The journalist behind an ex-gay exposé in The Independent (London) last week, has launched an all-out campaign against reparative therapy.
Patrick Strudwick’s investigative report revealed startling practices among reparative therapists in the UK. In his latest missive, he reiterates and expands on some of his more disturbing claims, such as that ex-gay psychiatrist Dr Paul Miller encouraged sexual arousal during therapy sessions, and that the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) is inadvertently funding reparative therapy. He also reveals that Cohen disciple and NARTH representative Miller, who was promoted by now-disgraced Northern Ireland MP Iris Robinson in 2008, still struggles with gay pornography and masturbation from time to time. (Apparently not uncommon among people claiming to be healed of homosexuality.)
Now Strudwick has formed the Stop Conversion Therapy Taskforce, aka SCOTT. As of writing this, the campaign’s Facebook group has 700 members and counting.
Here is what Strudwick says of the group and the reasons behind it:
The belief system of conversion therapy, that gay people aren’t just ungodly and wrong but are inherently damaged and that they can be “healed” or reprogrammed constitutes a fascistic, fundamentalist ideology. Mental health professionals who harbour such an agenda are a supremely dangerous proposition.
The work of Scott will therefore not stop at disrupting conferences. We want professional bodies such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy to add into their code of conduct specific stipulations condemning attempts to alter orientation (currently they have more general ones about not letting personal feelings about sexuality affect treatment).
We will also continue to expose individual therapists and report them to their professional bodies. It won’t be easy. Many operate using euphemisms that cloud what they’re really doing. They also defend their techniques vehemently, claiming: “We offer choice! We only treat those who come looking for it!” It’s like a Venus flytrap blaming the hungry insect that wanders into its gaping mouth. But we are determined to root them out however long it takes. This won’t be a battle. It’s war.
Strong words indeed.
I approach this with caution. It is great to see reparative therapy being highlighted in the UK media like this, and its dangers exposed. The practices investigated by Strudwick are shocking and disgusting. The world of gay-to-straight conversion must be held up to scrutiny, and abusive forms of therapy must be curtailed.
On the other hand, the ex-gay movement encompasses a wide variety of approaches. There have always been at least two distinct responses by the LGBT community. One response has been to “wage war” on the ex-gay movement and do all in its power to destroy it. This has never been the aim of Ex-Gay Watch. We live in a free society, and groups for people who hate, wish to change, are uncomfortable with, or simply wish not to act on their sexual orientation are free to gather and encourage each other in whatever way in their aims. Ex-Gay Watch will do all it can to denounce deception and oppression by the ex-gay movement, but one thing it does not have the right to do is to destroy it by force.
The reason for my caution is that it is very easy to throw all the aspects of the ex-gay movement together and treat them all as issues that can or should be addressed by, for example, legal force. There are many clear instances of abuse that should be addressed by legal means, such as those brought up by Strudwick’s initial article. Then there are ideas that should be addressed by exercising our right to free speech and arguing against them. We should not mistake one category for the other. For example, a Christian therapist who works with legitimate psychiatric or psychological methods to help a patient to achieve congruence (living with both the demands of one’s faith and the reality of sexual orientation) easily falls under the guise of “reparative therapy” in the popular mind – but we have no right to dismantle such attempts by force.
What needs to be clear is what we are fighting and why, and what our aims are. I am pleased to see the rotten underbelly of the ex-gay movement in the UK exposed, but any declaration of battle must be made with wisdom and discernment.
A wise reponse, David. I admire Ex-Gay Watches peaceful and constructive tone unlike the violent of Evan Hurst at TWO.
My own response is both gleeful and fearful. While I hope the ex-gay movement ends, I have always hoped it collapses on its own as all ex-gays become ex-ex-gays thru their own discovery. Back when I was heterosexist, I’m glad no one went to war with me or I’d probably still be that person. Friendship, broadening my horizons, and solid teaching worked far better.
Dave,
The reality is that your words of caution will be ignored.
The individuals who seek “change” in the UK are the ones who are most nervous about any publicity (SSA men and women are more robust). Who is going to help them when the LGBT “war” on their therapists is over?
They don’t need any help– and certainly not the kind of “help” the ex gay industry offers– because there is nothing wrong with them.
What they need is to love themselves, not to try to make themselves over according to someone else’s agenda.
