Exodus announces the second ex-gay ad, published today in the L.A. Times. (Here’s other XGW coverage of the Exodus ads.)
Exodus does not state who funded the $200,000 campaign, but most of the people appearing in the ads are affiliated with the partisan political organization Focus on the Family.
The L.A. Times ad, available as a PDF file here, features Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas. In the ad, Thomas says:
Like a lot of homosexual men, I grew up with an absentee father.
This is, of course, a long-standing stereotype that the ex-gay movement has avoided substantiating. It is also an effort to scapegoat fathers and further alienate them from their sons — an ironic endeavor for an organization that claims to be “pro-family.”
Thomas proceeds to explain that his first sexual experiences were abuse as a teen-ager at the hands of at least four older men. The abuse does not, in fact, sound anything like what most gay men experience. Thomas describes his role as passive — that of a victim, rather than someone who was compelled by mature same-gender attraction to relate equally — romantically and sexually — with men.
I soon found that all the male attention I’d ached for so long came packaged with a gay identity. So that’s what I became.
Once again, Thomas stereotypes gays, asserting the existence of a singular “identity” to which he conformed, rather than acknowledging the existence of as many identities as there are gay people.
Seven years of the gay club scene and circuit parties was like a blur, going from guy to guy, medicating my emptiness with sex and short relationships.
The lifestyle that Thomas describes has little to do, per se, with being attracted to the same gender. What Thomas describes is a sequence of impersonal and compulsive behavioral choices that valued genital conduct over relationship, personal values, or faith. Instead of accepting responsibility for his choices and acknowledging that different same-sex-attracted people make different choices, Thomas seems to assert that his choices were inseparable from whatever attraction to men he experienced.
“It took an old friend to see past the mask I was wearing, to help me
finally face the doubts and scars I’d been avoiding. He showed me the irony of how my ‘mask’ was the very thing keeping me from genuine male intimacy.” Randy defines himself now outside of his sexual identity and has experienced sexual re-orientation.
Thomas refrains from explaining what he means by “mask,” implies that intimacy between gay men is not “genuine,” and misleads his audience by declining to disclose the extent of his ongoing same-gender sexual attraction. He also accuses gay people of defining themselves by their “sexual identity.”
Would I ever find the male acceptance not rooted in sex? Over time, the answers I found – especially that I wasn’t born homosexual – began leading me away from a gay identity.
Thomas strangely assumes that acknowledging one’s same-gender attraction — one’s gay or bisexual orientation — requires one to view male acceptance as rooted in sex. He goes on to say that he was led away from a gay identity, but he does not explain whether or not he is attracted to men today, or what his attractions consist of. Affection? Eroticism? Platonic friendship?
I’m living proof that change is possible.
Thomas neglects to acknowledge that gay people change all the time, without help from religious-right organizations. Some gay people get older, some lose interest in the bar scene, some become more religious, some become less religious. Some build families and some do not. Some gay people become less interested or compulsive about sex, some become more interested. Some become slightly more attracted to the opposite sex; most do not.
The ad concludes without ever acknowledging the Exodus ad campaign’s religious-right affiliation, as well as Exodus’ mission to convert people to a politically biased, “literal” interpretation of the Bible. One must look behind the scenes, beyond what L.A. Times readers will see, to discover that Exodus’ press release acknowledges the campaign’s close ties to Focus on the Family:
This ad featured Alan Chambers, President of Exodus, and his wife Leslie. Future ads will highlight Mike Haley, Director of Gender Issues for Focus on the Family, and his wife Angie. Both couples write about their experience with leaving homosexuality and also about the importance of traditional marriage. Melissa Fryrear, Gender Issues Analyst for Focus on the Family, will also be featured later in the campaign writing as a single woman coming out of homosexuality.
Regrettably, full disclosure has never been a strong point in ex-gay advertising.
Addendum: The Advocate reports that the L.A. Times received about 200 complaints about the ad. Times columnist Steve Lopez’s commentary offers blunt ridicule of the ad’s illogical arguments, but the column is sadly quite flippant about sexual abuse.
You know, to me the saddest thing about the ad is that it seems not to be appealing to gays in general. All of the stereotypes he uses reiterates the arguments of the religious right and are pretty ostrasizing to most gays that I have spoken to (for example, back when I was young and didn’t want to be gay, I would have looked at this ad and said that it didnt apply to me).
