NARTH’s new journal is not a new study
Seeing some of the press out on the recent NARTH (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) monograph, one might think the paper is a new study which demonstrates something that was once unclear.
Not so. The first issue of the journal is actually a three part paper which reviews a variety of research studies mixed in with website postings and newspaper articles. There is no new research in the 121 page monograph. The three parts correspond to three claims the NARTH authors, James Phelan, Neil Whitehead, and Philip Sutton, attribute to the American Psychological Association. The claims are:
1. There has been no conclusive or convincing evidence that sexual orientation may be changed through reorientation therapy.
2. Efforts to change sexual orientation are harmful and can lead to greater self-hatred, depression, and other self-destructive behaviors.
3. There is no greater pathology in the homosexual population than in the general population.
To achieve the stated purpose, one would need to limit the review to the highest quality research which directly address each of the points. Particularly on the first two points, the paper does not do this, but rather includes any paper, or even opinion piece which supports the claims. In a subsequent article, I will review the paper in a bit more detail. Suffice to say for now, that there is nothing new in this paper.
I will note one problem that jumped out at me immediately. The NARTH report begins with the claim that scientific evidence leads to
a singular conclusion: Homosexuality is not innate, immutable or without significant risk to medical, psychological, and relational health. (Emphasis in the original)
However, one aspect of this “singular conclusion” – the claim homosexuality is not innate – is not covered in the body of the paper. Despite the fact that NARTH concludes that homosexuality develops after a person is born, they provide no review of the evidence which addresses that topic. From this statement and others, one could get the impression that the conclusion was decided before the review took place.
Advocacy begins in the assumptions; it effects the selection of article to review…it leads to the conclusions that we prefer.
If Narth were to be more thorough and scientific….
What would the title of the proposed article be?
A Comprehensive Review of Same Sex Attraction: Biological Precursors, Environmental Triggers, Maliability and Adaptability.
A Comprehensive Review of Same Sex Attraction: Biological Precursors, Environmental Triggers, Maliability and Adaptability.
i like it.
Say it isn’t so! Not NARTH! They’re “scientific”! They would never select “any paper, or even opinion piece which supports their claims” or make “singular conclusions” with “no review of the evidence which addresses that topic.”
I can’t believe it. Also, they would never cite “experts” like Lively, Cameron, Schoenewolf or Berger in support of their prejudice — no matter how unscientific the “research” or abhorrent their “solutions” might be.
What else is new?
As the French would say, when it comes to NARTH, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…”
That’s kind like what I have been saying about NARTH, right Dr. T?
No Michael, the science is beginning to catch up to what NARTH has been saying for years.
concerned – Sorry, can’t let that go.
What science and which thing NARTH has been saying for years?
If you have access to the journal, please point out which science is new in the paper?
concerned, doesn’t it concern you that NARTH makes a statement which they say relates to research but then provides no research? (Ho is not innate). NARTH has been saying this for years with science moving the other way. The jury is out but that makes NARTH’s statement even more irresponsible.
Warren,
It is time to refer to all of the scientific research that is coming out looking at brain chemistry, addictions, and the influence of trauma and family of origin not just that that suggests the someone is born with SSA. This does not fit for everyone and should never be used as a basis to begin ones understanding of why someone may find themselves attracked to the same-sex. Most of the more recent research suggests a combination of many factors and therefore it is wrong to focus on only this one and condemn or put down anyone who is looking at the influence of another. That is not the way science is meant to work.
I agree we do need solid scientific evidence to support all of our claims, but the use of sarcastic and defaming statements such as I have heard many times from people who only want us to believe that this is an innate trait should not be allowed either. That is simply a method to try to shut down any legitimate discussion. Personally I have begun to ignore such voices for the damage that they are doing. This reminds me so much of the non-scientific push that was used by gay activists for years to try to convince the generally non-educated public that 10% or the population was gay, even though the science was saying something very different. Or now we have the gay gene myth that is repeated over and over again to try to convince us that science has found that SSA is innate when in fact no such genetic link has been confirmed.
Now we see the reverse arguements being used in saying that “Change is not possible”, because no scientific evidence supports this. The problem is that we are not willing to put money into this kind of research, but instead continue to dump dollars into the search for a gay gene. What a useless waste when there are many people who are living with unwanted SSA and would like to know more than anything else they can live happily with some reduced SSA and still be good fathers or mothers or husbands or wives to there existing partners instead of being told they will never be happy until they embrace the misguided idea that they have always been that way. Especially for those that know that abuse or neglect likely had a much large role to play in their self identity that did there genes.
There is much evidence available if you want to see it. If you do not want to understand how these factor are at play I suspect it does not matter that they exist. Sorry Warren, I can not go along with the idea that the innate arguement is the only one we can examine. It does not hold true in all cases. It may be more inborn in some than for others, but that does not make it right to claim that change is not possible for anyone. For this reason I do believe that NARTH plays a very important role in the real science behind this debate, even though they also must be accountable for the research they are presenting, just as those on the other side must be held accountable. If we want science to truly move forward I will need to see more of an willingness to support science that looks at the change issue with an open mind.
Thank you Concerned for those remarks. I, too, am get tired of the gay rhetoric and the idea that no one can change mantra.
Concerned and Mary – I am not interested in a debate; rather a discussion. When you talk about science catching up to NARTH, I am asking what science?
What brain studies? The NARTH paper does not even address the innateness argument. So I am not sure what you are talking about.
I did not say I thought homosexuality was inborn. This is not an either-or issue. To say that NARTH does not deal with data does not say I think non-NARTH opinions are correct.
To start a discussion, please simply refer to what science is catching up to NARTH.
Warren,
I’m just tired of the constant barage of attacks on NARTH. Seems almost like a vendetta. Granted non one group either side is 100% accurate nor noble. Just really tired of the bickering over it – not debating but bickering. I’m really tired of gay people telling ex gays and ex gay groups or therapists what THEY should be doing. I would really like gay people to give the same consideration to others that they are asking for themselves. Gays for the most part don;t want honesty. They want only evidence, talk, speech, articles that say ex gays don’t exist, ex gays are unhappy, ex gay therapy is a sham etc…
Mary – I won’t debate whether people are “fair” to NARTH. I am asking and regularly ask for research studies, data, etc. If NARTH produced something truly peer-reviewed in a journal that wasn’t filled with its own board members and authored by the editorial board of the journal, I would applaud them.
If you are tired of NARTH getting hammered, call NARTH and tell them to stop being an advocacy organization and be a scientific one. Or stop claiming they are a science organization and be up front with their advocacy.
Warren,
I do not have the time to list the numberous scientific articles on brain chemistry and addiction and the influence of abuse and trauma on the development of ones identity at this time. I would suggest reading “In the Realm of Hungary Ghosts” by Gabor Matte as a starting point. He is a medical doctor who has worked with addiction for much of his life. It may not support everything that NARTH is saying, but it definitely challenges the whole innateness of human behaviour.
Otherwise, there is not much more I feel I can say to convince you that neither side of this discussion should be give preference over the other and accusing NARTH of being unscientific and ingnoring the unscientific rhetoric of the progay position is just that.
Does the book deal with sexuality?
You are going from a particular to a general case. I have no problem with an interactive view; in fact it is the one I hold regarding most human behavior.
I have for the past 10 years critique the “pro-gay” position and will continue to do so when science is misused. So I have no idea what blog you are reading.
Warren,
I do not refer to blogs for my information other than your own. I am looking at scientific writings and critics on so called scientific research such as the work done by LeVay and Hamer. That had such an initial influence on the general acceptance of the gay gene idea and yet have been shown to be lacking in many ways. I realize there are other studies that have come out, but so many of them have such a narrow focus that I do not understand how anyone can see them as legitimate in answer these kinds of questions. I guess what I have come to realize is that this is a much more complex issue than what some still want to claim as far as the genetics or the environmental influence is concerned and as a result it is unacceptable to claim that one has a more solid scientific reasoning than the other if there is a strong political influence on either.
Please do not try to tell me that there is no political influence on the need to claim an innateness to SSA. I can also appreciate that NARTH cannot claim superiority in the direction they have taken over the years. I just want to see that if you are not allowing NARTHs position to be considered then do not accept the alternative without challenge.
