This is a recent, brief interview of Dr. Warren Throckmorton and Dr. Benjamin McCommon on CNN regarding their views on the APA’s current re-evaluation of their position on reparative therapy. Sean O’Donnell also appears via a brief file clip explaining his own attempts to change from gay to straight. You may have already seen this or read about it; either way we would appreciate your candid impression of the comments by both interviewees.
Hat Tip: Jeremy for the video.
Did anybody find the file footage to be distracting and naively associated to the topic of discussion?
I found the footage to be somewhat disjointed. Shawn O’Donnel’s interview was excellent but we need many more interviews with others who have been through this process across the country. When the representative from the APA used the words “very hard” to change one’s sexual orientation I found that disconcerting because it makes it sound within the realm of possibility for almost anyone. That was my own conclusion from viewing this. This is obviously not the case when one realizes that it is virtually impossible for the vast majority. I was also very troubled with the either/or (black and white) argumentation that Throckmorton brought out that either one embraces his orientation or one embraces his or her religious values. This is an argument that GLBT people need to put to bed once and for all in showing that there are many who have embraced both their orientation and their spiritual/religious values through their long term committed relationship. This is something that must be shown on National Television that there are a great number of gay couples who are living spiritually fulfilling lives.
The thoughts I get from this segment is still the argument of whether reparative therapy brings benefits or brings harm. The word ‘reparative’ is in itself confusing. How do you repair something that is not broken? Or do they mean repairing a person’s life from discrimination, prejudice and rejection? Two things are already proven facts, and also mentioned here.
One, the change occurs only on sexual behaviour, and the desire to change is triggered by pressures from external factors. This statement in itself already proven that sexual orientation in fact did not change, and reparative therapy only acts as a suppressant. It is fact that is already repeated again and again; which means in the end, nothing is repaired from the body’s sexual orientation system.
Two, it is proven by countless testimonies from former participants of such therapies, that it produces more harm than benefits. And I believe the harm stretches even to the people who are close to those who claim they have ‘changed’. Every woman that gets married to an ex-gay and vice versa is taking considerable risk. How many divorces involving ex-gays have we seen?
So if you examine both of the facts, the potential risk of harm already outweights the possibility of change. When nothing is broken, why fix it when it may create a bigger mess!
I respect Dr. Throckmorton and his belief that some patients will desire to bring their behavior into line with their religious beliefs rather than the other way around; while this is not my personal stance, it once was, and I understand and think that the stance he takes is infinitely more credible and respectable than the normal line of telling people their sexuality can, itself be changed.
I did take issue in this interview with hearing about the wide variety of approaches there are to reparative therapy. Since when? This is something my parents are struggling to deal with right now; I went through therapy with a member of Nicolosi’s office at one time and it was, of course, disastrous. My parents think now, as I am coming out of the closet, that if they search hard enough they can find some novel, different, effective approach–and I am a firm believer that no such approach exists, that the entire field of reparative therapy is based on the “research” of Moberley, Nicolosi, and Socarides, that all theories of change involve ideas of broken father relationships and poor gender identity that do not hold true for me. Am I missing something? Is there some variety of reparative therapy out there that is not this? I sure haven’t seen it.
Cyrano,
Sure there are different approaches. You probably haven’t tried exorcism or beating a pillow with a tennis racquet.
Of course those don’t work either.
Cyrano-
This is the biggest problem posed even by someone like Warren Throckmorton, with his more reasonable “seuxal identity therapy.” People like your parents can find someone like Warren and say to their “troubled” son or daughter, “See! Here’s a different approach you haven’t tried yet.
Tell your parents that you heard from someone who went through eight different therapists (including Nicolosi’s practice) and three different support groups: Whatever the superficial differences in ex-gay therapies, they all share the same failure rate.
My parents and ex were on the same path as Cyrano’s parents: New Treatment du Jour!
I am quite sure that if they had their way, I would never have been done with therapy, and when I said I was done, well, their comeback would be that I hadn’t tried hard enough. Oh, and by the way there’s this doctor out in Montana that has a new therapy….
bleah.
Tell your parents that you heard from someone who went through eight different therapists (including Nicolosi’s practice) and three different support groups: Whatever the superficial differences in ex-gay therapies, they all share the same failure rate.
No, Cyrano. With love and repect, gently but firmly tell your parents that it’s time they started to mind their own business.
