A continuation of off-topic discussions from this page.
Are exgay/postgay ideologues true champions of “sexual fluidity,” or does that title belong to honest bisexuals, or can both groups amicably share the trophy?
And what is the difference between exgay, postgay, and bisexual, anyhow?
Talk away.
In my honest opinion, they’re simply identities or labels, which differentiates from sexual orientation, and nothing more. Metaphysically speaking, it is trivial and pointless to discuss these things, since what matters is what the person is, and not how the person defines itself. Only when we can strip away ‘identity’ can we trully understand the mechanisms of sexual orientation itself.
I think they are different shades of the same fruit. I mean think about it, does a green apple taste exactly the same as a red and do all apples taste exactly the same? In theory gay men are not attracted to women. In reality, I have meet lots of men who have some attraction to women, just not much.
In reality everyone is probably different shades of bisexuality from zero same sex attraction to major overwhelming almost total same sex attraction and from zero opposite sex attraction to major overwhelming opposite sex attraction.
The trouble I have with ex-gays is that the term is dishonest. It sounds as if they no longer have same sex attractions when in fact it seems that most still do. In addition if they were truly ex-gay wouldn’t the term heterosexual be a better fit? This term leads itself too well to the idea of ex-gay as being no longer a part of gay culture (whatever the user defines it as) rather than a true change in orientation.
The problem with post gay it the idea that somehow because of the change they are “past” being gay. When in reality they are same sex attracted but managed to nurse on to some opposite sex attraction. Wither the changed or not is a mute point. I don’t think so. I think they either just found the one or two odd ball women that it worked with or that they are so disappointed with “gay culture”(however they define it) that they no longer want to be gay but are at least somewhat accepting of being gay.
Then you run into bisexual of whom there are truly some people who are bisexual and some people that claim they are bisexual, but gay or straight might be a better description. I do think that bisexuality exists, but if you’re a guy who is attracted to me 90+ percent of the time please doesn’t call yourself bi. Just because you sleep with a guy once in college 20 years ago and generally don’t find men attractive likewise don’t call yourself bi.
The only bisexuals in my book at at least the 50/50 or 60/40 ones. The ones that stand a very good chance of dating someone of either gender. I also don’t think that most people are the 50/50 or 60/40 sort of bi.
Jason said:
In reality everyone is probably different shades of bisexuality from zero same sex attraction to major overwhelming almost total same sex attraction and from zero opposite sex attraction to major overwhelming opposite sex attraction.
We all have opinions on this and as such yours is as valid as the next. The problem comes from stating one of these opinions as fact without any objective, authoritative proof to back it up. If Peter O had suggested that he was of the opinion that sexual orientation was fluid, a different discussion would have followed. However he stated:
Yes, sexual orientation is fluid, and my word on that is as valid a personal experience as someone who says they have always been homosexually attracted and have never seen a change in that.
That isn’t an opinion, that is a claim of fact. That requires proof to be taken seriously.
Peter O. may or may not have changed. If he had no political/religious agenda, I would accept the fact that he changed at face value. Because he seems to have one, it makes a bit harder to swallow, since for people who so deeply religious, the stakes are high (Eternal Damnation if one remains homo). I will agree with him, though, that sexuality is flexible for some people.
when people who have no problem being gay start to feel their orientation changing, I have no reason not to believe them. I know a few individuals.
Jack Drescher is a prominent gay psychiatrist who believes (look on Throckmorton’s site for the exact quote)that some gays can change into heterosexuals, but that it is a rare occurence, and perhaps harmful if someone tries to FORCE the change (for example, through therapy)
Further more, Clinton Anderson, director of the APA Office of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns, believes that changes in sexual orientation can and does occur, but that there is no proof that it can occur through consciously trying to force it via therapy.
Given the positions of a prominent gay psychiatrist and the director of a prominent gay activist organization, I find that it is safe to say that sexuality is flexible for some people.
But its a matter of “how much” and for “whom.”
Perhaps flexibility itself is an inborn trait that some are born with. Just like some people have the potential to master using both hands, even though they may start off right or left hand dominant only. Perhaps Peter was born with the ability to flex substantially in the hetero and homo directions. This certainly is as good a hypothesis as any.
A word about anecdotes: we really need to be careful here. We may attack Peter for using his own life as an anecdote, but we need to remember that there are a lot of ex-ex-gays who give anecdotes as proof that no one ever changes. Those anecdotes need to be questioned as well, to avoid hypocrisy, after all, it was said that anecdotes are hardly scientific.
Cranson said:
but we need to remember that there are a lot of ex-ex-gays who give anecdotes as proof that no one ever changes. Those anecdotes need to be questioned as well, to avoid hypocrisy, after all, it was said that anecdotes are hardly scientific.