Warren, isn’t it a tad difficult for NARTH to do that, given the battles they have fought with the APA over legitimacy for a therapeutic paradigm that differs from what APA tends to put forward? In other words, NARTH formed out of this frustration, according to my understanding. Are there enough “peers” out there to do such a review? You would know far better than I.
APA looks an awful lot like an advocacy group from some angles to my eyes, FWIW. We both know there are beaucoup problems in the scientific field with many kinds of biases. It seems to me we have to always be ready to apply a filter to what passes for “proof” or lack thereof. Neither NARTH nor APA or any of their cronies should get a pass in this regard.
“Possible” is a mighty big word. As in “With God all things are possible.”
I understand the need for you to plow some new ground here rather than replow the old. I appreciate it. Sorry it causes you to have to remind people of your entire spectrum of thought and your past work. But it might help to occasionally bring some of that into the discussion, don’t ya think? Otherwise, it could look like a vendetta against NARTH or Scott Lively, etc.
concerned & Warren,
Your replies don’t contradict each other as much as it seems. I think they complete each other heuristically. That is, your replies can generate debate, if that was your intention. Anyway, I want to write about one issue that I think you are aware of, just to make sure it was written. In fact, most of this stuff has already been said a number of times, just making sure it makes the borders between passion and monomania even less clear…
In the light of some recent data discussed here too (Safron et al 2007, Savic & Lindström 2008) someone could make a case for early trauma contributing to some degree of feelings for one’s same sex in men. Both studies showed that a brain region involved in fear and anxiety plays a role in sexual arousal in men and is more intensely activated in gay men. Those who support a great role for post-natal environmental factors (like the Narth you mentioned) could make a case for how traumatic events like paternal or peers rejection or maternal abusive/aggressive parenting could impact the development of one’s amygdalae in particularly sensitive kids. The results in the literature on this issue are mixed, though – some found differences in Amy atrophy resulting in mood-related problems after repeated trauma, some didn’t. But we have yet to see any study that says people who went through traumatic events report significant changes in sexual feelings. Arguably, they may not report it.
I suppose that based on these recent studies it can be made a case for anxiety playing a hetero-inhibiting role in male sexuality, but if that is correct then gay men who undergo treatment for anxiety disorders should experience reduced same-sex attractions. It would be interesting to see a study on that, if it matches the abovementioned results. If researcher’s findings converge on this area, then theoretically anti-anxiety medication should dampen amygdala response. It should also come with a heavy package of secondary effects, some of them related to sex.
However, that probably wouldn’t create opposite-sex attractions, so I suppose if anyone wants to try and study that should have to choose men with bisexual fantasies and behaviour to make sure they measure objectively if reducing anxiety does reduce homosexual feelings in behavioural bisexuals and if aggressive priming or assertive skills promote heterosexual feelings.
Here’s an idea for a study. Maybe you two could team up for this one: Select a number of men who report having a bisexual life. Expose them to sexual stimuli (chosen by them), in a few sessions, in order to make sure that they do have measurable bisexual patterns of penis arousal at least in different days, depending on mood or particular people they are attracted to (this is to make sure you’ve got research subjects with clear bisexual potential, because I think you won’t get funding if you ask them to have sex in the lab). Perform a brainscan study on them and record their brain activity during reported both-sex arousal. After that, put them on anti-anxiety medication for a short period of time, provided they agree with the temporary side effects (If they didn’t agree to take the medication right from the start, you might have to wait for the more benign XBD173 anxiolytic to become available). Then Phase 2: put them in an fMRI scanner and ask them to report how attracted they feel subjectively to images of the people they reported to be most attractive to them (both sexes) and measure their brain activity again. Finally, compare the data on arousal on a person-to-person basis, not as a group. If everything goes well technically, then you should be able to see: (1) how does arousal work in non-medicated bisexually behaving men on each sex and preferred attractive person, and (2) if anti-anxiety medication can produce a measurable reduction in homosexual brain arousal in the studied men that is also reported subjectively by them. If you get positive results, the beer is on the Narth guys.
But you might want to find some billionaire willing to fund this first — if there’s anyone left right now — because I doubt it will get any money from bodies that don’t agree with the idea of testing a hypothesis on changing the direction of sexual feelings using medication.
Evan,
I do not even think I would agree with doing a study using medication. I think we already rely much to heavily on the Pharmecutical companies to solve our personal problems. What about changing ones stress patterns or methods of coping with stress as a way of lowering ones anxiety levels. What about prayer or meditation? How acceptable do you think that would be as a way to reduce or redirect ones sexual feelings. Just asking!
concerned,
I gave you a reply, but it may take a little while to get posted.
@concerned
Warren may be away from the “W” dashboard, so here’s what I said:
I agree with you that taking pills is not the best way to deal with problems. The study suggestion was meant to test the hypothesis that reducing anxiety can also reduce same-sex feelings, if a few people agreed to go through the procedures (and, maybe, if an anxiolytic without benzodiazepine-like effects were available). I imagine people would be divided on this, if it worked. Some would consider unnatural and not worthy to live a medicated lifestyle, whereas others may give it a try.
Anything would be better – prayer and meditation included – provided that they can really keep anxiety at bay. I’m not a professional, so I cannot tell you what is the entire variety of therapeutic interventions that can effectively control anxiety, but I’ve seen some research that shows religious belief/attendance and meditation contribute to better mental health. I’m not sure they would have the same power to reduce the brain’s autonomic sexual response as a chemical acting targeted on the brain. But they would sure come without any side effects!
Mary,
Let me address the specifics of your frustration.
Gay people, for the most part, have never heard of ex-gays. I’m speaking here of the guy or gal that is happily coupled, employed, and living a pleasant life in Anytown, USA.
They may have a vague sense of there being religious folk who have “left the homosexual lifestyle”, but they’ve never met one, have no idea what they are about, and couldn’t care less.
Then there are activist folk who are fighting for gay rights and equality. For the most part they don’t much care about ex-gays – other than to the extent that ex-gays bother them. But they are anti-ex-gay because of the actions and lobbying and efforts of anti-gay activist. They are reacting to the political agenda of ex-gays, not to their existence.
You may decide not to believe this, but it is true: if ex-gays were not used as a reason to deny gay rights, gays would have no more problem with ex-gays than they do with bisexuals. Or asexuals. Or Bulgarians. Or anyone else who isn’t trying to harm them.
Fine. Go off and be celibate. Hope it works for you.
But on the day that the ex-gay movement decided that they would testify before congress and the courts and the legislatures that “gay poeple can change and behavior doesn’t deserve civil rights”, that was the day they invited criticism and inspection and exposure.
And as for your comment that “Gays for the most part don;t want honesty”, perhaps you could clarify. Can you name any gays that don’t want honesty? I don’t know of any, but if it’s “for the most part” then I’m certain that you surely had someone in mind.
Warren,
I’m afraid just about every legitimate group scientific or not (in your view) is some sort of advocacy group. And I thought you beat this dead horse a while ago??
Evan,
There is an obvious flaw in your hypothesis:
If anxiety medication had any impact on sexual orientation, we would have already observed it. Anxiety runs across all demographics and there are without question a large number of bisexual people who take anxiety medication. Had any of them experienced a change in orientation (or, as you put it, a reduction in same-sex feelings without a reduction in opposite-sex attractions) this would have been noted. Something so very unusual as a change in attractions would stand out, WAY out.
You wouldn’t even have to be looking for it. And the community would know about it before there was even a discussion about a study.
Timpthy,
Gays could care less seems to stand out.
And as for your comment that “Gays for the most part don;t want honesty”, perhaps you could clarify
Need I say anymore?
Ooops had all my code messed up – but I am sure Timothy you can figure out what I am saying.
@Timothy K
I mentioned this possibility in my comment. After all, gay men are more affected by anxiety spectrum disorders and seek more treatment than straight men. But I don’t think attractions are a question of black and white. So reducing anxiety doesn’t mean it would make impossible for someone to get aroused by men or to have passive sex with men in order to stimulate their prostate. How many gay men prefer the passive role in relation to other men? Moreover, I think homosexual arousal is possible to some degree in straight men too, but usually men who hang around men all their lives, especially if they don’t care so much about staying slim or their looks, get turned off by most men. There must be some effect of socialisation on sexual feelings too. I mean, it happens in a heterosexual marriage, let alone when you live all your life affiliated with a team of men who focus on anything else but themselves.