Paraphrasing Pat Condell:
when someone tells you that you are dirty, sick, unclean, and especially, sinful and in need to salvation (which they offer, of course, usually for a donation) it is the biggest mistake in the world to assume that 1) it’s true, and 2) that they are telling you for your benefit, and not for their own. The concept of sin, especially YOUR sin, becomes the expression of their will and their way of seeing the world, and if it is making you unhappy, or interfering with your life, then that is probably a good test of its truth value. Likewise, you pay the price with happiness in your life, while they reap the benefits– or, validation– and the “glory”.
Speaknig of Pat Condell, Peterson just blogged a fabulous entry that anti-gay and anti-trans people are in abusive relationships.
Thanks, Ephilei.
I’m just the cautious, peacemaking type, but I’ve always been of the opinion that activism needs both types, ie the real butt-kickers, too, even if it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. Both approaches have their pitfalls. I’m not an Evan, but hopefully both the Evans and the Daves of the LGBT world get their part of the job done.
Joe, you make a really good point. Even when the anger against reparative therapists is quite justified, I can’t help but wonder how vulnerable their patients feel watching it all, perhaps feeling caught in the middle? I wonder if they don’t feel they’re being bullied, even when it’s not intended?
I would agree with that. The confidentiality surrounding the groups that I was involved with in the UK was an enabling factor in my contacting them in the first place. In retrospect, these groups were a stepping stone for me on the route to coming out.
Coming from a pretty conservative background I avoided any groups that appeared pro-gay. If the conservative groups hadn’t been there I would probably have had nowhere to turn to – and that could have left me suicidal.
That said, there is no excuse for the malpractice of counsellors, as pointed out in Strudwick’s article. Those conservative groups need to get their Christian counsellors in order, and that will involve them in some work. Even if some groups (like TfT) infer that they do not promote ex-gay type therapies, some of the counsellors that they refer to do still fall back on the reparative-therapy-speak of people like Nicolosi, Comiskey, Moberley and Worthen. False hope is held out. Lives are crippled. I spent far too long with those groups before accepting that the change of orientation talked of was sham.
At least now there are internet support forums (like GayChristian.net) which are prepared to support gay/SSA Christians of both liberal and conservative viewpoints without pushing ex-gay therapies on them. Hopefully some of the conservative UK groups might finally take heed, and be more honest about the ambiguous messages they send out.
I may disagree with the vehemence of Strudwick’s approach – which is in danger of encouraging a martyr attitude in the more extreme groups; however, the publicity he has raised will hopefully prime more thoughtful Christians to challenge those in the church who still peddle these discredited therapies.
link, ephilei?
And BTW, dave, I absolutely agree with you. At the same time, as long as fear, power, and money are the main forces behind the ex-gay industry, their take no prisoners approach will be the dominant approach. The ones who are truly trying to help people achieve peace–as opposed to change– will be the unfortunate victims. But not of some imaginary GLBT war on ex-gay therapy, but of the war that these so-called Christians and their homo-hating-homo allies have declared on people whom they do not know, know nothing about, and who have done them no harm.
“I have always hoped it collapses on its own as all ex-gays become ex-ex-gays”
Ephilei:
Very rarely do bad things just collapse on their own – particularly when they are backed by a multi-million dollar industry.
While it is true that ex-gays will become ex-ex-gays, I prefer to speed up the process. From my experience, telling people the unvarnished truth that ex-gay therapy is consumer fraud actually helps.
I have had many ex-ex-gays say that they used to despise me, but now support our work because we do not sugar-coat the facts. They say that there are many people – from family to teachers to therapists and ex-gay activists – to put a positive spin on ex-gay efforts. They say that they now see the value of a group standing up, clearly and unequivocally, to say that: Ex-gay ministry and therapy are bogus. They are a rip-off. They do not work.
When I started Truth Wins Out in 2006, there were those who complained that we were too harsh on Exodus. That we were mean to poor, sweet Alan Chambers. Well, now we see Exodus’ role in Prop 8 and Uganda, and it turns out my assessment was correct all along. Mr. Chambers is not a good person and his organization is destructive. Those who stood in the way by serving as apologists for Mr. Chambers, while good people and well intentioned, made it more difficult to make this now obvious case.
