Gay City News prints letter clarifying sexual identity therapy
Part of the chorus of dissent bringing down the recent APA symposium was an April 24 article in the Gay City News, called “Junk Science on Stage.” In that article, some false claims were made about sexual identity therapy and my work. I addessed themhere on the blog recently.
Generally, “junk science” is a phrase used by advocates when they want to discredit views with which they disagree. The tobacco industry used the term to describe the research on second hand smoke and generally the term is little more than an ad hominem attack. Such was the case in the GCN report.
So I am glad that Paul Schindler, editor of GCN and author of the article in question, allowed me to make the record clear about the SIT framework. At the end of the letter, he acknowledges the error.
UNDERSTANDING SEXUAL IDENTITY THERAPY
05/22/2008To the Editor:
In “Junk Science on Stage” (by Paul Schindler, Apr. 24-30), a claim was made about the Sexual Identity Therapy framework. The SIT framework was to be presented at the cancelled May 5 American Psychiatric Association symposium on religion, therapy, and homosexuality.
Gay City News described SIT this way: “‘Sexual Identity Therapy,’ which [Throckmorton] says he has successfully applied to help patients ‘alter homosexual feelings or behaviors’ and live their lives ‘heterosexually’ with ‘only very few weak instances of homosexual attraction.’”
This is false. The article attributes to me claims about SIT I have never made. In fact, the SIT framework says this: “Prior to outlining the recommendations, let us define what they are not. They are not sexual reorientation therapy protocols in disguise.”
The SIT framework, first contemplated formally in 2005, does not provide any means to do what the Gay City article references - “alter homosexual feelings…” etc. These quotes are taken out of context from a 1999 speech. Putting these phrases in quotes makes it appear that I was interviewed for the article and quoted in reference to SIT, which is not true.
Endorsed by Robert Spitzer, the former editor of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and former American Psychological Association president Nicholas Cummings, the SIT framework provides guidance for therapists who work with clients experiencing sexual identity conflicts but does not prescribe beliefs about homosexuality or religion. The SIT framework specifically discourages several practices conducted by reparative therapists and so it is disappointing that the Gay City News wrongly suggested that my presentation would somehow support their work.
Warren Throckmorton, PhD
www.sexualidentity.blogspot.comEDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Schindler acknowledges Dr. Warren Throckmorton’s advisory that he made the statements about the results of his therapeutic work, quoted in Schindler’s article, prior to the development of his Sexual Identity Therapy framework.
Note my statement about reparative therapy. You cannot be in compliance with the SIT framework and tell clients that you (the therapist) know why people are homosexual. Explaining a theory and helping clients find themselves in it is not the way we believe this work should be done. We likewise do not promote a view of same-sex attraction that views it as a disorder to be cured or grow out of. The GCN article created a false picture of what the symposium would discuss and falsely attacked me for trying to promote views I do not hold.
“Generally, “junk science” is a phrase used by advocates when they want to discredit views with which they disagree.”
True. But often, especially on the topic of homosexuality and “change”, it is an apt description of shoddy research and prejudice packaged to look like real science.
I’d have to say the same when gay researchers say definitively that homosexuality is biological. Or when a conservative says - all a person has to do is repent of their sin and change. No evidence.
Ok, here is the root of the problem.
From a marketing standpoint SIT Therapy doesn’t tell me what it is. People need to understand what SIT Therapy means from it’s name or from an explanation no longer than a phrase or single sentence. Once you’ve made your point, those that are interested will look for additional information. If they can’t quickly understand where you are coming from they will move onto something else.
Example
Blue Collar Comedy Tour
The name is so brilliant it doesn’t need an explanation
SIT Therapy needs to be that obvious. If you can’t pack an explanation into the name write a short phrase that tells the story.
Even the BEST idea needs a hook or simple, understandable concept so it can spread.
We are open to suggestions.
Congruence Therapy? Values focused therapy?
SIT - Sexual Identity Therapy
Therapy designed to address and treat individuals with unwanted sexual identity issues. SIT is not reparative therapy, it’s focus is on client values and how to live in congruence with those values.
Drowssap
Who is it being marketed to? If it’s being ‘marketed’ to trained psychologists then it needs a name they can understand, not a name everyone can understand. If everything had to have a name which succinctly set out what it was while simultaneously conveying its nuances, almost nothing would have a name. Do you know what Special Relativity is just from the name? Or what separates Lesbian Feminist Critical Theory from Queer Theory? Would someone from Ohio be able to cook up a Double-Double just by hearing the name? These are concepts that have to be explained in order for them to be fully understood. Why should SIT be any different? Anybody writing an article about it should read the (easily accessible) explanation in order to find out what it is. Their refusal to do that, not its name, is what allows them to misrepresent it. And the psychologists who choose whether to adopt or dismiss it should do so based on their understanding of the full concept (which traditionally in academic circles is fostered via things like paper talks and symposia discussing a new idea), not on what the name sounds like to a journalist.
Ann said it best: SIT: Sexual Identity Therapy.
The need for therapy suggests you have issues…and the issues are with your sexual identity. To attempt to define it further would likely compound the confusion.
Ann
You are on the right track but it needs to be shorter and it can’t contain a knock on Reparative therapy.
Example
Pepsi might knock Coke all day long but you’ll never see an ad campaign when the first line is, “Pepsi, we’re better than Coke.” Comparison’s are typically in the body of an ad unless it’s a special case.
Maybe something like…
SIT Therapy helps people with alternative sexual feelings live according to their traditional values.
I’m not sure about the word alternative (maybe I’m not hip enough), but something that means the same thing. Nonmainstream contains a negative so I’d probably look for something better. Just something that implies sexual feelings that are different from the norm. But in any case a phrase thats positive, easily understandable by everyone and can be said in one sentence.
Ellie
Anybody writing an article about it should read the (easily accessible) explanation in order to find out what it is.
Every cell in my body wishes that you were correct. But media types and people in general are lazy. Even psychologists that might hear about Warren’s concepts are lazy. Unless he gets their attention in a way that’s credible they’ll dismiss his work in 1 second flat and go right back to doing something else.
