Tell us about exgay blogs that dare to think outside the box of the political religious right.
O
Tell us about exgay blogs that dare to think outside the box of the political religious right.
right of the bat, I’d go with Throckmorton’s and disputed-mutability’s blogs. they are well balanced, and never fail to call out the religious right when they do or say something stupid.
Grace (willfulgrace.blogspot.com) has always been one of my favorites. A new blog from a SSA college student names Jay has also recently grabbed my attention (collegejay.blogspot.com). He’s got a very balanced view of things, from what I’ve seen.
Sorry, the terms “ex-Gay” and “favorite” don’t go together in my vocabulary. This issue is far too serious to be made light of.
Stuffed Animal,
We are not making light. We are quite serious.
We believe that each individual has the right to pursue ex-gay efforts if they wish. And we are sympathetic with those who seek this goal.
Our complaint is not with ex-gay people but rather with lies, deceipt, political efforts, and callous manipulations that seem the calling card of the most visible leadership of ex-gay groups, particularly Exodus, FOTF, and NARTH.
We respect those individuals that seek a life of celibacy consistent with their faith or those who are hoping that internal attraction will change. And blogsites that publish their thoughts, concerns, hopes, and progression are a welcome part of the XGW community.
We even seek to remain in conversation with some who may disagree with us on the likelihood of reorientation, religious convictions, or even – to some extent – political objectives provided that they do so honestly, openly, and respectfully.
The definition of a decent person is not “one that agrees with me”. And there are some very decent people who are either ex-gay or who are voices in that community.
Unfortunately there are far too many of those who identify as “ex-gay” who are so incredibly conflicted, depressed, have anxiety disorders, (on anti-depressants), are often very needy/co-dependent and who have such internalized homophobia that I seriously question how healthy it is for them. That has been my experience among the Mormons in Utah at least. I have also seen it among various Evangelical and Catholic groups. If the Bible didn’t have those “clobber passages” (the passages that allegedly condemn homosexuality) then I wonder how conflicted gay Christians would be about their sexual orientation and how “unwanted” their same sex attraction would be?
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid at October 20, 2006 06:07 PM
Well said Timothy, my sentiments exactly.
Unfortunately there are far too many of those who identify as “ex-gay” who are so incredibly conflicted, depressed, have anxiety disorders, (on anti-depressants), are often very needy/co-dependent and who have such internalized homophobia that I seriously question how healthy it is for them.
Doesn’t this describe a large segment of the population in general, at least at one time or another? The thing is, we are not or certainly should not, be in a position to tell someone which avenue to take anymore than we should tell them what faith to embrace. We can share our own experiences, relay the facts and expose the lies, but each individual must make up their own mind on how to live their lives.
This is a terrific idea for a thread. I do not have any suggestions, myself, because I haven’t looked for any blogs like this. But I have always maintained that people should have the free choice to live the life they feel they need to live, and to choose the path they feel led to choose.
Despite what the politically oriented anti-gay blogs say, we do NOT recruit. All WE have ever asked for is the right to live our OWN lives with integrity and follow the course WE believe God or the sunshine fairy or nature or the spaghetti monster has asked US to follow.
I’ve told Randy Thomas repeatedly that I don’t care what he calls himself or how he lives. What I object to is his butting his fat nose into MY life and MY home with his political warrior machine with the intent to turn the constitution of this country against me and my family. That’s my ONLY issue with him (and his Michele Malkin war-loving right wing friends). (His response was, “You gays think this is all about you.”) Well, yes, Randy, your war machine is turned against us, so yes, YOU’RE are the ones who made it all about “us gays.”
I believe that people hurt themselves both physically and spiritually when they act against they religious and/or moral beliefs. I have “no long identified gay” friends who I adore and treasure as human beings. Unlike Randy Thomas and Alan Chambers, they don’t feel this compulsion to lie about us, war against us or prove to the world how “ungay” they are because, unfortunately, they don’t keep blogs. They just quietly love God and they love me — and I love and respect them.
This is where I find the justification for banning gay marriage, the one that says that “I (ex-gay) might not be free of homosexuality today if I had been able to get married to my same sex partner.” Stephen Bennett is famous for that one, but so are others. That’s a perverse view, designed to justify a civil prohibition with a religious argument.
Should we abolish marriage entirely because so many opposite sex spouses are victims of spousal abuse? How about those who are murdered at the hands of their same sex spouse? If marriage did not exist at all, then my these people might have narrowly escaped and had productive lives.
Of course this is somewhat absurd, but it illustrates the absurd. On the pragmatic side, with a 52% divorce rate in this country, I believe if a married same sex couple had an epipheny, they could easily dissolve the marriage and go on with their ex-gay lives.
Sorry, I got up this morning and felt like venting. At least it’s an open thread 🙂
I have nothing against EXODUS. I think every person has the RIGHT to be WRONG.
Aside from first-hand observations and those generalizations by Mr. B. Clark (above) I think there are many gay Mormons who have found contentment without falling into some sort of psychological nadir. Even to the point many do not “go off the deep end” and forsaking all the correct principles they were taught in Sunday School. They do not smoke and drink (excessively) and while they might have found the same joy as others with having a cup of java (I do not) they are not co-dependent.
I raise my Grape Nehi/Orange Crush/Squirt in a toast to all those other gay Mormons who have found solace and perhaps have left a little of their spirituality behind but vestiges of it remain.
“We believe that each individual has the right to pursue ex-gay efforts if they wish. And we are sympathetic with those who seek this goal . . . we respect those individuals that seek a life of celibacy consistent with their faith or those who are hoping that internal attraction will change. And blogsites that publish their thoughts, concerns, hopes, and progression are a welcome part of the XGW community . . the definition of a decent person is not “one that agrees with me”. And there are some very decent people who are either ex-gay or who are voices in that community.”
