Smooth thinking on sexuality: Labels don’t communicate well
Posted on November 14th, 2007 by Warren
Robert Epstein, a frequent commentator on sexuality issues, reports in advance of his Scientific American online survey of 18,000 people regarding precision in defining sexual orientation. He says,
Although common thinking holds that everyone is either “gay” or “straight,” my new survey of nearly 18,000 people who voluntarily answered an online quiz shows that these terms are highly misleading. Sexual orientation actually lies on a smooth continuum, and the way people state their orientation is often a poor predictor of their true sexual behaviors and fantasies. Someone can call himself “gay” but behave “straight,” and vice versa.
Looking forward to his findings…
This is nice, but it doesn’t really sound new. Isn’t this what Kinsey was trying to say decades ago?
Kinsey fell into the scientist’s caveat –categorization of all observations. Sexual orientation is not what we are, it’s what we do with a full spectrum of possible options. Past experience and free will both play a part in whichever way we gravitate, and often we cling to or become addicted to whichever mode of sexual behavior satisfies our need for relationship and/or identity definition.
At the computer too long, I almost thought it said ‘who voluntarily answered ON online quiz shows…’
Looking forward to the findings also…I’m hoping it’s not just a Kinsey dejavu…that there are at least some nuances of new understanding.
Warren,
What I found especially interesting and encouraging about this article is that the researcher has identified an overlapping second continuum that looks at ones ability to experience fluidity within ones orientation. This makes so much sense and fits quite well with so much of the other research that has been coming out lately regarding human behaviour.
Sexual orientation is not what we are, it’s what we do with a full spectrum of possible options. Past experience and free will both play a part in whichever way we gravitate, and often we cling to or become addicted to whichever mode of sexual behavior satisfies our need for relationship and/or identity definition.
Dave, no doubt you find such a definition to fit well with you political and religious views of the sexual orientation of others.
However, other than you saying so, there is no reason to think that any of us have “a full spectrum of possible options”. Indeed, if Yarhouse and Jone proved anything at all, it is that a great many people most certainly DO NOT have a full spectrum to choose from.
Additionally, I sincerely doubt that many people with same-sex attractions, be they gay, ex-gay, ex-ex-gay, or opposed to labels, would agree with your assertion that free will determines sexual attraction. That is exactly the sort of arrogant and self-righteous proclamation that Exodus, among other ex-gay ministries, are trying hard to rid from the Church.
Most agree that the jury is still out on the etiology of orientation. And some here try to talk around orientation by defining it out of existence.
But we all agree that whatever is the source of same-sex attractions, it isn’t choice, addiction, or a broad spectum open to all.
Timothy–
“And some here try to talk around orientation by defining it out of existence.”
Could you support this statement with actual references to who and when? I’ve been reading here for awhile now and must have missed reading those.
It’s not so shocking that people can behave in ways that vary from their orientation. A gay man with fantasies and attractions that are male-oriented, can still go through the process of dating and marrying a woman. Does it mean he is functioning? happy? feeling fulfilled or congruous?
It’s also not so shocking that people are not so staunchly defined as we would like to believe. We discussed that on a previous entry, and although there are some who may say that they are 100% one way or another, there usually is some variance in between…80-20, 50-50, etc…
I’m not sure why this is a big deal. Isn’t this well known already?
Anonymo -
Could you support this statement with actual references to who and when? I’ve been reading here for awhile now and must have missed reading those.
I suggest you do a search in the archives on orientation and just read for yourself.
I can support Timothy’s assertion that this is the case, but it has happened over time.
Jayhuck–
I’ve been reading here for better than 12 months so I’ll reject your archive suggestion. I believe that Timothy made a statement that will prove to be untrue. Where do you find support for the idea that people on this blog were trying to do ‘define orientation out of existence”? I saw a lot of discussion by people who didn’t want to be forced into YOUR definitions of orientation, I even saw them try to reason with you to find a definition for their ‘otherness’ but saw no one trying to ‘define orientation out of existence’. Why do you perceive their desire to be seen for whatever they are–and it appears even they aren’t sure–to be defining orientation out of existence? Would you or Timothy please show where anyone here went there?
Anonymo -
If you don’t want to do the work, that’s fine, but don’t expect us to. Timothy and I have been blogging on here for years.
Regarding “Where do you find support for the idea that people on this blog were trying to do ‘define orientation out of existence”? I saw a lot of discussion by people who didn’t want to be forced into YOUR definitions of orientation”
I’ve seen people who have been trying to define orientation in MANY different ways - usually in a way that benefits their religious beliefs. There is no consensus, on either side, of what orientation means - but I have noticed that many Ex-Gay people want to define it in such a way that it is something easy to overcome - Usually, when I see ex-gay people using the word orientation, I can easily replace their use of that word with behaviors - which, to me, is NOT the same thing.
You seem to be the one with the issue, so I encourage you to do the research.
Anonymo -
I shouldn’t have said “easy to overcome” - but what I meant is that no one who is ex-gay can prove, scientifically, that what they have changed is an innate orientation - the only things we can prove have changed are behaviors and feelings -
If we could agree on words we would be much closer to finding common ground, the problem is that definitions, no matter which group uses them, tend to benefit particular groups depending on how they are worded. Evangelical conservative groups are no better with this than other gay groups.
Anonymo,
Some here do not believe in the concept of sexual orientation. Others define it in ways that make it difficult to ever determine exactly what they mean at any given time.
That’s what I think. If you think otherwise, that’s fine.
Interestingly, the sentence you decided to attack had very little importance to my comment. If you’d prefer to read the comment without that sentence, that’s fine too.
If you want to address my comment in it’s totality, I’d be happy to discuss that with you.
If, however, you want me to try and find some quote on another thread so that we can argue at length about whether or not someone is defining orientation in a way so that it has no meaning… well I’m not really interested in engaging in that battle with you.
Anon,
They can’t.
Jayhuck–
Are you sure you’ve been blogging here for years? My notes show you first appearing in the latter half of 2006…that was last year. I will agree that Timothy has the years though.
And we don’t need to pursue my question further, your answers have clarified the overstatement to my satisfaction.
Anonymo,
I used to blog here under Anonymous.
Jayhuck,
How would you describe “an innate orientation”? Also, do you think it can be different from person to person with varying degrees and dimensions?
When you say “but what I meant is that no one who is ex-gay can prove, scientifically, that what they have changed is an innate orientation”, are you making a blanket statement for everyone? The research/surveys that have been conducted are usually with ministires - not with the countless other people who chose to stay anonymous and many times have no religious affiliation.
Ann,
That is a discussion I just don’t want to get into again - not yet anyway - my fault for bringing it up - Its really a discussion that should be had face to face because there is so much involved with it.
Jayhuck,
Thanks - perhaps someday we can do just that. I would welcome it very much.
Ann said in post 64843:
not with the countless other people who chose to stay anonymous and many times have no religious affiliation.
I’m curious Ann, how do you know about these “countless” people. And by countless, do you simply mean they are hard to count? or are you suggesting that there a vast numbers of them (i.e. too many to count) out there?