This is apples and oranges. As far as I know, there are no ex-ex-gay organizations attempting to convert ex-gays. And we need not scrutinize the experience of ex-ex-gays to understand how they exist. Ex-ex-gays are simply people who are gay, but who have attempted to change their sexual orientation through formal therapy or other regimens. The lack of objective evidence that sexual orientation (sexuality is generic) can be significantly altered at will inevitably leads us to expect that ex-ex-gays exist by the definition above.
And as with the person who claims to be gay, it is almost a statement against interests – one would not expect such a claim from someone who was straight, especially if they had claimed to have been “converted” after being gay. However, there is considerable pressure for someone who is gay to claim they have become straight. That said, there certainly are scientific methods by which sexual attractions can be determined. Unfortunately, no ex-gay group to date has kept even modest follow-up records (or at least they don’t admit to doing so) and none that I know of have participated in such a study. And I am not talking about 45 minute telephone interviews as were done in the Spitzer study.
The bottom line is this, ex-gay organizations are the ones making the bold claims that “change is possible” etc. The onus is on them to substantiate those claims with something more than testimonials.
New thread, new chance to have a proper and courteous debate. (And I’m still open to anybody emailing me and continuing our particular conversation from the last one).
David, I’m worried by the way that you phrased your last comments. You made the statement “Ex-ex-gays are simply people who are gay, but who have attempted to change their sexual orientation through formal therapy or other regimens.” Can you not see that in the phrasing of that sentence you have come across as having already implictly assumed that a gay sexual orientation is a given and fixed? This is a huge stumbling point to the debate – you’re coming into a conversation about the fluidity of sexual orientation with the “fact” that it isn’t.
Ex-ex-gays could be ex-gays who found the process too emotionally painful to continue with because it meant facing their deeper points of relational fracture (a more psychological perspective). Ex-ex-gays could be people who went into “we’ll exorcise you twice and you’ll be fine” groups and then found that that didn’t work (the “ooh there’s a snake, grab it now” perspective). They could be people who, if sexual orientation is driven by a genetic basis, tried and failed to see change in their orientation because change was simply biologically unable to occur.
As for the statement that “The lack of objective evidence that sexual orientation (sexuality is generic) can be significantly altered at will”, I refer you AGAIN to Throckmoton’s article at https://www.narth.com/docs/attemptstomodify.html. Within this are numorous population studies of people who have reported sexual orientation change. What is wrong with those studies? Why are they different from say the census we have here in the UK every ten years where we have growing pressure for people to be able to report their sexual orientation?
One final pickup of what you said – “we need not scrutinize the experience of ex-ex-gays to understand how they exist”. On the contrary surely? Surely that’s a brilliant psychological/sociological question to ask? Why are you adverse to exploring the human condition in whatever format you find it?
I’d appreciate when you reply to this that if you’re going to criticise me you quote the exact thing that I’ve said and then critique that. Please don’t assume anything else about what I believe or don’t beyond what I’ve actually said. That’ll avoid confusion.
Peter
I’m sorry Peter but I have no desire to participate further in the arguments you seem to call debate. Perhaps others who have the time and see a point in doing so will continue with you. I’m not trying to be mean, but I honestly think you are a little too fond of arguing for my taste.
Sure Peter, ex-ex-gays could be all of that. They may also be from the devil, designed to confused you and make you stumble. So confusing. I presume you know, what, dozens of them?
While we’re all pondering that… fresh from the post string I should not have posted into… any response is more than welcome.
—-
[other stuff redacted]
And we’d agree with Skemono (on at least part of the post). It is, of course, impossible for Peter O to “prove” he’s post-gay, or whatever else he’s decided to identify himself by… this year. (We’ll disagree that people haven’t been reading his comments — think they have been).
However, given that Peter O is also taking the line of “gay cannot be genetic unless you can show me the specific gene”; we’re not all that sympathetic. Goose. Gander. Sauce.
We know — from long reading his blog etc — that Peter’s viewpoints are driven by Satinover’s dreadful 1996 screed, and more latterly by Neil Whitehead’s woeful book. (Frankly, Whitehead is about as qualified to pontificate about genetics as, urgh, well, Dean Hamer is qualified to pontificate about earthquakes in New Zealand as a radioecologist…). Classic “God of the gaps” mentality.
It’s a deliberate tactic. One designed to promote the already disproven family-environment or gender-confusion opinions; and one that offers no illumination about biology, genetics, or sexual development. One would not attempt to argue that appraoch with, say, cystic fibrosis — despite there being only 2 genes involved, researchers are faced with a monumental task of dealing with over 1000 possible mutations. We know cystic fibrosis is genetic in origin, even though the current tests can positively identify only a small number of cases.
And … there is rather more evidence for a biological basis of sexuality than there is for Peter O ever having been gay, homosexual, or SSA, or whatever. Frankly.
Peter O, you have left a trail behind you: as but one example.
It doesn’t take much to step outside the mind-bending logic of mentor, Mario Bergner, and see another perfectly reasonable explanation: perhaps, simply, a late-maturing, rather dweeby young man who hungered after male peer-group friendships and who was terrified that this loneliness and disconnection meant that he was gay.