How I rate those examples from an average guy’s point of view
Special Relativity: Something about science (thumbs down)
Lesbian Feminist Critical Theory: Sounds angry but it contains enough buzzwords to attract it’s core audiance. (thumbs sort of up)
Queer Theory: Something about gay people (it’s ok)
Double-Double: Food or beverage item (it’s ok)
Any name will work if you can get it on The Tonight Show every day of the week. But if you’re a little guy starting out you don’t have that luxury. Your name and tagline have to sell sell sell.
SIT - Sexual Identity Therapy
Therapy designed to address and treat the unique needs of individuals with unwanted sexual identity issues. The focus is on identifying a client’s personal values and ways in which a client can live in congruence with those values.
Drowssap,
how does this sound?
SIT - Sexual Identity Therapy
Therapy designed to address and treat the unique needs of individuals with unwanted sexual identity issues who choose to live in congruence with their faith and values.
Ann
Not bad. I would try to get rid of every extra word I could. The shorter it is (and still gets the point across) the better.
Castrol:
Engineered For Today’s Smaller Cars
You probably can’t get SIT therapy down to something that short. But if you could, that would be best.
Your example
Therapy designed to address and treat the unique needs of individuals with unwanted sexual identity issues who choose to live in congruence with their faith and values.
I’d cut it to this
Therapy designed to address unwanted sexual identity issues to help people live in congruence with their values.
I don’t think mine is that great. Just that the shorter you can make it, the better.
Therapy designed to address unwanted sexual identity issues to help people live in congruence with their values.
Drowssap,
I think this is great - succinct and yet descriptive.
These are helpful comments and reflections on the meaning of SIT. I think the framework is intended to also allow for therapy even if the attractions are not the concern. In other words, a person would not have to have “unwanted” attractions (not sure if that was what was meant by “unwanted sexual identity issues”) but could be working through conflict with family members, religious beliefs, and so on. I think some people might think the focus is on “unwanted” attractions because Warren and I may receive those referrals, but I (and I assume Warren) also receive referrals where the conflict is really among family members or with religious communities and not with sexuality or attractions at all.
Mark,
Are you saying that you guys do continue to work with clients whose values affirm that they are gay? Or, do you only work with those whose values are in accordance with a traditional sexual ethic? I’m just wondering, because that would affect how you name it.
The more words used, the worse it gets. That’s for sure. If any of us have learned anything at all in all this, surely it’s that! *lol*
I think I already used too many words, or not enough, in that question. When I say, “affirm that they are gay” I mean that their values lead them to conclude that their same sex attractions are no longer unwanted, and they seek to live in a way that reconciles this with their faith.
Pam,
Thanks for asking for clarification. I cannot speak for Warren, but when I work with individuals, couples, and families in which sexual identity is undecided when they come to see me, I come alongside them and help them think through the issues that would be relevant to their decision about identity and behavior. They really do go in one or the other general trajectory - either towards identifying publicly and privately as GLB or not. I do not drop people or refer them out if they come to identify publicly and/or privately as GLB. In terms of family therapy, I often see young adults and their parents - all of whom often want a better relationship with one another - and in those cases typically the young adult is identifying as GLB and just wanting to improve family relations.
Thank you for the clarification - then the word “unwanted” should definitely not be used - perhaps by eliminating it, the phrase would address all those interested for their own reasons.
Drowssap
If psychologists are doing their jobs correctly they should be keeping abreast of the latest developments in their field. They should be doing this by reading journal articles (i.e. peer reviewed, scientific journals, not newspapers/magazines) as well as attending conferences where the latest ideas are being discussed. The popular view of SIT Therapy should have very little bearing on what the psychologists themselves decide about it. If physicists had rejected Special Relativity because they saw a journalist’s negative take on it and the name wasn’t marketable, then we wouldn’t have been able to move into the age of Einsteinian physics.
Ellie,
This is a really good point. I am not sure if the majority are doing this but would be very interested to know. Am also wondering if they would be truthful about it if asked. Are these requirements or just something that a good therapist would do? How would a potential client know?
“Therapy designed to address and treat the unique needs of individuals with unwanted sexual identity issues who choose to live in congruence with their faith and values.”
That’s a heavily biased statement. I’m gay, I have no problems with that and I’m living in congruence with my faith and values. The more I delve into trying to understand these “guidelines” the more strongly I feel that a therapist simply has no business aligning themselves with a client’s faith - for any reason.
A therapist should be a neutral corner for anyone who finds themselves between the expectations of their faith and the realities of their earthly existence. At what point is the therapist obliged to interject in what he/she sees as an unhealthy situation? Are their hands tied by the faith of the client, or do they just keep taking the referral option and pass them on from therapist to therapist?
Ann
As far as I know, this is the way most (if not all) fields which are tied in to academics and research work. Doctors (i.e. MDs) constantly read Medical Journals and go to conferences that pertain to the areas they work in. I believe Psychology and Psychiatry work in more or less the same way. A good therapist, even though they are not actively doing research, keeps up with the literature, as a good physician does (and must). The reason for this is that our knowledge of medicine and psychology change over time as new research is done, as people rethink old approaches to things, and as new problems show up (or are finally recognized as problems). If a doctor, for example, never read journals, he would not be up to date on any treatment options that had developed (or been discredited) since he graduated from Med School. The same is true for psychiatry and psychology. The research going on in the field changes over time, and practitioners have to keep current in it in order to be adequately prepared to help their patients.
A problem arises, though, when groups or popular new outlets start interfering with this process. If the APA will cancel a symposium because Drowssap’s ‘average guy’ can’t understand the name of something, then they will eventually wind up crippling their ability to best serve ‘the average guy.’
David,
That was an error on my part - I corrected it after Mark gave the clarification - I’m sorry for the mis-wording as that was before the clarification. I also want to say what a true blessing it is that you are happy and I hope others can come to that same place and have the same blessing.
Values Identity Therapy would be FAR better because the issue has much more to do with Values than it does with Sexual Identity - Even the term Sexual Identity seems fraught with misunderstanding. Values - not so much
At what point is the therapist obliged to interject in what he/she sees as an unhealthy situation? Are their hands tied by the faith of the client, or do they just keep taking the referral option and pass them on from therapist to therapist?
Excellent questions!!!
One of the most common tragedies Transsexual people face is the breakup of longstanding marriages.