All things considered, I wouldn’t underestimate the power of personal decisions and physical preferences in the case of bisexually behaving men. I never said that homosexuality must be exclusively caused by a difference in one brain region. Just like so many phenomena originating in the emotional brain (disordered or not), there’s bound to be a spectrum of differences in connected regions. They can have different contributions in different people. The amygdala observation stands out as a major contributor to what is called “same-sex attraction.” It was proven empirically in two studies, using different designs. The next step is to understand how much is inborn and how much is shaped by enviornment. It’s very likely that at least in some, environment, including parenting/peering, must play a role, but it can go undetected in post-factum studies, because trauma during childhood can remain hidden to adult memory — or sometimes because sexuality biases.
I expect other brain regions like the hypothalamus to play an important role together with other regions that manage memory and the sugary sensations experienced during addictive experiences (making lots of money, taking drugs, having sex, seeing very attractive faces.) However, since the hypothalamus is a “blind” structure (it has little input from the eyes), it must work indirectly, related to internal regulation of body states and smell sensations influencing sexually-relevant memory. It’s also involved in aggression… But I digress.
There are many things that go into sexual feelings, as I said, and they can vary in people and the same person across time, but some are as decisive as the lever frames used in railway signalling installations, which decide on which track does a train go. The region I mentioned seems to play such a role, according to growing empirical evidence, although individual differences are likely to be continuously distributed in the population (some people may have a harder time deciding which train goes in what direction). Isn’t that what gay people wanted — something biological? Well, it’s there.
Depending on personal patterns of addictive experiences, some men may be able to get erections and fantasise about women, but they may get stronger arousal in connection with men, because of physical preference for prostate stimulated arousal. If the amygdala atypicality predisposes them to anxiety then it’s likely that they would enjoy a masochistic-feminine type of sexuality better than the other way around, the stimuli impinging on the anxiety pedal to increase arousal created by the bigger sex, the one which can produce more anxiety in less masculinised brains.
Reducing anxiety may not turn off the learned preference for prostate stimulation or the addiction to high levels of arousal in gay/bi men, but may reduce the panic they feel when they see men — the emotional salience that people usually describe as ‘heartthrob’ in attractions, it must be differently blended in gay and straight men: either with anxiety (left amygdala in gay men and straight women) or with aggression (right amygdala in straight men and lesbian women) — that was seen in one brainscanning study. Lastly, I think one cannot put aside the personal decision and cultural factors in sex relations.
To quote Catherine Dulac, the professor from Harvard who produced the “one brain, two sexes” discovery in mice: “Humans are very complex. And, especially concerning sex, they lie.”
Warren:
Debbie:
This was my comment, not Debbie’s”
And how long has it taken the APA to provide real and balanced science?
Mary,
You are exactly right. The APA has listened to their own little advocacy group for way too long and only focused their attention on science that support their own position. Sorry that is not scientific.
LOL. Just a small thing. Am I the only one who thinks that ‘bquote’ should only be used when you are quoting something that’s already been written or said? I see things in the blue box and start looking for a reference as to who said it and where.
Geez – I have really messed up the use of the bquote. Ah well.
Sorry. I don’t have the hang of the “bquote”
thing yet. My bad…
I am confused, Concerned. Are you speaking of the APA or NARTH? I still am really tired of NARTH’s cop-out: “We would produce good science, but the mean old APA and those darn gay activists won’t let us…”
Call the “wah-mbulance.” Poor NARTH. They can’t get no respect…
Timothy, I’d like to address what you said in your response to Mary. Please read carefully what I am saying and understand I bear you no animosity as I say it. I offer it in the spirit of openness and balance in this discussion.
I find it hard to believe that most gays are unaware that a subgroup of folks commonly referred to as ex-gay exists. Nor can I fathom how you know what “they” know. Your parameter of an ex-gay person needing to be “happily coupled” is also problematic. Where does it say in The Rulebook that anyone has to be coupled, happily or otherwise? “Living a pleasant life …”? What meaneth this? Life for a person who has chosen and has worked hard to pursue a different path from the one their genes, predispositions, environment or psyche compels them to pursue is not necessarily a pleasant existence all the time. That doesn’t make it wrong or pathology of another sort, either. It is what it is.
Again, who are “they” and how do you know their thoughts? Does “meeting” someone like me on a blog count? If so, you’ve got a little problem here. And some of them obviously care a great deal. That’s why Besen formed Truth Wins Out.
And what, praytell, ought to be the ex-gay response to the gay political agenda? Pretend it doesn’t exist? You see my dilemma here, Timothy? I am quite sure there are folks on both sides of this divide who are deeply bothered by the mere existence of their counterparts. I can read the news.
Am I trying to harm you, Timothy? Because if you believe that, I need to know in what ways. And what my Christian response needs to be.
Whoa. I’m sure you are not implying here that gays have not had their substantial place at the lobbying table (check out the current administration) and have fired many questionable shots across the bow of the conservative establishment, which includes a lot of hard-working, God-fearing people who want to preserve their parental autonomy in raising their children and having them educated in the three Rs and not indoctrinated in unnecessary and inappropriate sexual “ethics.”
What’s fair for the goose is fair for the gander. Maybe you need to be more forthcoming in this regard. You are speaking in broad generalities but expecting Mary and presumably others to have specifics. Poor debating tactic.
Let’s be fair and balanced, Timothy. If this is representative of the gap we are supposed to be bridging, then we do have our work cut out for us, don’t we?
Only God can sort this all out. I would be lost but for His strong hand holding me in place. To the extent that we can meet in the middle with our eyes fixed on our Lord and Savior, we can move this mountain.
RE: NARTH and getting access to peer – reviewed journals. There has been some censorship over the years that I have seen. It takes places in abortion and sexuality areas. It seems very deliberate in the NASW, a bit less so but very pronounced in ACA and more subtle and probably somewhat less deliberate in APA. Nick Cummings and others have commented on psychology’s blind spots in relation to religious issues. The APA responded, well I think, with a policy on the subject a couple of years ago. However, they blundered badly with the APA report on abortion last summer. The APA Task Force on Sexual Orientation will report in August of this year. I have that this task force will apply the APA policy on religion to the topic of sexual orientation and we will see something better than once expected.
As one who has peer reviewed papers in APA and ACA journals, I do not think it is impossible to be heard. Chris Rosik is a NARTH member who has been published on the subject. Chris writes well and nuances his work. If NARTH did research which met basic quality standards, it would get published.
For the black and white among us, please understand, I am not saying that there is no difficulty in getting heard. There is. Especially on issues of life, the APA is very closed to alternative positions. However, I personally see an openness from the APA regarding sexual orientation and religious identity which is refreshing.
I do see an opening as well – with lots of protest by activists.
Evan,
You have many opinions. You tend to state them as “there must be” and “I wouldn’t underestimate” and “I expect” and “it must”. But they are nothing more that your guesswork doctored up in pretty phrasing.
And ultimately, it all comes back to the fact that your guesses have not been observed and it is almost certain that if anxiety medication had any impact on sexual attraction that it would have been observed.
Warren,
I do hope you are right on the upcoming report. I also trust your judgement far more than I may sometimes be indicating. I am just getting very tired of one side being able to accuse the other of lacking scientific integrety and ignoring their own lack there of. Maybe it is not the APA that is doing this but rather those that are reporting on the APA.
Michael,
I was talking about the APA as I have seen it over the years. My hope is that it is becoming more balance and less judgemental towards religious people and institutions. Just as I would like to see a more fair and balanced approach to the issue of developmental influences of SSA. It is not all about genetics, therefore, that should not be the major focus.
Nope. You don’t.
It’s pointless to argue with those who are convinced that gay folk “want only evidence, talk, speech, articles that say ex gays don’t exist” and ” for the most part don;t want honesty”. You’ve decided to hate and aparantly there’s nothing I can do to disuade you.
So I’ll just dismiss your comments as undiluted bigotry.
And that, my dear friends, is the bottom line. NARTH has no one to blame for their shoddy “science” but themselves. If I had submitted research papers or made singular conclusions like NARTH does, I don’t think I would have passed my basic Research Design and Statistics class towards my master’s degree. They are without excuse when it comes to poor scholarship.
Add to that NARTH’s surprising willingness to align themselves with wackos and hatemongers like Lively, Cameron, Berger, Schonewolf, etc. — only to quietly remove “links” and “reference” to these folks when they get caught with their pants down. Disgusting.
If they want respect, they have to act respectable.