It is 2010 and time has told. I’ll let the facts on the ground speak for themselves
I thank Dave for a thoughtful post. As usual, he makes strong points and eloquent arguments. But, ultimately, it is farce, not force which genuinely threatens ex-gay groups. The greatest weapon we have is shining a light on the bizarre methods and outdated ideas used by these groups. Thankfully, Ex-Gay Watch does this every day.
Finally, TWO’s Evan Hurst is not “violent” unless one has a very loose definition and interpretation of the word that includes direct criticism.
I caution against the overuse of the word “violence”. When the word is used gratuitously and absent a factual basis, it loses its power. In a world where genuine violence occurs against our community on a daily basis, I think it is important we all take care to ensure the word maintains its integrity.
Thanks, Wayne.
Ben in Oakland
When I said “help” I meant it in the sense of who is going to help them deal with consequences of having their ‘community’ raided.
Not all of them do though. Speeding up the process feels like another form of bullying to them.
I would only add to what Wayne and Dave have said: In this sort of argument, there have to be different arms, different methods, employed by different people.
There are some of us who are more conciliatory, who exist best in the bridge, and possibly as a soft place to fall. Then there are others who have to be the ones to straight-up, no questions asked, kick ass and take names. I would argue that neither can function without the other. And make no mistake – the people that we’re up against are not good people. Worse, they most likely believe strongly that they are good people, doing the will of god, yadda yadda. So, in my honest opinion, that makes it much more important for there to be people who stand up and say “Sadly, no!”, unequivocally, AND, taking inspiration from the blog “Sadly, no!”, to mock them as needed. Because, see, here’s the thing: If you don’t have people willing to do that, then you are in effect conceding their argument and continuing to give them the upper hand. If you concede that Alan Chambers or Peter LaBarbera or Laurie Higgins or whoever else are just sweet well-meaning people who are mistaken, you can reason with them all day long, but all you’re end up with is a sore throat, because they’re zealots. You don’t reason with zealots. And one from the outside looking in is going to see this: Religious bigots on one side using TRULY violent rhetoric, violent imagery, espousing violent beliefs, etc. (and yes, a belief that an entire segment of the population is going to hell is a violent belief), and an opposing side which makes good fact-based arguments, but ultimately isn’t compelling because they seem to be afraid to stand up to the religious bigots. If, however, what an onlooker sees is that there are NOT ONLY people making extremely reasoned, fact-based arguments against the zealots, BUT ALSO people who are willing to take control of the conversation and turn the tables and say “Actually, no – we’re not talking about gay rights today, we’re not talking about how YOU should learn to accept US, we’re going to talk about how you need to change YOUR behavior in order for polite society to accept YOU,” then they’re going to see not only a movement with the facts on their side, but that also has a spine.
Again: both must exist. And quite frankly, another reason you have to have both is that different personalities respond to different approaches. If I may make a comparison…over the past couple of years, obviously, the economic situation in the United States has been precarious at best, largely because Wall Street’s big firms decided that they could do whatever they want, regardless of the results. And there’s an entrenched power structure, in both parties, that allows them to continue. You know who gets under their skin and is changing the conversation about Wall Street? Matt Taibbi and Alan Grayson. Matt is the meanest bastard around, and he’s one of the ONLY journalists willing to call Goldman Sachs what it is. Now, will you always agree with everything Taibbi says? I don’t. But I always find him compelling. I want to know what he’s saying about what’s going on in the financial industry. Likewise, Alan Grayson, the freshman congressman from Orlando, is one the most frightening human beings I’ve ever seen in legislative office, but he tells it like it is, and again, he gets under people’s skin!
Now, to bring it back to this subject…Taibbi and Grayson are fighting against entrenched financial interests, but (in theory) no one’s human dignity is at stake. But in the fight between human equality and the Religious Right? Excuse me, but one side of that has been truly violent toward the other for decades in this country. So I happen to be one who’s kind of good at taking a person who’s put themselves in an embarrassing situation of their own creation (like “Dr.” Lively) and finding little fun opportunities to twist the knife a little bit. But they’ve brought it upon themselves. They make public statements that SHOULD invite immediate scorn, mockery and deconstruction.
And I would also add one more thing: If I say something you don’t like, feel free to argue with me! It’s what comments sections are for.
😉
I want to address the question that there are gay people who don’t want to be gay, so where do they turn for help?