Loving, caring relationships of 20 years and more duration usually founder when one partner reveals they are trans. It’s quite common for Trans people to be driven to the depths of despair over this. They can face the societal opprobrium, the loss of job, the disowning by parents, the medical problems… but not the loss of the love that very often was the only thing that kept them going.
How do you cope when you find the the great love of your life, the partner you wanted to grow old with, is the wrong sex?
That question is faced by both parties.
In many ways, it’s hardest for the non-transitioning spouse. How does any woman cope when she finds she’s been married to another woman all along? How does any man cope when he finds that the mother of his children is another man?
A feeling of betrayal, while not justified, is perfectly understandable, and in those cases, the marriage is broken beyond repair. It’s seen as the ultimate in cheating, worse by far than mere adultery, or even bisexual adultery. The greater the love, the greater the betrayal.
Often though the love is more than the clothes that they wore, and the main problem is one of sexuality. A Transitioning woman must face the fact that her behaviour has always been unquestionably lesbian. Her partner is left with the unanswerable question as to whether she’s been lesbian too, and that dichotomy and uncertainty causes her even more stress.
There is a need for help in such cases. I see them every day, and it breaks my heart.
Most marriages that survive become, not so much same-sex relationships, as monosexual. Two people who love each other become sexually attracted to one another, despite externals. This is best llustrated by the following crie de coeur
Such marriages are the exception though. The usual tragedy is one partner feels this way, and the other doesn’t. Sometimes they want to though. Perhaps the SIT may have a role in helping them.
It’s complicated (of course) by legal issues. In some jurisdictions, such as Australia, transition by one or both partners has no effect - and to divorce, a couple may have to totally separate, contrary to their wishes, especially if children are involved. In others, such as the UK, transition automatically gives the right for either party to have the marriage dissolved, with none of the usual requirements for separation. In many of these jurisdictions, the marriage can be converted seamlessly to a same-sex “civil union”. And in other jurisdictions, the state steps in and dissolves the marriage, regardless of the wishes of the partners.
Often marriages survive, at least for a while, as chaste relationships. Rather than split cleanly, they slowly dissolve, and usually only end when one or both partners find someone new to love, someone of the right sex this time. That sometimes never happens, and although each partner may have a succession of lovers, they never find anyone who they love as much as the one they’re married to, but no longer sexually interested in.
All of these people could do with some help.
Why not call it Sexual Values Therapy? I think that name is less likely to make people associate it with reparative therapy. And from the comments I’ve read, it seems more descriptive of what it is.
Congruence Therapy? Values focused therapy? Isn’t that what all good therapy is supposed to be? I still don’t understand why we need additional guidelines. Be honest with your client, treat them with respect., try to do no harm. Who’s unclear on that? That’s enough.
Suggestion on congruence and being values focussed — get rid of all copies of “I Do Exist”. Don’t sell them. Don’t give them away. Be honest that you were so eager to present evidence of “change” that you didn’t really do your homework. Big oops.
Suggestion on congruence and being values focussed — get rid of all copies of “I Do Exist”. Don’t sell them. Don’t give them away. Be honest that you were so eager to present evidence of “change” that you didn’t really do your homework.
AMEN Michael
Michael - I get it. You don’t think the SIT framework is necessary. Others who have endorsed it believe it is necessary and helps depolarized what has obviously becomes a polarized area. We quote several leaders in the framework within the APA community who believe depolarization would be a good thing.
I want to encourage those who have something new or constructive to offer to do so. Otherwise, what is the point of saying the same thing?
Warren,
Did you get his point about “I Do Exist”?
I have been asking the same thing, but I will lay off. I wanted you to explain why you believe these guidelines are needed — above and beyond the ethical standards that already guide our profession. That’s the part I don’t get.
Warren,
But does depolarization require the SIT framework? That would be the next logical question to ask? Is it necessary for depolarization or will it further depolarize the situation? These are questions that haven’t been adequately answered yet. I’m sure some do believe it will and I’m sure there are others who believe it will not and may only further add to the problem.
The problem with SIT, at least for some, is that there are SO many unanswered questions surrounding it. The example you give of SIT in action on your site is troublesome. I think you could diffuse the situation by answering many people’s questions - the same sound bites you send out about it not being Reparative Therapy aren’t going to cut it for many.
Warren,
I’m curious - I was hoping that at the APA Forum you would be further clarifying SIT and answering questions about it? Is that part of what was to happen?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I get the strong impression that the real reason some folks want the APA to endorse SIT guidelines (or something like them) is because they are afraid that “gay activists” within the APA will come after them and that they will be officially/professionally/financially punished in some way if they are not seen as “gay supportive”.
They seem to be afraid of legal or professional consequences (1) if they help a gay client who wants to remain celibate, or (2) if they support the client’s belief that gayness may be “brokeness” after all and that some sort of adaptation (or “change”) is both desireable and possible.
I think that some of the things you have said about SIT are certainly true: (1) science does not know what “causes” sexual orientation, (2) there is no clear evidence that one’s basic sexual orientation can be changed from gay to straight and (3) with points # 1 and #2 in mind, a therapist is not out of line in helping a client who still wants to conform their behavior to their beliefs. That things these things are true, however, does not make a compelling argument as to why the APA should do what you would like it to do.
Because so many people have been hurt by other’s good intentions, either in professional therapy, religious counseling, organizational ministries, etc., telling clients and individuals what is possible and what isn’t, wouldn’t it be a good idea to have a set of guidelines that transcends this and focuses on the client figuring out what they want and then finding ways to live in accordance with that instead? I would think the guidelines could always be updated as new information comes out, wouldn’t it?
If a therapist needs guidelines to respect a client’s choice to live in accordance with his/her beliefs, perhaps therapy is not the right field for them. That respect is basic to all good therapy — and if a therapist doesn’t show it, the client should find one who does.
Besides which, it is not really the therapist’s job to tell “clients and individuals what is possible and what isn’t”. It’s the therapist’s job to be honest about what the best research has to say about any given condition. For example, I would never tell a client that a spontaneous and permanent recovery from major depression was not possible – but I would be honest about what science has to say.
Unfortunately there are therapists, religious counselors, ministry organizations and professional organizations who do not respect a client’s choice and as has been described on this blog and others, the consequences can be devastating.