Thanks, Warren, for that input. As I said, you would know, and I trust your judgment. I, too, look forward to that August report from APA. Of course, Michael makes some legitimate points. Some things NARTH does are just indefensible. I don’t get it, frankly.
Debbie,
Perhaps you misread my comment. I’m not saying that no gay persons have ever heard of ex-gays or that none of them care. What I did say was that most gay folk may have a “vague sense” of ex-gays but have “never met one, have no idea what they are about, and couldn’t care less”.
You may not find me a credible source for what gay people know and think. And that’s fine.
But I am sure you will agree that I know more gay people than you do, I am part of the community, I talk with gay folk, read publications, attend functions and parties, watch media, and have a much fuller sense of what is part of the current interest of gay folk than you. So if I say that gay people really don’t know much about ex-gays and generally spend ZERO time contemplating ways to deny their existance, I don’t do so out of ignorance.
Ex-gays should do what all Christians SHOULD do: love their neighbor and support their civil equality. Christians can believe what they like about my soul, but they should not try to harm my life.
Now if ex-gays or other conservatives believe that they have some moral obligation to deny gay people the right to serve in the Military, or if ex-gays believe they have some moral obligation to make sure that gay people cannot provide health insurance for their partner, or if ex-gays believe that they have some moral obligation to make sure that gay couples pay higher taxes, or if ex-gays believe that they have some moral obligation to make sure that gay people cannot have access to their own children, or if ex-gays believe that they have some moral obligation to make sure that civil govenments treat gay couples differently than straight couples, or if ex-gays believe that they have some obligation to make sure that gay people can’t have certain jobs, or if ex-gays believe they have some moral obligation to make sure gay people can’t adopt their partner’s children or any children at all, or if ex-gays believe they have some moral obligation to deny housing or employment or services to gay people (while demanding protection for themselves), or if ex-gays believe that they have some moral obligation to insist that schools demean gay parents to their own children, or if ex-gays believe that they have some moral obligation to disallow immigration of gay partners, or if ex-gays believe they have some moral obligation to just plain treat gay people like sh*t, then there are consequences.
These are all areas in which my life as a gay man is affected. This is not theoretical or theological or disputable or up to debate or reflection. These are real tangible ways in which anti-gay efforts impact the lives of gay men and women.
You see this as having two sides. But these things don’t impact your life. If you lose some battle over whether gay people can immigrate it doesn’t impact your life even in the very slightest. But if we lose then we don’t just lose the debate or the position, we lose our right to be treated equally.
So when someone advocates for these things, we don’t see them as just a political opponent with a different opinion. We see them as someone trying to hurt our lives and our families – because that is the consequence.
Debbie, if you advocate for these things you are my enemy. Not because you are ex-gay, not because you have different politics, but because you are trying to harm me, my life, and my family.
I would much rather have you as my friend and ally.
We can agree to disagree about scripture and faith and sin and salvation, but we cannot agree to disagree about basic civil equality.
@Timothy in response to Evan said,
When I read Evan’s proposal, I too first thought this. Then, I recalled the doctors who for years never really put two and two together about why HBP medicines weren’t working all that well for some of their patients. Even doctors serving primarily African-American patients just assumed the patient wasn’t eating as he should, exercising, etc. or they simply assumed the meds weren’t working. My point is that in reading about many such examples, I was startled at the lack of coordination in information collection and sharing between primary care physicians and others, especially with those who are engaged in research.
Another example close to home–in her hometown hospital, in ICU, close to death and needing dialysis, my sister was trasferred to a hospital 15 minutes away by freeway. She was saved by the ICU intensivist, who administered a medication that two hours later started her digestive system working . In her home hospital, they had tried for 4.5 days to achieve that, with no success. In this age of instant communication, I couldn’t understand why her internists at her home hospital didn’t know of that medication, but none of them, nor any of the other specialists working on her case had even HEARD of it. When I asked the intensivist why they hadn’t, he told me this was a common occurrence in the field, lack of communication. Scary.
Then too, when it comes to pharmacology, everything is dose specific. A certain dose of anti-anxiety meds given for the relief of one symptom may not relieve an associated symptom. This is true of most meds.
So, while I have no position one way or the other on Evan’s hypothesis, I do see that other factors could hide any correlation.
@Timothy, you also said to Evan,
There’s no purpose in language like this, Timothy, and if anyone is certainly not deserving of it, it’s Evan. Yes, you have a right and all, but it’s so unproductive. To have just typed the second paragraph telling Evan of your concerns would have sufficed and served to foster communication.
You said to Mary,
This is ironic since “civil” derives from civility.
Correction–I meant that the last quote from Timothy was to Debbie, not Mary.
Actually, they are both based on the Latin word civis, meaning citizen or townsman. If I recall my 7th Grade Latin correctly (it’s been a while), Civilis would be the plural dative declension meaning “for the citizens” and is the word that worked its way through time to become civic.
… though time to become “civil” (and also “civic”)
Nope, read it carefully and asked you to do the same with mine. You glossed over much of it, so how well you read it I cannot say. I will not do any further rebutting as I’ve said my piece.
I will remind you that I opened my comments stating I bear you no animosity. Ergo, I am not your enemy. I do, however, reserve the right to think for myself and to take reasoned positions on issues of great import to me and mine as well as to you and yours. These are not all simple black-and-white choices.
When I go into a voting booth to do my civil duty, I will vote my conscience, just as you will yours.
When I go into my prayer closet to humble myself before my Heavenly Father, I will remember my neighbor and his need, regardless of whether or not I like him or agree with him.
When I go out in the highways and byways, I will seek to reflect Christ to all I meet. I will do it imperfectly, but will continue correcting my course as the Holy Spirit demands. The written record on this blog will reflect my humility in that regard. I rest my case.
I took four years of h.s Latin–two would have been enough to suit me, but my counselor wouldn’t let me out of the class since there were only 12 students in it; my begging to take Spanish didn’t work. I do remember some basics. I should have known to word my sentence more carefully, but w/out looking it up, I can come back at you by pointing out that “plural dative” is not the “name” of a declension. I do know that a “citizen” was to have acted in a way that fostered a strong and united society . Civility goes a long way.
We’ve all seen enough blogs to know that most people who visit them hurl inane, childish insults at one another. When I happened upon this one, I saw that it brought together an interesting assortment of people–those who are gay, those who are ex-gay, those who are straight, those who are interested in the politics of the gay movement, those interested in the science of sexual attraction, those who are committed to their faith, those who are committed to their faith but who feel their church has let them down…and I suppose it’s because of this last characteristic, the faith one, that I thought the civility of the blog might be maintained.
Then, after a while, I wondered if I hadn’t stepped into a hornet’s nest of politics, that instead of just happening upon individuals who wandered here as individuals as I did, I might have happened upon a blog that was being targeted by either one “side” or both “sides” or who knows by how many sides??
I mean, the thought has occurred to me since in this information age some individuals representing “sides” do monitor sites and organize to shout people down. They don’t exist to promote civil discussion. It’s been years since I have been actively involved in organized politics. My heavy involvement pre-dates the web, but I do know that all kinds of special interest groups involve members in blogging and they have certain tactics they employ.
I didn’t like that I even thought that a possibility, but I wondered because sometimes communication and discussion seem not to be the motive. That is why Eddy’s comment about winning and losing so interested me. He hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned.
Debbie,
I took your words at face value. You wanted to know whether you hurt me and what you could do about it. I told you. You didn’t like the response.
OK.
In defense of ex-gay activism designed to harm the lives of gay people, you said something interesting, Debbie. You said that you reflect Christ to all you meet.
Guess what: some of those who you meet believe you.
They believe that Jesus Christ wants to deny gay people the right to serve in the Military, to ban them from providing health insurance for their partner, to make them pay higher taxes, to take their children away from them, to have civil govenments treat gay couples differently than straight couples, to deny them certain jobs, to refuse them adoption rights, to provide housing, employment, and services protections for Christians but deny them to gays, to have schools demean gay parents to their own children, to disallow immigration of gay partners, and to have his followers just plain treat gay people like sh*t.
That’s what Exodus and other conservatives have “reflected”. And that’s what some gay people believe. Needless to say, they don’t have any use for that christ. He’s evil.
Fortunately, there are many Christians reflecting an entirely different Christ.