One of the first important steps a young adult can take is to create and maintain boundaries with family.
I mean, I know methods differ from therapist to therapist, but the theory–which is all completely unfounded, and obviously erroneous when stacked up against my own life story–is totally the same.
At any rate, my Dad told me just today he wanted me to see a new therapist (I have been out of the closet for about two years now, since I ended my last therapist), and I made it abundantly clear to him that I was not going back into therapy.
Thanks for your concern, everyone. Greatly appreciated.
I want to make it clear that the sexual identity therapy framework we advocate is not another version or form of reparative therapy. In fact, if you do reparative therapy in the manner advocated by Joseph Nicolosi or Richard Cohen, you are not practicing consistently with our framework. Reparative approaches assume the causes of homosexual attractions which are then presented to clients as generally true, even if clients do not report such factors.
The SIT framework is a set of recommendations about how to practice ethically and respectfully when clients present to therapy with values conflicts over sexual desires and/or behavior. It is not a form of reparative therapy and in fact provides many contrasts to that paradigm.
Many thanks for your feedback, Warren.
Like Steve Boese, I was taken aback by your soundbite which made faith and same-gender sexuality mutually exclusive. On Boese’s blog, you seemed to justify that soundbite by arguing that Benjamin McCommon (hardly an authority on gay people of faith) agreed with you and that it reflected the experience of those whom you have encountered — no doubt after they had been driven out of unwelcoming churches and faith communities like yours.
Frankly the fact that McCommon might be prejudiced is of little interest to me. I am more concerned that, rather than dismiss it as a soundbite taken out of context, you would stand by a comment that is so disrespectful of faith and inhumane toward people who love God at least as much as you do.
Do you believe the choice between faith and same-gender sexuality is either/or, or do you acknowledge that many people choose both? Do you acknowledge that the third option is valid and in fact that it may save the lives of people like Dale who cannot survive in a world that allows only one or the other?
Cyrano,
Have you tried this one?
Understanding Homosexuality through Reincarnation
https://shopping.yahoo.com/p:Understanding%20Homosexuality%20Through%20Reincarnation:3000492316:isbn=0759639922:page=compare?used=1
Ok, I have a question of Dr. Throckmorton. Suppose an individual seeks therapy to help them resolve a conflict between their faith and their sexual orientation. They are in deep conflict, unwilling or unable to abandon either aspect of their being. Suppose further that, after time in therapy under this framework, they were able to successfully integrate the two and feel comfortable with the prospect of an intimate, same-sex relationship and life as a Christian (for instance) who is gay and accepting of that as anyone might be their own sexual orientation and all that this brings with it.
Would you consider this a success under your framework? would you encourage such an outcome if you saw the patient was heading in that direction or was perhaps suffering from condemnation beyond a sincere belief from a reading of scripture? Have you ever had such an outcome and, if so, did you consider it a success?
Sorry for so many questions, but they have been developing in my mind lately. If anyone has others, please feel free to jump in. This kind of dialog is essential.
Haha, no, I haven’t tried that one.
I’m sorry, I haven’t been very clear with my language, and that has led to a little confusion. I think, Dr. Throckmorton, that your work to help people live in consistent ways with their faith is a great undertaking, and so long as it doesn’t promise unreasonable changes in orientation, a wonderful and respectable alternative to reparative therapy.
I no longer have a problem with a clash of my faith and sexuality; I don’t need a therapy to help me with that. It is my parents’ faith that clashes with my sexuality, and if an actual form of change were a reality, it would be something I would consider, if only to please my family. But reality is reality; in such, reparative therapy does not hold anything for me (which I know, from experience and investigation) and since I personally no longer have a conflict, Dr. Throckmorton’s therapy would not be much help to me either.
I am bothered by the tone that I felt the interview took, though, and this is the (minor) problem with advocating what Dr. Throckmorton does; most people do not understand the subtle difference between Throckmorton’s practice of bringing behavior into line with faith and general reparative therapy. Even in this light, to the common public who do not deal with homosexual orientation themselves, this seems, I am sure, like a perfectly wonderful and ideal solution; the tone of this presentation is that people can alter their faith or their behavior, and the clear implication, whether made on the part of the public or implicit in the interview, is that to alter behavior is superior.
And then, ultimately, isn’t this behavior modification what reparative therapy comes down to? Or perhaps I do not fully understand what Dr. Throckmorton espouses.