Current research, admittedly limited, suggests that sustained change orientation (where change refers to desires/fantasies, not just behaviour) from gay to straight rarely occurs. Do you disagree that such change is rare? And if so, what do you base your opinion on?
Ann,
I’m not sure if you remember but we tried to have this discussion several threads back - I can look for it for you if you’re interested in revisiting this.
“Innate orientation’” assumes that the orientation is “inborn; existing or as if existing in one from birth…arising from the constitution of the mind, rather than acquired from experience.” The concept of an innate orientation is still under study. While loudly proclaimed by many, it is yet unproven.
Jayhuck added the word “‘innate” and I appreciate it. The real confusion comes when one person says “orientation”–meaning “innate” without saying it–and the other says it meaning simply “the direction you’re in”. Many others feel that orientation may not be innate but is still virtually unchangeable.
Jayhuck,
I do remember parts of the discussion -
You made a statement above about innate orientation and I asked how you defined that. I do understand not wanting to go over the same material again - I was just seeking clarification if a discussion was going to take place.
Ken,
I know it is easier to doubt or be cynical about the possibility of others who have made a personal decision to no longer engage in same gender relationships, but they are out there. You would have to know some of the people I know or who I have met over the years. They are out there and just chose not to go into ministires or give speeches. He are just a few examples - you will never hear about my friend, Jamie, who lived as a lesbian for years until she met Rick and fell in love with him - not because of his gender but for who he is. You will not hear about Beth who was in a lesbian relationship for 24 years and now has a completely different view of it. You will not hear of my friend, Don, who has SSA and also loves his wife and 3 children and would never do anything to jeopardize his relationship with them. You will never hear about my friend Dave who lived in various same gender relationships with men for years until he met Susie and fell in love and is now married and very happy. I followed their friendship which developed into a deeper relationship over a 3 year period. These people didn’t suddenly change and desire the opposite gender - they fell in love over a period of time with one person of the opposite gender that usually started as a friendship. There are many others I have known throughout the years and they know of others so I know what I am saying is true. We will never know them because they choose not to hold themselves out for the scathing scrutiny that would enevitably come their way. They all had their personal reasons for wanting to live differently. I have never asked them to what extent they have changed - I didn’t have to - they are happier now than before and that is all I care about. They have chosen to stay anonymous to the general public for personal reasons and I respect that. They do not hold themselves up as examples of anything anyone else should do - they just want to live quiet and productive lives. It is not for us to question the whys or hows and it really doesn’t matter - this is the decision they made and I see nothing wrong with it - do you?
Ann,
It sounds like your friends are bisexual - which is fine - there isn’t anything wrong with that, but its not the same as people who are primarily homosexual.
Ann,
Sorry - I can’t seem to get all my thoughts down in one post. I wanted to talk about my friend who is primarily gay - we’ll call him Brian - he thought he was falling in love with a girl. They got married and had a kid, and he was happy for awhile - but now, several years later, he is incredibly unhappy, and his wife and kids will have to pay the price for his unhappiness - it is a terrible thing to inflict on a spouse and kids, and just a dangerous experiment in general.
Ann said in post 65123:
I know it is easier to doubt or be cynical about the possibility of others who have made a personal decision to no longer engage in same gender relationships, but they are out there.
I’m skeptical because I’ve heard or read of too many cases where the claim of a change in orientation turned out to be false. Your sentence is an example of the kind of misleading statements I’ve heard on this topic. Note, I specifically asked about changes from gay to straight that weren’t simply behavioural changes. Your statement is much more applicable to behavioural changes than to orientation changes.
None of the examples you gave actually show a change from gay to straight. All you have described are behaviours. Maybe a couple actually did. Based on your description, one, Don, clearly did not. You said yourself:
I have never asked them to what extent they have changed
As to your question:
this is the decision they made and I see nothing wrong with it - do you?
No I don’t see any thing wrong how they live. I hope they are all quite happy.
What I see as wrong is when people take examples such as these and present them as something else (changes in orientation from gay to straight) then over-exaggerate the number ( “countless”) of people who have changed their orientation.
Jayhuck,
I know some people attempt to live and think differently and are unhappy doing so - that should not diminish the fact that others do have different experiences and live very happily. I’m not good with labels and how they relate to people - I look more at where they are in their life and how they want to be referred to. It probably shouldn’t really be an issue because it is not a matter of right or wrong or who should and shouldn’t - it is just how some people have made different decisions in their life based on their individual motivations.
I can’t see anything in Ann’s description that sounds like her friends are bisexual rather than primarily homosexual. How was Jayhuck able to conclude that Ann’s friend who had been in a 24 year lesbian relationship was bisexual rather than primarily homosexual? How was he able to conclude that Don with SSA was likewise bisexual rather than primarily homosexual? Jayhuck’s conclusion was why he dismissed answering Ann’s question to Ken: Given what Ann has told us about her friends, is it right for us to question the whys and hows about their decision to pursue a straight relationship?
If Jayhuck’s cautions that it’s a terrible thing to inflict on spouse and kids and that it’s a dangerous experiment are true, where does that leave the bisexual? How do they find out whether they are truly bisexual and therefore capable of successful hetero marriage or if they are primarily homosexual and about to embark on a terrible and dangerous road?
No I don’t see any thing wrong how they live. I hope they are all quite happy.
Ken,
I feel the same way and glad you do too.
Perhaps I am not quite as knowledgeable as you are about terms and labels and how they apply to people -sorry if I didn’t answer your question the way you wanted me to - I just think differently than you do about it. As to whether these or anyone else should be held up as an example - I already addressed this in my prior posts many times. As to whether there are countless people out there who are living differently than they have before - yes, I believe there are and they will stay anonymous except to those who will quietly show support for them - perhaps that is why I and others know of them while others do not.
Ken,
This is what I said -
“I know it is easier to doubt or be cynical about the possibility of others who have made a personal decision to no longer engage in same gender relationships, but they are out there.”
This was your response to it -
“Your sentence is an example of the kind of misleading statements I’ve heard on this topic.”
What is misleading about what I said?
Anonymo,
Thank you very much for the clarity you provided in #65016. I have heard so many definitions and have my own but this makes a lot of sense in a universal way, especially that nothing has been proven yet. Whether it is proven or not, if one feels it to be true then that must be respected for them.
Ken,
I am one of those countless individuals. I have no association with Exodus or FOTF etc…
Anonymo -
That is something that would need to be worked out by the person themselves, hopefully with the help of a therapist. The only thing that is dangerous is when a person takes it upon themselves to experiment with their life and then involves the lives of others.
I find it interesting that those who are skeptical about reorientation talk about a change in orientation with those who are favorable talk not about reorientation but about behavior instead.
This leads to confusing conversations where a question about orientation is responded to with an example of behavior.
FOR THE RECORD: No one doubts that behavior can be changed.
In their book Jones and Yarhouse define sexual orientation as “Sexual orientation typically referes to the direcionality of a person’s experiences of sexual attraction. Sexual orientation refers to a person’s sexual disposition…” While I find many shortcomings in their book (and their study), this is not a bad working definition of sexual orientation.