It’s almost as if this ad is meant to appeal to non-gays by showing that gays can change, and are made gay by bad childhoods, and therefore should not be given rights, etc. That’s just how I saw it though.
The ad also talks about helping tens of thousands of gays. It’d be nice if they could tell how many really change rather than throwing out this ambiguous number with an ambiguous lead in line.
Ironically, Randy Thomas accuses gay men of adopting an “identity” and then centering their lives on that “identity.” The irony of that is that Randy Thomas makes a living BASED ON HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATION (or lack of one, or wanting a different one than the one he has).
It’s interesting that in the ad he never comes out and says he has changed to heterosexual because Randy Thomas has not changed into a heterosexual. But truth has never EVER been the hallmark of the exgay movement. Fuzzy words, changeable meanings and allowing themselves to be used by politicos is what defines the exgay movement.
TA and Steve, you’re spot-on!
They can CLAIM to have cured their gayness, but the same old personality disorders remain. For these ex-gays, it’s not about truth; it’s politics. It’s not about change; it’s a livelihood.
As an ex-ex-gay and a part of the ex-gay movement for about ten years, I am one of those examples of “change”. Ironically, I just did an interview with a reporter for the Willamette Week, a weekly alternative newspaper here in Portland, OR. He’s doing a story on the ex-gay movement and wanted to get my perspective and experience. One of the questions that he asked was if I believed change was possible.
It all depends on how you define change, doesn’t it? If change is a total change in thoughts, feelings, and oritentation, then I don’t know that you could say change in the ex-gay movement is very successful. But if change is simply a change in behavior, then sure, change is possible.
What I found as someone who identified as ex-gay for almost a decade is that I learned how to trade one happiness for another. What I mean is that I found the things in my life where I could find happiness (ministry, work, friends) and ignored or repressed the parts of my life where I was not happy. As a single man, I could probably have lived as an ex-gay for many more years.
What changed? I got married. Suddenly, all the pain that I suffered through alone was thrust on another person. I saw how my living to please others by adjusting my sexuality for them was only hurting them.
Plus, the whole issue of change ignores the fluid nature of sexuality. We act like a person is either 100% gay or 100% straight and there is no middle ground. The truth is that our sexuality exists as a part of a spectrum. Some of us may be able to function better in a certain type of sexual relationship better than others, even if it is not our internal preference. For those, maybe “change” is possible.
The real isse for me, is not whether change is possible or not. If you desire change, go for it. Your life. Your businnes. The real issue is if we are going to allow people to live as they want to. Groups like Exodus are not dangerous because of what they believe. They are dangerous because they will not be happy unless everyone esle believes as they do.
I appreciate your blog. I have one also (https://outsidethebox.blogs.com) where I discuss more general spirituality stuff. But keep up your work. Our community needs it!
Many thanks for your thoughts and your moral support, Kurt.
Folks, I have deleted some personal attacks against Randy Thomas that were posted after Kurt’s comment.
I consider it inappropriate to judge people by appearances, to ridicule effeminacy in men or butchness in women, or to refer to a person (rather than ideas) as a “right wing nut job” or “mentally ill.” That all adds up to exactly the sort of gossip and stereotyping that Focus on the Family and its allies encourage in antigay churches. Folks, please make a sincere effort to assess a person’s ideas and actions, not the person per se.
I knew Randy Thomas when he was a sensitive and compassionate individual. I stand by my assessment that political and religious arrogance in recent years have sadly eroded Randy Thomas’ principles of honesty and respect; encouraged him to be apathetic about his self-contradictions; and spotlighted a lack of insight and nuance in his thinking.
He used to consistently treat people as unique individuals loved by God; now he frequently shoehorns them into trite political stereotypes.
>Regrettably, full disclosure has never been a strong point in ex-gay advertising
Well, no, obviously not.
This reminds me somewhat of the ad campaign that these–or similar–ex-gay groups ran in 1998. In July, too, I believe it was. Involving John Paulk and his wife, who were then the poster couple for the ex-gay movement. The ads were run in daily newspapers of general circulation, certainly not targeted to gay people. Just as this one is. That ad campaign even got the Paulks a Newsweek cover.