There were some simple and straightforward answers, that said for those gay people to love themselves and BE loved by a more welcoming and supportive environment.
Excellent advice.
As you all know, the conditioning to hate being gay or have that support begins early.
Youngsters are not allowed to associate with other gay kids or straight allies.
Note the vehemence in which GSA clubs were banned or objected to. And during a time when gay children are at their most vulnerable and in need of coming out.
Look at the character assassination of Kevin Jennings and the inception of GLSEN.
As I have pointed out, there are perfectly normal people who are conditioned to hate their natural attributes, women and certain ethnic groups are especially insecure in this and it results in the SAME psychological damage and desperation that makes them endure whatever financial and physical pain and hardship to conform.
The BEST approach to this is exactly what was mentioned in the comment thread that followed: healthy affirmation of what is God given and ways to channel that attribute into something positive and strong.
I know blacks conflicted about their ethnic features, especially their hair. I know Asians who prefer to have ’round eyes’ and curvy girls that want to be skinny.
And we have seen the wreckage in public as to what can result.
Think Michael Jackson and the disappearance of his nose. Think of the models, and actresses who have died from anorexia. Think of those people who became addicted to plastic surgery. People who were otherwise attractive and healthy and normal…not so deformed that the surgery was even necessary, but they underwent procedures anyway.
And think about the sorts of plastic surgeons and entertainment agents and so on, who indulge the insecurity and have profited greatly from it.
Blacks who grew up during Jim Crow, and Jews under the fist of the Soviet Union have similar psychological damage.
This is a calculation to keep each respective group weak, diasporic and self hating and dependent.
Were the interventions and influence of the Nicolosi’s and Chambers and so on purely pastoral, it would still be dangerous.
But they engage in political action to maintain constant tacit war on gay people, with the complicity of people who are ignorant of what they are doing and how they are doing it.
Much of the general public believes gay people can change and their socio/political equality is contingent on changing.
That is indescribably dangerous. Would anyone consider this for Jews, curvy women or people with epicanthic folds in the eyes.
The bottom line being, one MIGHT change their natural attributes with invasive, painful and expensive methods, but they SHOULDN’T HAVE TO, nor BE EXPECTED TO nor IS IT NECESSARY.
to be acceptable to society and given equal protection and equal rights.
Some of these interventions have had horrible results. No less so with ex gay conversion.
Unqualified people are messing with something they shouldn’t be and when THEY fail, just as no doctor can force unnecessary or invasive and intense procedures on someone who doesn’t need it, they also can’t exploit the same person because they are insecure about themselves.
Ethics would prevent it.
I was rattled by that boy, on stage during that religious exorcism. Reminded me all over again of that other boy in CT on the floor of his church rolling around and convulsing.
Why such a BIG SHOW and putting these boys on performing for the crowd?
Why should such a deeply person PRIVATE part of who one is, that is sexual orientation, be a part of a extremely public display?
These boys might as well have been put in public stocks and been shouted at.
Truly barbaric and smacking of primitive human sacrifice for the prurient interests of these churches.
I’m not impressed, I’m PISSED!
Especially because KIDS are submitted to this crap!
And this is one war on the travesty that is ex gay conversion is one I’d happily like to see on our turf, and sign up for post haste.
Speeding up the process clearly means providing accurate information to people so they can make informed choices. Information is not bullying, but can make people initially uncomfortable. Once they have the facts, they feel a personal need to push for resolution much faster. While this can be an emotional experience, I’ve rarely met a person who, in the long run, would have preferred languishing in an ex-gay program, wasting precious time and money.
The people I know who went to the last Nicolosi conference in London do not lack information. They have read every exgay and ex-exgay book or article ever written. And they are not entirely unfamiliar with the secular gay world either.
The conferences, support groups and therapy sessions they freely choose to attend are ‘safe places’ for them to discuss their feelings about faith and some form of SSA identity.
If this Facebook group were planning to befriend and really get to know the community they intend to “rescue”, that would be OK. But that wouldn’t be as much fun as a just ‘war’ on ‘evil therapists’ would it?
Joe S.
A person would be hard pressed to be both extremely well informed about the ex-gay movement and at the same time going to see Nicolosi for anything other than entertainment purposes. These well informed people would know that neither Nicolosi nor anyone else has demonstated any success in changing anyone’s sexual orientation from gay to straight.