Cyrano,
You’ve put your finger on it exactly.
Many heterosexuals (especially those coming from a conservative religious background) view homosexuality as being a behavior rather than an orientation. They are abetted in this deception by the more dishonest and morally bankrupt of ex-gay leaders.
Take, for example, this quote from Randy Thomas:
http://www.outlawjournalism.com/news/?p=6024
You notice hetero is “relationship” while homo is “sexual activity”.
Which is what I was trying (and possibly failing) to express about my one concern with Dr. Throckmorton’s perspective; religious, especially Christian, opposition to homosexuality, rooted in a promise of redemption from immoral behavior, is held up in the face of scientific evidence by the ex-gay myth. If ever American Christianity is forced to admit that behavior modification does not a heterosexual make, then the promise of “redemption” from homosexual behavior (rather than orientation) is no longer possible and the entire theology falls into question.
When Christians regard gays as an orientation, a kind of person, like race or gender, then the issue of equality becomes critical; but as long as ex-gay therapies and behavior modification therapy (like Dr. Throckmorton’s) are presented as viable alternatives, Christians are allowed to skirt around the issue of orientation entirely and so the call of the gospel for equality, and for the end of prejudice and discrimination, becomes immaterial.
And then, ultimately, isn’t this behavior modification what reparative therapy comes down to? Or perhaps I do not fully understand what Dr. Throckmorton espouses.
I think you understand Warren’s Big Bag of BS pretty well. He runs from the term “reparative” like a Vampire from sunlight. Now watch him duck and weave around David’s questions – if he even responds.
David – Yes, I would consider the case a success if indeed the client considered a success. Change is deemphasized in the SIT framework. Satisfaction with the assistance from the counselor to reach valued ends is the outcome measure.
And yes, I have worked with clients in the way that you describe.
Mike, I believe you are reading me wrong. I did not say in any direct way that a person must choose between religion and sexuality. The interviewer asked me what I thought of McCommon’s answer to her previous question and in that context, I added the caveat that some people move more toward a religious belief in their journey – I did not even say that religious belief was inconsistent with homosexual behavior. I simply said for some people the point of organization is their faith. Of course many people choose both which becomes congruence for them. I did not limit the options to an either-or scenario.
Uh, for GAYS, “loving whole satisfying passionate” can only apply to relationships of the SAME SEX. That’s the idea. It’s really not that difficult. Seriously.
Timothy’s got it right. Until conservatives realize that it’s a matter of love and not mere sexual behavior, no progress will be made; and no bridges built.
I’m not crazy about Doc Throc’s approach, but he has a right to do it, and unlike Nicolosi and his ilk, it is not unabashed reparative therapy, which has proven time and again to be damaging and harmful, not therapeutic. However, I disagree with the approach. I think by beating around the bush when it comes to homosexuality, or trying to overcome/side-step/deny/placate it, you are denying the patient a scientific approach. Afterall, (unless I’m missing something,) every respected scientific psychological association in America has supported as a fact that sexual orientation cannot change.
David – Yes, I would consider the case a success if indeed the client considered it a success. Change is deemphasized in the SIT framework. Satisfaction with the assistance from the counselor to reach valued ends is the outcome measure. I have a survey that includes such questions as “would you refer a friend?” and “Rate the helpfulness of your counselor.” This approach is influenced by my work in managed care.
And yes, I have worked with clients in the way that you describe.
Mike, I believe you are reading me wrong. I did not assert that a person must choose between religion and sexuality. I described what some people do. The interviewer asked me what I thought of McCommon’s answer to her previous question and in that context, I added the caveat that some people move more toward a religious belief in their journey – I did not even say what the religious beliefs were. I simply said for some people the point of organization is their faith. Of course many people chooses an integration of both which becomes congruence for them. I did not limit the options to an either-or scenario.
Warren, thanks, I have some others – please bear with me.
First, I suspect there are quite a few people out there who have come to the conclusion in their own lives that being both Christian and gay is not a problem – they can be both openly and freely without conflict. Do you consider these people in need of Sexual Identity Therapy or indeed any therapy which deals with their sexual orientation? Would you encourage or lobby such people to under go such therapy and try to change?
Second, suppose a person is in conflict as discussed, and they seek you out for therapy. Through this they resolve the conflict by coming to the sincere understanding from within that, in order to feel aligned with their faith, they need to be celibate. The conflict seems to be resolved and they discontinue therapy.