Debbie:
Neither do I. That’s what makes their whining about the APA and gay activists so irritating. What do they expect when they keep shooting themselves in the foot — both “scientifically” and in terms of the “experts” they choose.
Timothty:
I Completely agree. After the EXODUS conference last year, I went to about six of the Palm Springs area gay bars — just to take a sort of “pulse”. I asked folks, “So what do you think of all this press coverage the EXODUS conference and controversy about “ex-gays”.?
I got this response, from many, people: “What’s EXODUS?” And laughter at the mention of the term “Ex-gay”. Those of us SSA people who really care about “ex-gay” stuff are very, very few.
And BTW, EXODUS’s ill-advised detour into conservative Republican politics — or any politics for that matter — is completely contrary to the intent and goals of the EXODUS founders. EXODUS was supposed to be, and still should be, a ministry only.
carole,
Your Latin certainly beats mine.
Your lecture on civility is duly noted.
Michael,
The frustrating thing is that most of us want to be well informed. But because NARTH has such a bad (and well deserved) reputation, you can’t believe anything they say.
If they were to come up with some accurate study or new discovery, we’d never know. There’s just no way to fish the truth out of the sludge.
Timothy Kincaid
You’re right, it was my opinion and not yet a fact. But you shouldn’t make fun of my English, because I was born in another language and sometimes I may come across as unclear to native speakers. Just ask me and I’ll clear it up.
I thought about that experiment which it’s not impossible to make, but it’s unlikely it will ever get funded or approved. The idea is based on research that is done by big names in this field of study. So I think their results are solid and they show that gay men feel more anxiety and that that is specific to their orientation.
I’m familiar with a lot of research on the brain and took a course in brain development last year (this stuff is the IT of tomorrow), but I wasn’t very interested in the molecular workings so I won’t comment much on stuff like that. There remains a valid question why gay/bi men who took anti-anxiety medication didn’t feel or didn’t report any significant changes in attractions. It’s possible that there are many ways medications work, they probably address different molecular targets, and there must be different families of anti-depressants/anxiolytics. The few professionals hovering around this blog can confirm you that. What’s more, the brain regions I mentioned are collections of nuclei specialised in different tasks (they’re not so clear cut as apples and bananas), so medication may target different subnuclei inside the same region too.
I’ve googled a few names and found on the Psychology wiki listed an anti-depressant which is also used in treating anxiety disorders and social phobia, it’s called phenelzine. If you scroll down a bit you can find a reference to a paper that mentions an accidental change in sexual behaviour due to administration of this anti-depressant:
Golwyn, D. H., & Sevlie, C. P. (1993). Adventitious change in homosexual behavior during treatment of social phobia with phenelzine: Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Vol 54(1) Jan 1993, 39-40.
I’ve tried locating the study, but the archive from the JCP only starts from 1995, so I don’t know what they reported there. It could be a fluke. If you find the paper, please drop a link here.
Evan – I have the study in my archives and will find it (if possible) and see if I can make it available. Essentially it is a letter from Golwyn and Sevlie describing this case.
Evan,
I did not intend to mock your English. I forget at times that it is not your native tongue.
I did, however, seek to point out that you were making statements of certainty, or near-certainty, which were in reality just guesses.
I look forward to reviewing the paper.
In an article on the Evergreen site in which Dr. Throckmorton argues that sexual re-oriention is possible, he summarizes the paper thusly:
.
How long did that last?
Yep, that’s the one.
Back when I thought one case might be an indicator of the rule; although even then I didn’t make extreme claims for complete change.
RE: Follow up – who knows how long it lasted? That is one of the big problems with this type of study. Without follow up we do not know to what degree such change persists.
I am actually working now on reporting my study of SSA Het Married men and finding that lots of little moves take place. People reported going from gay to bisexual and bisexual to gay and spousosexual (spouse is the only opposite sex attraction) to gay, etc. However, only 2 of 190 said they had no more SSA.
Warren — I hope you will find it. Even if it’s one case, it would be interesting to see if it matches Bailey’s findings on the amygdala from a clinical point of view.
@Timothy
No problem. I learned most of the English I know when I was at university, so I am primarily familiar with using formal language. So I usually don’t write in a pretentious way to get a particular effect, it’s easier to do so because my vocabulary was shaped by studying social sciences. It may take a bit of exercise to tell a good joke, for instance. But some of the friends I talk to in English are sometimes rolling on the floor laughing at my jokes, but it may be because they know even less English.
And of course, if we had good follow-up data, we might find that those two also reported going from gay to bisexual and bisexual to gay and spousosexual (spouse is the only opposite sex attraction) to gay, etc
This proves nothing – except that sexual behavior in males can be rather fluid. That’s not news. It certainly is not proof of orientation change from gay to straight.
SSA men have always made these types of adaptations — for personal, social, economic, psychological and religious reasons. Many marry and have kids. Many experiment with bisexuality. I was ex-gay and I did. “Lots of little moves” does not make one straight.
Remember the Pattison study where only 11 guys “changed” and Gary and I were two of them?. I have had follow-up over the years with some of the other men in that study — and they all moved back and forth…
“Can gays change?” depends entirely on what you mean by “gay” and what you mean by “change”. The people who say “yes” rarely (if ever) explain what they mean by either term — and they tend to act offended when you ask.
@Timothy Kincaid
Re: discussing guesses and hypotheses. If you were around here when Drowssap and I were discussing some ideas on how could results from animal research translate in studies on humans, you might remember that we once debated whether humans might have any remnants of the biological mechanisms regulating gender sense and sexual instincts in mice. It sounds rather extreme to talk about such a topic and we never claimed to have more than an informed opinion. But you know what? The Swedish researcher who published the study on gay-straight-lesbian brain differences, Ivanka Savic, came up with a study which investigated what we were discussing here last year: the possibility that a remnant of the vomeronasal organ in humans might still influence pheromone perception (and thus sexuality, if the same pathways were preserved in mammals). She published the study at the beginning of this year. The results are negative so far, but at least it turns out that our discussion here was timely, because neither of us had any idea that someone was actually doing a study on the subject at that moment. So maybe it’s not so bad when people who are not professionals discuss these issues and come up with some ideas, primitive as they be to researchers, because, as the saying goes in my native language, you never know where did the rabbit pop up from.
/off-topic.
I’m inclined to give a bit more credit to the 2 than is Michael.
It’s not a large number, but if assumptions that there are different paths towards orientation are correct, it would not be out of the question that some small number of persons could reach the stage where they did not conscously experience SSA.
I’ve not heard any credible examples of men before (Stephen Bennett doesn’t count) so I find these two interesting.
Evan,
I don’t know about popping rabbits
but speculation is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s only disadvantageous when we start believing our own imaginings.
I seem to recall that there was a pheremone study some years back that did suggest some association with attraction. I’ll have to take a look at your link and try and find what the old one was about.
I seem to recall that it had something to do with sweat, but that may have been something else.
He he. I just had to tease a little.
I did look for a date as the paper did not seem to be entirely reflective of your current thinking but Evergreen only had 2009 at the bottom.
OK. I think Timothy’s statement is a fair one:
.
True, but same could probably be said of some heterosexuals and their “OSA” as they age. My Mom told me she lost all of hers — but it didn’t make her a lesbian. Just like a small number of folks losing their SSA doesn’t make them straight.
Not just interesting, but since they would be only two out of countless “SSA-only” men who have tried, It would also make them very, very rare indeed.
Particularly if they lost all SSA, developed only OSA and maintained that change over good number of years. If you find such a person,please take a photo. I will put it next to my pics of Nessy and Big Foot.
I believe the date is 2003 but I am not sure.
Michael,
You are aware that hormone levels change over time? That losing libido is not the same as losing attraction. If hormone levels were raised to levels for a younger man or woman, then their libido would likely increase. You have mixed up two ideas. These people who lose some of their attraction to their own sex over time have not commented on their increased or sustained attraction for the opposite sex.
Exactly! You made my point, Mary. Lots of people, SSA or OSA, lose some of their attraction over time. This doesn’t mean they are attracted to a different gender now. They are just less horny. That’s not an “ex-gay”. That’s a SSA person with less drive. Big deal.
So if the question “Can gays change?” is really: “Do some SSA people feel less SSA over time?” The answer is yes.
If the question is: “Do some SSA people develop some OSA over time?” The answer would be yes.
If the question is: “Do some SSA people develop enough OSA to make a straight marriage work?” The answer is yes.