Ann,
But its not SOLELY about the clients choice - I thought we had been through this? It is to a great degree, but the therapist - or any healthcare worker for that matter - has to perform a good and detailed assessment to make sure that the client’s wishes are indeed what is best for the client - If the client comes in wanting to commit suicide we don’t just help them do it, do we? No self respecting professional just helps the client do what they want when they want it - that’s where the assessment comes in - even Warren has said as much
And Michael has some excellent points about being HONEST with clients - even if the client wants to go a certain direction, it is up to the therapist to be honest about the research out there regarding what the client wants to do.
Sometimes I feel like we just go around and around the same things
Jayhuck, me too. If a therapist cannot in good conscience support what a client wants to do, the therapist should be up front and say so — with kindness and respect. And if the therapist knows of a good therapist who is more in allignment with the client’s beliefs and/or goals, the therapist can always refer.
If it is not a “match”, it doesn’t have to be “devastating” or traumatic. The client and therapist can simply agree that some other clinician might be better suited to the case. This is standard therapeutic ethics, not rocket science.
I understand assessment and the importance of it - some therapists do a better job of it than others - some offer their opinions instead. I don’t think organized ministries do assessments. You do not have to keep saying it because I really do understand. I also think a therapist can use common sense to discern extreme requests from clients and determine whether it is a dangerous request or not - I think most lay people can do this as well. As far as being honest about research, yes, that is very important, however, it should not compromise or diminish a client’s own personal story.
If it was always handled the way you say it simply should be, that would be a blessing - unfortunately, it is not. I think you wrote some time back about “what hurts”. It still happens and not just with organized ministries and not just from one perspective. If I am incorrect about you being the person who wrote that, I apologize.
Ann,
My apologies - I did not mean to offend. Being honest about research trumps everything else. I’m not sure what you meant about “diminishing a client’s own personal story” but the research should never be presented in a way that diminishes the client - but it should never be withheld from the client for the fear it might. There is a good chance that research might change the client’s mind - at the very least it is information that the client MUST have.
Ann,
Its not just about assessing whether the request is “dangerous” but about assessing whether it is right and good - about whether it is potentially damaging or not.
Yes, research is important, however, it refers to other people - not me.
Research is the best determination we have of how current efforts will effect YOU.
Or rather may effect you. If I know that current research suggests that a current type of therapy only has a 15% success rate and requires alot of sacrifice and work - for little hope of effectiveness - I might very well change my course of action. Research DOES apply to you, me, all of us
This diminishes my personal story. Please refer to #103647.
This does not. Thank you for the clarification.
Yes, you might - I and others might not. I think it is imperative to give the research along with options and then allow the client to figure out what course they want to take. One can go into therapy with one mindset and change that several times during the course of treatment. The important thing is that it is about them and their life and the decisions they will ultimately make. I think a set of guidelines, like SIT, that addresses this particular issue, or any part of it, will help therapists, if they need it, and protect clients from harm - I see that as only a good thing.
Jayhuck,
I want you to know that I do understand your stance on research - my experience with what it has to say about the full breadth of this subject and the participants has left me feeling very different because IMHO it does not tell the complete or truthful story. At this point I am much more interested in what science will tell us about the possible causes, pre-dispositions, etc. and I think with that knowledge, a lot of what everyone has been talking about will take care of itself. Until then, I hope any form of therapy one seeks out to reconcile their thoughts on it will be ethical and effective for their well being.
Ann,
No research that I can think of can tell a FULL story - but that is not the purpose of research.
Science has already given us a good deal of information to work with (depending on what we are talking about ) - and while there is still a great deal left to learn, sharing research with clients should an important part of any therapeutic process.
I hope any form of therapy one seeks out to reconcile their thoughts on it will be ethical and effective for their well being.
I have the same hopes
I appreciate the perspective shared earlier about good therapy. I agree that good therapy does address values much in the way they are discussed in the framework. For good or for ill, not all therapists approach therapy in this way. For a discussion of approaches to values in therapy, I recommend Alan Tjeltveit’s book, Ethics and Values in Psychotherapy. In it he discusses a number of positions professionals hold to the topic of values in counseling. There is one approach I am aware of that explicitly attempts to address values in therapy. Perhaps mental health professionals or students in training have seen the video by William Doherty in which he discusses and practices what he refers to as Values Sensitive Therapy. He does a nice job looking at levels of addressing values, ranging from (or at least including) recognizing that values are a part of the discussion that is occurring to explicitly sharing one’s values as a therapist. The opening segment in which he discusses his approach explains some of the rationale - after all, isn’t all therapy value-laden? Yes, and he shares that he named it Values-Sensitive for the purposes of the video but would like it to be a part of all good therapy. It has not been adopted in all approaches to therapy, even though it is a very good introduction to the issues. In some ways I see the SIT framework as recognizing and applying some of the issues associated with identifying values in therapy to the topic of sexual identity concerns. It is also a framework to help those who provide services in this area and who recognize the complexities associated with these issues and who do not readily identify with some of the existing models. I understand that it isn’t for everyone. But I do believe there is something to be gained from offering counselors suggestions (reminders, perhaps, from the perspective noted above) on how to work in a controversial area.
Mark? Mark from the Sexual Identity Institute at Regent University?
Just a reminder, we do not know if any change therapy has a success rate. The Jones and Yarhouse study was not about therapy. The closest we have to a success rate is the anecdotal recollection of Nick Cummings of the Kaiser-Permanente experience. He reported 13% change to the point of heterosexual functioning. Still infrequent but when we are talking therapy, it is important to make it clear that no quality study has been done.
Warren,
But at the same time, should we not share these results? And what would make up a quality study? Should we also not share the information gleaned from those who are Ex-Ex Gay?
So no one in the Jones and Yarhouse study was receiving therapy?
Jayhuck - expressing the information is one thing but quoting percentages as if they generalize is poor practice. Some in the JY study were receiving therapy but they could not capture the necessary data to determine if therapy hindered or helped any of the outcome measures.
Of course, we should note what the ex-gays and ex-ex-gays are saying. However, we do not know the prevalence of either groups or how or why they got there.
I understand what you are saying Warren - and I agree. I just want to make sure that a client that comes in is given ALL available and pertinent information so that they can make a well-educated decision. Many Ex-Ex gays did receive therapy.
Ann, you said: “If it was always handled the way you say it simply should be , that would be a blessing - unfortunately, it is not.”