And we subsequently saw what happened to Mr. Paulk–he was caught cavorting in a DC gay bar. He can’t be used on their posters any more, so they have some “fresh” faces. Frankly, if these advertisements had any disclosure close to being full, they might mention Mr. Paulk’s downfall. And Michael Johnson’s, for that matter. Or any of a number of other people that the ex-gay movement have put forward as poster bois that have fallen or left these “ex-gay ministries” of their own accord. But they don’t, in large part because that would destroy the message that they are trying to send.
None of these ads are directed to gay people. They are used to try to influence the political debate over equal rights for gay people. And, of course, to get people to send them money.
Quite frankly, I have known people who have gone from gay to straight, and from straight to gay, and from straight to gay to straight to gay again. They didn’t need a “ministry” to help them do it. And they didn’t oppose equal rights for gay people, not even during their straight “periods.” Has anyone gotten a straight answer from anyone in the “ex-gay” movement why they feel a need to oppose equal rights for gay people? I certainly haven’t seen one. I tend to believe it’s in part because they are afraid that they they need some kind of validation to keep them in their chosen lifestyle. And, of course, in part because of the money they get by being poster bois for the ex-gay movement. I guess it beats working.
Regarding
>In the ad, Thomas says:
>>>>>Like a lot of homosexual men, I grew up with an absentee father.
>This is, of course, a long-standing stereotype that the ex-gay movement has avoided substantiating.
Thomas puts it a bit oddly, because the stereotype is not of an “absentee” father, but instead of a father who is distant and aloof. (Along with the over-protective mother, of course.) Regarding the actual stereotype, it cannot be substantiated, because it is untrue: Is Homosexuality Caused by Son-Father Estrangement? https://hem.passagen.se/nicb/quinn.htm
Raj, about the “why do they oppose civil rights” question – Alan Chambers keeps insisting that he wouldn’t have pursued an orientation change if it had been legal for him to marry a same-sex partner. Frankly, I don’t get that. I have never heard that as a reason that anyone attended an ex-gay ministry or “pursued change.” Of all the reasons people go to ex-gay ministries (being unable to accept their homosexuality in face of their religious beliefs being #1 in my opinion, and pressure by family or churches being #2), that has got to be about number #99 on a list of 100, if it’s even something that’s thought of at all.
I just don’t buy it. I mean, I get that it’s what he says now, and I’m not denying that he says it, and that he may even think it’s true, but if it’s true (if he really pursued “change” because he didn’t have the same rights as heterosexuals), then he is an extremely unique person, in my opinion.
I think it is a re-writing of history – a carefully-crafted statement in order to battle against gays having the same rights as everyone else and created with the sole intention of whipping the religious right into a frenzy to oppose granting gays equal rights. I think it makes christians more willing to oppose gay rights when they can justify it as coming from a place of love (in that, if we don’t give them basic rights, then they will change, and therefore, we’ve lovingly saved a soul) instead of a place of hatred of things they don’t understand.
So in the end, even though Alan does give an answer to your question, I think it’s just more of the same….
Folks, I have deleted some personal attacks against Randy Thomas that were posted after Kurt’s comment.
As the Chief Offender here, I need to fess up and state that I should have qualified my remarks a bit better. I don’t know Randy Thomas so they weren’t directed so much at him as in the impression that springs to mind when he, or many of the other Ex-Gay spokes people pop on the screen. I actually don’t feel that being referred to as “nobility” is an insult, especially in light of how much said “nobles” have done for our community. It’s much more along the lines of “Binky’s Red Honking Nose! I can clock you from a b&w advert! Who are you trying to kid?” Yeah, there was something negative in the remark I made, yet it came from the “Oh Brother,” place and not ridiculing him for appearing to be less than the cultural norm for masculine.
Given the negative, wider cultural connotations around being called, referred to as, or stated to be of such a royal moniker, I see why Mike chose to delete my comment. I do wonder though if, to a certain extent, that’s part of the wider problem, part of why the Ex-Gay movement can recharge itself as much? Since being seen to be butch or fem or anything else is considered bad, are we not perpetuating the negativity around it by looking askance at all of those “less than normal” words? If we can’t accept it, how the heck are they?