If the question is: “Do some bisexual persons develop more straight feelings over time?” The answer would be yes.
If the question is: “Do some male SSA persons find a way to live with their SSA without actually having gay sex?” The answer is yes, (if you don’t count masturbation to gay fantasies.)
If the question is: “Do some SSA persons learn to live a happy, productive, celibate life in spite of the fact that they are still SSA?” The answer would be yes.
If the question is: “Do some sexually compulsive and self-destructive SSA persons get their addictions under control?” The answer is yes — and so on…
But if the question is: “Do exclusively SSA males lose their SSA entirely and become completely heterosexual instead? The answer, so far as we know now, is NO.
Michael,
You continually confuse and miss the point. A person can change overtime. And yes, their libido will decrease. You have put two events into one. My goodness. Did you really miss that point?
@ Mary:
.
I don’t doubt it. But, change what over time? The question is not “Do many humans (SSA and OSA) have less libido over time? That’s rather obvious.
The question is: “Do exclusively SSA males become exclusively OSA over time?” Or, “Are “ex-gay” males now “straight”?
The answer is NO.
There is a difference between how hungry a person is (their libido) and what (which gender) they are hungry for (their “orientation” or “atrractions”).
A less horny SSA male is still SSA.
Or put it another way — the wind has died down to a gentle breeze, but it’s still blowing in the same direction..
Oh I get what you are saying, unfortunately, Michael, you simply don’t understand that the two events are not inclusive of eachother.
@ Carole and others,
Regarding “civility”…it is a utopian goal and worthy of us and our effort. I am glad so many agree.
It is not the warm mush of “agreeisms.” But firmly and soundly stating facts, perceptions, beliefs and theories which hopefully round out an argument or a topic.
I think it is hard to remain civil, because it builds rapport with people that profoundly disagree with me…I grow to like them and see God’s goodness in their thinking and efforts.
God is bigger than all of us, and any of his ideas cannot be represented fully and accurately by just one of us.
By the way, nice catch on the anti-anxiety medication and the young man with SSA…I think that is a good example of rounding out a point or argument.
@ Michael:
Serious questions:
At what age do we assess for “exclusive SSA males.”? I am thinking that such a label, applied prior to puberty would be too early, maybe by age 18 or 21, or 25. I think this is a variable that should begin to be strictly controlled in future studies (and defined based up on some sound theory).
If Ex-Gay is misleading, and therefore cruel to those seeking truth and hope…then is biological determinism equally cruel (if not more) for those contemplating “what should I do with my feelings?”
@Mary:
Actually, I do understand that.
@David:
Yes, I do think it is misleading, because it implies that the “ex-gay” is formerly SSA, now straight — and that simply is not the case. I don’t think it is always deliberately misleading, but it misleads nonetheless.
I am more with Alan Chambers, who told me “It’s more confusing than anything and doesn’t accurately decirbe what the change process is really all about. I do not think it is “cruel” — just not completely honest.
I would prefer “a person who chooses not to act on SSA for personal/religious reasons”. I would have no problem with that — still SSA but maybe with lots of other positive life-changes.
Why am I somehow against “truth and hope” when I point out the facts? The truth is, they are still SSA. The hope is that positive changes are always possible, though probably not a change from gay to straight.
I am not arguing for biological determinism. I have no idea what “causes” gayness or straightness — and nobody really knows.
The question, “what should I do with my feelings?” is a perfectly appropriate question for both gays and straights. I believe that those SSA persons who call themselves “ex-gay” need to ask it — and so do the rest of us.
By the way, David, I don’t think we need tightly controlled studies to answer the question I posed:
All we really need, at least to start with, is a sizeable sample of guys who claim that they have made and sustained this change (gay to straight) for several years. We can’t find even a handful who will make that claim.
With one possible exception, male ex-gays admit they are all still SSA — not heterosexual. If this complete transformation from gay to straight was actually taking place out there, wouldn’t there be a lot of guys who would announce it? Wouldn’t they be excited? Proud? Eager to tell their stories?
Why can’t we find any? Where are they? Couldn’t EXODUS find some? Couldn’t NARTH? After decades, why are we still looking for that handful?
Well, yeah, Michael. That is certainly one way of looking at it. I would also resubmit what many seem to continue overlooking: that we do not have to be controlled by our sexual impulses and we are not necessarily defined by our sexuality. It is one strong drive, but food hunger is stronger. We can’t survive without food and water. We (individually) can without sex that does not have procreation (what the human race needs to continue) as its objective.
What about our spiritual hunger for God — that God-shaped hole in our hearts? Many are seeking to quench this hunger and thirst but don’t even know what or whom they are looking for. If we were created for communion with Him above all other needs, wouldn’t meeting that need trump all others? And if so, could that state not produce a person who formerly was ruled by what they perceived as a dire need but who now sees life through a different lens and has a freedom from those old impulses? If not, then we must throw out the Word of God and its myriad examples and lessons.
I call such freed folks formers (so did Paul in the New Testament), and that applies to more than just homosexuality. I never have and never will be cowed into believing they must meet certain humanistic litmus-test criteria (absolutely no temptation to their former lust — get real — we are not superhuman) in order to be considered set free from their bondage. Now, I happen to live inside the mind, body and soul of one such individual, so I know this state pretty well. I know who I was and who (and whose) I am. All the nitpicking in the world is not going to change that.
I do exist, and so do others. Why must we continually bark up the wrong tree? You can’t have it both ways, folks. We can’t be blogging and waxing eloquent one day about “bridging the gap” and then go right back to the old rut of redigging the trench between us. A shovel can dig and a shovel can fill in. Which use are we going to make of it?
Please know that I grant all who have no desire or plan to walk away from their same-sex attraction the peace to live as they desire. How on earth can I do otherwise? Time does appear to be on their side when it comes to those “civil rights” they desperately desire. But do not be deceived into thinking that, even after those are all granted and that “equality” in the eyes of the beholder has been achieved, the ideological divide will just melt away. Look around you at the racial landscape. Regardless of whether or not the black civil rights movement equates to the gay civil rights push (it does and it doesn’t), no man or woman or movement has the power to change human nature. But God has the power to rebuild us in His image.
In your 11:45 p.m. post, Michael, you appeared to have a solid handle on this issue. Again, we need to stop obsessing over whether or not any SSA person can totally obliterate those impulses. Because if they have, then I suppose they would be Jesus Christ. The same can be said of all impulses, regardless of whether we consider them to be sin or not.
Lord, how I do tire of trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when folks are dying spiritually and physically right before our eyes. Put any label on me you want. I only answer to the name God calls me by.
Timothy, this is the only example I am going to submit of your selective reading habit. The examples are legion. I said I “seek to” reflect Christ, and that I do it imperfectly, as we all do. If you don’t want us to take anything NARTH says seriously, then how are you going to get around the fact that we have a similar problem with what you are trying to achieve?
I’m sorry to be stern here, but apparently it is necessary. “I took your words at face value,” you said. How could you when you cannot even read them properly? Timothy, the time comes when we all have to take a real and honest inventory of who we are and what we represent. I see very little humility in you, and that is of concern if you want to be taken seriously. But it is not my place to shine that light for you. It’s the job of One far above me.
You have totally misrepresented me and what I have said. So, here we are back at square one. What a surprise! They say insanity is doing the same thing in hopes of seeing a different result. Going in circles is not my cup of tea. And I am far too busy with real life to waste any more time on this nonsense. So, please continue to talk on past each other as it seems to be a favorite pastime of some here. God bless you.
On the group for sexually abused men, there have been a number of men who got into therapy which directly addressed their sexual abuse and who now report (years later) that they no longer have homosexual fantasies or behaviors.
Some throw in a caveat and say things like: “I no longer have sustained homosexual fantasies” — or “I no longer use homosexual fantasy during masturbation”….
I’d assume that what they mean is that there are still “flashes” or thoughts or feelings…. but they’re fleating and no longer direct their sexuality.
One of the problems in finding such men is that 1) men don’t like talking about their sexual abuse histories and 2) they don’t like talking about their previous homosexuality because they’re scared to death that girls will reject them, that their friends will view them as gay and that the world at large will too.
Note: the age of the person seems to matter, which makes sense to me.
And it also seems that most experience their “bisexuality” in the following way: “When I see girls, I spontaneously feel attracted, but I just can’t get sexual. When I see men, I feel drawn, but not sexually attracted, but I can have sex with them at the drop of a hat”. And so forth….