You won’t like what I’m going to say, but I’m going to say it anyway. Without meaning to, you are distorting the truth! You are perpetuating confusion. You are adopting fundamentalist rhetoric and lending it the aura of credibility. There is NO SUCH THING as an “ex-Gay” person!!! This is not a simple matter of semantics, and I don’t care how you parse it. You are either homosexual or you aren’t! You do not stop being homosexual when you, for whatever reason, decide to copulate with members of the opposite sex. You do not stop being homosexual when you practice celibacy. And, quiet as it’s kept, suppressing or trying to change one’s God-given sexual orientation is not a legitimate expression of anybody’s faith. As a Christian, I find it offensive that you would suggest such a thing.
Don’t reduce homosexuality to an ideological argument. That’s playing into the Religious Right’s hands, too! When you talk about homosexuality, you’re talking about something as inherent as one’s skin or eye color. You’re talking about something that’s so inherent, men and women are driven to kill themselves for failure to change it. Think about that the next time you’re tempted to chat about “favorite ex-Gay” whatever. You’re making light of another person’s anguish, and if someone has decided to call themselves “ex-Gay,” you’d best believe that anguish was involved in the decision!
Nobody who proclaims themselves “ex-Gay” is making a benign statement. They’re making an explicity anti-Gay statement! They are saying homosexual orientation is wrong, that it can be changed, and that it should be changed. On all three counts, a lie has been told, and those lies promote the persecution of innocent people. If these blogsites promoted themselves as “ex-Black” or “ex-Jewish”, you’d immediately understand what I’m saying. Open your EYES, already! How can you make peace with another person’s self-hatred? A live-and-let-live attitude with the damage bigotry leaves does nothing but perpetuate bigotry. No, we don’t have to attack its misguided victims, but we don’t have to take part in misguiding them, either!
I agree with Stuffed Animal’s analysis! The very title, “ex-gay” denotes to people that being gay is not a “condition,” but is a “choice” that one can reject if one is committed to Jesus, has the will to change, decides to become “moral,” etc. The assumption behind the existence of “ex-gays,” as witnessed by much of their animus and rhetoric, is that if a person remains gay, he or she is willfully doing so and, hence, doesn’t deserve the same considerations and civil and sacramental rights as non-gay people. I know that your motives in your approach to this topic are noble and well-intentioned. However, as I see the reality of it, the very discussion of ex-gay blogs “thinking outside the box of the political religious right” tacitly gives credence to the stereotype that being gay is a choice and, as a choice, can be unchosen by those who really want to change. And as most knowledgeable people recognize, such change is not only impossible, but downright undesireable! And it’s the promise of the possibility and desireability of such change by ex-gay blogs, ignorant and mendacious politicians, and assorted clergy that has caused untold suicides, bashings, and murders of LGBT people!
I agree with Stuffed Animal’s analysis! The very title, “ex-gay” denotes to people that being gay is not a “condition,” but is a “choice”
So what would you have us do? Always place the term in quotes like others do with the word “gay” or just ignore the fact that people with these beliefs and motives exist at all? Ex-gay has evolved into a term that covers a lot of ground but also carries a lot of baggage, baggage which groups like Exodus are actively trying to cut loose from by eliminating the term entirely. If you want to be part of their PR make over, allowing them to distance themselves from the images of Richard Cohen beating the stuffing out of a pillow or cuddling with a grown man, go for it.
I’m just not sure what you are asking us to do here. What would be your alternative? Mike basically asked for links to blogs of people who are unhappy being homosexual but do not necessarily buy into the religious right exploitation of them. Since they call themselves ex-gay, well?
Does it really threaten your own psyche that much to consider the possibility that someone, somewhere, could actually change? I don’t suggest we recommend it, as it does appear to be the most incredible of exceptions and the road for most appears littered with damage, but neither am I going to steadfastly ignore reality.
I agree with Stuffed animal too, I thought he/she summed it up very well.
David said “So what would you have us do? Always place the term in quotes like others do with the word “gay””.
Yes, that’s what I’d have you do. It allows use of the term “exgay” to define this group of generally anti-gay people while suggesting that it is not to be a meaning taken literally.
I don’t have a problem with people putting “gay” in quotes, this is slang after all and the word actually means happy.
Personally, I think reorientation to be either extremely unlikely or extremely difficult. But I’m not willing to claim it cannot be possible.
Personally, I find sexual orientation to be compatible with my religious faith. But I’m not willing to insist that it be compatible with all others.
Personally, I believe that reconciliation is a better goal than reorientation. But I’m not willing to insist that others share my goals.
Personally, I am able to respect and listen to those who find the term “ex-gay” to be offensive and who cannot tolerate the decisions of those who chose to pursue ex-gay efforts. But I’m not willing to let their discomfort exclude or dismiss those persons who believe that attempts at reorientation are worth trying. This site will continue to be welcoming of both.
Stuffed Animal, Jerry, and Randi,
All three of you are:
1) off-topic, and
2) issuing strawman arguments, lying about the position of Ex-Gay Watch regarding the ex-gay “identity”
And all of you are acting about as bigoted as the Exodus leadership.
We have explained our usage of ex-gay many times. For lack of alternatives, we use ex-gay without quotes because this blog would look ridiculous if we did use quotes, or if we prefaced every instance of the word with “self-identified.” We do not encourage anyone to suppress their sexual orientation; we do not allow predominantly same-sex-attracted ex-gays to deny that they are still homosexual; we maintain that there’s nothing wrong with celibacy for those who choose it.
We are an incredibly busy all-volunteer web site, and are too busy analyzing exgays to waste hours re-defending and re-explaining ourselves ad nauseam to intolerant individuals (gay or ex-gay) who refuse to think outside their own boxes, or who refuse to tolerate individuals that are gay and celibate or that discover their sexual attractions (through no deliberate choice of their own) to be fluid.
Randi, as you have been warned and subjected to temporary bans before, I find it necessary to make your ban permanent.
Stuffed Animal and Jerry, please follow our guidelines for comments to remain on-topic and free from strawman argumentation.
This page and its comments will relate solely to ex-gay websites that think outside the box of the religious right and that do not necessarily claim that orientation can be changed. No further off-topic comments will be permitted on this page.