Of course, I can also say all of this, as someone who is rarely “clocked,” from external cues alone, as being gay. Were my mannerisms, affect and behavior different, so too might be my point of view. Dunno.
Actually jody my comment was probably the one that went a bridge too far and I should have toned it down bit or quite a bit. I agree with you that might be one of the things that recharges the movement. One of the things that most amazes me about the gay community is that on a whole is that it is not much more accepting of “noble” looking/acting men than the general community. I am not sure about lesbians but men can be quite cruel.
One of the things that shocked me was that an “noble” man can actually be stared at or teased in a gay bar! When I was younger I saw the same rejection from a group of teenagers at a gay youth that I saw as a child directed at “noble” people. The “noble” acting teens formed one click and the “less noble” acting ones formed another. I always thought the community would be a lot more accepting of being “noble” but since most gay men are not “noble” the “noble” ones turn into a minority within a minority.
Annika, I didn’t think that Alan Chambers was saying that he wanted to change because he desired gaining certain (heterosexual) rights. Rather, I always took his comment as meaning, “If I had been able to marry a man, then I would have done so, settled down, and never looked back.”
It’s a relatively minor distinction, of course. He’s saying that denying marriage to gays will ‘help’ them because it’ll prevent them from cementing a ‘mistaken’ identity.
Regardless of his reason, the end result, of course, is the same. (Unfortunately.)
I think LA Times is a very dangerous newspaper. Many people are fooled into thinking this paper is “liberal”, even though they have run cartoons by Michael Ramirez that have a man marrying his father, they have run articles written by members of the fundemantalist, extremist World Journalism Institute which attack the evil liberal media for showing “old lesbian couples with a tear in one eye” and put tons of anti-gay lunatics in quotes which were a far cry from their actual stance (for instance, one woman said “I don’t mind civil unions”, even though she actually believes that gays are terrorists and deserve no benefits), and now they have this.
It’s terrifying, how the far-right and the bigots have taken over our entire media. I am truly worried about how many people will be suckered by these ads, especially at a time when the government says that it is fine and dandy to hate and loathe gays.
Same old tune from the same old crowd I see. I just got back from a trip to San Francisco, and immediately thought of an experience I had there when I saw this ad.
It’s regarding the old “I went from bar to bar, man to man, to fill the ‘hole’ in my heart” line:
I’m sitting in a (basically straight) sports bar on Mission St., watching my beloved Red Sox lose, again, to the Yankees (who, IMHO, are the epitome of evil) when two guys sit next to me. It’s Friday night, and they are starting their weekend. As it sometimes happens, we exchanged a few friendly comments about the game, but mainly they talked to one another, but loudly enough for me to hear.
They each had at least 4 drinks in one hour, and their conversation was basically about how many women they were trying to bang, or were actually banging, how each of their “main” girlfriends were pushing them for exclusivity, but they weren’t having it, how they could help each other get women, and the stereotypical litany of how hot this woman was or how hot that woman was. When a really hot woman came in with a guy they found wrong for her (because it wasn’t either of them), they launched into a set of homophobic, yet incredibly catty and bitchy, comments about how he wasn’t “man” enough for her.
After I got over the anger of the homophobia, all I could think of was – aren’t these two guys living the lifestyle we’re always accused of following? They drift from woman to woman in search of nothing but sex, certainly not intimacy; they abuse alcohol, and I doubt they stop there; and they were headed for another bar, and then likely one after that, all in search of more women. Hell, one of them even worked at Victoria’s Secret because he thought it would give him a better chance of banging some broads ’cause he was the only straight male employee.
Now, I don’t for a minute believe that most straight guys live like this (thank God), but they certainly fit a pattern, and they certainly are not heading for the “ex-gay” ideal of marriage and children.
It’s not about sexuality – it’s about the choices we make in how to express our sexuality, and anyone can make really wrong choices.
Amen! Absolutely true. But it so convienient to lop all gay people into the “lifestyle” stereotype. Homophobic and hateful contributors to the RR WANT to believe these lies about gay people, as it reinforces to them how appropriate their discriminatory behavior is and makes them feel better about themselves. Much easier to focus on the speck in the eye of others, than to look at the plank in your own.
LA Times apparently got over 200 complaints from this ad.
https://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=13246&sd=07/29/04