But that is precisely what professional ethics and simple good manners demand. If a therapist can’t give honest information about the most reliable research — or respectfully offer a referral — then that therapist ought to turn in their license. These things are basic. If they can’t handle these simple tasks, they are not a “therapist” — and I don’t think SIT guidelines will help them become one.
A therapist is under no obligation, morally or ethically, to give the client whatever the client wants or to say what the client wants to hear. In fact, I think we often have the opposite obligation. For example, if a client wanted me to give them an instant solution to grief (and many do) I would gently inform them about grief being a natural process that takes time.
If they wanted to lose their homosexual orientation and become heterosexual, I would tell them that current science does not give us any clear way of doing that — and that I personally do not know how to do it. I would tell them that homosexuality is not a mental disorder — so I cannot “treat” it.
If they were having big conflicts regarding faith and sexuality, I might suggest they seek pastoral counseling. What I would not do is promise some sort of ill-defined “change” or refer to organizations like EXODUS or NARTH.
Warren,
I think Michael brings up a really good point about the science and the state of current research - should this be shared with the client?
If they wanted to lose their homosexual orientation and become heterosexual, I would tell them that current science does not give us any clear way of doing that
While the science may be vague on whether therapy helps or hinders those who wish to try and change their orientation, it is also very true that there is NO PROVEN WAY to help a client move from homosexual to heterosexual.
Good question, Jayhuck. Why would a therapist be any less obligated to share this than say, a physician?
I would agree that there is no clear generalizable way to offer people regarding change. This is not to say that it does not happen. When it does, we cannot say why it does.
And its hard to say what CHANGE actually means. It may not mean that a person shifted from pure homosexuality to heterosexuality. The vast majority of the population is bisexual on some level right? Many, many - more than I realized - gay men have been married at some point - So being in a heterosexual relationship or defining oneself as heterosexual doesn’t necessarily make one so and vice versa. This is where labels can get confusing.
I said vice versa but I think its MUCH less likely that a mostly straight guy would identify as a gay person whereas I think its much more likely a gay person would try to identify as a heterosexual person - but that’s the whole social desirability thing/desire to be part of the “norm”
I am not talking about completely gay to completely straight. I am talking about shifts in degrees. Cummings did not assess degrees of shift. I suspect we are talking about bisexually oriented people for the most part.
I agree Warren! That would explain the shifts. And you are absolutely right - it is a matter of degrees. But a person who is primarily attracted to men could still have a relationship with a women and identify as “heterosexual” - it happens frequently. I would still call them a gay man, regardless of with whom they are in a relationship
“I suspect we are talking about bisexually oriented people for the most part.”
So we should not be surprised that ambidextrous people can use both hands.
There is a group of men that seem to be only attracted to their opposite sex partner and no other opposite person. Partnerosexual? I need a good label…
This is just a story about one college friend of mine and definitely doesn’t apply to all situations. My friend always identified as bisexual and said that one day he really wanted to get married to a woman and have kids. Several years ago, he started dating a girl, they eventually got married and now have two kids. Every time I see him he seems unhappy. His wife has called me twice because she’s been so upset about the relationship she’s thought about leaving. I know that his unhappiness is spilling over into his marriage and his kids. I’m not saying that a gay relationship would have made his life any better, but I DO think he latched onto a DREAM, or rather an IDEAL of something he thought would complete his life and make him happy, and it has not. There is also the real possibility that in pursuing this dream, he has brought others in who will be affected by his unhappiness. I just wonder, how many gay men who seek such therapy are doing that because they believe such a life will make them happy? I’m sure Pam would have something to say about that as well if she were here.
I know we can’t prevent people from making mistakes, but in counseling sessions, is it possible to help a client be certain that they are making life altering decisions for the best of reasons? Is that even realistic?
I don’t know - partnerosexual isn’t bad - where’s Rachal Ray when you need a new word or acronym?
There is a group of men that seem to be only attracted to their opposite sex partner
This is a common theme in the stories of married “ex-gays” — they claim sexual attraction only to their wife, but when pressed, they admit that they also continue to “struggle with same sex attraction”.
Michael - Right. That is true. I meant only to their wife among opposite sex people. But they are more generally attracted to the same sex. In my survey, we had lots of people who said they were straight but still have SSA. We are breaking that out into a category of its own.
I wonder if their experience is similar to my own? I loved and admired my wife deeply. I valued her companionship, her intellect and her heart. I was “attracted to her” in that I wanted to hold her, felt “safe” sleeping naked next to her, wanted her to carry our child. We were both sincere about our vows and we both loved Jesus. We both sincerely believed God would “change” me.
Sadly, true sexual hunger for her never developed. So when these guys say they are “attracted” to their wives, is that what they mean? Or are they guys who are primarily homosexual, who already had some bisexual component who have been able to focus that desire only on their wives?
I remember when I reading Dr. Tom Waddell (organized the gay games) - that he had a few sexual experiences with women and when asked how this was possible because he was gay - he commented that he was able to sexualize ‘warm feelings’. I don’t know if that is the same thing you are talking about or not Michael.
Also the phenomena of gay men being able to fall in love with one women only (but still be attracted to many other men) - was commented on in a section of ‘The Joy of Gay Sex’ - this was written about long before the exgay operations really took off - so I am wonder if this might be a fairly common experience for some gay men.
“…this might be a fairly common experience for some gay men.”
I would tend to agree, considering how many gay men I meet who are also fathers. What EXODUS tends to do is to take these cases as evidence of orientation change. In my own case, I was told that the fact that I could love and woman and father a child was “proof” that the Holy Spirit had “changed” me,
Michael,
Those statemnts were from a long time ago. A lot has been learned since then and I doubt anyone would say the samething today.
But on the other hand, there are gay people wo say if you had gay sex once and liked it - then that is proof enough that you are gay.
Same coin - different side.
Mary: Sometimes, people like to discount my experience with EXODUS by saying “that was long ago and EXODUS has changed a lot since then.” No doubt there have been some changes, but it still happens. Married gays with children are still held up as shining examples of “change”.
But, you are right. Both sides still say it and both are mistaken.