Sorry Peter, being worried that your lack of raging heterosexuality might mean you are gay… is not the same thing as actually being gay. You said it yourself in 2002 — you had no sexual attractions, gay or straight. But you began to worry. Perhaps needlessly.
What we can also realise is that at times when, in Anglican circles, someone calls for tolerance, understanding and acceptance of gay and lesbian worshipers… up will pop Peter O presenting himself as “proof” that tolerance, understanding and acceptance is not required. Because, of course, these gay and lesbian worshippers could simply change — just like he did.
Peter’s rhetoric has become much more polarised, and hence much less believable, over the past few years… a timeframe running right alongside his involvement in anti-gay church politics. The wishy-washy 2002 type comments, offering much more insight, have been replaced by rigid theological-based polemic.
Reiterating Skemono — Peter has nothing to “prove”. At least, not to us. But we’d appreciate something in return:
do not claim “sexual orientation is flexible”. The evidence is that this is simply untrue for nearly all people. (It may be untrue for all people, but we cannot say that.) Peter O, or any other exgay, provides no evidence that many, let alone all, gay men and women could change their sexual orientation.
stop repeating hideous statistical nonsense from Satinover et al with the deliberate intention of placing some of your fellow worshippers on the defensive. Those distorted statistics provide no evidence about the lives of gay men and women, let alone any individual.
Peter O doesn’t have to go through life proving himself. He’s got every right to complain if someone expected him to.
Quid pro quo: gay men and women should not have to go through life proving that they cannot change — or that they don’t live perverse lives — because of the woolly and disputable public statements made by Peter O (or anyone else).
PS: do not again attempt a perhaps-you-illiterate-Americans-don’t-understand-my-“British style of writing” excuse either.
They understand well enough. And if they don’t, we’ll be happy to translate.
grantdale, you guys are my heroes….always the right thing said in the right way….
GD:
“However, given that Peter O is also taking the line of “gay cannot be genetic unless you can show me the specific gene”; we’re not all that sympathetic. Goose. Gander. Sauce.”
No, what I’m saying is that we cannot go into a debate from the basis that gay is biological unless we can prove it.
When I say “I’m post-gay” I’m reporting a perceived emotional state and behaviour therefrom. I’m making no explicit claim about the causation of the emotion that I’m experiencing, I’m simply reporting the emotion that I’m experiencing. The response of many here is simply to deny that I am experiencing that emotion.
BUT…. and this is the crucial thing, often when people counter and say “I’m gay and that will never change” they are not reporting the same thing that I am, because added to the reporting of current emotional behaviour and experience is an assumption of the staticness of that behaviour and experience AND the derivation of it (i.e. a biological root). At that point I’m standing up and saying “Hold on – how do you move from something that you self-diagnose (experiencing same-sex attraction) to it’s derivation (a biological basis). To self-report emotion is by it’s very nature an anecdotal process (open to the scrutiny that all such claims lead to) but then to make a scientific claim beyond that (the biological basis) is to open that claim up to scientific inquiry (is there a gay gene? hormone? hypothlamus?).
That’s the issue – I have no complaint with your self-reporting of your emotional/sexual state – you are probably absolutely right – but when one then adds to that a biological claim that deserves a biological inquiry. It is the avoidance of many on this site to admit to the results of such a scientific inquiry that is what confuses me.
GD,
The rest of your stuff is bordering on ad hominem. Far from become more polarised in the past few years I have moved more towards a nature / nurture combo understanding of sexual orientation (and away from nurture only). But, if you spent more time talking to me and less at me you’d know that.
Robis – agreed. I read everything grantdale writes. I thought his(their?) response to Alan Chambers a couple of weeks go was possibly the high water mark of XGW.
Mate, you’re a fake.
Youza! That was great! I’ve wanted someone to say that for a long time.
Since I’m just catching up during my lunch hour, I’ll have to make two separate posts. One is simply a challenge of a previous post by Peter Ould. The other, which will have to wait until the end of the day, will be my own comments on the fluidity of sexual orientation.
Since Peter Ould has condescended to rejoin the debate on this string, I would like him to address his charge on the first string in reference to something I wrote. I had written in a post: “When I hear someone like Peter O proclaim—‘I’m having sex with my wife, so that proves gays can change!”–I laugh.’”
Peter referenced my comment with another he found offensive and said, “These are simply strawmen. I have not said the above things and I’d like the moderators of this thread to address the content of posting of some here. It should be clear from a re-reading of all my comments here that I haven’t said either of the two things claimed above.”
I replied, and it is to that reply I would like Peter to answer, by quoting directly from one of his own previous posts in the same string:
“I have a very healthy sex life with my wife. Is that a good enough scientific observation for you? How many men who are “post-gay” and now have active sex lives with their wives do you want to meet before you believe that transformation actually happens?”