Mike: I won’t make any more comments on your blog. When you say, “No further off-topic comments will be permitted on this page.” If you think that Stuffed Animal’s and my comments are “off topic,” we have nothing further to talk about at this time.
Mike: I am confused. Are there really “a few ex-gays and ex-gay blogs” that disaagree with the “change is possible” message?
If they don’t think change is possible, how would they consider themselves “ex-gay”? Am I missing something?
If they don’t think change is possible, how would they consider themselves “ex-gay”? Am I missing something?
Some ex-gays are open to the idea of celibacy as a way of satisfying their desire, regardless of motivation, to live a life without intimate same sex relationships. These people often come under the ex-gay banner, though Alan Chambers has recently explained on this very blog that being celibate is not enough – one must not “identify” as gay. A gay blogger who believes in celibacy as the answer to their moral code, for instance, and therefore considers themselves ex-gay would be one match to Mike’s request. I believe a blogger mentioned earlier in this thread named Jay fit’s this description.
This seems really lively.
I would like to add that the term ex-gay is fraught with difficulties, as most labels are. I am called heterosexual and people assume all sorts of things about me. There is much more and probably much less about me than my label of heterosexual implies.
Regarding the correlation of identifying with an ex-gay label and having a mental illness. I think you can assert that, but I don’t think you can support it with science. Can you? There is one study that asserts it, but it is a survey and people were recruited based on “harm.” So there are no controls and no other comparisons to make it scientific.
I think it is wrong to assume that those who identify as gay will inevitably be mentally ill, and it is wrong to assume that those who identify as ex-gay will be mentally ill.
I know that as long as we see people through labels we are likely to Mis-see them.
My experience with the ex-gay movement is that most people experience some diminishment in their SSA and experience relief from shame for hiding their SSA; and are able to live in a more integrated way with their beliefs and their commitments. It appears that this improves, not worsens their mental health. But, that is just anecdotal information to share with you. The dreaded Spitzer study suggests this (although more comprehesive research needs to be done).
The use of quotation marks around the term ex-gay is both demeaning and justified. A better term may be SSA strugglers.
I have always used quotation marks around the term ex-gay because the term is so poorly defined. One person posted an another blog “ex-gay means whatever I want it to mean”. Joe Dallas of EXODUS, when pressed hard by an interviewer, admitted that the term doe not mean “ex-homosexual” but refered to “a Christian with homosexual tendencies who would rather not have those tendencies”. Need I point out that wishing something does not make it true?
Some people seem to use the term to mean “I am still sexually and emotionally attracted solely (or primarily) to the same sex, but I don’t like calling myself “gay” or thinking of myself as “gay” because of the social/political/lifestyle connotations.
Some of my clients called themselves “Ex-gay” even though they were having gay sex MORE often than before they got involved with EXODUS. My friend Jim Kaspar seemed to use it to mean “celibate but still homosexual”.
Others used it as an expression of FAITH (not an indication of current sexual orientation) that “someday God would make them straight — if they remained faithful to the EXODUS way.
I think I may have coined the term back in 1974. And I regret ever having done so, due to all the confusion the term has created.
Alan Chambers says the term is “more negative than anything” and “should be done away with and never used again.” Too late. It’s part of the vocabulary, but it’s a word in search of a definition. Words that mean “whatever we want them to mean” are no better than the word-salad of some schizophrenics. They communicate only conufsion.
I use gay and homosexual as synonyms — as I believe 99% of English-speakers do. Ask anyone on the street what “gay” means. They will be pretty clear with you. Even my daughter “got it” and she was only five at the time. She looked up at me and remarked, “you love Gary, don’t you?” I said I did. She said matter-of-factly, “that means you’re gay…
I took me all my life to “get it” and she understood as a kindergartner.
“Ex-gay” SHOULD mean “formerly homosexual in orientation but now heterosexual in orientation instead” or simply “no longer homosexual” — but it seems clear that if it means anything, it doesn’t mean THAT.
Google the term “ex-gay” and read the comments about the term from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay#Ex-gay_use_of_language_and_terminology
I think that Wikipedia’s observations are right on.
Dr. Blakeslee, re:
I would like to add that the term ex-gay is fraught with difficulties, as most labels are. I am called heterosexual and people assume all sorts of things about me. There is much more and probably much less about me than my label of heterosexual implies.
I LOVE that statement! And yes, labels too often invite us to mis-see the other. I couldn’t agree more.
I would say that, like Michael Bussee, I used to use “ex-gay” in quotes. I have now removed them because they end up appearing as scare-quotes, which NEVER advance a thoughtful argument. All it does is raise hackles and shuts people down from listening. And that ends up being the flipside of the mis-seeing that takes place with labels.
Anonymous at October 24, 2006 04:05 PM
I believe the Wikipedia analysis, though accurate at one point, has missed the latest evolutionary step in the useage of “ex-gay” by ex-gay ministries.
Though it used to refer to behaviors rather than feelings, Chambers is now using it to reject both attraction and behavior and address identity instead. Regardless of whether one is attacted solely to the same sex, and regardless of whether one has a “moral fall” and hits a bathhouse every other week, they are “ex-gay” as long as they deny a gay identity.
I suspect that is because he’s found that most ex-gays continue to have same-sex attraction. And I suspect it may also be because many ex-gays continue to have same-sex behaviors.
If the only way you can declare success is by saying that the goal is changing a label, then the goal becomes changing a label. It’s called acheivable goals. It’s also called deception and playing word games.
I think I will keep the quotes, not out of disrepect, but because the meaning of the term is entirely in the eye of the beholder. As for “ex-gay” now referring only to identity, what exactly IS a “gay identity” anyway? Aren’t there as many gay identities as there are gay people? What would a “heterosexual identity” be?