Yes, I know and hopefully it is getting better - I just know I and others, as has been documented on this blog and others, did not have this kind of experience. If I came in for grief therapy or marriage counseling or anxiety or depression, I know I would have probably had a traditional kind of response from the therapist followed with traditional therapy. This particular subject, however, is different and people, no matter how professional and updated they profess to be, do not all act in a professional manner. I think a set of guidelines like SIT would help a therapist stay within ethical and well mannered territory and protect the client.
Warren writes, “Michael - I get it. You don’t think the SIT framework is necessary.”
Obviously Warren thinks it is “necessary”. But “necessary” requires an object. Necessary FOR WHAT?
I will supply the missing information.
Many people have a faith-based (as in, NOT science, NOT reason, NOT evidence) belief that “homosexuality is sin”. In fact, for many millions of people, this belief is central to the integrity of their entire world-view. They simply MUST believe that gays are trash or else their entire world comes tumbling down. Therefore, any homosexual must be either “fixed” or eliminated in some way (prison, exile, execution — all have been practiced and/or promoted in this country in days past, days for which many Christians pine).
However, other people realize that these efforts to “fix” are, in fact, religious garbage and have no basis in science.
Therefore, the SIT is necessary to provide a scientific veneer on a purely religious practice. Notice how defensive Warren gets about this issue. It’s because he’s standing on tenuous ground. The SIT is Christian garbage. Period.
Warren, how am I wrong? I expect you to mince words. How about you answer a simple question for us?
Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin?
First, Mary: “I just know I and others, as has been documented on this blog and others, did not have this kind of experience.”
Then, it should have been documented with whatever government agency issues the therapist’s license, not here on this blog. In California, if you felt I had treated you in an unprofessional manner, you could and should report me to the Board of Behavioral Science Examiners in Sacramento. Believe me, they do look into complaints from consumers and do take action if there is a clear violation of professional ethics. SIT guidelines have no power. Sacramento does.
Regarding J. James question for Warren — “is homosexuality sin?” Warren will probably dodge a direct answer and say it is “outside God’s will or design”. Same thing. Nicer words. Interesting that pro-change therapists and EXODUS leaders can’t seem to make up their minds about it — or won’t be completely honest about it.
For example, Mike Ensley of EXODUS was recently on a national radio talk show. I asked him directly, “is homosexuality evil?” He said “no”. (Alan Chambers, EXODUS President” told me definitely “yes.”) I asked Ensley if people go to hell if they keep doing it. He said “no”. (This was shocking since EXODUS has always taught that the Bible says “yes”. ) You see, they don’t want to sound unloving, so they soften it. Sugar coat it.
They say, “We are only helping people live in accordance with their values.” Translation: “We are involved in an evangelistic effort to save people from the evil of homosexuality in this life and the flames of hell thereafter.” But they won’t say it straight out. Why do you suppose that is?
J James
I do not get the sense that you have read the SIT framework. It does nothing you attribute to it. I would like to see references from the framework which support your allegations about it.
However, I will address your question.
Evangelicals (I am one) on the whole view human nature as inherently flawed due to the choice of Adam and Eve to disobey God’s injunction to avoid a certain fruit. Wanting to be God, they disobeyed. Because of this act, subsequent humans inherit a nature that leads people away from trusting and communing with God (fallen human nature). Out of that state, people are prone to commit many sins, homosexual behavior being just one. For an evangelical Christian, acting on homosexual desire is wrong, not because of its consequences (often there are none) nor because of some inherent disorder (i.e., natural law), but because the Bible teaches it is. No sin is more sinful than any other in that they all grow out of the same human nature. Sin leads to estrangement from God. However, people may enter a personal relationship with God when they believe the death of Christ, God’s Son was done to satisfy God’s need for justice. That death was God’s sacrifice of love in place of humans who deserve the punishment for their sins and their sinful condition, so that God could look at the person whose sins are forgiven as if that person had never sinned. The Just for the unjust; the Lamb for sinners slain. The capacity to sin in real time is not erased, however, but a new relationship with God is established. I once was lost but now I am found, was blind but now I see.
Pretty fantastical, huh?
I give that detail because your question about homosexuality being a sin requires you have some understanding of how Evangelicals view the human condition. Considering an action a sin doesn’t of necessity lead to any of the consequences you believe flow from such a view. All people are sinners in the Evangelical mindset. However, all people, being in God’s image and the objects of redemption, are of immense worth and value as well. No sin is greater than any other; we are all in the same boat.
My view of human nature also leads me to believe everyone has an individual relationship with God. I cannot and should not try to make someone else comply with how I see things. I also think this is the way the counseling profession has developed. One may not impose values or beliefs on another and in fact, it is pointless to try. And so the SIT framework operates from the basis that the therapist does not impose values or beliefs on clients. We believe this is important for all clients. We believe people whose core beliefs forbid homosexual behavior as well as those who determine there is no viable prohibition should be respected and offered therapeutic support. That is what the SIT framework values.
As an indicator of how success in SIT can go a variety of ways, listen to this clip of a caller to the Michaelangelo Signorile show who described my work with a female client.
Warren,
You actually did a pretty good job of describing a general Christian view of the human condition - even gay Christians for the most part. I grew up in an Evangelical church/town but have moved to a more historically/traditional/liturgic church and in my walk I’ve heard many describe their belief that man’s sin - in the Garden - was one of disobedience (wanting to be God though wasn’t the important part) - The disagreement seems to be on what the Bible actually says about homosexuality - especially as we understand it today - the words that were used to describe it - other parts of the Bible that are complicated and problematic- and what it doesn’t say about homosexuality - as well as who never talked about it at all.
I know you were just giving the Evangelical perspective, but I thought it worth mentioning these other things. What conservative Evangelicals might have in common with more liberal Evangelicals or other Churches and how they seem to differ around the subject of homosexuality.
Jayhuck - Evangelicals are not monolithic (although I think it is 80-20) on homosexuality. I suspect for example, that Michael believes what I wrote there. However, via study of the Bible he comes to different conclusions. There are many issues where true believers come to different conclusions.
Absolutely
Warren is right. It is true that Evangelicals are not monolithic. There are a growing number of evangelicals like me (both gay and straight) who fully believe in the diety of Christ, His payment for sin on the cross, his physical resurrection from the dead, etc. — all of the basic tenets of Christianity — but who have come to the conclusion, after much study, discussion and prayer, that homosexuality is not always sinful.