You’ll note that this wasn’t about behavior. It wasn’t even about falling in love with someone. It is about sexual attraction and sexual disposition.
A question about apples is not well answered by a discussion about oranges.
Ann asked in post 65287:
What is misleading about what I said?
Because the discussion was about a change in orientation from gay to straight, which I clearly stated was more than just behavioural changes. Yet, your statement about a much larger class of people. And I did clarify this in the last paragraph of post 65277.
Timothy,
What if gay is just a behavior?
And what if people really do change and are willing to go through periods of ambiguity. It seems the gay community has come to it own defintions of terms and that ex gays have ambiguous terms for a VERY complex experience is no less significant and real. I remember talking about my own experience and MIcheal Busse imposed his own perception on to it saying that my change was complete. I had to correct him and say basically that it’s not over until it’s over. The gay community on this blog and another one was up in arms over the “semantics” and ambiguity. Well?? How can I explain to an apple what it is like to become an orange if that apple cannot even fathom the ambiguity of change and experience that period of time whilst change occurs??
Gay people do not have the say on terms and definitons (at least the last itme I looked around - there is a whole world of people 6.5 billion appx. who may experience things quite differently and are in the process of redefining the human experience) They are not all gay and do not see everything from a gay perspective.
I might add it is difficult to speak in orange about an orange to an apple when the apple refuses to learn.
Ugh… typo. I meant:
I find it interesting that those who are skeptical about reorientation talk about a change in orientation WHILE those who are favorable talk not about reorientation but about behavior instead.
Okay, so Ann’s examples aren’t examples of a change in orientation but a change in behavior. I’ve got two issues here: 1) Timothy said “No one doubts that behavior can be changed”. Jayhuck suggested that people attempting such change of behavior were engaging in a dangerous experiment with their life and others. Sounds like a truckload of doubt to me. 2) If it really is one side talking orientation and the other talking behavior, why was it important for Jayhuck to recategorize Ann’s friends’ orientations to bisexual? I think I’m addressing the underlying premises: 1) you can’t change 2) you shouldn’t try to change and 3) if you DO change, well, then you really weren’t gay to begin with.
Where do we gain access to the clinical measuring device that will differentiate between someone whose orientation is bisexual and someone whose orientation is primarily homosexual? Can a bisexuals orientation change? Can a person with a heterosexual orientation go gay? Is it just a behavioral switch or have they changed their orientation. This ’science’ of orientation seems to leave a lot of room for interpretation and second guessing.
I have no problem with the DEFINITION of orientation; it’s the pseudo-science that surrounds it that causes concern. The implied suggestion that orientation is ‘inborn’ or ‘innate’ before science has proved such a thing, the gray categories of labeling as with Ann’s friends above (Timothy seems to think that Don, the guy with SSA, is primarily homosexual but to Jayhuck he sounds bisexual.), the somewhat new term ‘primarily homosexual’ when there’s no clinical measure or line to distinguish primary homosexuals from true bisexuals.
Anonymo,
I never said that changing behavior is necessarily dangerous - I said it can be dangerous when you start involving the lives of other people, and when you don’t involve a licensed therapist. I absolutely believe that people can change behavior - we see it all the time in Ex-Gay people - but that is not a change in orientation. We have enough Ex-Ex Gay people now to illustrate that harm can be done - and IS being done - in trying to change orientation.
As for pseudo-science - that moniker belongs to groups like NARTH and a few other ex-gay groups who DO claim they know the reasons behind homosexuality. No other groups I know of make this claim. I do not claim to know it either, but I do know its a complex issue. And I still maintain that Kinsey was onto something with his idea of a spectrum of sexuality.
Mary - I do not understand what your question is getting at. There is gay behavior and straight behavior. Not sure what you are getting at or asking.
While some of the people here are labeling the individuals I spoke of earlier, I can assure you that is not how they refer to themselves or how they want others to refer to them. They like to be referred to by their name or “husband, wife, mom, dad, friend, son, daughter, the occupation they hold, etc.” This is their life now - day to day challenges come and go but they never refer to themselves with any kind of label like I have seen here. What does it matter who has an innate orientation, who is bi-sexual, who is gay, who is not, etc.? I call them by their names - not the names others want to impose on them. How they choose to live now based on whatever their personal motivations or values are (whether that includes behavior or orientation or both or neither) supercedes any assumptions others want to make about them. If someone lives differently than these people and the “countless” others like them, what does that matter either? If someone is saying you can change “orientation” from gay to straight, ask them what that means - most of the time they will not be able to answer it to meet a general consensus. There is no one answer. If someone says you cannot change “orientation” from straight to gay - ask they what that means and most of the time they will not be able to answer it to meet a general consesus - there is no answer. There never will be an answer that is suitable for definition because everyone’s experience and perception and interpretation is going to be different. I really don’t think there is any absolutes when it comes to individual perferences along the spectrum of a lifetime.
Jayhuck,
I have thought a lot about the definition of the term “innate orientation” as Anonymo described it, and if that is how you would describe it as well, then I have a much better understanding of some of the things you have written. I see where I was coming from one place while you were coming from another. I guess I never thought in terms of “innate orientation” for myself and decisions I have made but see how important it is to you and I respect that.
Timothy,
I think the two group define orientation differently.
Timothy,
What if gay is just a behavior?
I think that you know that orientation and attraction are deeper than just behavior. You aren’t new to this conversation, Mary.
Anonymo,
I agree that science has not irrefutably determined that orientation is inborn or immutable. However, when taken in totality it is becoming pretty clear that for at least some gay men at least part of the determination of their orientation is based on biological factors.
I’m not claiming “born gay” but I am saying that some rather compelling evidence points in that direction (x chomosome deactivation in mothers, for example) and that it seems nearly every couple of months that more evidence comes in supporting biology. And, to the best of my knowledge, there is no emperical evidence for parental or other psychological influences whatsoever.
As for change of orientation… I would like to say there is good research out there. But unfortunately there isn’t.
Jones and Yarhouse comes closer than most but even their “success” was defined in terms of behavior - celebacy and “increased heterosexual functioning” became their definitions of “success”.
So again, while I do not dismiss the possibilities of reorientation, the evidence - even that claiming to support the notion - seems to point against the likelihood of it being possible to convert someone from gay to straight (as your neighbor would recognize those terms).
I do believe that behavior can be modified, attitudes changed, identity reassigned, and political goals redirected. But for orientation, I’m not yet convinced.
I’m still working on this idea - but what if we are oriented to seek sexual pleasure and intimacy - that’s it. In varying cultures around the world we see varying expression of what is acceptable and most everyone in that group seems to accept those definitions of sexuality. And we see various mixtures. I’ll bet if you took those same people and put them in a different culture they would have different sexual experiences. It seems we are designed to have sex in a lot of variation.
Mary said in post 65395:
And what if people really do change and are willing to go through periods of
ambiguity.
Change what Mary: behaviour, orientation, hairstyle?
It seems the gay community has come to it own defintions of terms and that ex
gays have ambiguous terms for a VERY complex experience is no less significant
and real.