EXODUS used to define homosexuality as same sex emotional and erotic “attraction”, which I thought wasn’t too bad. But they defined heterosexuality, not in terms of attraction or behavior, but as the “freedom to relate to the opposite sex, without fear or distaste.” (EXODUS Policy Statement 1991)
By that definition, most of my gay friends are heterosexual! When I pointed out this little problem to EXODUS President, Bob Davies, EXODUS responded by reprinting the 1991 Policy Statement — without any definitions! Neat trick.
The words mean whatever they say they mean. I call it “EXODUS new-speak”. It’s a case of “I think or say I am, therefore I am…”
The point is, I can call myself a duck because I have adopted a “duck indentity”, but it still doesn’t make me a duck.
But if someone at NARTH says they are a duck, does it make them a quack?
How does this sound:
Some skeptics erroneously assume that by change we always mean (or should mean) a 180 degree shift from 100% homosexual to 100% heterosexual in all behaviors, interests, attractions and thoughts, forever after. Anything less than that, some critics argue, isn’t real change. Some look for evidence of “only” a 170 degree shift or “only” a 100 degree shift, and cry “failure!”
The truth is that any degree of change toward greater peace, satisfaction and fulfillment, and less shame, depression and darkness, is change well worth pursuing.
For most people who seek change, heterosexuality is not actually the ultimate goal – happiness and peace are.
And for us, happiness and peace are not contingent on sexuality alone, but on living a life congruent with our deeply held values, beliefs and life goals.
So, unlike those who argue that nothing less than a 180 degree turn “counts” as change, those of us who actually experience change are often quite content with a much subtler shift.
To be free from the constant pull of homosexual desires…
To have deeply fulfilling non-sexual friendships with other men, and to belong to a close community of men…
Perhaps to have a happy marriage, to be a loving father, or else to be contentedly single…
To live a life we feel is aligned with God’s will for us…
Many of us could ask for nothing more.
Many of the self-help groups of the 70s came up with all sorts of lingo that was designed for members of the group to distinguish themselves from outsiders. They would take pseudoscientific sounding words that many of them did not understand and go around talking about “transforming their inner consciousness” or some other such phrase that made little sense to anyone outside the group. Oftentimes it made little to no sense to the people in the group who were parroting the line of the self help guru. But it did make these members of the in-group feel special, superior,and in on secrets to life that had eluded the rest of the population.
It makes no sense to fall into the arcane terminology trap of Exodus or any of the other ex-gay groups. Either they can explain themselves in a clear way that any educated individual can understand, or they are just babbling.
I think that the antidote to the linguistic gymnastics of the ex-gay groups, is to just call it like it is. Either a person is or is not attracted to members of the same sex. They either are or are not acting on those attractions. Wow, that was easy.
I guess it was so easy for me, because I really don’t care if someone is gay, bisexual, straight, celibate or sexually active. What I care about is combatting the discrimination that many of these ex-gay groups and their religious right allies advocate.
Excellent point Michael. I use the quotes because I want to make it clear that the term “exgay” generally does not mean what it appears to – that someone has changed same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions.
Posted by: David Blakeslee at October 24, 2006 09:47 PM
David given the difficulty Narth and Exodus had in providing Spitzer with clients claiming to have changed, 170 degree or even 100 degree shifts are very rare occurrences and if such a shift does occur I don’t think too many people are calling it a failure.
If you’re talking about change in terms of “greater peace, satisfaction and fulfillment, and less shame, depression and darkness” that’s all well and good, but that’s not a change in orientation and a change in orientation is what the public is being told is happening with “exgays”. Given the work by Shidlo and Schroeder it seems doubtful that sufficient numbers of people experience such positive change to justify the harm felt by many or most pursuing an actual change in orientation.
My concern with the term “exgay” and “exgays” themselves is that they are being used for anti-gay political objectives which are to convince the public that there is something wrong with gays, they can and should change and therefore should be discriminated against and are not deserving of equal unbiased treatment in marriage, employment, housing, etc.
Contrary to what you implied my happiness and peace are not contingent on sexuality alone and I’m confident neither is the happiness and peace of most gays.
Mr. Blakeslee said: “The truth is that any degree of change toward greater peace, satisfaction and fulfillment, and less shame, depression and darkness, is change well worth pursuing.”
Amen. That’s why I left EXODUS.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky at October 25, 2006 01:47 AM
I don’t get to say it often, but I agree entirely with Randi. Well said.
“Given the work by Shidlo and Schroeder…”
I am not sure this study has been discussed in detail on this site and if not, I would encourage the site administrator to open this study up for general consideration.
Suffice it to say, from my point of view, that it is even more flawed than the Spitzer study.
My limited experience in working with both gays and ex-gays is that it is my job to help them gain “any degree of change toward greater peace, satisfaction and fulfillment, and less shame, depression and darkness, is change well worth pursuing.” For some, that is finding greater satisfaction in their same-sex relationships, for others that has been finding greater satisfaction in their opposite-sex relationships.
Client autonomy and direction of treatment in a context of valid scientific support and ethical practice means that two different people with two different agendas can be served well.
shalom y’all,
i am thankful for this space to share some thoughts regarding GLBT Christians that are involved with the ex-gay ministry movement. i believe the Holy Spirit speaks uniquely to each of us and that those ministry programs can and do provide GLBT Christians with a deepening relationship with God. However, what i do NOT appreciate is the way the Homosexual Anonymous chapters associated with some of these ex-gay programs, especially Living Waters/Desert Stream, conceptualize homosexuality. they teach it is an addiction, like alcoholism. so here is what a GLBT Christian in an ex-gay ministry did to me. she was and is in Living Waters/Desert Stream and had accomplished “sexual sobriety” for ten years. we became very close and shared several levels of intimacy and afterwards, she tossed me out as if i were a bottle of wine. she was able to justify it too because after all, she was only acting out in her “addiction”. so she and possibly other folks in these programs can seek out other people who, like me do NOT believe it is wrong to be gay, become intimately involved with them, and then literally cut them off because Joe Dallas teaches they must “flee from sexual immorality”.
i am not a bottle of wine. what i shared with this woman was not an addiction. i fell in love with her and responded to that love. she too was in this space, and then completely showed another side of herself that was absolutely territying to me. she told me she had to “make me extinct” and when i was on my vacation in May of 05, colluded with other collegues of mine in a fundamental christian agency in edmonds washington. i sufferend trememdous gay bashing, was not allowed to enter into the work site to gather my belongings, and was not allowed to say goodbye to any of my patients. i was practicing as a mental health clinician for three years there.
she was rewarded financially and did not lose her job, her condo, or have to relocate as i did.
but she did flee from her sexual immorality.