Now, this person comes back a couple of years later suggesting that they think they may have grown since then, and their perspective has changed on their faith, that they want to explore same-sex relationships and continue with their faith under this new understanding. Would you be willing to follow this new direction with the client/patient and continue therapy with the possible new outcome of them living as both “openly” gay and Christian?
David – No, sexual identity therapy is only relevant for people who experience conflict. Now, of course gay people go to therapy for the same reasons as straights (job stress, depression, etc.) but there should be no effort on the part of the therapist to make their sexual orientation a problem.
Your second scenario is actually common. As always, the value direction is with the client. We anticipate this in the framework by saying that each aspect of the framework is always open to change. In situations where the worldview differences become too great or therapy isn’t helping the client achieve their objectives, referral is always an option.
I sincerely believe that we all ought to be very thankful for Dr. T and his approach to these matters.
I do see and [think] I understand the conflict that many of you have with him, yet I don’t understand why it appears to be threatening to you. Dr. T has every right to go about his profession allowing his personal values to frame his work. We all do that. We are supposed to do that. He hasn’t just rejected the “norm” (reparative therapy); he’s set about creating an alternative that not only enables him to practice within his value system AND retain integrity in the scientific realm regarding this issue; he’s also stated publicly that his personal bias does not determine success or failure for his clients. I have personally seen him be very forthright and frank with parents and others, on boards where I’m no longer active, about the REALITIES of changing orientation and many of the myths on which change theories are based.
It seems to me that Dr. T would be honest and forthright with a parent who approached him about “change” for their son or daughter. I can’t imagine him giving them the sort of false hope they’d get from reparative therapists. He’s not a reparative therapist. It seems to me he’s just a guy who’s willing to help some gays (who are certain they will burn in hell for having gay sex) try and figure out ways to function more heterosexually or be happy as celibate. Is there not a place for that in this great big world of ours??? And, what if Dr. T is just a step along the journey for gay folks who are yet to discover that they will not burn in hell for having gay sex? Isn’t that okay as well?
I guess after having been involved in bad reparative therapy, I look at Dr. T and what he offers and see it as a Godsend. Would that Tdub and I would have been afforded that sort of option. I’m not saying the end result would have been any different, but the emotional wounds would have surely been less.
Just my take.
Perhaps Dr. Throckmorton’s SIT Guidelines work best in a fictional theoretical land where people do not live with anti-gay messages thrown at them from all sides.
In the world in which I was raised outside of liberal NYC, I daily received messages that heterosexuality was the only way for humans to be. I heard this message repeatedly on TV, in pop songs, in teacher’s examples, on the playground, in my family, oh and also in the Roman Catholic Church.
In addition to only seeing heterosexuality represented & celebrated in my world, I was regularly smacked with agressive anti-gay messages in the media, at school and at church.
I grew up in a world that expected me to be heterosexual and punished me in a thousand ways for being gay, especially as a feminized male. My homophobic society fueled with heavy doses of sexism drove me to go to war with myself and seek by any means necessary to drive the gayness out of me.
I became an Evangelical Christian, and if you asked me then what motivated my quest to change and suppress my sexuality, I would have said because it was in conflict with my faith. But really it was in conflict with a world that presented a universal message that gave no room for healthy same-sex love.
I do not see the consideration of this reality in the SIT guidelines. Although not reparative therapy in its traditional sense, it may very well serve the same role to enable distressed clients to bow to the weight of a bigoted and cruel anti-gay, pro-straight-at-all-costs world-view.
Having witnessed the harm caused by all sorts of methods ‘to help the struggling homosexual’ are we realy ready to sign onto yet another such scheme? Particularly one that does not acknowledge the reality of homophobia and heterosexism?
Peterson,
Could it be possible that the SIT guidelines are the next most logical and reasonable step in this journey? Let’s face it, the true path to this nonhomophobic world we seek looks more like a slow burn than a brief inferno. Or, at least in my worldview it does. I have become privy to just an itsy bit of what you’re talking about because of my recent past. It amazes me what folks are willing to let loose with when they discover I was married to a gay man. Assuming I’m as homophobic as they are, I’ve heard some pretty horrific proclomations against gays and all things gay. It appalls me, and I do answer back with kindness to begin to make them aware of a different way of viewing things. At this point, the fundamental world is so incredibly homophobic that the gays who aren’t sexually active are still shunned in their churches.