Again with the gay community. The terms heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual, where not created by fiat from some gay cabal. As with many words, they were initially coined by researchers, and then their meaning refined as more was learned about sexual orientation. Eventually, working their way from specific clinical terms to ones used by society in general. Even gaining slang expressions of straight and gay.
The gay community on this blog and another one was up in arms over the “semantics” and ambiguity.
Why do you think these people were so upset, Mary? Why do you think many gay organizations and gay rights supporters get upset by the idea of conversion/reparative therapy?
If some group were to make the claim that they could change black people into white people, how do you think various black organizations and rights supporters would react? And why do you think they would react that way?
Mary,
It seems we are designed to have sex in a lot of variation.
I’m not sure that anyone disputes this.
Jayhuck,
Then no one is born gay or straight.
Ken,
Black people do change their skin color (lighteners in the balck cosmetic section), cosmetic surgery (laser etc…) rhinoplasty etc…
But I’m not going to get too far into this with you Ken because - I never said that anyone has to change, should change, can change and I have always accepted gay people. And if you read my last two post here - what if gay was just a behavior and our orientation is to seek out sexual pleasure and intimacy - that’s it. Then people really cannot change their orientation if they seek out sexual pleasure and intimacy. They may change with whom they seek that out but not that the orientation towards seeking out sexual pleasure has changed. So - again - what if gay is just a behavior? Like straight is just a behavior?
Mary -
You seem to have a lot of hostility towards the gay community, and I’m not sure why. You speak of them in generalities…
“The gay community on this blog and another one was up in arms over the “semantics” and ambiguity. ”
[note: I do not recall being up in arms about this...am I part of this "gay community?"]
“Gay people do not have the say on terms and definitons (at least the last itme I looked around …”
Look Mary, we are not all the same. Referring to “ex-gay people or the ex-gay community” would be just as erroneous as what you are doing. There is variation in the gay community here on the blog and outside of it…that should not be a revolutionary notion…but you’ve spoken ill about the “gay community” before, and I’d really like you to take into consideration who you are criticizing.
If you have specific critiques against specific groups, then say as much. For example, I am a christian, but I have issues with some christian groups distorting data…but I’ll call them out by name…Focus on the Family, NARTH, etc…
Please take care to give this a shot so we all know who you are referring your comments to. Certainly, it isn’t all of us.
Mary,
I guess I misunderstood when you talked about having sex with alot of variation - I was talking about Kinsey’s sexuality spectrum which, to me, also could fit under that description.
Could I have sex with a woman - SURE - absolutely. Would a long-term sexual and romantic relationship with a woman make me happy, fulfilled, satisfied? Absolutely not - because I am primarily gay. And my attractions to men extend beyond the physical and into other areas of intimacy. Its not just about sex.
Mary,
My questions had nothing to do with whether a person could change his skin color.
My questions where intended to get you to think about the other person’s point of view. The questions about race were intended to give a similar example that you would not be as emotionally connected to.
At 1st, I suspected your evasion of such questions were simply due to differing perspectives and the misunderstandings they can lead to. However, lately, I beginning to suspect you really aren’t interested in honest discussion.
As to your question (post 66186)
So - again - what if gay is just a behavior? Like straight is just a behavior?
Sexual orientation is more than behaviour. This fact has been known and understood for years. The idea that someone may seek others in opposition to his/her orientation out of loneliness or curiosity or some other reason doesn’t make it a behaviour.
Jag,
This really goes both ways - just look at how some of the people on this blog have chosen to attack anyone else who has a contrary opinion to their own about any of the subjects we discuss here. Erroneous assumptions, spinning of words, personal attacks, etc. - none of it is conducive to finding common ground.
what other kinds of orientations do people have that cannot be changed?
p.s. - regarding #66238
since the word “change” is open to interpretation, I would also like to add the word “modified”.
Jag,
Sorry Jag - let me rephrase that - “many from the gay community”
Mary,
I do think you have a very good point in post #65871. I have always thought the majority of people were born with the capacity to have sex and intimacy - how we choose or not choose to have sex and intimacy is a personal preference. People have had sex with warm apple pies, raw liver, hand held devices, animals, and other human beings. Some people use sex for control as in violent rape. Some organized religion have very strict rules and rituals regarding sex that people actually follow. I believe our preferences come after birth and a myriad of circumstances cultivate and direct them. How we respond to them I believe comes from temperment which I do believe we are born with. Please note - I am not referring to sexuality identity, I am referring to preferences. I think so much of the issue I want to bring to the table is for those who have unwanted attractions regarding sexual preferences and have been told they have no choice and should just accept this as who they are when, in fact, that is exactly what they do NOT want. Where and to whom can they go for help without criticism?
JAG,
I can’t speak for Mary, of course. But I have noticed that many people who seek reorientation find that part of the process is adopting a perspective that requires them to view that portion of their life in a very negative light. Then they project this negative view onto “the homosexual lifestyle” They find that they must ascribe to gay people, individually and collectively, only negative attributes, attitudes, and actions.
In short, in order to keep theirselves pushing towards their objectives, they must vilify all things gay.
This may not be the case with Mary, but it does seem to be a near constant in the ex-gay movement.
Ann -
“Erroneous assumptions, spinning of words, personal attacks, etc. - none of it is conducive to finding common ground.”
We are in complete agreement. I know this flows both ways (as you stated), and I hope that generalizations about either group are re-evaluated, as Mary seems to have done and corrected. Thanks Mary.
Timothy -
I can understand that if someone wishes to attempt to change their orientation, that often they do so because they believe it to be negative in some way (due to religion, personal beliefs, family, etc..).
What I do not understand, is the belief that your perspective is the only perspective…or that there is some universal standard regarding human love or partnership that should be enforced (by law - for example, opposing same-sex rights or marriage) or applied to everyone.
There will be little hope for humanity or civility if we don’t work toward understanding each other and accepting our differences.
As long as we are not hurting anyone, why does it matter so much? I’m not really sure.
Ken,
Are you aware that I used to be gay and was an activist and am very familiar with the gay perspective - that I too have suffered due to the violence and ignorance put on gays??
Get me to think - that’s what I was doing. I was also trying to stimulate others. You took it as an attack - and I never did that.
Mary,
I’m not sure what you mean by “gay perspective”. I don’t know that there is a single perspective held by all gay people. I think it might be better to say the gay activist perspective - Non of my gay friends, and I have a few, are activists.
I also don’t mean to attack you - I know you didn’t mean anything by saying that - I just feel its important to reiterate this every now and then
far be it from me to bring it up again, but ………. I am glad to see that clarity is being sought in individual definitions when it comes to labels, terms, etc.
The semantics card is wearing thin from overuse.
Mary said in post 66279:
Are you aware that I used to be gay and was an activist and am very familiar with the gay perspective - that I too have suffered due to the violence and ignorance put on gays??
And is the violence and ignorance why you decided you didn’t want to be gay anymore?
Get me to think - that’s what I was doing. I was also trying to stimulate others. You took it as an attack - and I never did that.
No, I didn’t take it as an attack, I took it as an evasion of my questions. Which you still have yet to address.
I did not evade your questions - you just did not like how I answered.