David Blakeslee said:
My limited experience in working with both gays and ex-gays is that it is my job to help them gain “any degree of change toward greater peace, satisfaction and fulfillment, and less shame, depression and darkness, is change well worth pursuing.” For some, that is finding greater satisfaction in their same-sex relationships, for others that has been finding greater satisfaction in their opposite-sex relationships.
I am all for autonomy over one’s life, but I’m not sure I care for this statement. It sounds like door A and door B are just two sides of a coin and I think we do at least know that change, even of the type you suggest, is quite rare and very, very difficult to achieve. I might understand your point of view better if you could tell me the answer to this questions.
For David Blakeslee:
Do you understand homosexuality to be a genuine trait or sexual identity in the same way that heterosexuality is? This would be regardless of whether it is fully nature, fully nurture, or a combination. Would you say that within every homosexual there is a heterosexual, ala “wounded heterosexual” description from David Kyle Foster and Exodus?
Mr. Blakeslee said: “…my job to help them gain any degree of change toward greater peace, satisfaction and fulfillment, and less shame, depression and darkness, is change well worth pursuing.”
Shouldn’t we ask WHY these gays are NOT peaceful, satisfied and fullfilled? What made the feel “shame, depression and darkness” in the first place?
As a therapist, I deal every day with gay people (and straight people) who are not satisfied with their lives. I help them resolve the underlying problems. I don’t try to change their sexual orientation.
Some people are suggesting celibacy as a way to find contentment with their same-sex attraction.
Contentment is not a subset of happiness. It is a type of faux happiness. You are not really happy if you are just avoiding guilt. Investigate the roots of your guilt and then maybe you can find the same happiness with a homosexual relationship as profound as the happiness in any loving heterosexual relationship.
Try being celibate for decades and then find out what a true loving companionship entails. What if you lived your life without ever feeling love or ever being loved? Contentment is not happiness.
Shouldn’t we ask WHY these gays are NOT peaceful, satisfied and fullfilled?
I think that is what I ask and I listen for the answer rather than jumping to religious or politically correct or reparative therapy or gay affirmative assumptions.
It is narrow and exploitative of the client’s experience to rush to judgment about what their pain is due to.
It could be due to homophobia, internalized homophobia, mental illness, or ego-dystonic same sex attractions (and a million other things).
The complexity of human experience is something this site values, I know. So, lets explore and value the complex.
Regarding contentment and happiness. I think that is a very interesting conversation to have. I think that many would disagree with the notion that celebacy is inherently a roadblock to happiness (whether gay or straight).
I have focussed on the ex-gay issue for the past 30 years. I have counseled more gay and ex-gay men than I can count. Here is what I have experienced. As I see it, these are the most common “reasons” people are unhappy being gay. All of these “motivators” to become ex-gay can be dealt with in proven, productive and healthy ways that do NOT involve trying to change one’s sexual orientation.
(1) Religious guilt
(2) Loneliness
(3) Sexual addiction
(4) Drug or alcohol abuse
(5) The desire to “fit in” in society,
(6) The desire to parent
(7) A hunger for stabilty that the “gay lifestyle” sometimes fails to deliver
(8) Depression
I am sure there are others. My point is that you are more likely to help a client to achieve happiness by addressing these underlying issues — rather than assuming that the gayness is the problem and heading off into uncharted territory to try to change that.
For David Blakeslee:
Do you understand homosexuality to be a genuine trait or sexual identity in the same way that heterosexuality is?
I do not think that it reaches the level of a genetic trait. I do believe it is an identity that many conclude (after arduous exploration) is consistent with their long term experiences and sensations. That is, it is an intrinsic experience. I do believe there are several biological precursers for same sex attraction which can be experienced as mild by some and overriding by others.
Would you say that within every homosexual there is a heterosexual, ala “wounded heterosexual” description from David Kyle Foster and Exodus?
No. That implies much more than many report and the research does not support it either.
Thanks, Mr. Blakeslee, for this:
“I think that is what I ask and I listen for the answer rather than jumping to religious or politically correct or reparative therapy or gay affirmative assumptions.”
You are listening. That definitely comes across and what makes dialog with someone like you so satisfying. I want to say that I appreciate your balanced and compassionate approach to this subject.
It could be due to homophobia, internalized homophobia, mental illness, or ego-dystonic same sex attractions (and a million other things).
So, theoretically speaking, what would you do if someone came into your office complaining of ego-dystonic opposite sex attractions?
Thanks Michael. It seems we all (even me) have the capacity for change.
David Blakeslee said:
I think that many would disagree with the notion that celebacy is inherently a roadblock to happiness (whether gay or straight).
Yes, I for one would disagree with that notion. Nor do I see it always as a compromise. It depends on the individual.
David said “ don’t get to say it often, but I agree entirely with Randi. Well said.“.
Well, that’s a big pleasant surprise, David. I never know what to expect from you exgaywatch guys, I thought that post was going to go over like a lead balloon.
Posted by: jennifer at October 25, 2006 10:37 AM
Jennifer, I am sorry to hear about this. Love is a valuable and wonderful thing and no one should be tossed aside and abused the way you were for engaging in love. There is nothing immoral about a love that hurts no one but brings joy to those involved. What’s immoral is teaching blind opposition to such love and punishing people for it.
David Blakeslee my concern with what you do is that you don’t seem to recognize that people suffer from a lack of peace, satisfaction and fulfillment, and experience shame, depression and darkness not because they are same sex attracted but because society rejects, threatens, and punishes them for being that way. The problem to be treated is not same sex attraction but the unfair destructive social attitude and its resultant effects on the individual. Supporting gays efforts to appear heterosexual to please society is the equivalent of supporting light skinned black people’s efforts to appear white to avoid discrimination.