Even when homophobia is abolished in our world (we can dream), there will remain those for whom their religious beliefs won’t deem it holy. It seems to me that the SIT guidelines have a place and remain a welcome step forward in my opinion.
I have some question for Dr. Throckmorton: Just curious, if you do not mind, I have tried to look for any post of frameworks for transsexuals under your name, but do not manage to find any. So may I ask, how would you handle them? Do you follow the guidelines from Harry Benjamin’s SOC, or do you have anything else planned for us? As for referalls you mentioned earlier, who would they be?
I tend to agree with Pam. I don’t think it is the place for a therapist to insert his or her belief into the session. If the patient is at odds with sexuality and religion, helping the person come to an understanding is best. If the therapist leads the client, then the work of the client is being done by the therapist. It may take the client a longer time to come to an understanding, but that understanding would be sound. Five years ago, I needed to believe I could still be straight. Now, I know that I can survive as a happy, gay, Christian, clergy. But I had to come to that conclusion. My therapist supported me through the process but didn’t impose his beliefs.
Pam, it is not reasonable to overlook the deep impact of heterosexism and homophobia when addressing this issue. It is naive. It may also create a loophole that creates more harm than good. Before we jump on a bandwagon, we need to seriously consider what song they are playing, what else is on the program and where are they heading?
Peterson,
OK. (we may need to just talk about this…heehee!…but our conversation here is probably useful in the grand scheme)
Are you willing to at least say the SIT guidelines are a step in the right direction? Or, as it sounds like to me, you are not trusting in which direction those guidelines are stepping and so you are not willing to say they are in any way a good thing? Am I reading you correctly?
Also, what is it that you want to know about them or Dr. T’s approach that might make you more (at least a tiny bit) comfortable with it?
Yukichoe – Regarding the value or religious issues at play, we would advocate a similar stance as we do in the SIT guidelines. Regarding the treatment issues, I consult the Harry Benjamin guidelines. In fact, when I was first thinking about how to construct a framework for SIT, I first went to the Harry Benjamin guidelines for review. These guidelines place the medical and mental health professionals in a consultative role and are sensitive to the moral and real life issues of the patient.
Like that effort, we intend to take the feedback we are getting regarding the SIT framework and revise them in 2008. So all of this discussion, if kept focused on what we actually have written and said, can be very helpful to us.
Pam – Thanks for your assessment of our work. I am pretty sure I know which internet Boards you are referring to and I am no longer a part of them either 🙂
Peterson – I would be interested in what specifically you find objectionable. In contrast to being otherworldly, we intend them to be responsive to actual conditions we find clients living in. We clearly state that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that this should be told to clients. We also make it clear that the framework envisions a variety of potential outcomes, including the integration of religious faith and a gay identity.
Dr. Throckmorton, I give my sincere thanks for your honest and uncompromising approach to the issue of transsexuals.
Dr Throckmorton, I am still by the way, concerned with the statement you made here:
https://www.crosswalk.com/1278894/print/
I choose to believe however from your responses thus far, that this statement stems from the lack of understanding and research on this issue.
It is my hope, that the revision of the SIT guidelines in 2008 would take into account the natural psychological, chromosomnal, biological and hormonal issues involved, leading to Gender Identity Disorder. Regards and thanks again.
Yukichoe – I think this is a reporter characterization of my views and not a quote. I do believe GID, like many other phenotypes involving behavior, is determined by different arrangement of factors for different people. We know little about GID but it seems clear that environmental and temperamental factors have been associated with GID. It would not be accurate in my view to say there are good and bad sides on this matter. There are different readings of the available research and we all would like to have more and better studies.
Warren (and others interested in this discussion), the conflict that many of us found ourselves in masked itself as a conflict between our faith and our sexuality. In the US, if one is a committed member of a conservative Church, it is possible that that one’s most important aspects of life are tied into that church. Friendships, family, employment, housing, ministry, identity, as well as faith.
It is far easier to live as a heterosexual in the US (or at least someone who doesn’t identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual) than to be transparent about a same-sex orientation.
The conflict for most is not between faith and sexuality, but between society and sexuality. The heterosexual norm gets reinforced daily through millions of messages, mostly secular.
In your framework, you discuss the distress that some people feel in regards to their sexuality.
