The New York Times published an article detailing experiences of middle school-age children (roughly ages 11-14) who were open about their sexuality. Chris Stump of Exodus Youth responded with this article. In the Times article, we learn that while some might not experience their gradeschool years free of conflict concerning their sexuality, they are much more likely to be accepted or simply left alone about their orientation. These kids date, have boyfriends and girlfriends, and can talk openly about their crushes – no matter their gender – with their friends and peers. One 13-year-old who came out did so because when he realized he was attracted to other boys, he did not want to go through a period of miserable isolation. He chose instead to be sexually honest and open about his attractions. In response, several of his girl friends told him they were bisexual.
Stump, of course, has concerns:
Instead of celebrating the earlier embrace of a gay identity, we need to be cautious and concerned. Embracing an identity based on feelings as an 11-13 year old child, whose brain is still developing and hormones are raging, is jumping the gun.
But the point of the article isn’t that kids are solidifying their “identity” at an early age – it’s that they can be honest about their attractions at the onset of puberty, when their exclusively heterosexual peers are experiencing the same “raging hormones” and often confusing feelings. But rather than pretend they too are exclusively opposite-sex-attracted, they can talk about their same same-sex-attractions as if they too were normal. And for the most part, they have been able to find an ever-growing, accepting environment.
Stump also expressed annoyance at the author’s mention of “sexual fluidity.”
Another thing that stuck out to me was when the author mentioned fluidity in sexuality. So many in the secular world agree with the idea that sexuality is a fluid thing. But how is it so hard to embrace the idea of people moving from a homosexual identity to a post-homosexual identity? That’s just another “expression” of sexuality being fluid. But, yet, it is scorned and ridiculed for being absurd.
The difference between someone’s naturally experienced sexual fluidity and “embracing a post-homosexual identity” is that one happens with ease in some individuals as a natural part of the human experience, while the other is a “journey in Christ” that consists of years, even decades, of fruitless efforts to deny or change one’s sexual attractions. The ex-gay “struggle” with same sex attractions is often stated as simply a part of the “journey.” One must also remember that sexual fluidity is a two-way street. One’s sexual flexibility can bend in either direction – which means that one could “switch” from mostly same sex to mostly opposite sex attractions, and also back again. But most of those who seek out ex-gay treatment are same-sex attracted individuals who want to actively change their homosexuality by adhering to specific religious principals, and sometimes engage in harmful “reparative therapy.” Sexual fluidity may occur in some human beings, but it is also not something that can be taught or adopted. If your sexuality isn’t fluid, it simply isn’t fluid.
The Times article highlights a hopeful time in queer history where children going through puberty can be honest about their attractions to any of their peers, not just the ones they are “supposed” to be attracted to. And while the middle school years can still be chaotic and filled with prepubescent torture, at least the burden on gay youth to keep closeted seems to be lessening. It’s one more adolescent struggle that kids can go through together rather than miserably thinking they are the only ones. And in light of the Kevin Jennings stories circulating, including one on the Exodus blog that is highly critical, Exodus Youth should realize that providing a safe environment for teens to be able to talk about their same-sex attractions with their peers will help prevent situations like the one Jennings faced so many years ago from happening.
Anyone talking about post-heterosexuality? No? For Exodus, is it the same old, same old, that homosexuality is unstable, non-existent, and that it is caused by something external, even though facts prove otherwise.
Perhaps these ex-gays and their mostly heterosexual counsellors should consider post-heterosexuality as something they went through before coming out as heterosexual again? Perhaps not. For them, homosexuality is just a “lifestyle”; that is all it is to these one standard folks.
Emily, you said:
Quite so. I think that Exodus Youth realise that, and that it’s precisely what they don’t want.
Stump’s article strikes me as a mélange of emotional statements presented as though they were facts, e.g.
Can we therefore say of those who identify as straight, “They label and trap themselves in a sexual identity. Being straight becomes who they are entirely.”?
I notice also that Stump says:
What the hell has gender confusion got to do with it, I wonder? He doesn’t say.
The problem with ex-gay ideology adopting sexual fluidity, in addition to the issue of choice as Emily wrote, is that sexual fluidity is not complete. People rarely or never go from 0 to 6 on the Kinsey scale. They may go from 0 to 1 or 2. Sexual fluidity is essentially a diversity of bisexuality, often a bisexuality which existed all along but was not realized.
But how is it so hard to embrace the idea of people moving from a homosexual identity to a post-homosexual identity?
Mainly because proponents dodge the meaning of “post-gay.” As a rule, anything that avoids clear explanation is absurd.
This reminds me that the Jones-Yarhouse study found reparative therapy also made some people MORE homosexual (thought they avoided it everywhere but their statistics). The change towards homosexuality was equal to that towards heterosexuality. That further shows that sexual fluidity exists and is not a choice.
When parents haul their teenage kids to exgay organizations, I don’t think they are trying to change their kids’ identities from homosexual to ‘post-homosexual.’
This is only a problem if one assumes that one is “trapped” by the identity one embraces once one does so. If one realizes that one can later decide that said identity isn’t quite accurate and qualify or even outright discard it at a later date and come to a new understanding of one’s identity, this isn’t a problem at all.
Or to put it succinctly, the only reason ex-gay ministries consider embracing a gay identity “too soon” is that they believe that embracing a gay identity at all leaves a person irreparably and irredeemably damaged. Which in my opinion, says a lot about how they view human sexuality in general.
“But how is it so hard to embrace the idea of people moving from a homosexual identity to a post-homosexual identity? That’s just another “expression” of sexuality being fluid. But, yet, it is scorned and ridiculed for being absurd.”
Being “post-gay”/”ex-gay” isn’t scorned and ridiculed for being absurb – it’s scorned and ridiculed because they’re a political group who links to holocaust revisionist groups such as “The Pink Swastika”. They’re scorned and ridiculed for aligning with nutcases like Peter LaBarbera, Scott Lively and others associated with anti-gay groups, the KKK and other ridiculous groups.
They’re also ridiculed because they say one thing on national television, and a completely different thing on Exodus International or their own personal websites and blogs.
Before we even get to the “ex-gay = absurd” part, we have a long list of other reasons why they’re ridiculed.