Now will Peter please explain to me: You state specifically that your “very healthy sex life with my wife” should be “good enough scientific observation” that “transformation actually happens.” In what substantitve way does that differ from my paraphrase that upset you so much:
“I’m having sex with my wife, so that proves gays can change”?
Nick C – You paraphrased me and presented it as a direct quotation. I think that answers your question. I’m sorry if that seems particularly picky but I can’t spend my time responding to things that I didn’t actually say. I’ll quite happily spend hours addressing and clarifying what I did say. So far (looking at my inbox a day later) no-one actually wants to do that.
Peter says,”When I say “I’m post-gay” I’m reporting a perceived emotional state and behaviour therefrom. I’m making no explicit claim about the causation of the emotion that I’m experiencing, I’m simply reporting the emotion that I’m experiencing. The response of many here is simply to deny that I am experiencing that emotion.”
I think this pretty much exposes where most of the problem is coming from here, and which exposes why many of us look upon your arguments with skepticism, Peter. You’re talking about a “perceived emotional state and behaviour therefrom”. That’s all well and good, but it sounds like weasel words to me—words that are techincally true but still deceptive in some way.
When the rest of us talk about sexual ORIENTATION, we are not talking about an emotional state. We are talking about modes of attraction to other human beings. Emotional states might be tied up in the psychology of that orientation, but they certainly are not the end-all and be-all of orientation. I have no doubt that you have achieved an emotional state with your wife that allows you to engage in sex with her. Others here in these comments have already discussed that they, too—and many others—have managed to achieve similar emotional states with the opposite sex. But that did not in any way change their sexual ORIENTATION. With that in mind, when you claim that change is possible and then point to your own life as an example, you make it seem as if you are talking about changing sexual ORIENTATION, but really you are just talking about achieving an emotional state that allows you to engage in certain hetero-identified behaviours. That’s a weasel. And it’s also the perfect example as to why many of us refuse to accept your anecdotal data as evidence of change–it is only change when you fuzzy up the meaning of “sexual orientation” to mean whatever will fit into what you want to claim.
Are you lying, Peter? Probably not. But you certainly aren’t using words in an honest and precise way.
I have no problem with Peter believing that sexuality (or his sexuality) is fluid. I’ve seen the wedding photos on his site and I genuinely hope he and his wife have a long and happy marriage.
I agree that it’s meaningless to point to one’s ability to have sex with the opposite gender as ‘evidence’ of either change in orientation or fluidity. On that point, I’m on the same page as Nick. It reminds me of how Stephen Bennett is promoted: “Once a promiscuous homosexual, Stephen is now married with two beautiful children!” I also agree with the commenter who was uncomfortable with Peter’s description of his sexual response to his wife’s genitalia. That’s a little more than we need to know, and my discomfort is not prudishness but my revulsion when wives of ex-gays are put forth as ‘evidence’ that change has happened. Again, it reminds me of how I felt when I saw Bennett’s wife brought up on the platform like she was an exhibit at the zoo.
I was married for 18 years and had lots and lots of sex with my wife. Never any problem with that from the beginning to the end of the marriage. I actually enjoyed it and felt close to my wife. BUT, that did not change the fact that I was gay and had a deep-down unchangeable desire to share my life fully with another man. Even good sex couldn’t save a marriage under those circumstances. I hope Peter’s situation turns out better than mine did. Though of course I’m very happy the charade is over and both my ex and I are free to live and love as we should.
“grantdale, you guys are my heroes….”
ditto.
I am always amazed that you know what someone said years ago that contradicts their current pretendings.
So Peter says he had no attrations either to men or women. Hmmmmm
That seems to contradict his current posturing.
Peter,
You asked that the moderators “address the content of posting of some here” because of strawmen arguments.
Let me start with yours.
Though this may be the opinion of some here, no XGW author is making a claim that the derivation of their “behaviour and experience” is biological or going into debate “from the basis that gay is biological”. We are simply reporting the results of studies in a manner consistent with the research. Please stop suggesting otherwise.
Further, no XGW writer is trying to claim that sexual orientation is NOT fluid. We are simply challenging your claims that it IS fluid. I don’t see you providing any evidence other than your testimony which, based on what grantdale has pointed out, seems to be not much support at all. This is, Peter, the classic example of a strawman argument. Rather than defend your position, you are making a false claim about ours and asking us to defend an argument that we don’t make.
“I’d appreciate when you reply to this that if you’re going to criticise me you quote the exact thing that I’ve said and then critique that.”
A paraphrase of your position which very accurately portrays your position (as did Nick C in regard to your claims about sex with your wife) are perfectly adequate to debate your claims. One need not put parentheses around your exact words if the argument goes to the point you were trying to make. It is NOT a strawman argument to correctly restate and then refute your argument.