Strangely missing in your assessment is the role that homophobia and heterosexim has on the distress that clients feel. In fact, only in one place do do the guidelines reference the external pressures that may affect someone who seeks treatment. From the assessment section,
Although this section refers to pressures from friends, family and religious institutions, it fails to consider the weight of a near universal message in the media, history books, art, pop music, legislation, the tax code, children’s books (I can go on for some time) that reinforce the belief that heterosexuality is the idealized norm that has been nearly exclusively represented and celebrated in our society.
The SIT Guidelines focus on a religion to the near exclusion of other critical factors that have been highlighted in research.
In just looking at the words of SIT document (not considering the footnotes), I find it notable what words the document includes and what words it does not.
Society: one time
Homophobia: zero times
Heterosexism: zero times
Relgious: 37 times
The work is imbalanced and does not adequately take into consideration the experiences of same-gender oriented people with-in a society that has been almost universally biased against them.
Perhaps as you consider the narratives of ex-gay survivors and of other folks in the LGBT community and begin to understand the disastrous effects the anti-gay/pro-straight mentality has had on our lives, you will develop holistic guidelines that begin to encompass the complexity of sexuality, religion in America, and the influence of society on our distresses, choices and dreams.
While I would prefer a society in which religion did not create conflict for those who are same-sex attracted, until we reach such a place I most definitely prefer SIT Guidelines over reorientation therapy.
If nothing else, it is based on an acheivable goal – revising behavior – rather than an undocumented assumption – that orientation is mutable and that its “causes” are known.
The only reason people have “UNWANTED” attractions of any kind is because they are taught that they are unacceptable. Who does not want to feel love? But when that love felt is to someone of the same gender, for many people the result is not a thrilling feeling, but one of fear and anxiety.
Emily,
Not to be argumentative….but….unwanted attractions can apply in all sorts of scenarios that are inappropriate no matter what the sexuality. My new principal, for instance, is quite good-looking….and very married. While I’ve been taught and believe that it would be unacceptable to act on any attractions (as IF, hee!), well….the unwanted attractions themselves don’t exist just because I’ve been taught I shouldn’t want them. They just exist. I mean…if they DID exist, that is! *whew* I’m getting myself into a bit of a muddle of thought here, but does this make any sense at all as a response to your point?
Dr. Throckmorton, I was interested in what you mean by “more research” being required to reach a conclusion?
This isn’t new therapy, the ideals to which this therapy aspires isn’t a new concept.
And Peterson is reiterting something that has bothered me about these approaches either to gay YOUTH, or the gay individual approaching the therapy.
I will refer you to the Clark doll study (Google it). These were a series of tests done on black children who lived and were subjected to white supremacist values over their short little lives.
And their findings indicated, as it would to anyone, regardless of race or orientation-that a constant bombardmentt and inculcation that you are worthless, evil, unwanted or a threat to social norms with God as the powerful incentive-THIS is the initial damage done to the psyche of the gay child.
And the ultimate nail in the self esteem is the social coercion that exists that has damaged OTHER gay people and so making a healthy and workable same sex relationship in a small demographic would be more difficult and frustrating.
Black men and women make up a smaller population in AMerica, so finding an eligible and compatible black man has more likely made it harder for me to find a good marriage mate. Racism, many generations long, compromised the economic, educational and legal options for black males to develop commiserate with white males. And these factors compromised the health and endurance of the nuclear black family.
So with similar attacks on the psyche of gay children that they are unworthy, unless and until they meet criteria their know that their STRAIGHT peers don’t have to meet, that is a burden right there that would compromise their esteem and send them to the next therapist trying to figure out what was wrong. And here you are, agreeing with a hostile majority that something is. And for a fee.
What I’m trying to say is, having a relationship that’s well matched, even when you’re STRAIGHT is tough.
And religious reconciliation has nothing to do with how us heterosexual women are going to have that.
Especially because a good many traditional religious values are inherently SEXIST.
Women AND those who are gay would be on the short end of it regardless and always have been long before now.
The Puritanical ethic of men not being emotional or if they are naturally affectionate (not show it to someone of their same gender), tend to get messed up in what their feelings meant according to their gender. Or what was appropriate for them as individuals gets lost in the intense drive to have them conform for religious reasons.
That in itself has driven what Exodus or reparative therapy is all about.