We gay affirming evangelicals believe that it CAN be sin — just as heterosexuality CAN be sin. For us, “sin” is a matter of the heart, a question of motivation and intent. We do not pick and choose which Old Testament laws to obey, which to ignore and which to impose on others — as most other evangelicals do. We base our morality not on Old Testament Law, but on the New Testament teachings of Christ — in particular the over-arching principle of the Golden Rule.
Warren is right that I agree with him on all of the other theological points, above. You will notice that he did dodge a bit in his response. He didn’t address the question of whether or not folks go to Hell if they “keep doing it”. Evangelicals almost always believe that they will. How about you, Warren?
Not a dodge Michael but an oversight.
No, I do not agree with what you say Evangelicals believe. Salvation is a matter of relationship to Christ. A personal relationship with God is established then and judgment is not mine.
Michael and Warren,
I am REALLY sorry for butting in like this, but I just wanted to say that the Orthodox Church, to which I belong - which is by any definition very conservative - doesn’t ever make pronouncements about someone’s salvation. No one can know another person’s heart. Many people in the Bible were taken to be with God who didn’t follow what might be considered prescribed paths. I’m guessing most Christians - at least those working really hard on BEING Christians, wouldn’t make such a pronouncement either. Of course the OC doesn’t really believe in the saved concept either - at least not in the way that Evangelicals do as a single point in time event - we see Salvation in past, present and future tenses - you usually hear people say, I was saved, I’m being saved, I will be saved.
However - I will say that while growing up in an Evangelical community and church, I did hear my fair share of sermons regarding fire and brimstone for homosexuals, as well as hearing more than a few, almost gleeful, people talk about how they were saved and how homosexuals and the like would be going to hell. Hell has been used by Christians at times to make themselves feel better - or to feel superior
I can’t believe I didn’t catch this.
Warren wrote:
“Not a dodge Michael but an oversight. No, I do not agree with what you say Evangelicals believe. Salvation is a matter of relationship to Christ. A personal relationship with God is established then and judgment is not mine.”
Okay, you’re saved by a “personal relationship”. However, Warren has already stated the following: “Sin leads to estrangement from God.”
Warren already stated that a “personal realtionship” saves, and “estrangement” obviously prevents a “personal relationship”. In other words, if you keep sinning, then you will be “estranged” from God (by definition) and thus can’t have a “personal relationship” with God (by definition) and thus will braise in hell, tortured by fire, forever and ever.
Yes, it’s another dodge. If you don’t stop being gay, then you will fry, roasting and screaming in hell forever. Correct, Warren? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
The idea of “wanted” and “unwanted” attractions does not reflect reality. It is like saying, “wanted” and “unwanted” green eyes. No one except extremely troubled individuals with unresolved religious guilt can take such a “debate” seriously.
For the overwhelming majority of people, what they “want” makes little difference in regard to sexual orientation. They are who they are - like it or not. Attempts to change this often do great harm and are essentially meaningless - no matter what name the therapist gives the therapy.
J James - No, you are not correct.
Wanted v Unwanted. People change many things about themselves. The orign of sexuality has not been determined to be completely biological or environmental. Until such time - people have a right to self determine what they will do with their life.
Mary: “Until such time - people have a right to self determine what they will do with their life.”
I noticed you keep saying this over and over — as though someone is suggesting that you don’t have the right. I don’t get it. Disagreeing with you in no way implies that you don’t have the right to do whatever you please.
What people don’t seem to have the ability to self-determine is which gender they will be attracted to. That seems pretty much built in. Behavior is a choice. Sexual orientation is not.
Micahel,
Please read ll posts. You will notice I was responding to ONE in particular.
Mary: I do read ALL posts. I was just noticing what seems to be a pattern with you. When people disagree with you, you often tend to frame your response as a “rights” issue — as though we (or someone) is asserting that you don’t have the right to live your life the way you choose. Of course you do.
I have noticed that EXODUS does this a lot, too. They insist they have the “right”, as though someone was insting that they don’t. For me, this is not a “rights” issue, it’s a honesty issue. I have no quarrel with EXODUS or those who choose an “ex-gay” lifestyle, as long as they are honest about it.
Michael,
Just reiterating the point. That reality is sibjective to the individual and some people really do have unwanted attractions. That those who seek to change will experience a different outcome is reality and one that an individual can choose.
Those who insist that this is harmful and useless can say so at the top of their lungs. Keep in mind, others experience life differently (as gays have been saying for a long time) and each has a right to do so.
Dr. T.,
Maybe you could put this up at the top of the blog or as a tagline or something.
just an idea since it seems like i’ve seen several people off and on throughout the course of many threads try and get you to send them to hell.
Mary, you said: “Those who insist that this is harmful and useless can say so at the top of their lungs. “
You obviously didn’t attend the Ex-gay Survivor Conference last June in Irvine CA. None of those 100 + people attending raised their voices “at the top of their lungs”. We did sing, talk and pray. No one shouted. No one insisted that the “ex-gay” experience was completely harmful or “useless” — just that it is often harmful, particularly when EXODUS is dishonest about “change” or when EXODUS groups kick them to the curb when they admit they haven’t “changed”..
It’s not “useless”. It certainly wasn’t “useless” for me. Far from it. For many Ex-gay Survivors it was a step in self-acceptance, deeper faith in Jesus and a part of our “coming out” as gay Christians. Many gained a better understanding of Scripture, a firmer belief in God’s love and true friends. People shared both the postive and negative things they had gained through the experience.
The most moving exercise was done in complete silence – as we wrote our own thoughts and feelings on a huge piece of paper entitled “Ex-gay Experiences — Good and Bad.” It was a very moving and healing experience. No one bashed EXODUS or yelled.
There were quiet voices, laughter and tears. Feeling something passionately is not the same thing as “shouting it at tthe top of our lungs”. Sometimes the truth sounds loud because it is the truth. You can read more about it at beyondexgay.com.
Miachael,
You are taking this all too personal. I was referring to a particular post.
I know ex gay survivor’s have suffered at the hands of not so good ministry and under suspicious doctrines and practices.
I am talking about those of us who have not and have found peace with our lives and are ex gay. We are here and we choose these lives and we do not want to live a gay life. There is nothing wrong with that nor is there anything wrong with seeking counseling for that. There is nothing useless about that to people like myself.