If they were trying to pursue celibacy, that would be a different situation. But again, how Nicolosi and his ilk would be at all useful or necessary in pursuing celibacy is beyond me as well.
If I understand you John, that’s a good point. Being well informed about the ex gay issue would require a person to know that sites like XGW and so on are out there. I stumbled on it accidentally.
Journalists, any kinds of neutral observers are not really privy to the real nuts and bolts of what these therapists do, or the environments that are created.
We usually hear from survivors or people going undercover.
NEVER is the ex gay industry open to scrutiny or their success stories investigated for their veracity.
Religious institutions, or those operating under umbrella organizations, rarely get such scrutiny, otherwise they cry that it’s a restriction on their religious freedom.
Religious belief is not psychiatric counseling, and if one could look at mental delusions, a great deal of it is based on some form of religious context. Even those who are schizophrenic or have some other debilitating disorder, know all the pertinent religious references.
Which, it can be argued, committed Christians wouldn’t try to say they can cure disorders like schizophrenia or BPD or OCD with a lot of prayer. They would be doing something risky and irresponsible.
Even when reminding someone anti gay of that, the tendency is to blow off that fact, and also the fact that the reason why doctors were OBLIGATED to do further research and strike homosexuality from the DSM and the difference between homosexuality and the aforementioned is SELF RELIANCE.
I’ve asked to of all the OTHER human behaviors listed in the DSM has that prompted them to use it for the purposes of marriage discrimination?
Homosexuality is the ONE thing that people are OBSESSING over and I have t wonder if that’s a paraphilia unto itself.
John and Joe-Being celibate is not a difficult thing to do. Just stop having sex. No need to go all ex-gay same-sexafflicted on anyone’s ass. Such a simple answer to what is presented as a complex question of faith, morals, psychology, and god’s will.
That it is such a simple answer to this question brings into discussion what this is really about– and it is not faith, morals, or god’s will. It is about how much the very existence of gay people offends, frightens, and entices some straight people, and some wanna-be-straight but ain’t people.
but it is about psycohlogy, and self destructive behaviour. Wanna stop being an alcoholic? Stop drinking. Very simple solution. Alcoholics can’t change until something else becomes more important than the next drnk.
Lest anyone be confused, I am not comparing being gay to being an alcoholic. Plenty of people have no problem with being gay, just like plenty of people have no problem being straigth, and both bring similar rewards and benefits in life. But plenty of people do have problems being healthily straight. As do some gay people.
The latter are natural marks of the ex-gay con men and women. What I have seen in every ex-gay person I have ever read about is either explicit self hatred or implied self-hatred through continuously self-destructive behavior,, neither of which knows a sexual orientation
Ex gays that ARE celibate terminally confuse the issue.
A more accurate term would be EX-SEXUAL. Gay people who aren’t having sex are still gay, they just aren’t sexually active.
The ex-sexual can’t necessarily even say they are no longer attracted to SEX, they simply choose not to HAVE IT.
Celibacy would be the same for a gay OR straight person, as would be the understanding of what that is.
This is why ASEXUAL people, those not attracted to sex at all, would be interesting participants in this issue as would be bisexuals.
All of whom are outsiders, but who would add a dimension of experience and truth vital to comparative information.
What about asexuals and pressure to conform? What about the expectations for marriage and family? Is there gender attraction variance among them?
Do organizations like Exodus proliferate to ‘cure’ asexuals uncomfortable with THEIR orientation so that they engage in relationships that make them guilty and shamed for NOT wanting to have sex?
What about the indictment against NOT procreating? Are asexual told they are an evolutionary dead end and subject to ridicule because they ‘don’t naturally or don’t want to procreate’?
And most important, who MONITORS the quality of sex between gay and straight couples who have engaged in these programs?
Are they required to report to someone what kind of sex, how often and what it did for them?
I mean think about it, take perhaps a former lesbian who is inexperienced with a man, and a straight man whose only former partners, if any have been hetero women.
Would he be qualified to satisfy his ex lesbian wife, would she him? Would she be honest about if she IS or would HE be if she wasn’t? Would she know, do either of them have to talk about it to a third party?
What is the game face that these people have to put on to ‘prove’ they are having the most satisfying experience, with the ONLY thing that their church culture and closest associates care about?