I discovered that I was attracted to men and not as attracted to women (at that time - since then I am no longer attracted to women at all). And no I was not a christian at that time. And no there was no pressure on me to change and I did not go to therapy to change. ( I did go to therapy later when I was struggling with issues and not understanding what was going on with me) I am christian now.
I am freedom fighter and will NEVER forget the hatred I rec’d from the so called christians. I still advocate for the civil rights of gays. (BTW, my whole family was supportive of me as a lesbian - no conflict with my family)
Mary said in post 66390:
I did not evade your questions - you just did not like how I answered.
You never answered these questions I asked in post 66178. Your response had nothing to do with my questions. I’ll repost them:
Why do you think these people were so upset, Mary? Why do you think many gay organizations and gay rights supporters get upset by the idea of conversion/reparative therapy?
In Ken’s post 66178, he actually asked FIVE questions. The last four are quoted in these two paragraphs: “Why do you think these people were so upset, Mary? Why do you think many gay organizations and gay rights supporters get upset by the idea of conversion/reparative therapy?”
“If some group were to make the claim that they could change black people into white people, how do you think various black organizations and rights supporters would react? And why do you think they would react that way?”
I’m not sure about Mary but I assumed the questions in the first paragraph were rhetorical, if not rhetorical, then surely plainly argumentative. It should be clear to everyone here that Ken is more connected to the source of these answers than Mary is. The only reason for asking Mary the questions is to heat things up.
When Ken tied them to blacks in the second set of questions he opened a can of worms that no one else wanted to partake of. My two biggest issues with that are 1) that’s there’s no comparison between the injustices that have been dealt to the blacks as compared to gays
2) blacks pass their skin color gene from ma and pa, grandma and grandpa; gay doesn’t pass that way which is evidence that it’s something a bit different
3) his questions PRESUME that gays are genetically gay…a point that’s yet to be proven
He asked the final four questions in a row but later referred several times to his TWO questions. This seems to indicate that he lumps them all together. Even the rhetorical ones are loaded with implications and insinuations from the latter two. Looks like a landmine to me.
1. Because they think it is harmful
Anonymo said in post 66515:
It should be clear to everyone here that Ken is more connected to the source of these answers than Mary is.
What do you mean by “more connected to the source of these answers”?
The only reason for asking Mary the questions is to heat things up.
No, that is not the only reason, nor is it the reason I asked the questions. I asked because I wanted to know the answers. Mary has made many comments about ‘the gay community” and many insinuations that this unspecified “they” are just as intolerant and misguided as focus on family, NARTH, and other such fundamentalist christian orgs. My questions were intended to see how much Mary had actually thought about why some gays may react badly to the concept of changing gays to be straight.
The questions with regards to race, where simply an attempt to highlight what I was getting at with the original questions. A way to get her to think about what I was asking from a slightly different perspective on a topic she may not be as emotionally involved with. It had nothing to do with presuming people are genetically gay.
I don’t mind sincere questions at all. But I am fully persuaded that Ken’s questions, like Jayhuck’s, are blog tactics rather than sincere questions. And I simply won’t engage in the game.
Ken, why don’t you tell me your best guess of what I meant by “Ken is more connected to the source of these answers than Mary is”? Remember that I prefaced it with “it should be clear to everyone here”; that’s a clue that my words, however unclear they might be to you, went to the simple point that you and Mary are currently speaking from opposing sides and you are closer to the people who are so upset.
Ken went on to say re Mary:
“My questions were intended to see how much Mary had actually thought about why some gays may react badly to the concept of changing gays to be straight.”
If this is true, why then didn’t Mary’s posts 66279 and 66390 answer that question?
Then you questioned her insinuations that many in the gay community are just as misguided or intolerant. You appear to be tripping over her use of “gay community” while she used the phrase in its accepted sense. (1,700,000 hits for the phrase “gay community” on google.) You then went on to say that your reason was: “A way to get her to think about what I was asking from a slightly different perspective on a topic she may not be as emotionally involved with.” LOL! Maybe I should ask what you mean by “may not be as emotionally involved with”. To me, it sounds like another way of saying that she’s “not as connected to the source of these answers”. If that’s what you’re saying then it proves that your first question to me was simply pointless; if it’s not what you mean, I’ll need you to explain the difference so I don’t waste my time misinterpreting your question. (I’m puzzled why Mary’s post 66279 doesn’t answer your question about her level of attachment/detachment to the emotional drives behind the anger.)
I believe in one instance Mary even said “some from the gay community on this blog”. Putting words and meanings together like I was taught in grade school, I assumed she meant the likes of you, Jayhuck, Timothy, Dave Roberts, Jag…people whose comments seem to reflect the views of the greater gay community. With the use of the qualifying word “some”, she was distinguishing between those who are more abrasive and confrontive as opposed to someone like Jag who has more successful discussions. I think that “gay community” is a bit awkward in the blog sense but so is every other word or phrase used to differentiate the two viewpoints. I’ve used “opposing side” or “opposing point of view” and find limitations too. Chief is that it doesn’t allow for the notion that some actually agree sometimes.
Timothy,
No I don’t view all homosexuality or gays as a negative thing. People of every group are mixed with the good and the bad. I don’t need to villianize gays for me to feel good about my choices. Though, I do think that the gay community is intolerant on the whole of people like myself - I think I represent something they fear - and understandably so. But I cannot align myself to the politics the ex gay movement and should be no threat to anyone. Also, I think people like myself create a dissonance for the conservative crhistian and the gay alike.
So by the way Ken - I hope you realize that I am passionate about both.
Mary said in post 66522:
1. Because they think it is harmful
I’m assuming this is in response to my questions. where you planning on adding to this? It looks like you were starting a list of reasons.
Anonymo asked in post 66747:
Ken, why don’t you tell me your best guess of what I meant by “Ken is more connected to the source of these answers than Mary is”?
I had no idea what you meant. So I asked for a clarification. I find that is much more helpful to a constructive discussion than just making unfounded assumptions.
If this is true, why then didn’t Mary’s posts 66279 and 66390 answer that question?</I.
Because those posts didn’t address my questions.
Ken–
I’m lost here. You say you weren’t sure what I meant by “more connected to the source of these answers”; can you give an example of what else I could have meant?
“More” means “in greater quality or amount”.
“Connected” means “linked, associated, attached”.
“Source” is “any thing or place from which something comes arises or is obtained”.
I’m having serious trouble with your statement that you “had no idea what I meant”. “NO idea?” Really? Your elaboration shows that you had a pretty good idea. Were you using “no idea” in a new sense of “some idea” or “pretty good idea”? The repeated charges on this site are that those from the ex-gay side are injecting confusion and being purposely unclear. But it seems that a few of you are the ones that have trouble with basic language. I’m just trying to help others see how much your side contributes to the confusion. I don’t always agree with Mary but I believe when she was referring to the insinuations, etc., she may have been referring to the unfounded and pointless objections and/or questions.