And finally, Peter, we strongly discourage participants from off-site debate. The writers, contributors, and other participants at this site often have a wealth of knowledge about the ex-gay movement that may be relevant to the debate. For example, without grantdale’s comments, I would not have known that as recently as 2002 you stated that you had no sexual attractions, gay or straight thus bringing into question your self-identification as post-gay.
(incidentally, I’ve not seen you address this point of grantdale’s. If indeed you never were attracted to men, how can your testimony be treated as other than deliberately deceptive?)
Not sure anyone will still be paying attention to this string at this point, but I did say earlier I wanted to post some comments on the topic of fluid sexual orientation.
Let me make clear first that I am not a psychologist, that I am not immersed in any scientific literature on this topic, and speak purely from my own experience and the experience of people I know. But then again I’m 55 and have had a little more experience in these areas than most. (I was a gay hippie on Castro Street when I was 18, then lived as ex-gay for 30 years, during which I was involved with Exodus, Homosexuals Anonymous, and NARTH; then came out again at 50.)
I think a lot of the smoke on this whole topic comes from a confusion between sexual orientation and sexual desire/responsiveness. I find that for most people, there is a primary sexual orientation that’s fairly inflexible. If a person’s primary orientation is homosexual, then his/her first and strongest response will always be toward a person of the same sex.
To put it crudely: If the images of a gorgeous naked man and equally gorgeous naked woman pop up in front of me simultaneously, which do I look at first? Which arouses me more? In fact, as we all know, behavioral psychologists have devised a few tests along those line, with which they attempt to measure sexual orienation.
While orientation may be measured in terms of which sex attracts you, I find that it affects us on levels well beyond desire or lust. Orientation seems to have a profound impact on our sense of ourselves. That’s why living in denial of one’s sexual orientation can create a level of distress that goes far beyond just frustrated sexual desire.
In my own experience–and in that I’m including everything I observed with all the ex-gays I’ve ever met–orientation is quite inflexible. I’ve personally met only one person who really seems to have had a change in orientation. That was a man who had been straight his whole life, never felt any homosexual impulse, and then in his forties started having gay sex and became completely homosexually oriented. He wasn’t looking for a change–somehow he just ended up there.
Based on that one experience, I believe that changes in orientation CAN happen. But they seem to be extremely rare, and they seem to happen spontanteously rather than through deliberate pursuit.
So in my view, sexual orientation is fixed. But sexual desire–now that’s another story altogether. I believe that in the right circumstances, almost everyone can experience desire, attraction, lust, and love beyond the fixed focus of our basic orientation.
In my original post in the first thread on this topic, I described a variety of situations in which homosexual men whom I know (including myself) have been involved with women in everything from casual sex to close, loving marriages. In all the situations I described, the men experienced no sense that their orientation had changed.
On the other side, heterosexual men often discover that they enjoy gay sex in certain circumstances, without ever feeling strongly attracted to other men in general.
So I am not at all surprised that someone like Peter Ould can experience a wonderful sexual relationship with his wife, although his primary orientation might remain homosexual. (Although from other comments, it’s not so clear what Peter’s original orientation even was.)
But unlike Peter, I don’t believe that the ability to function in a heterosexual relationship or simply enjoy heterosexual sex says anything at all about whether a person has “changed” or been “transformed.” It’s just the difference between the fluid nature of our sexual desires and responses, vs the more fixed nature of each person’s basic orientation.
“For example, without grantdale’s comments, I would not have known that as recently as 2002 you stated that you had no sexual attractions, gay or straight thus bringing into question your self-identification as post-gay.
(incidentally, I’ve not seen you address this point of grantdale’s. If indeed you never were attracted to men, how can your testimony be treated as other than deliberately deceptive?)”
Ask GD to give you the URL where he found this, have a read of the full text of that biog piece I did and THEN tell me whether you think that single quote from the piece is a fair representation of what I was saying about my sexual attractions.
Nick C said:
‘But unlike Peter, I don’t believe that the ability to function in a heterosexual relationship or simply enjoy heterosexual sex says anything at all about whether a person has “changed” or been “transformed.” ‘
*Yawn* – this is exactly what I’m talking about. I also don’t believe that the ability to “function in a heterosexual relationship” or to “simply enjoy heterosexual sex” proves someone has “changed” or “transformed”. I do wish you’d actually report what I did say and not what you think I said.
Peter you’ve done all kinds of dancing around and playing games with the meaning of words. People have paraphrased you accurately and you’re whining that they didn’t use your exact words is totally disingenous. Your game playing is deceptive, weasily, and non-sensical. No one responed to your email invitations because they want your silliness to be apparent for all to see.
The fact remains that people have incentive to lie and claim they are “exgay” whereas a gay person has nothing to gain by admitting it. Your twisted meandering posts have simply reinforced this inherent lack of credibility. I’m sure the people at the university you went to would be glad you didn’t name them so they have to be associated with the non-responsive absurdities you’ve posted here.
Peter earlier said:
“I have a very healthy sex life with my wife. Is that a good enough scientific observation for you? How many men who are “post-gay” and now have active sex lives with their wives do you want to meet before you believe that transformation actually happens?”