As I see it the problem with celibacy amongst gays is that its choosen to please others, not because it is what one wants for themselves.
So, theoretically speaking, what would you do if someone came into your office complaining of ego-dystonic opposite sex attractions?
Listen.
David Blakeslee at October 24, 2006 09:47 PM
David, that sounds just wonderful, all about degrees of changes and finding happiness and peace. And it is a direct quote from the “People Can Change” website that promotes the “Journey into Manhood” program.
Are you, by the way, involved with Journey into Manhood?
I don’t know much about JIM or PCC but the seem built on Alan Medinger’s theories and their website is little more that a reprint of some of the worst junk science on the subject.
Their underlying premise is that men are gay because they don’t see themselves as men. They think they are the “opposite” of men and opposites attract. Once you deal with your identity as masculine, the symptoms of homosexuality will take care of themselves. Yeah, tell it to the gay rugby team I spent some time talking to a week ago (sorry guys if you’re reading but I won’t be joining – I like all my limbs where they are).
They present their online survey as though it had some credibility. It’s full of good facts like : ” 97% said problems in the father-son relationship while they were growing up contributed to their developing same-sex attractions (SSA)” and “48% of respondents said that, as children or youth, they had been sexually abused by an older or more powerful person”.
Is it really surprising that if you survey the people who have been told these “facts” over and over that they will repeat them back to you?
I would caution about putting much trust in this group or by quoting them. This is, after all, an organization that lists Richard Cohen as an example of success and links to his site.
Oh, and to answer you and Medinger: I have no problem with one’s decisions to change 180 degrees or 10 degrees. But if you pretend that a 10 degree change is 180 degrees and demand that social policy be enacted based on that pretence, then YES I CARE.
So far I’ve not seen Medinger or you publically argue for social restrictions on gay equality. But calling change of any degree “change” does give cover to those who are less honest, such as Alan Chambers, to lobby civil leaders to punish gay people.
I think because of that, there is a moral obligation to make sure that your yea is yea and your nay is nay and that all people understand what it is that is being said.
I completely agree with Randi: “…people suffer from a lack of peace, satisfaction and fulfillment, and experience shame, depression and darkness not because they are same sex attracted but because society rejects, threatens, and punishes them for being that way.”
It is not benevolent to “help someone who is unhapy being gay” if the factors that MADE them unhappy were “ex-gay” and other anti-gay messages that all gays are sick or sinful. That would be like two concentration camp guards saying “have you ever noticed how thin and sad these Jews seem to be? We should help them overcome their Jewishness…”
Mr. Blakeslee said:
“Some skeptics erroneously assume that by change we always mean (or should mean) a 180 degree shift from 100% homosexual to 100% heterosexual in all behaviors, interests, attractions and thoughts, forever after. Anything less than that, some critics argue, isn’t real change.”
Isn’t anything LESS than a “100% shift” BISEXUALITY? Are we assuming that “bi” is morally or psychologically superior to being “100%” gay?
And what the heck is “Journey Into Manhood”? Are we assuming that you have to find female breasts and gentalia alluring in order to be a “real man”?
Tim,
Good find. I published the statement because I thought is was a heck of a lot better than the “cure” and “ex-gay” statements of the past. I thought it would facilitate the conversation further.
I am not sure what you mean by the yeah and the nay stuff (although I understand the biblical reference).
Regarding Cohen, there are concern on both sides of this debate about his use of physical touch. PCP has an explicit policy of written informed consent around the procedure. I have encouraged Cohen that he do the same (NARTH’s lack of action on this matter was one of the factors related to by resignation).
Near as I can tell, PCP is partially based on the theoretical underpinnings of the Bem work (exotic becomes erotic).
Regarding my participation in PCP. Until recently only a very good personal friend of mine had participated and reported many, many benefits. He asked me to attend this past weekend and I did. The weekend was personal, non-political and the words “ex-gay” and “cure” were never used. There was no talk of “your inner heterosexual.”
I am sure it has flaws.
I would agree that the surveys are less than scientific, but they do form a body of material which has some usefulness and it is a form of feedback which I don’t think other agencies on either side (gay affirmative or reparitive) regularly engages in. I hope they can do better and I think they will.
I don’t think they purport to be a scientific organization.
To summarize, a good friend of mine reported benefit, encouraged me to attend, I observed no “quackery” like “cure” and “exgay.” I found their format consistent with the theoretical framework of Bem. I found their ethical practices to be superior to Cohen’s (lay ethical practices superior to Cohen’s). They did not describe themselves as experts, but as fellow Journeyers.
Speaking of degrees:
A gay guy can think of himself at any degree from 0 to 180 on the ex-gay scale but it really comes down to this: at least one part of his anatomy will always be pointing at 0. (get my drift?)
So, theoretically speaking, what would you do if someone came into your office complaining of ego-dystonic opposite sex attractions?
Listen.
Nice dodge, so allow me to clarify:
And they said they wanted you to help them explore their possible homosexual potential or at least diminish their heterosexual attractions?
A gay guy can think of himself at any degree from 0 to 180 on the ex-gay scale but it really comes down to this: at least one part of his anatomy will always be pointing at 0. (get my drift?)
His knee?
cowboy said:
…get my drift?
Yes, now drift in a different direction please.
What if you lived your life without ever feeling love or ever being loved?
Are you suggesting that a celibate person can not feel love or be loved; that sexual intimacy is a requirement for the expression of love? If so, I would submit that is a very narrow view of love.
“And they said they wanted you to help them explore their possible homosexual potential or at least diminish their heterosexual attractions?”
No dodge…it is the truth. You Listen. I suppose, since this would be entirely new to me I would contact peers in the area whom I trust (that do not share my world view, but are ethical, competent therapists) and ask for supervision about how best to proceed. Ultimately the supervision would make me a better therapist or would reveal that someone else would be better suited for the job and a referral would be made.