So I think what’s missing, in part, from these studies is, not IF people have attractions, but the TONE of the attractions.
I feel attracted to sado-masochistic sex, and for most of my adultish life, sado-masochistic fantasies have been my preferred masterbatory fantasy. But I don’t think this defines my identity, don’t think I am my fantasies, and certainly never wanted to compulsively act upon them. Frankly, I don’t like them.
There’s a difference in being drawn to something and liking that something, or having that something be an expression of productive stuff — rather than a reflection of non-productive stuff.
Anyway, just seems to me that there’s a difference between a guy who feels positively attracted to men and a guy who feels his attractions are non-productive in a very similar way to my sado-masochistic fantasies.
I COULD go join a sado-masochistic Identity Group, go on marches, etc…. and claim sado-masochism as a part of my deeper Identity. Or I can choose not to. And the reason I choose not to isn’t because of religious reasons or because of internalized sado-masophobia. It’s just that it feels different than my other attractions/fantasies/desires/turn-ons.
Anyway, I find a pausity of description when it comes to these things. Yet doubt we’ll understand much until we get more into the details of people’s attractions.
And doubt we’ll have a political environment in which the soul of SSA men won’t be fought for by the various political camps until we do.
And no matter where people reside in the political debate, it doesn’t seem to me that there’s an atmosphere in which a man can easily find the space for a little self-determination without justifying himself to someone.
Again, another reason why a previously SSA guy probably won’t come out very easily.
And I doubt that, for those who do experince change, they do so in an environment which doesn’t overtly target change as a goal — just adds to the obsession it would seem to me: “Don’t think of that Giraffe”….
Doesn’t really work too well — at least not for me.
Katie
Michael,
The major problem I am having with your list of questions above is that the answer to all of them is in full agreement with what so many who have worked through the issues of unwanted SSA have discovered and are quite happy with, but because the last, single question will not be answered the way you want it answered so you can use it against anyone who tries to overcome the power of SSA over them you are not satisfied. Personally, I am tired of your rhetoric and could careless whether I still have some attraction to other men. Personally, I am thankful that I can find certain men, but definitely not all men, physically attractive. That does not mean I have to sleep with them to be happy and I will also say it does not mean I am gay.
P.S. Due to my personal situation, I’ve been more interested in quality of change or shifts in older men. The odds seem much lower with older as opposed to younger men. Much, much lower.
Still, many older men come to accept their homosexual fantasies more like how I accept my sado-masochistic ones — without shame and guilt, but also not indicating a totalizing identity.
So for people who say things like: “Well, for a guy to claim change, he has to be free of homosexual fantasies” — I ask why?
Afterall, I’m not under any pressure at all to identify as a sado-masochist. Why is that? Not even a partial one, or as a person who is bisexually attracted to both loving sex and sado-masochistic sex….
Why?
Katie
P.P.S.
The quality of discussion on this group is very high.
It’s funny because I’ve tried finding a non-religious group with the same level of discussion — can’t find it.
Which is sort of interesting in and of itself. One would think you religious folk would be more dogmatic than a more secular group….
K.
Sorry, one more thing:
The guys on the sexual support group who end up identifying as straight due so largely because their heterosexual feelings are more related to emotional intimacy. Their homosexual ones aren’t.
Though most still experience homosexual fantasies….
But the difference seems pretty important to me, and one that isn’t being taken into account.
K.
Just wanted to respond to Evan in regard to the amygdala: I’m pretty sure there’s 3 studies out there on trauma and the amygdala which are pretty good. I recently had a discussion with a researcher in regard to eating disorders who thinks they’re heavily influenced by innate stuff. But when pressed, he admits that there’s an environmental factor.
So then we began talking about some studies regarding trauma and the amygdala.
According to him they’re pretty good, with good controls, etc….
And also according to him, the studies which did some follow-up scans are also pretty good in indicating that the amygdala can increase in volume in response to long-term therapy — which he believes means any good, steady, positive, relationship.
But when you’re messed up due to trauma, sometimes you have to pay someone to be an intimate for a while
Anyway, again, it seems to me there’s some pretty good studies regarding this.
And it would be interesting to see a study beginning with this group, find out who does and doesn’t have SSA, grow their amygdalas through positive bonding, and see how they experience their sexuality then….
K.
Katie, I appreciate your perspectives. They add a most interesting element to the discussion here.
.
Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll be getting around this anytime soon. It is a sad fact.
Gee, ya think? Yes, this should be pretty obvious but isn’t. Good point.
@ Debbie:
Are you suggesting that people who accept themselves as gay are “controlled” and do “define themselves” that way? You seem to be arguing that unlike “ex-gays” who fill the hole with God, we “gays” are a bunch sexual addicts, controlled by our sexual desires. Eddy refers to it as “life-dominating” — and who build our identity soley around who we have sex with.
There it is again. Unlike “ex-gays” who lhunger and thrist for God, we “gays” hunger and thrist after the flesh. We still have a “dire need” and are still in “bondage” to “those old impulses”.
I have never said you “don’t exist”. Of course you do. I have no problem that some folks choose not to act on the attractions — and no problem with the idea that some of their SSA diminishes over time.
@Concerned:
There it is again. You are suggesting that “gays” have to, are compelled to, are controlled by their desire to have gay sex. Some are. Just as some straights are controlled by their urges. I asm glad you are happy. But what do you mean by “it does not mean that I am gay”?
What is the difference between having exlcusive SSA anf being “gay”? Is it the word “gay” that upsets you.? You and I both have SSA. Why am I gay and you are not? You may indeed be happy and may not feel much urge to have gay sex, but you’re still SSA, not heterosexual.
Once again, the question “Can gays change?” depends ENTIRELY on what you mean by “gay” and what you mean by “change”.
Why does it bug you guys so much when I ask you to be specific and not just throw Christianese labels around that (intentionally or not) give the impression that you are saying that you are no longer gay?
To me, “gay” and “SSA” are synonyms. What do you guys, Debbie, Eddy and Concerned, mean by “gay”? If you can answer that clearly, I would quit hounding you about the term “ex-gay“. Come on, give it a shot.
Michael Bussey,
I know this question wasn’t aimed at me, but I thought I’d respond anyway.
And I think I can only give an indication — rather than a definition or definitive demarcation — between the difference of gay vs. SSA….
To me, gay implies someone who is capable of a wide range of emotions which get expressed through some level of sexual and/or romantic feelings for the same sex. Anger? Gay. Hostility? Gay. Tenderness? Gay. The wish to hug? Gay. The wish to be assertive? Gay. Submissive? Gay. Happy? Gay. The desire to experience the ugly? Gay. The beautiful? Gay….. etc…..
SSA, on the other hand, often has a very restricted range of emotions attached to it, and often of rather negative ones. Anger? SSA. Hostility? SSA. The wish to be punished? SSA. The wish for homoerotic humiliation? SSA….. Etc….
It’s not the presence of negative emotions that matters. It’s the absence of positive ones, especially the desire to experience intimate joy with another.
To change your question:
What’s the difference between someone who ID’s as a Sado-Masochist and someone like me who doesn’t?
I’d assume that for those who decide to come out as a Sado-Masochist and join marches to gain public acceptance, etc…. do so because they find enough satisfaction in that identity: It makes them happy — gay even.
Whereas for me, having sado-masochistic fantasies doesn’t make me gay. I really don’t like it. And one of the reasons I don’t like it is because of how it FEELS — which is really hard to explain — but I’ll try:
First of all, my S&M fantasies are non-responsive to changing circumstance, they don’t include the particular loved one in my life. When I have them, I’m involved with a faceless person without personality. A no one or every one — but certainly not a some one.
When I try to include in my fantasy my loved one, it really just doesn’t work. It grosses me out because my S&M fantasies are pretty gross. Won’t bore you with details, just take my word for it: gross, or sad, or vacuous — just a broken record stuck on the same old theme.
When I periodically manage to have a more tender fantasy, and especially if I can include my loved one in it — Ah, what a difference. Now I’m in the land of here and now, of the future, of something actually happening. It’s more joyful, hopeful, creative…..
It’s not that I deny that S&M fantasies are a part of who I am, it’s just that I don’t create an Identity around them. I far more identify with my gayer fantasies. And I have never come across a person who would even contemplate for a second that in doing so I’m delusional or politically incorrect.