And Peter now says:
“I also don’t believe that the ability to “function in a heterosexual relationship” or to “simply enjoy heterosexual sex” proves someone has “changed” or “transformed”.”
“Ask GD to give you the URL where he found this, have a read of the full text of that biog piece I did and THEN tell me whether you think that single quote from the piece is a fair representation of what I was saying about my sexual attractions.”
https://www.bridges-across.org/ba/intros/ould_peter.htm
OK… Here’s a better summary:
Until age 19 you had no attraction to either sex.
Over the next three years you developed attraction to men. You did not mention any emotional, romantic, and/or physical expression of this dawning attraction.
Over the following three to four years you developed attraction to women. Eventually you married.
Thanks. This better understanding does help me evaluate whether your personal testimony is “a good enough scientific observation for” me.
Thank-you Timothy. We did have the link on the original, but didn’t check when we did the cut-and-paste. Being careless. Also lost all the italics. 🙁
—
Peter O,
You really do need to get over seeing any disagreement with your viewpoints as a personal attack. We are also not attacking you personally when we are able to show that you are misrepresenting matters about your life. Neither have anything to do with respecting your right to make any decisions you want to about your life — we were at pains to point that at.
Going back to the goose and the gander…
Your standard defence, at least here, appears to be to claim that you are suffering an ad hominem attack.
Frankly, but as you deliberately present yourself as the ad hominem evidence that “gays can change”… you are being disingenuous when you whinge about someone bothering to check if the man matches his rhetoric.
You do use that rhetoric — the untested ad hominem claims you make about yourself — in a very public debate. We don’t need to talk to you, in private, to follow the public campaign; all things considered, we’d prefer to rely on your public statements and not a private communication. A decade of conversations with exgays has made us wary about doing that.
You also remain free to claim you’ve become less polarised over the past few years, but I’d suggest people review Anglican Mainstream and elsewhere to make their own mind up on that.
I think this is probably about enough on the matter. It seems fairly clear that you are like all to many public exgays
you will make very public claims about yourself, you will use these claims to make unwarranted claims about others, but you will also refuse to open those claims up to public scrutiny. The “conversation” is all one way. When questioned, you shut the conversation down. Alan. Randy. et al.
And the moral of the story: don’t stand in the limelight if you don’t like bright lights.
And thank you Robis –but we rush to assure you that we can, do, have, and will continue to make more than enough of our share of stupid comments…
All you have to do is wait 🙂
After looking over the site mentioned by grantdale above, I was somewhat surprised to see that Peter has been married for less than 4 months. While I honestly hope he and his wife enjoy a lifetime together – I mean that sincerely – the newness of this marriage is germane to this discussion.
I’m not going to join the dogpile on Peter. I hope things work out for you both.
I’m going to speak as possibly the only out bisexual here. Sometimes I get angry at the idea that an ex-gay who claims he still gets attracted to men is lying about himself, or that a man with same-sex attractions can’t love a woman, too. After all, I can love my wife even though I have attractions to men, and I could love a man with attractions to women, too. The man himself was also bi, and if he was lying, well, I’d nominate him for the Genitalia Academy Awards.
Because I and other bi people have been accused of lying about ourselves so very much, I don’t like to tell ex-gays they’re lying about their experience.
I don’t want a trophy and I don’t want to share it. All I want is a culture that acknowledge’s everyone’s right to love as they see fit. I don’t think ex-gays truly champion fluidity, though. They insist on only one direction.
I would applaud an exgay individual who, being attracted to both sexes, identified as bisexual.
But I have yet to meet an exgay advocate who was quite so honest.
How is it not an act of deception (to oneself if no one else) to be attracted to both sexes, with equal or greater attraction to the same sex, and yet claim to be heterosexual?
I’ve known people with bi histories who identify as either gay or straight, or who use terms like “heteroflexible” and “lesbian who sleeps with men.” Also, bisexuals are frequently discouraged from being honest about themselves in both the gay and straight communities. (See “straight men who sleep with men” post above.) I can’t particularly fault those ex-gays with bisexual attractions, you know?
I’m bisexual too, Jayelle. In my younger days I was assured by gay men that I’d forget all about women once I had sex with a man. It didn’t happen, I’m still attracted to both. I’ve been called a liar by gay men and it is annoying, but I understand why they would have doubts especially if they were exclusively same sex attracted – its always hard to believe others can have feelings differing from our own and many, maybe most same sex attracted people go through a time when they don’t want to be that way. I’m with Mike on this one, it’d be a lot more honest and believable if self-identified “exgays” said they were bisexual.