No dodge…it is the truth. You Listen. I suppose, since this would be entirely new to me I would contact peers in the area whom I trust (that do not share my world view, but are ethical, competent therapists) and ask for supervision about how best to proceed. Ultimately the supervision would make me a better therapist or would reveal that someone else would be better suited for the job and a referral would be made.
Ok, good answer 😉
David,
I’m glad to hear that PCC’s approach was not one of “cure” or quackery. And I do appreciate that they do not at the moment seem to be politically driven.
I think they are misguided. But as a collective I don’t see them as malicious.
However, I am suspect of anything with which Cohen is involved – the man is clearly not stable and I question the judgment of those who take him seriously. His tennis racquet stuff is only the most blatant – he has a long history of cult involvement and bouncing around between bizarre fringe beliefs.
But if the participants find in beneficial and its not just another front for anti-gay political activism, at the moment I’ll not be to critical. It seems a lot of work for very little reward, but that’s for each person to decide.
Okay. Mr. Roberts is saying I’m too graphic…(my bad). I guess what I mean (my drift, anyway) is any gay man can point to a degree on this gayness compass/dial/ scale and pronounce himself anywhere from 1 to 179 degrees but their core/heart/mind/soul will be still at 0. Who can truly say they are at 43.77 degrees? There is no proof. There is no measuring what the level/degree of homosexuality you are. You can act and pretend to be at or as close to 179 degrees but that does not make you a heterosexual.
As for celibacy, Mr. Roberts, I guess companionship and a caring relationship probably suffices and sexual intimacy can be psychologically traumatic for some people. Is the definition of celibacy to mean no companionship or any kind of interaction with someone of the same sex? I guess there are hermits who fall into that category and they are happy… or are they?
Let’s face it: people want to “change” because they have been brainwashed into thinking that they should or into believing that their self-destructive homosexual “lifestyle” is the ONLY lifestyle avaible to them.
Helping unhappy homosexuals to try to become straight is no favor or act of compassion. Do we give unhappy clients whatever they want just because they want it? No. That just reinforces the internalized homophobia. Would you help a black person who wanted to skin bleach because they were unhappy being black?
Reparative therapists begin with the bias that being gay is sick or sinful. That’s not science. That’s prejudice. We do not make the same assumption about straights.
Tim,
As I said, I don’t know all the facts about Cohen. I hope that since my last conversation he has created an informed consent procedure and a formal complaint process should someone feel the holding therapy is harmful. I know that Lawrence Hedges, Ph.D., has a formal process that he uses with very emotionally disturbed patients (non SSA). His physical contact is preceded by explicit explanations of the purpose (grounding during dissociation, for example) and an informed consent with complaint process.
It is not an intervention I use with my SSA clients. I do not know of anyone (although they exist, I am sure) who works with this population as formal therapists who use it other than Cohen.
David,
As creepy as the “holding” therapy is, that only part of the cake.
Cohen’s religious journey shows a great deal more variety than is usually found in someone who is stable. He went from Jewish to Episcopal to Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church (he married his wife, Jae Sook, in a mass Moonie wedding) to the Wesleyan Christian Community (an odd sex-cult on Vashon Island in Washington), etc.
This should be enough to set off alarms. Simply that he doesn’t follow protocol seems almost minor when looking at the overall picture of an erratic life. I’m not trying to be a religious bigot, but once you’ve been in more than one cult, you lose all credibility.
David Blakeslee, Michael Bussee asked a pertinent question “Would you help a black person who wanted to skin bleach because they were unhappy being black?”.
If not why would you then assist someone in repressing same sex attractions unless contrary to your assertions that the client should decide, its more about what you want for that person?
Tim,
I hear you.
Credibility is what is it all about. It is what NARTH and EXODUS have failed miserably to achieve.
Some other questions:
If homosexuality is an illnes or disorder, what are its symptoms?
Why do we call it reparative therapy? What exactly is broken and needs repair?
Why is it reparative therapy organizations tend to be very right wing politically? Can you think of any other illness or branch of psychotherapy where there is true?
“Would you help a black person who wanted to skin bleach because they were unhappy being black?”.
No.
I do see homoerotic attractions as springing from biological and environmental factors. In that regard I think it is a different kind of human trait than skin color. That being the case, I see people as processing those sensations in a variety of ways and deciding after that process on a particular identity.
I think Joe Nicolosi can better describe the reasons for the term reparative therapy…although it is unlikely he will be on this blog anytime soon.
Regarding conservative vs. liberal (or libertarian) in this debate. Redding (2001) has an interesting survey article where he taps the political views of graduate school professors and links them with the political stances that the APA favors. My hunch is that those conservatives in the APA which think that politics are effecting the science of psychology are looking for a home. Some of those conservatives end up at NARTH.
Others end up at the Christian Association for Psychological Studies (CAPS); although I am sure there are liberals there as well. So, I think if the APA was less politically liberal in its application of science, something like NARTH would not need to exist.
Mr. Blakeslee I don’t see where it matters if skin colour is a different trait than homosexuality. Skin colour can be changed by bleaching just as much or more so than homosexuality can be changed into heterosexuality. If the goal is to achieve “greater peace, satisfaction and fulfillment, and less shame, depression and darkness” its hypocritical of you to say its okay to change the person to that end when homosexuality is involved and not okay when skin colour is involved. In both cases the problem is in the stigma generated by society, not the individuals suffering from it. Personally I think it would be less harmful to make a superficial change in appearance than to mess with the core of a person’s personality and being – who we feel attracted to is central to the person, the colour of your skin is not. Its not a matter of deciding on an identity, the gender we are attracted to is fundamental to who we are. Please give some thought to that.
I do see homoerotic attractions as springing from biological and environmental factors. In that regard I think it is a different kind of human trait than skin color.
David, I disagree with you about the effectivity of reorientation therapy. And I don’t think it is usually a good approach to take.
Nonetheless, I don’t think it unethical or hypocritical to assist persons who wish to make this (probably futile) effort.