If we don’t like something about ourselves we are able to change parts of ourselves. It’s not a like it or not option. Not all of us have extreme religious guilt. We do have a different opinion about our religion than that of other people who have come to different conclusions. And there is a meaningful and personal growth for ourselves that comes from such experiences.
I am not saying this is for everyone. I am refuting the “all people should see things my way as the right way” doctrine of any kind.
Warren wrote, “J James - No, you are not correct.”
But you refuse to elaborate further. Just a blanket “wrong” and then you zip your lips. Why not open up like you did when witnessing to me?
Let me help you along. Here is my train of logic, from what I understand about your religious beliefs:
1. To be saved, you must have a “personal relationship” with God.
2. Sin leads to estrangement from God.
3. If you are estranged from God, then you cannot have a “personal relationship” with him.
4. Homosexual behavior is sin.
5. Since homosexual behavior is a sin, it leads to estrangement from God (point #2).
6. Since homosexual behavior leads to estrangement from God, people who do it cannot have a “personal relationship” with God (point #3).
7. Since people who practice homosexual behavior cannot have a “personal relationship” with God, then they cannot be saved (point #1).
Please indicate which one is incorrect according to your religion and why.
I think you’re trying to wiggle out of this. You certainly look like you’re being less than forthcoming.
It may surprise you, Mary, but I agree with (almost) every word of your 2nd paragraph — except the word “ex-gay” (which I have gone on about endlessly because I think it is dishonest and misleading.)
Never-the-less, I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with people who have “found peace with their lives” or who choose not to act on their ongoing homosexual orientation. NO PROBLEM. That is their right. That is their right. That is their absolute right. Do I make myself clear enough on that?
I agree that there is nothing wrong with that nor is there anything wrong with seeking counseling for that — and I have never said otherwise, at the top of my lungs or otherwise.
Michael,
My comments were not to you - duh???? But you interjected yourself into a response I made in particular to a specific post. How much more clear can I be? You asked for clarification - I kept trying to give it to you and kept reminding you that my response was to a certain post. I am not attacking you - I am defending my life and life choices against something specific that someone else wrote. IS THAT CLEAR? Geez! It was not about you.
And what is ex gay for a woman I have come to believe is much different than what is ex gay for a man. In fact - I am starting to believe that homosexuality for men and women are entirely different subjects.
J James wrote:
and then…
I have addressed your questions. Speculate all you want, I do not think you are interested in what I have to say.
Warren: You still haven’t answered the question about salvation and First Corinthians. Feels like you are dodging to me. According to your own understanding of this passage, will gays “not inheriet the kingdom of God” if they continue to act on the homosexual attractions with no repentance? Please, a clear answer. EXODUS does the polka around this question. Please don’t do likewise.
Mary: Yeah, you make yourself clear. I just see red when I hear “ex-gays” make this into a “rights” issue — when what we are calling for is honesty and justice. No one is seriously suggesting that you don’t have the right ot live any way you please. I just feel EXODUS over-uses it’s right to lie. That being said, I will butt out of your private conversation.
Michael,
I don’t support EXODUS either.
Mary; As far as I can tell, that’s a good thing.
Michael - There are lots of stuff in that Corinthians list. My stance is that I am not called to judge the standing of another (Rom 2).
For the record….I don’t think gay people are going to hell. That’s a conclusion I’ve made based on my interpretations.
With that out of the way…I just can’t for the life of me understand why it matters so much what other human beings think about whether or not one of us is going to hell or not.
“He who will not be named” has strongly implied publicly that he believes I’m going to hell just because I’m letting gay people be Christians.(as if) But, I could really care less what the guy thinks. I figure he’ll be up there, but hopefully the place will be big enough that our paths won’t cross. He might decide to leave once he sees that God let me in.
(he has a website dedicated to rooting out gay Christians)
I know that Dr. T and I have some pretty wide gaps in political and theological views, but I’m not looking to him as my judge. I don’t understand why others seem to be so concerned with it. I haven’t read ONE scripture that says any of us get to decide these things about the others.
Furthermore, Dr. T. has presented evidence to show that not all of his clients pursue the path of denying their same sex attractions….and he continues to counsel them.
J. James, are you a Christian? If you are, then why do you give Dr. T. such clout when there’s no scripture to back that up? If not, then why does it matter?
Here, here! Pam - I agree with you. What is the big hoopla over what others have to say about my salvation or what I think of my own salvation? The sure observer knows my heart and not anyone else really. And for the record, I too DO NOT believe that someone is going to hell because they are gay.
Guys,
I’m with Pam and Mary on this one. Warren is under no obligation to agree with me about issues of salvation, sin, inheriting the kingdom, or any other theological mystery.
Sure it can be fun to debate Scripture. And it can be interesting to know what others believe. But unless they are trying to beat you over the head with their faith or trying to judge you, there’s no cause to insist that they tell you how they interpret some specific passage.
In the end - we all see things differently. I’m supposin’ that God’s got everything in the right place.
Timothy: I disagree when you say “there’s no cause to insist that they tell you how they interpret some specific passage.” These are the passages that lead gays to self-loathing and suicide. If they don’t think it means gays will go to Hell if they keep doing it, I think they have a responsibility to not be so evasive. With gay lives at stake, why can’t they just say what they believe?
Michael,
In the end, each can only speak for themselves. I can’t really imagine what course I would choose if I WERE gay. Besides, interpreting a scripture to mean that gay behavior (the sexual one) is sin still doesn’t mean the person can tell you that you’re going to hell. I may as well tell my cohort who drives a BMW while children starve in Africa that she’s going to hell if she doesn’t stop making payments on that thing and driving it around….it makes no sense to do such a thing. We can all make judgements about what sin is all day long…but none of us can judge the others heart and determine who goes to hell or not.
Once again, I am not asking someone to “judge another person’s salvation” or “judge their heart.” I am asking what they think this passage means. There is an important difference.
I am a Presbyterian, and we Presbyterisns put a great emphasis on clearly “saying what we believe.” It’s an important part of every service — “Now, let us say what we believe…”
The question is a very important one. This particular passage has been used for years and years to convince gays that they had better change “or else” (not inherit the Kingdom of God) — with devastating emotional and spiritual results. In light of this, many have abandoned both faith and hope.
But, I understand that neither Mary nor Warren really want to answer this question, so I will lay off.