Jayelle, I would agree with you if ex-gays were using the terms “ex-gay”, et. al., to mean something MORE than gay—that is, if they were using “ex-gay” as a term that meant, in effect, “bisexual”. All the terms you mention–“heteroflexible”, “lesbian who sleeps with men”, etc.–acknowledge the fact that the people using such labels are referring to people with an orientation towards both sexes. “Ex-gay”, et. al., doesn’t do that. Those are labels designed to obfuscate the truth, and to hide the same-sex facet of their orientation. In many if not most cases, it is an attempt to deny the same-sex facet. And they do this not because they have been accused to lying about their attractions but because they actually are lying about their attractions (as evidenced by the fact that they admit to still having some same-sex attractions).
That’s not the same thing as bisexuals being accused of lying, and I’m sorry so many people feel the need to make such accusations. That doesn’t change the fact that ex-gays are being dishonest about themselves.
Today, with the peddling of a book by former New Jersey Governor McGreevey on all the talk/demi-news shows I am sure I will be bombarded with questions about the fluidity of homosex. My lunch-time friends and watercooler impromptu mussings will certainly center on what is being bi or transformed sexuality.
In my opinion someone who goes from homosexuality and transforms to having a healthy sex life with his wife is just someone living McGreevey’s life in reverse. He is still gay.
Jayelle Wiggins-Lunacharsky at September 19, 2006 11:33 PM
Thanks for the reminder.
Re the bisexuality discussion.
I go back to my comments (see post above) that distinguish between a primary sexual orientation, which is usually fixed, and sexual desire/attraction, which can be much more fluid.
I am willing to believe that some people have a genuine bisexual orientation. That is, they are equally attracted to both men and women. I have to say I’ve never personally met someone like that, but if someone says “That’s me!” I’m prepared to believe him or her.
I do think that discussions of bisexuality get confused (and scepticism is fueled) by the fact that people who have a true homosexual or heterosexual orientation often engage in bisexual behavior. These might include the “people with bi histories who identify as either gay or straight, or who use terms like ‘heteroflexible’ and ‘lesbian who sleeps with men'” that Jayelle refers to.
Does the fact that someone has sex with both men and women automatically make that person a bisexual?
Well, think of this common example: a straight guy in an environment with no women, such as prison, finds sexual release with other men and even forms close attachments to some. But once back outside that environment, he is only sexually interested in women. To me it seems clear that just having sex with men didn’t make him homosexual or even bisexual. His orientation remained heterosexual.
In the same way, a homosexual man can get married for social or religious reasons, and even have a satisfying sexual relationship with his wife, without any change in his true sexual orientation. That’s been the case (not necessarily the satisfying sexual relationship, but definitely the no change in orientation) for all of the married ex-gays I’ve ever known–and beyond my personal experience, I met plenty of married men in Exodus and Homosexuals Anonymous.
So bottom line: I do not believe that sexual orientation is fluid, at least for the vast majority of people. No therapy has demonstrated an ability to change someone who has a clearly homosexual orientation into a heterosexual or even into a true bisexual.
Said it before and will again–my problem with ex-gays is much less about “We did” and much, much more about “You should.”
Also, I follow a religion in which it is believed that what you do will come back to you.
Re the bisexual discussion:
Bisexuality is really central to the whole “ex-gay” controversy, and yet both sides tend to ignore it. People talk about “homosexuality,” “gay,” or “same-sex attraction”–but none of these things are uniform for all people. There are many dffierent ways that “same-sex attraction” or “homosexuality” plays out in a persons’ life. If anyone with same-sex attraction/homosexuality/gayness gets lumped into the same category, you can “prove” anything you want. The ex-gay/ex-ex-gay debate will go nowhere untill people start looking at homosexuality/same-sex attraction as pluriform, taking different shapes in different people.
Nick C wrote:
“I go back to my comments (see post above) that distinguish between a primary sexual orientation, which is usually fixed, and sexual desire/attraction, which can be much more fluid.”
I like the way you distinguish between orientation and desire/attraction. In terms of change, I would caution, however, against drawing too much from personal experience (there ar emnay problems with that, such as sampling errors). On the topic of bisexuality, people often make sweeping generalizations without looking at actual studies. A good start is Dual Attractions (1995), a ten year, in depth longitidinal study of self-identified bisexuals in the San Francisco Bay Area. About 40% of them began as predominatly heterosexual, with homosexuality developing as an “add-on.” However, homosexuality doesn’t necessarily remain as an appendix. My impression is that, for a large number of these, their orientation changes from being substantially hetero to bisexual (in that both attractions substantially affect one’s orientation).
There have been a number of studies on the variability or fluidity of sexual orientation. In general, sexual orientation seems to be more variable in women than in men, and higher among both male and female bisexuals than among heterosexuals and homosexuals of both genders. In particular, gays and lesbians tend to describe their sexualhistories in very different ways. Gays tend to talk in term so “this is who I truly am,” whereas lesbian self-narratives tend to be more fluid.