Provided, of course, that you are letting them know that this is a controversial approach that is condemned by the psychiatric oversight bodies and that there are no good studies that suggest it likely that any significant change will occur for this patient, etc. etc.
Sometimes people have to try – if for no other reason just to know they tried – and I’d rather they do so with a trained professional in a structured environment rather than in Love In Action’s hetero-camp.
And besides, who knows… you may actually find that elusive patient who through therapy goes from being same-sex attracted to being opposite-sex attracted. 😉
Mr. Blakeslee: “I do see homoerotic attractions as springing from biological and environmental factors.”
Question: Couldn’t this also be said of heterosexuality? Why assume that one is morally or psychologically superior? And why do people care so MUCH about what “causes” homosexuality and these same “scientists” never seem to ask what causes people to be straight? They don’t CARE. They assume one is OK and one is not. The fact is, no one knows what “causes” sexual orientation — gay or straight. We don’t even know what causes people to be left-handed or right-handed. (They used to try to change left-handedness too, remember?)
Mr. Blakeslee: “So, I think if the APA was less politically liberal in its application of science, something like NARTH would not need to exist.”
Comment: This excuse is getting really OLD. It’s the tired old claim that reparative therapists would have good scientific evidence of the efficacy of their work if it weren’t for those nasty “liberals”. Nonsense. After 30 years of trying, EXODUS and NARTH should have some very compelling evidence that their methods work. They can’t even agree on which methods are most effective. Exorcism? Gatorade? Erotic massage? Prayer? Playing football? Teaching lesbians how to apply make-up? Come on. Quit blaming bad science on the liberals.
NARTH and EXODUS do not “need” to exist. They exist because people are still being taught that being gay is sick or sinful. They exist because they have a religious and political agenda that they are trying to push. And the smart folks aren’t buying it.
In a way, I think reparative therapists are sore losers. They are still upset that the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental illness when the reparative therapists have a vested interest (usually religious) in insisting that it is. I ask again, if homosexuality is an illness or disorder, what are its symptoms?
“In both cases the problem is in the stigma generated by society, not the individuals suffering from it.”
I have a different view of the interaction between society and the individual. I view them as mutually modifying.
Regarding same-sex attractions, the homophobic often imposes shame on SSA, which is interanalized leading to self-rejection. But the gender focused person may view their SSA as inconsistent with both their gender and their identity.
So I certainly believe that society can be coercive in motivating the person with SSA to change; but I think it is simplistic to think that the individual as an autonomous being can not see themselves in such a culture and make an informed decision despite such pressure (either to embrace a gay identity or explore decreasing their SSA).
To Mike Bussee,
You may be getting tired of the “liberal” argument, but it is not just me making it, I quoted Redding (2001) so you would know I founded this in something other than my opinion.
Scientists have agendas, hopefully it is to pursue the evidence wherever it leads rigorously. That is more likely in the hard sciences, like physics and biology. In the soft sciences (like sociology and psychology) they are much more vulnerable to political points of view.
David Blakeslee I make the point that society is wrong to stigmatize gays and minorities for behvior and physical characteristics which hurt no one and you dodge taking a stand on that with the statement “I have a different view of the interaction between society and the individual. I view them as mutually modifying.”.
It seems clear you are just changing the subject to avoid admitting you “have a different view – that its okay for society to stigmatize gays.”.
Its not gays’ moral responsibility to stop other individuals in society from behaving badly by oppressing gays. Its society’s and those individuals’ responsibility to put fairness first and stop oppressing those who hurt no one. When there’s five anti-gay individuals in society for every gay individual the gay individual has a lot less of an opportunity to modify society than society has to negatively modify that gay individual’s life. Its not equal opportunity time between gay individuals and society when it comes to which modifies which.
The only reason some gays “view their SSA as inconsistent with both their gender and their identity” is because of unjust social stigmatization. If it weren’t for the social and religious coercion to change no one would have a reason to attempt decreasing same sex attraction.
Some Black people internalize social hatred leading to self rejection – they see being black as inconsistent with their identity. I don’t hear you saying they are an autonoumous being that can see themselves in the culture and make an informed decision to try to be white.
If its wrong to deal with social hatred by having Blacks bleach their skin then its wrong to deal with social hatred by having gays “explore decreasing their same sex attraction”.
Mr. Blakeslee said: “In the soft sciences (like sociology and psychology) they are much more vulnerable to political points of view.”
I agree. This is what makes it even MORE important that sociologists and psychologists do their best to AVOID politicizing their work. The “vulnerability to political points of view” does not relieve these scientists of the reponsibility to clearly present a hypothesis, clearly define their research methods and set up experiments (that can be replicated by others) to either prove or disprove or modify their hypothesis.
EXODUS and NARTH have not done this. They have had over 30 years. I don’t really care that other people agree that the “liberals” are to blame for the failure of the reparative therapy movement. There are people who believe that world if flat. It doesn’t make it true. They need to quit whining. Try harder. The reparative therapy movement cannot even define the terms they use. They might start there. It looks like quackery because it is, not because the “liberals” won’t let NARTH do its job.
Three decades is long enough to define a treatment modality and obtain some good evidence that it works.
For example, the combination of cognitive-behavioral therapy and medication has been shown time and time again to be an effective treatment for depression. If reparative therapists had truly discovered how to change one’s sexual orientation, no group of liberals could prevent this astonishing information from being widely known.
You have avoided the question again. If homosexuality is an illnes or disorder, what are its symptoms? Every other medical or psychological disorder has a standard set of symptoms.
Finally, I think you are a bit naive about a person’s ability to step back from the negative messages of culture, family and church and make a purely rational, independent decision (not strongly influenced by these anti-gay attitudes) to change their orientation. Did you grow up gay? It doesn’t sound like it. Disentangling oneself from the ubiquitous and subtle anti-gay attitudes is a life’s work for most gay people — especially if one is young, confused and frightedned of rejection. It has taken me over half a century to untangle myself, and I am pretty bright.