what’s the big deal regarding a therapist?
Raj,
You have a point, in terms of exploring heterosexual potential, those who want to do it will just do it, the need for a therapist is not invariably necessary. However, it was hypothetical situation I was projecting: my whole point was that one’s decision to do so can be seen as rational and not due to self hatred.
“““““““““““““““““““““““
On a related point, a person who has a phobic aversion to the opposite (or same sex) may seek a therapist to get over this.
I know a lesbian who hated men because she was sexually abused at a young age. She sought therapy, not necessarily to change her sexual orientation, but because she felt that her hatred and fear was tearing her apart, and preventing her from forming any sort of male friendships. After the course of therapy, she got over her phobia. As a by product of this, she is very open to the possibility of being in a sexual relationship with a man,and now identifies as bisexual).
I’m not saying that the above is true of all lesbians or gay men. I’m merely pointing out an example to show what I mean.
You also indicated that you wanted to know what “sexual orientation” is, in your reply to a person above.
Study this link, it give a very comprehensive explanation of sexual orientation, and the difficulties involved in defining just what it “is,” and how exactly to measure it, and whether or not sexual orientation actaully exists.
https://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Sexual_orientation
PM at June 4, 2005 05:21 PM
Come off it, PM, you know full well that the woman–whom you labeled a lesbian and who had been molested by her father, was seeking sexual outlet from somebody who she considered a non-threatening source. Did that mean that she was a lesbian? I don’t know. And neither do you.
What would she have become if she had not been molested? I have no idea. Maybe she would have exhibited heterosexual tendencies. What she obviously needed was therapy to come to terms with her having been molested. Not with what you apparently consider to have been what she might have perceived her sexual orientation to have been.
My same-sex (male) spouse had a friend in high school whose father molested him and his many sisters. According to my spouse’s gaydar, the friend would probably have been gay, but, he was so traumatized by the molestation that he was reticent about having sex with anyone. What he obviously needed was therapy to come to terms with him having been molested.
There is a difference. Therapy to come to terms with one’s past. And therapy to cheerlead one in a particular direction. There is a huge difference.
I think raj raises an important point that has much relevance when considering many who become involved in ex-gay groups. It is something I feel should be explored.
Even acknowledging the limitations of them, having read through ex-gay testimonies for many years a considerable number of these people either were (or are currently):
1. abused as children/youth — sexually/emotionally/physically — and often within the family circle. Exodus mentions figures of 80-90%, though I have yet to see this formally declared or measured.
2. displaying highly sex-negative attitudes; possibly encouraged by v. conservative religious backgrounds (though many religious conservatives would not see their attitudes as sex-negative).
These in combination can profoundly distort a person’s perception of self and cause them to act out in particular ways (often irrational or self-abusing). For some, these acts will be sexual and may be covering up the true underlying sexuality of the person.
In attending a therapist to deal with the underlying abuse and attitudes, or simply growing into maturity and coming to terms with their background; such people could eventually have their true underlying sexuality begin to reveal itself. That is not a change as ex-gay groups would, I think, present change; but it may well see a dramatic turnaround in their self-perception and/or sexual behaviour, or even their attractions.
The abuse and negative attitutes are the distortion — not the revealed sexuality (whether that be gay, straight or anything in-between).
Personally, I would be fully supportive of someone who is trying to overcome abuse or sex-negative attitudes. If, in the process, they discovered a side to their sexuality and felt inclined to see where that took them I cannot see that as a bad outcome.
But I am concerned that ex-gay groups are — for most — reinforcing the existing distortions; or even introducing them. The underlying assumptions within ex-gay circles are not applicable to the overwhelming majority of gay or bi men or women (if, frankly, at all); and for those who are merely having a hard time dealing with the socialisation aspects of being gay such distortions could be highly damaging, even dangerous.
And, of course, this cuts both ways. We can probably all recall people — possibly ourselves — who acted out heterosexually because of distorted attitudes or abusive family/social expectations.
Tellingly, there is no ex-straight movement.
Raj says:
“Come off it, PM, you know full well that the woman–whom you labeled a lesbian and who had been molested by her father, was seeking sexual outlet from somebody who she considered a non-threatening source. Did that mean that she was a lesbian? I don’t know. And neither do you.”
Then how exactly do we define lesbian? The woman in question–and I should have made this clear–self identifies as a lesbian. Are we then to question her self identity? Even if she had a “reason” for living a lesbian life other than the reason of being born that way, it shouldn’t matter.
“What would she have become if she had not been molested? I have no idea. Maybe she would have exhibited heterosexual tendencies.”
Would she be any less lesbian if this was the case?
“What she obviously needed was therapy to come to terms with her having been molested. Not with what you apparently consider to have been what she might have perceived her sexual orientation to have been.”
Well, if you read more carefully, I also stated that she went into therapy for reasons OTHER than changing her orientation.
-Phallus Maximus
Also Raj,
“There is a difference. Therapy to come to terms with one’s past. And therapy to cheerlead one in a particular direction. There is a huge difference.”
I’d agree here. But I just want to point out that in some cases, the two therapies you propose may intertwine. In the case of the woman above, therapy helped her come to terms with her past, which was the stated goal, but a peculiar side effect was a change in direction, without cheer leading for this directional change.
PM at June 5, 2005 04:04 AM
Then how exactly do we define lesbian?
Sorry, I violated my own principle of differentiating between the gay(or lesbian)/straight (lifestyle behavior) dichotomy and the hetero/bi/homo (sexual orientation) trichotomy.
What she needed was therapy to come to terms with her having been molested. That doesn’t have anything to do with her sexual orientation. Nobody knows what her sexual history would have been if she had not been molested. That was my point, and I stand by it.
As far as I can tell, I was never molested as a child, but I’m gay nonetheless. In my cheekier moments, I have mentioned to my (same sex) spouse that I wonder what was wrong with me that nobody tried to hit on me when I was a kid.
Yes Raj,
“What she needed was therapy to come to terms with her having been molested. That doesn’t have anything to do with her sexual orientation. Nobody knows what her sexual history would have been if she had not been molested. That was my point, and I stand by it.”
I agree with you here. Those in the liberal left might argue that she would have been lesbian no matter what, because that’s her true nature is “lesbian.” While those in the Religious Right might have argued that she became lesbian due to the molestation.
And I agree with you, no one can ever know what might have been.
Um, PM, I fail to understand what “liberal left” or “religious right” have to do with her wish to come to terms with her molestation. Maybe you can elucidate.
Her apparent need to come to terms with her molestation doesn’t have anything to do with the anti-equal-rights campaign by groups that have been identified as comprising the “religious right,” but perhaps you might be able to persuade us otherwise.
Raj,
What I meant was that there is a temptation(from both camps) to read into her situation, and that one’s political/ideological background may lead one to read into her situation differently, when in fact the truth is that no one really knows for sure how she would have turned out.
-Phallus Maximus