And why is it their business? Because their church community is so HEAVILY invested that gay people do all of this to the satisfaction of their ex gay industry? And that the public goal has been reached?
As I understand it, Dr. Warren Throckmorton is in NO relationship at this time. I know of gay people who have chosen celibacy, but it’s a plateau, a neutral zone that doesn’t test attraction one way or the other.
So it IS deceptive to heteros that THIS is being ex gay.
Opposite sex relationships between ONE hetero partner or BOTH who have renounced previous gay lives requires a narrow range of experience.
Just as virgins have no examples to draw on and compare, the same might be true of the aforementioned.
I’m just wondering about what qualifies as satisfactory for the purposes of the ex gay industry and how would they know unless they ARE asking invasive questions.
If there is a DADT veil of privacy that the ex gay industry doesn’t breach, there is also a wall of misinformation they can put between ex gays and the uninformed public.
I remember having a conversation with Chad Thompson and something red flagged: at the time, he was 27 years old and had never dated a woman or been in a relationship.
He was ‘waiting for the right woman to come along’.
I remember thinking that rather sounded like a teenager and that the most likely woman would be either virginal and inexperienced, or an experienced woman convinced she could imprint him for HIS lack of it.
So I find the very nature of the ex gay industry, or many heteros who are convinced it’s their duty to change gay people to be PREDATORY, unrealistic and arrogant.
But the terms on which sexuality is supposed to satisfy religious beliefs (not the individual) for making babies, having spouses and the contingency of equal rights and civil status, self serving in the most arrogant, self serving and dispassionate way EVER.
4 years out of the ex-gay movement, and I’m still haunted by it. I’m no victim, but I am still feeling the effects of their indoctrination, so many years later. While we are free to choose, these people are doing more harm than good, and need to be stopped. If 1+1 = 2, we can’t have people going around teaching that 1+1 = 3 and say that it is ok because we’re free human beings.
One of the biggest crimes of ex-gay conversion therapy, is their reinforcement of the fact that the most natural and primal aspects of being human, those of relationship, love, and sex are wrong. They teach us to feel guilty for who we love. They call being in love “emotional dependency”, and cause us to unknowingly hate ourselves and our desires, and that does not go away overnight.
The thousands of dollars we’ve spent on conferences, books, travel, etc, and the thousands of dollars we’ll spend trying to undo the harm.
Ex-gay conversion is not only a scam, but it is a crime against humanity, and like the journalist, I am standing against its existence.
Yes we can because you are also free to say those people are deluded.
The issue is how you would have felt/reacted if an activist group disrupted your therapy session or the conference you were happy to attend when you were in the ex-gay movement.
Some of the friends I was referring to earlier are pursuing an “ex-gay” identity. They are not SSA but celibate (unfortunately all of the labels in this subculture mean different things to different people). They want to get rid of the attractions – or at least be functionally heterosexual. They know people like me who are merely ‘single’ or culturally ex-gay and they know people who are affirming gay.
Some want to get married. Some are already married with children and don’t want to get divorced because gay/SSA thoughts are some part of “who they are”. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to shape their own identity or pick their own therapists?
Indeed Joe, give them the right to shape their own identity. But if they are picking a therapist who they are about to place their trust in, would it not be good for them to investigate how accurate the claims of that therapist are?
If others have found that certain groups/therapists have been misleading or inaccurate in the supposed results of their treatment, you can hopefully understand why their former clients might want to warn prospective clients.
The UK does have groups who will support those seeking celibacy, or seeking to reduce/repress their same sex attractions, which may be a chosen option for those with religious or family reasons not to come out. However, some of those speakers at conferences (such as Nicolosi) go much further in their claims of change – claims that many of us have discovered to be bogus and detrimental. And some of us have found that the years of repression and self-enforced asexuality have not been to the benefit of our mental or spiritual health either.
I agree that protesting outside a conference may not achieve the desired result – I suppose it very much depends on how the protestors are perceived. They may see themselves as offering a voice of caution to attendees, in love. The organisers may simply frame them (as you do) as an “activist group” and reinforce the whole ‘battle between good and evil’ routine – setting the protesters out as only trying to tempt attendees into some debauched ‘lifestyle’.
In the end, time will tell who has been bearing false witness. I think I know who. I just hope the false witnesses are found out before more people get hurt.