On this and other current topics, Jayhuck and Timothy were taking exception to “homosexual identity”, “homosexual perspective” and “gay identify” insinuating that those terms had no meaning and were only used by ex-gays to confuse discussion. A quick trip to google (or any other reputable search engine) shows these conclusions to be totally without foundation. (Approximately 2 million usages of “gay identify” and Jayhuck, this site’s most frequent commenter, hasn’t heard the term used by anyone other than ex-gays and their supporters.)
You coupled your questions with the comparison to oppression of blacks adding confusion by comparing to a group that has experienced far more oppression than you. (unless, of course, your gay ancestors were stolen from their homes and forced into slavery and later denied even the most basic of rights)
You claim what you really wanted to know was if she really understood why gay people were so upset. Mary answered that she had been a gay activist; she also said that she’d been the victim of ignorance and violence as a gay person. Why doesn’t that answer your question about whether she really understands?
She wasn’t starting a list, BTW; she was making a point.
It all boils down to 1 simple answer. They are upset because they think conversion/reparative therapy is harmful. My impression is that SOME aspects of conversion/reparative therapy ARE harmful but I believe the jury is still out whether it ALL is. (Mary, BTW, doesn’t like the term “ex-gay”, doesn’t identify with Exodus or the “ex-gay movement” and did not experience conversion or reparative therapy in her switch. I believe she said she converted AFTER she went straight. It sounds like Ann’s friends didn’t experience conversion or reparative therapy either although one or two of them may have.)
LOL!
I planned yesterday to explain that I had been dropping in as ‘Anonymo’. I was doing a little private study of blog dynamics.(I meant to explain this in the previous post when I switched back to ‘Eddy’ but got distracted by the length and left it out.)
For the longest time, it seemed that as ‘Eddy’ I couldn’t say “The sky is blue” without being detoured with “it depends on what you mean by sky” or “of course, you realize there are hundreds of shades of blue”. It seemed the only way to get beyond ’square one’ in any conversation was to ‘disappear under the radar’. That worked as long as I was only asking questions. On Wednesday, when I began engaging in actual opinion and comments, I realized ‘Anonymo’s time was coming to a close. Darn, I kinda like that handle.
Eddy,
It is SO good to see you here again - you have been missed!
As to the people/friends I mentioned - none of them went through reparative/re-orientation therapy. Two had some form of counseling/personal therapy, one before and one after. They all believe in God but are not religious, per se, and certainly do not belong to any ministries or do any public speaking. They are very busy in their personal lives, reach out when they need to for help and support, and do not hold themselves up at all as an kind of example. There are so many that we will never know about - these are only a few that I mentioned.
Ann,
I think like the transgendered people who go unnoticed everyday - there are many more ex gays who go without notice. There’s a huge part of us that just live on without mentioning it to others. I certainly don’t meet people, shake their hands and say “Hi, my name is Mary, I used to be gay but now I am not. and my definition of hetersexuality, ex gay etc… is….”
Ann–
LOL! You don’t know how many times I wanted to let you know that I was still here. Thanks for confirming what I gathered about your friends. I’m not sure why we’re suddenly talking about conversion/reparative therapy when the topic is about where people see themselves on a continuum. Maybe a part of the upset (and confusion) is that some people can’t separate this point of view from that type of therapy. (BTW: I expect to be around but not like in the past. I’m trying to limit myself to 3 hours per week. I’m hoping I won’t have to spend most of that time engaged in the definitions game.)
Mary,
I completely agree. I also think there are many people who have unwanted attractions and preferences and do not know where to turn for help. In fact, we probably interface or interact with them in some way and at sometime in our life and would never know of their struggle.
Ann,
Yeah, because of the propaganda from the gay community I really did not know a person could go in to a counselor and talk about these issues without getting the same old rhetoric of ” being born gay and no one can change ” story. Ah well. Extremisim on both ends is good for no one.
Eddy,
If you’re not into games, why are you blogging under two different names.
I am not now nor have I ever meant to be a game player of any kind.
For the record, I’ve suspected you were Anonymo for some time
I knew you wouldn’t REALLY be able to leave the blog 
Eddy,
On this and other current topics, Jayhuck and Timothy were taking exception to “homosexual identity”, “homosexual perspective” and “gay identify” insinuating that those terms had no meaning and were only used by ex-gays to confuse discussion.
As far as I know, *I* was the only person making these accusations. And while they were wrong, I was trying to illustrate what has been MY experience. I have been gay for many years. I used to read a great deal of gay literature. In all the time I have been out, and even when I was a part of the gay community, did I hear these terms being used, by myself, by my friends, in the groups I belonged to, or in the books I was reading. I see now that they probably were being used, but I did not see them. The only time I started running into these words/terms was when I visited ex-gay-related sites. So I hope you can understand why I made the assumption (wrong as it apparently was), that I did.
I gave this explanation on another thread but you apparently missed it.
Eddy,
I believe she said she converted AFTER she went straight.
Since when did Mary ever admit to being straight?
Jayhuck -
IN case you missed it - I am admitting (eeeek!) to being straight,
First a comment to All: I’m seriously cross-threading here. The other thread is “Houston Press article depicts a dark side…”. If this conversation both interests you and confuses you, visit the other topic for the gap-filling info.
Jayhuck–
I answered your question from post 67138 in my post 67080.
To the exception you took to my lumping you and Timothy together. I tried to be sensitive to that. In one instance you made the statement that you and Timothy don’t experience a sense of difference; he didn’t step in to correct that so I assumed it was true. Re ‘gay perspective’ he made a passing remark and re ‘gay identified’ he made several comments including the definition you found oh so clear. For those reasons, I included him but have always been aware that he is usually ‘on the mark’.
Re Mary admitting to being straight: I took that from the following statement she made above, “I discovered that I was attracted to men and not as attracted to women (at that time - since then I am no longer attracted to women at all).”
I’ll let you in on a secret. When I started googling the terms, I had absolutely no idea what to expect. The first accurate phrasing I used was the one that turned up the 17 results. Even there, less than 1/3 were ex-gay uses. But, to be thorough, I wanted to try the other terms as well. I was even prepared for the fact that it might be less…that we were speaking in terms that had little common usage. Even when I searched the term that brought up the approx. 2 million, it wasn’t until I’d gone through several pages of results that I thought to look at the ‘found index’.
Yeah, I’m human. My very first response was ‘gotcha!’ But what occurred to me next was that most of us here think ourselves very well-informed and yet I believe we were all staggered by the numbers. There’s a whole lot being said by and about gay people that we’re ALL virtually clueless about. I found it humbling and mind-numbing at the same time.
Eddy,
Jayhuck, this site’s most frequent commenter, hasn’t heard the term used by anyone other than ex-gays and their supporters.)
Just out of curiosity - what does me being the most frequent commenter have to do with my not having been exposed to certain words or phrases?
Eddy,
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “gotcha”? I wasn’t lying or trying to play a game or pull the wool over anyone’s eyes when I said what I did regarding those terms. Truly, in my experience, I never saw the words/phrases being used outside of ex-gay related sights.
As for Timothy, I appreciated how he tried to differentiate between the way the gay community and Ex-Gay movement leaders use the terms - it does appear they are not used in the same way by both groups - no surprise there maybe.
