Eve Tushnet has posted a variety of reader reactions (along with her own responses) to her National Review Online article about Focus on the Family’s exgay-ideology road show.
Tushnet also links back to a spring debate on reparative therapy hosted by pro-exgay science pundit Prof. Warren Throckmorton.
Tushnet’s readers are generally thoughtful and conservative. The one truly annoying comment came from “L.,” who simultaneously acknowledges a lesbian orientation while rejecting lesbian behavior by marrying and having four children. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that course of action; it’s the projection of her own prejudice that galls. Emphasis is mine:
My point, though, is that in today’s culture gays are depicted as having no control over their actions and as a lesbian, I know this to be untrue.
Perhaps I’m not meeting the right people, but the only folks I encounter who depict gays as consistently having no behavioral self-control are, frankly, the exgay and antigay ideologues.
Interestingly, in a response to an e-mail by Mark, Eve states: “Even if someone truly desires a change in orientation, I would not direct that person to an ex-gay ministry.”
So she at least has some understanding of what these ex-gay ministries are all about and finds their approach unacceptable. Good for her.
I have to say, I’m finding her quite enjoyable to read. Though I disagree with her on many issues, I’m finding that I can relate to many of the things she brings up.
This, in particular, struck me as thoughtful and interesting:
“ALL THIS USELESS BEAUTY: One of the reasons the family-dynamics origin stories (and the gender-dysfunction/salvation-through-pantyhose ones) don’t really work for me is that they reduce what I experienced as an existential alienation into a psychological one. First off, I didn’t feel “different from all the other girls”; I felt different from all the other humans. (I suspect boys’ reactions are more likely to be gender-linked, though.) More importantly, in some respects my sexual orientation turned out to be the key that unlocked the world for me–the thing that made things make sense. I’ll try to explain by posting what I had initially intended to be the last section of the NRO piece (but it was already way too long). I think this can serve as one possible Christian alternative to the ex-gay worldview. I would never claim this is the only possible alternative. But it responds to my sense that my experiences weren’t just pointless, something to be overcome and forgotten as quickly as possible. So here it is (with links to earlier posts where I expand on some of this stuff):
If I had grown up heterosexual, I don’t know if I would be Catholic today. There are two reasons for this: beauty, and alienation.
I was fascinated by Catholicism in part because it explained my intuition that the beauty of the world was not random but meaningful; that the little beauties of the world pointed beyond themselves to some great underlying loveliness. I had a few touchstone images of this beauty. Perhaps the one I still recall most vividly is the image of a woman’s face–a young woman on whom I had a schoolgirl crush–a pale, distracted, inquisitive face in a darkened room. I strive, now, to see all people as I saw her then: as an image of God.
The alienation was even more central to my conversion. Throughout my childhood I had a strong sense that something had gone wrong–that I was not only different but broken. I connected this feeling to my sexual orientation, and developed intense shame. This despite being raised in an extraordinarily gay-positive household–I could be misremembering, but I’m not sure I even encountered stigma against homosexuality until I was in junior high.
The doctrine of original sin offered a startling and hopeful possibility: Suddenly the thing that made me different, my sexual orientation, was not the focus; my alienation was a distilled version of what every person experiences after the Fall. My orientation was a source of insight, not solely a burden or a political cause.
I don’t think this is a universal story, applicable to everyone with same-sex attractions. But I do think it’s more joyful, and more realistic, than the standard ex-gay narrative. It’s also less politically useful–which is all to the good.”
https://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_eve-tushnet_archive.html#115037041959869787
I grew up feeling alienated from everyone, as well, but I interpret it differently than she does. First, that I grew up to be an artist and secondly, though not in this particular order, nor to I really separate them in my personality, that I’m what can only be described as a ‘spiritual seeker’. A natural sense of alienation is quite beneficial for both.
See..that’s what I’m talking about ‘differentness’ isn’t always about sexuality. None of us is the same as the other. We just have pretty simple commonalities. I wouldn’t think things could be so complicated in our culture that has so much access to information and education. Our experiences with each other, especially other exotic cultures, isn’t so much so anymore.
In discussing sexuality, I was just talking to a girlfriend of mine who knows someone who is asexual.
She told me the woman got married to a man on the advice of the good intentioned and produced six children. All of this traumatized her. She had a hard divorce and would rather just forget she ever tried to have sex with anyone.
I told my friend that these degrees of sexuality in all of us, whether asexual, bi, gay or heterosexual are ALL normal.
It seems that straight people just don’t get the others and it pisses me off they don’t EVER seem to want to.
In this discussion, I realized and told my friend, that there are unsuspecting and INAPPROPRIATE spouses that get hurt in this lack of understanding these ranges of sexuality.
The husband of this asexual woman had to suffer that he wasn’t attractive to her.
Same goes for a straight person married to someone gay.
Asexuality is something that is preferred FOR gay people by the majority, but it’s not the in the instinctual process of the individual.
And it should be THEIR own self realization, not anyone else’s.
Does it not occur to anyone that forcing anyone to change, whether asexual or homosexual is the most unnatural pursuit we have?
It only hurts someone else, when this alteration of the natural instinct occurs and those who don’t share it involve themselves in this process.
Nowhere does it hurt those who aren’t compatible to NOT get involved.
But it’s best for everyone if those who ARE compatible be allowed to be who they are in peace.
Differentness could be anything. The sad part is, regardless of how harmless it is, there always seems to be cause to interfere, humiliate or repress.
And that I don’t understand.
Regan said “Does it not occur to anyone that forcing anyone to change, whether asexual or homosexual is the most unnatural pursuit we have?”
I couldn’t agree more, Regan. What could be more natural than acting upon strong desires that appear in our minds with no effort or direction on our part? That is the natural course of action.