And frankly, more research isn’t needed. The results regarding all that’s needed is out there. Gender is and has always been beyond the physical. We are not made to live according to our gender, or a single sexual orientation. It’s been done, tried…and mostly failed enough to not justify it anymore.
Not anymore than the failed white supremacist movement that was used to justify the harsh treatment of blacks to conform. You have no idea how many bear lye relaxer scars on their scalps JUST from trying to straighten their hair. And you know what…nappy returns every two weeks!
So Peterson is correct and there are parallels to other groups and their desire to PASS.
I just don’t appreciate pretending the incentives are benevolent from one end, and uncoerced from the other.
Or, most of all….even necessary.
What say you?
I don’t want my critique to suggest that I reject the SIT Guidelines as worthless. I recognize that they are a work in progress and that no serious critical analysis has been conducted yet in public. It is missing key elements of the experiences of people who have felt distress over their sexuality. I hope that we can look at this document critically.
Peterson – I appreciate your thoughts on the framework and I pledge that we are reflecting on all feedback as we think about revisions in the future.
Homophobia and heterosexism are terms that do not have precise definitions in social science. In casual usage, the terms are used interchangeably to refer to anything negative relating to homosexuality. Some people refer to homophobic religions and religious views. We do not believe this is a proper stance from a therapist to say this to a client. If indeed we are to remain open to working with clients with a core religious affiliation to a faith which does not affirm homosexual behavior, we must take care to be precise about our terms and communications with a diverse clientele.
We do indeed recognize as you pointed out that cultural norms play a role in shaping attitudes. We feel this cannot be mediated for the whole culture in individual counseling sessions with individual clients. Some clients come to us from backgrounds that are not religious at all but have become converted and believe the most salient social influence is from a gay peer group applying pressure to remain gay identified. This is not frequent, but my point is that counselors must be sensitive to social pressure at the macro and micro levels.
We do discuss social influences more than you describe in your comment. For instance on page 7, we write:
We also note that any reported changes in sexuality may come due to pressure from parents, peers, etc.
I think we must recognize that any framework cannot substitute for clinical judgment and cannot anticipate all circumstances. We seek to provide a framework to assist counselors initiate services with clients in conflict that, if followed, would help avoid much of the harm reported by ex-ex-gays in studies like Shidlo and Schroeder and Liddle as well as our own review of ex-ex-gay narratives.
Regarding the ongoing discussion of what I said on CNN and the alleged dichotomy in my work, I will add that I was speaking descriptively and not prescriptively.
Regan – I did not follow most of what you were asking, but I think it is similar to Peterson’s concerns about social pressure. I understand the Clark study but I am not sure that sexual and racial identity formation are similar. At least I have seen no empirical work to that effect. None of these components take place in a vacuum, I get it.
Without dismissing your valid concerns regarding racial and sexual identity, I have similar concerns with respect to religious identity. I want psychologists to have the same willingness to respect religious values and beliefs as they have for other aspects of identity. No one can decide for me which aspect of me should be the most core. I decide that. Telling some people, in effect, just change your beliefs, is as pointless as saying their sexual attractions are a choice. Settled, intrinsic religious affiliation and practice is associated with many positive mental health outcomes, and so tampering with it as if it were an easily modified add-on seems to be contraindicated.
Telling some people that their sexuality is immutable but their religious beliefs can change is to instantly become irrelevant. They will not come back and may go find a therapist who will over promise. I would rather engage these people in the type of process we advocate which provides up-to-date research and realistic expectations.
Of course, synthesis is possible and occurs with regularity. There are numerous options and possible outcomes. We describe some but we do not prescribe them.
I found this issue quite disturbing. In a sense, why are people so focused on “changing” us or reverting us into being “straight.” I am a homosexual person myself. I’m not hurting anyone by being one, am I? I think they should concentrate on trying to “cure” some other psychological problems.
On the other hand, Isn’t it that in every experiment, there is a control group? Why don’t they do both… try to make a straight person gay and compare results. If it works then, I guess, the other way works as well.
This is just an opinion of mine. Don’t mean to offend anyone with it. Thanks for respecting my view on the matter.
To Cyrano (and others whose parents think they need therapy because they are gay):
The next time your parents suggest you need therapy, recommend it is THEY who need the therapy to learn how to deal with having a gay child. I’m sure PFLAG could recommend some therapists (or perhaps you parents could even just attend some PFLAG meetings).