I DO appreciate what you said with this quote though Eddy: But what occurred to me next was that most of us here think ourselves very well-informed and yet I believe we were all staggered by the numbers. There’s a whole lot being said by and about gay people that we’re ALL virtually clueless about. I think that THIS is absolutely true. The questions are: are these numbers, found on the web, a true representation of what is really out there from both sides? Are the gay people who do use these terms representative of the regular, lay gay-person-on-the-street? I’m sure there are many other questions that could, and maybe should be asked of these numbers - not least being what do people MEAN when they do use these terms/phrases?
Doing a study in blog dynamics? I realize you must have been in a panic after mistakenly dropping your previous handle in there during that active exchange, but seriously. Isn’t that a bit like stopping by a gay bar to do “research”?
Nice try, Eddy. Posting under two different names on the same blog is duplicitous. Others are at least dealing with the reputation they have built for themselves honestly, whilst you play games with yours.
Jayhuck–
My apologies! Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It came out of frustration over all the definition detours and–beyond that wasn’t charitable. Please forgive me.
A friend of mine who is gay, after more than 30 years of exclusive gay life is desperately trying to get out of it. I asked him what made him take such a dramatic decision and he replied he feels he is not doing the right thing, that all is left after the pleasure is gone is loneliness and emptiness, and a call to seek sex again to get out of this state. I keep wondering about the nature of his resolve, because he is firmly convinced that gay sex is very pleasurable, he cannot abide women sexually and he’s been into this since he was 8 years old. Now he is trying to find some straw to hang on to, because otherwise he feels his life is sinking into its own past. He does not have the right to have therapy for that, because some people believe it’s harmful. Perhaps suicide is less harmful, but hey, the guy must be chronically ill with internalised homophobia. Strangely enough, he did not have an epiphany lately and any religious talk does not work much charm on him.
Who can help him? Does he need therapy to dissuade him according to the present truth status quo in scientific community? To me this sounds like gentle well-meaning straight-jacketing, the ironic turn of heterosexual oppression on itself.
I don’t know how many like him are there, probably quite few, but the number of people conflicted about their unwanted attractions, people living in liberal diversity-promoting societies, is far greater. I see people who are emotionally dead, who avoid eye contact, who cling to their female companion as if it were their lifeline, but who is right about who? Are they committed to an innerly felt duty or just pathetic gays into hiding? Well, that’s just as slippery as the question of the nature of ’sexual attractions’ - to avoid the politically scientific term of ‘orientation’.
Sometimes when your opponent is not right, it’s not because you were right. We seem to accept unquestioningly that science must take the lead in society: as someone put it here, ‘the jury’ is still deliberating. But that’s what ‘the jury’ will always be doing, clarifying old mistakes and finding new proper ways to talk about the same thing in ‘more accurate terms’. And we will try to escape any morally grounded judgement by throwing all clarifying duty to statistical significance and talk about patterns. It seems to me that all we’re doing is hiding under the claim of scientific neutrality our incapacity to sustain any moral judgement, unless ‘culturally’ entrenched.
While this bricolage of some empirically testable fact with some computed statistical inference stands today for science and knowledge, people’s lives are given the treatment dictated by consensus in this circus of juggling with disconnected credible facts. No wonder that so many people lead their lives to the sound of their inner voice.
That’s why I agree with Ann, who brought this human motivation into light with her examples of people who made choices, and the further need to support the people who want to make choices, instead of merely hiding behind gut feeling and statistic gimmickery.
Eddy,
Sure - no problem - its really not a big issue in the scheme of things.
:) Thanks for the apology!
Evan,
I don’t know your friend, and I’m sure there is much more to this situation then we will ever know, but I agree that your friend needs therapy - I’m not sure its safe to jump to the conclusion that he needs reparative or SIT though. He should seek help though - maybe he can come to some sound decision after talking with a counselor. Just because he may be unhappy having sex with men does NOT mean he has to have sex with women - it might help him to understand that. There are many gay men who are celibate and happy
I’m very sorry that your friend is going through this though.
Dave–
My apologies. I never had Anonymo and Eddy pretending to talk to each other or support each other in ganging up. As Eddy, I wasn’t commenting in any of the homosexual themed threads…just Thanksgiving and Hillary/Abortion. As Anonymo, I was only asking questions…I wasn’t presenting any opinions. I never disguised Anonymo’s voice; Jayhuck acknowledged that he suspected it was me all along. All I was trying to do was remove the personal attack element. I went with something close to Anonymous and didn’t ‘invent’ anything in the way of history, credentials, experience, etc. Things changed Wednesday when the dialogue with Ken went beyond the clarifying questions.
I do hear what you’re saying though. I should have been aware of how duplicitous it might seem. If you feel I’m due for a mandatory retirement, I can live with that. (I said I was logging out about an hour ago and then ran into a flurry of blog notices in my inbox. At this point, mandatory retirement sounds wonderful.)
Mary,
Though, I do think that the gay community is intolerant on the whole of people like myself - I think I represent something they fear - and understandably so.
No. That simply isn’t the case. Sorry.
Hmmmm.
Considering the impressions that some here have of me (which they are so generous in sharing), perhaps I should make my comments under a nom de plume.
Jayhuck,
Unfortunately he hardly has an option in giving up sex; he has a hard time dealing with his lifelong acquired sexual addiction. He’s been used with having at least a partner a day, sometimes more, and now he tries to get out of it. He is not morally averse to ever liking or getting in a relationship with a female, but he says that he finds that highly unlikely, since his opinion on women was distorted by his early traumatic experiences of sexual abuse by his mother and aunt, and the fact that they all kept telling him when he was a boy that there is nothing uglier than a woman’s body. He thinks they did that to not feel embarrassed when they took their clothes off in front of him.
What can he do? Where can he go? In his country any therapy that deals with SSAs is forbidden, he is not a religious person, he doesn’t have any problem with internalised homophobia (he lived as a gay for decades), but he wants to put all his gay life behind him. He feels that if he goes on like this he will be merely re-enacting all the physical abuse that he subjected his body to until now.
Evan,
It sounds like he has issues with sex addiction that can and probably should be treated in therapy. Sex addiction most likely has nothing to do with his orientation. Besides, the likelihood he would ever be able to develop OSA with someone is very low - even by ex-gay standards.
In my humble opinion, I think the first thing that should be done is for him to seek treatment for his addiction.
Evan,
From your brief description of your friend’s problem, it sounds like he has a sexual addiction. And if he has been having sex since he was 8 years old (I think that is what you were saying), that would certainly be a red-flag as to why he might have this problem. Yet, you (and he apparently) seem to say if he could only be made straight, that would solve his problems. Do you not realize that straight people also suffer from sexual addiction? Would you suggest a straight person who suffers from the same problems as your friend seek out therapy to make him gay? I suspect the answer would be no. You (and your friend) seem quite willing to attribute his problems to the fact that he is gay. However, when straight men have the same problems, no one attributes the problems to the men being straight. What sort of message do you think such attitudes send about your opinion of gays?
As to who can help your friend, I would suggest he seek out a therapist qualified in helping people deal with sexual disorders, and in particular addictive behaviours.