>>I am willing to believe that some people have a genuine bisexual orientation. That is, they are equally attracted to both men and women.>I do think that discussions of bisexuality get confused (and scepticism is fueled) by the fact that people who have a true homosexual or heterosexual orientation often engage in bisexual behavior. These might include the “people with bi histories who identify as either gay or straight, or who use terms like ‘heteroflexible’ and ‘lesbian who sleeps with men'” that Jayelle refers to.
i myself am a happy gay-identified man how is considering a post-gay/hetero relationship for the first time in almost 10 years. I lost my virginity to a woman (very happily), engaged in 2 LTR with women, and then subsequent moved to more homosexual behavior in my late teens. I came out to my family (as a gay man) when I was 19 and have been in several LTR monogamous with men over the past 10 years. My family has been mostly supportive of me, have met all of my past boyfriends, etc. I have had some good relationships but I am psychologically really tired. After three break-ups, I am ready for something that will last a life time. Some of this is fueled by the fact that I work long hours and love my family (my siblings, my mom and dad) and would like to have a relationship that complements my family nicely.
I am sexually very versatile so I found that in my relationships with men, I was always compromising my sexual behavior to please the other party anyway. For those who don’t know: some men are tops exclusively, som bottoms, some only into frottage, etc. After three such relationships, I no longer believe that I want or need to date a man to be happy in love. I am still sexually attracted to men but I know that in the end what is more important to me now is a LTR with which I can blend family and work life. I now expect that in this LTR there will be sexual compromises along the way.
Gay men (all my gay friends and the men I have dated) suffer from a lot of trauma (manifested by internalized homophobia) and I am really really tired of dealing with it. My first boyfriend was a great guy but was much older than I was (different generation) and so wanted to live together and have sex but when work friends call, he would demote me to “roommate”. My second boyfriend was a great guy but the sex was really limiting and I wasn’t happpy after a few months. My third boyfriend was a great love who was a christian (I am not!!), loving, etc but wasn’t interested in having children or sharing a “married” (only metaphorically !!) sort of life which for me is very important because I really enjoy my family as a hobby.
So, this discussion is very interesting. but ultimately I think sexuality (both behavior and orientation) can be fluid. I think when we politicize sexuality we will frequently get the wrong answers to questions. Humans are complex creatures and they are juggling many different values, sexuality being just one.
When I find the right women, how do I intend to identify myself? I will probably call myself post-gay when I am with my gay friends, and simply husband and father to the rest of the world.
Hopey, identifying yourself as bisexual would have been and is a more accurate and honest term.
Hopey,
I wish you well in your quest for a family and children. If you believe that this can only be achieved for you through marriage to a woman, I can hardly argue with your own personal life experiences.
However, I would caution you to take a careful look at your life before you take this step.
I am not a mental health professional and can offer no advice towards that end, but something in your comments caught my attention. In discussing all of your relationships, you laid the blame for each ending on the other party. One did not suffiently acknowledge you, one did not meet your needs sexually (though you describe yourself as versatile), and one was not ready to settle down and have children.
Now you think the solution may be to see a relationship with a woman. Yet it seems to me obvious that the world is full of women who are not adequately acknowledging, sexually fulfilling, or ready to settle down and have children. None of these are particularly male or particularly gay issues.
I may be quite mistaken, but I would think that the least of your concerns should be about which label to place on yourself.
I don’t wish to give you any suggestions about the gender of the next person you pursue. Indeed, if you are attracted to both men and women, I think making such an arbitrary determination in advance cuts in half your chance of finding (as movies put it) your one true love.
But before you do get involved with anyone, I would suggest that you find someone – a counselor, a professional, or just a friend you trust – and spend some time thinking about whether you contributed in any way to the termination of your previous relationships. And if perhaps you are not being clear about what you want in a relationship.
Please don’t take this as a criticism or attack. And I’m not saying you are crazy or need mental help. I’m just offering a suggestion that might be more beneficial than worrying over whether you are gay, bisexual, post-gay, or any other term.
In recent years, I have come to view gender and sexual identities as multi-axial in nature, and each axis is best described as a spectrum of behaviour.
Then similarly, what we do is an expression of that identity. For example, someone may well be quite profoundly bisexual, but lives in a monogamous relationship (either hetero or homo-sexual).
Different axis are introduced as we start considering other factors in attraction (age, appearance, body type, hair color, intellect … whatever it is that “turns your crank”, and accept that someone’s identity and behaviour may well be somewhat at odds with each other. (Take a look at how “successfully” some transsexuals are at living the wrong gender role before transitioning)
Because we cannot “see into” someone’s head, but only really have access to what they report, we can only guess at the “clinical reality”. This is partially why I prefer to view identity as a “core”, with an associated “expression” that is linked to, but not necessarily fixed to the core identity.
The elasticity of behaviour that such a model allows for makes it quite easy to rationalize behaviours from “polar” (exclusively straight or gay) to “fluid and changing” as the ex-gay or ex-ex-gay reflect, along with the numerous varieties of cross-gender behaviour seen in the transgender world. {I know, bad terminology, but I hope you get my idea}