Timothy,
When you have walked in my shoes - then I suppose you can comment on my experiences.
Mary said in post 67320:
Timothy,
When you have walked in my shoes - then I suppose you can comment on my experiences.
He wasn’t commenting on your experiences. He was saying you are wrong to brand all gays as intolerant because you have met some that are. That is no better than claiming christians are intolerant because of the likes of Fred Phelps or James Dobson.
Besides, the likelihood he would ever be able to develop OSA with someone is very low - even by ex-gay standards.
Jayhuck,
No one, including you, has the right to make this kind of determination about someone else and their life and their future.
However, when straight men have the same problems, no one attributes the problems to the men being straight. What sort of message do you think such attitudes send about your opinion of gays?
Ken,
Perhaps that is because most people have not sought help for unwanted heterosexual attractions so being heterosexual is not considered an unwanted condition that is attached to another condition. I’m not sure what message you “think” Evan is sending regarding “such attitudes” and “opinions” about “gays” but I appeal to you not to think the worst - it seems when one is scrutinizing another looking for fault, they will find it one way or another. You do not have to fall into this trap as others have.
Thanks for your replies, Ken and Jayhuck. I did not imply he could change his orientation, I am aware that he is hardly just confused about what he practiced for more than three decades. But what baffles me is that he wants to quit his gay life. I jumped in the discussion with the story of my friend after I found some people here mentioning other examples of personal friends who left gay life.
I agree with the suggestions made here, actually I too told him to seek counselling for sexual addiction, but he keeps saying that his problem is not with too much sex, that his record is a lot lower than the number of partners his gay friends have on one night, but he feels empty and unfulfilled after all that is over.
I have to admit my bias here, I don’t know much about gay life so I may not have the same background to understand some insider contexts from the gay community. I agree that sexual addiction is not orientation-specific, but the problem with this friend of mine is that, as he says, reducing his sexual activity will not alleviate his nagging feelings of emptiness and loneliness after living that for decades. Taking into account that he obviously is not your probable candidate for sexual confusion and therapy for that, I wonder what are his chances to get out of the gay life, as he wants to.
Please don’t get me wrong, but all my efforts to convince him to try first to address his issues as unspecific to his orientation were lost on him. He seems to be pretty intractable in his decision to quit gay life. I think I told you that he doesn’t picture himself with a woman on any account, in fact he says no woman would take a fancy to him. What can this guy do? Do you recall any such instance of a person who wanted to leave gay life behind after living it for many years? What did they eventually do, how did they regain their balance between their objectives and their condition?
Evan,
It sounds like your friend has given his experiences alot of consideration. Alot of gay people just like straight people have sexual addictions - it seems more so among men in general but I don’t know the stats. Anyhow, there are many therapists that work with sexual addictions and sexual issues and sometimes the outcome is that someone remains gay and sometimes they find that being gay was a response to poor experiences and poor interpretations of events. Some people grow away from being gay while some grow into it. As a person who has gone through changing from gay to straight - I can say my view on sexuality has changed tremendously and deepened into a better understanding of myself and what I seek in a partner.
Evan -
From your above post, it seems your friend has some things he needs to discuss with a therapist who is unbiased and knowledgeable.
I’m sure you’ve gotten many responses from many different angles. As you seem aware, his therapeutic journey might lead him on a number of paths.
As someone who is leading a happy, committed christian life in a same-sex marriage, I hope that he understands that loneliness is not the only resolution of being gay. Also, I hope he realizes that the “gay lifestyle,” is as broad a term as the “heterosexual lifestyle.” There are people who lead promiscuous, lonely, empty lives across the spectrum. How you choose to lead the life you lead, is as individual as the person themselves. I hope he can discover a more fulfilling way to lead his life - for his own sake, and his own happiness.
Evan,
It seems that your friend not only has misanalyzed his own problem but that he is justifying his notions as well. I can assure you that very very very very few gay people have at least one sexual experience per night. And if he thinks that his experiences are fewer than his friends, than he is running in a rather distinct crowd.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and make a guess. This sort of behavior is often closely associated with drug abuse, especially crystal methamphetamine. That drug also severely impacts judgment and paranoia - along with a feeling of emptiness.
This insistence that he knows his solution and that it isn’t dealing with his sexual addictions suggests to me that meth is probably involved. I’ve seen that kind of thinking before.
I would recommend the following:
1. he deal with any substance abuse issues.
2. he deal with his sexual addiction issues
His chances of reorientation are historically and statistically miniscule. But if he doesn’t deal with those two issues, they are non-existant.
@Jag
You seem to have found some balance in your own life. This is so different from what this friend told me about the goings-on in the gay community. He told me that rejection is even greater among the community, because gay people tend to be very critical about a possible partner’s appearance. I told him I heard some people found partners for longer periods of time but he replied that in all of his 30 years of gay life never met such a case. Perhaps you could give him some advice, I don’t know how things work for gay people. If you are willing to do that, you can communicate your email address to my address (great.of.specialer@gmail.com) and I will tell him about your success in committing with a partner when I’ll see him online. Maybe you can give him some hope. Thanks.
@Timothy
Again, what you say here is very different from what other people from the gay community told me. This friend I mentioned before told me that he knows boys who have as much as 4-5 partners a night, something that left me stunned, because I never heard of such records in the heterosexual world. Obviously things can get distorted if you make judgements based on some individual experiences. But I very much doubt it is possible to ascertain this objectively, other than based on self-reports.
I’m pretty positive that he doesn’t take any substance. I mean, the guy doesn’t even smoke! I too think that he presents any effort to reorientation as difficult as it could possibly be, but he does not set himself very high objectives, probably because he knows what his chances are. This apparent contradiction in his case really taught me how far we are from understanding the interplay between human motivation and feelings in sexual issues. Right now, it really looks like we’re still working on finding the right vocabulary, and so much less on dealing with things.
Ann said in post 67329:
Perhaps that is because most people have not sought help for unwanted heterosexual attractions so being heterosexual is not considered an unwanted condition that is attached to another condition.
Are you seriously trying to make the argument that people associate sexual disorders with being gay but not with being straight because some gays want to change their orientation but straights don’t? That is an interesting dance around the elephant in the room.
Evan,
As long as I have been out I’ve never heard of anyone I know having as many as 4 or 5 partners a night - or even anything close to that. There may be some people gay and straight who go to places and are able to do this - but it is not common for either orientation.
Evan,
Simply because your friend is gay, doesn’t make him an expert on gays. From your description, it sounds like the only other gay men he has encountered have been through random hookups in clubs or online. At best he has only been exposed to a limited sub-culture. If you wish to find examples of long-term gay relationships then you could simply do a little research on the topic of gay marriage.
I think you need to talk with your friend to determine exactly what he wants. Perhaps even suggesting he might want to talk to a therapist to help him sort out what it is he is really looking for.
Are you seriously trying to make the argument that people associate sexual disorders with being gay but not with being straight because some gays want to change their orientation but straights don’t? That is an interesting dance around the elephant in the room.
Ken,
No, I am not trying to make that argument at all.