I think where all this back and forth between you and Debbie and others comes from is an assumption on the part of both that what’s partially true of one person is wholly true of all.
Or at least should be.
In no other area of our sexuality are these assumptions made other than our choice of either men or women as a sexual partner.
Which I find weird. And I find it weird that more people don’t find it as weird as I.
I’m all for gay marriage.
Lots of gay folk are as healthy and messed up as straight folk.
But I also think that for some people, their homosexualtiy is more like my S&M fantasies, and that gay folk should respect this just as much as they respect their own loving feelings towards the same sex.
Besides, I don’t find this a confusing notion at all — the difference between Gay and SSA that is. No more confusing than thinking of my own S&M fantasies.
I know of at least one gay man who has a similar thing going on in regard to his compulsive heterosexual behavior. He has a long-term male lover, but has sex with female strangers, for lots of reasons, not least of which is that he knows it’s more humiliating for his male lover. And this according to his own words.
The assumption that all homosexuality is filled with all that light and good is false. Same with heterosexuality.
K.
Debbie and Concerned:
Am I getting this right? Unlike a “gay” person, you see an “ex-gay” as one who is no longer “ruled”, “controlled” or “dominated” by their SSA — a person who no longer has a “dire need” for, is no longer “bondage” to , is no longer “defined” by their same sex attractions.
A person who used to “have to” sleep with the same sex in order to be happy. A person who used to use gay sex to fill the God-shaped hole. Unlike “gays” who are still addicted, controlled, defined, in bondage and Godless. Is that us?
Katie, the man you describe as a “gay man who has a similar thing going on in regard to his compulsive heterosexual behavior. He has a long-term male lover, but has sex with female strangers” is not gay. He is bisexual.
Definition:
1. attracted to both sexes: sexually attracted to both men and women, or engaging in both heterosexual and homosexual activity
Let’s define some terms. I know ex-gays absolutely hate that, but it is necessary. Otherwise we may not be talking about the same thing at all.
And….
It seems to me that to really get at the difference of opinion between Michael and Debbie they both would have to share their feelings about their own sexual fantasies/attractions.
Intellectual debate is great.
But we are intellectualizing about some of our deepest emotions.
K.
And if for you being “gay” meant bondage, domination, contol, dire need, being defined by it, feeling enslaved by it, having no room for God because of it — no wonder you wanted OUT.
Yes, Michael, he’s bisexual — but in what way?
He’s gay when he’s feeling positive — heterosexual when he want’s to stab his lover in his heart.
That’s very different than someone who finds both men and women cute and sexy.
He doesn’t find women cute and sexy minus having a male lover who he feels compelled to cheat on with women.
So I’m not sure sexual orientation language doesn’t confuse the matter more than it helps clarify it.
Again, I view this guy more like my S&M fantasies — his issue is one of sexual orientation — it’s more about S&M.
Get rid of the need to humiliate his loved one, the heterosexuality falls out.
K.
P.S.
The need to say he’s bisexual sort of gets back to my point about how it is that only in regard to our attractions to either men or women do we feel compelled to claim that such attractions are related to Identity, to the deepest aspects of who we are.
Not so for all other attractions.
Why?
K.
Katie: To me being “gay” just means having homosexual attractions, not heterosexual ones. It doesn’t mean the person is happy and it doesn’t reveal why the person acts out in the manner he does. It doesn’t matter why he does it, or if he likes it, feels “positive” about it, or if he finds both “cute and loveable” — he’s bisexual
I think we make this too complicated. There are standard, English definitions of these terms. Homo = same sex attraction, behavior. Hetero = opposite sex attractio, behavior. Bisexual = both.
“Ex-gays” in particular, resist these definitions. I had one guy on this blog argue that “having attractions to both sexes” was the “secular definition of bisexual” — as if there is some sort of Christian dictionary with more accurate definitions!
Are there differences? Degrees? Varying levels of intensity or frequency? Different motivations? Of course.
Michael,
You are equating thoughts to actual being. If a man/woman thinks of murder – are they a murderer? Of course not. If a man/woman thinks of sex with their own gender does not make them bisexual or gay. I think you oversimplify and over generalize to fit your own broad definition of sexuality. You have to be specific.
Michael,
Like Mary said, your definition of gay, bi, straight, opens up the sexual orientation club to just anyone — even people attracted to shoes, animals and children.
If you want to open up the phrase “Sexual Orientation” in this way, be my guest. I’m not opposed to it.
But most people don’t want to, and for good reasons.
If we want to keep the Sexual Orientation Club open only to those attracted to adult men and/or women, then we have to have a REASON to do so. And it seems to me that that reason is going to be based on things like the ability to feel attracted to another being capable of returning the feelings or not. In other words, it’s going to be connected to the developmental capacity to recognize and respect the subjectivity of the Other.
So using either men or women as pure objects, like one would use shoes, wouldn’t amount to a sexual orientation any more than a preference for shoes would. It would be an attraction, a sexual preference, a turn-on — but not a fully developed orientation.
If you don’t like this, then come up with a reason that a Pedophile can’t join the Sexual Orientation Club…. or someone who likes sex with animals, or shoes, or…..
Katie
Michael,
I resist these over-simplified definitions, and I’m not ex-gay. Not religious. Support gay marriage….
Find some of the feelings people express on this blog regarding their fear that god doesn’t approve of any form of homosexuality to be painful….
But still think that your simple definitions make cookie cutters out of individuals. And I have a secular, non-gay, reason for questioning this
K.
@Mary: I do not agree. Homosexuaily/Murder is not an acceptable analogy.
If one thinksIf a man/woman thinks of sex with their own gender does inded make them bisexual or gay.
Homosexual=SSA=gay. Heterosexual=OSA+ straight. Bisexual+both..
That’s what the words mean. I didn’t make up the definitions. If you don’t like it, take it up with Websters.
Perhaps a better answer might be: to date we do not see any indication of this occuring with any frequency nor do we know of any effective tools by which this can be accomplished. While it theoretically occur, any claims that it does occur should be dismissed unless they are accompanied with valid evidence.
@Kate:
Pardon me, but, really, this is just plain stupid. Come on. There is no “sexual orientation club”. And I am certainly not trying to suggest that every sexual urge or behavior is an “orientation” — and therefore OK — or that every sort of sexual practice (abuse of animals, children or shoes) should be “let in”.
I am simply pointing out that words mean something – and that things get confused when “ex-gays” bend the terms (or invent new ones) instead of simply describing the “change” they are talking about -- using the most easily understood, widely accepted, English, dictionary definitions
Drop the buzzwords, the hype, the Christianese. Drop “ex-gay”, Like Alan Chambers, President of EXODUS, suggested. About the term “ex-gay, he says,
I am with Alan. Just tell your stories.. If Jesus has changed you, say how. If you are still SSA, tells us how you handle it — don’t lead us to believe that Jesus made you straight.
I think that it is a bit of a distraction to counter with biological determinism. Perhaps the bigger question is whether orientation (SSA) is determined, whether biologically or otherwise. In other words, is the experience of same-sex attraction external to the conscious decisions of the individual.
And I think we can all agree that this is the case. Even Joe Nicolosi will acknowledge that same-sex attraction is determined prior to any conscious will on the part of the SSA person.
The debate over whether there is “a gay gene” or whether birth order or hormones or diet other factors are determinant is a bit moot to the fact that there is determinism, whether biological or otherwise.
It is fact – which I think we all can acknowledge – that some persons will experience same-sex attraction and that this attraction is neither selected by them nor avoidable for them. The only question is in how they should respond.
David, it appears to me (and correct me if I’m wrong) that your comments about biological determinism suggest that such persons should not accept as true that they have these attractions and that they should instead seek to rid themselves of such attractions. That to tell them that they are SSA persons and likely to always and forever have SSA is “cruel”.
But if we want to discuss hope then we have to tell the truth. Not the “truth” (i.e. religious doctrine that is not observed in reality) but the fact-based objective truth.
And that truth is that virtually every male person that experiences SSA will ALWAYS have this as an experience. And that to structure their life under the assumption that it will be irradicable is equivalent to structuring their finances under the assumption that they will suddenly be discovered to be the true heir to the throne of England.
To encourage such assumptions is, in my opinion, the most cruel of all.
Any response to SSA men needs to begin with the assumption that this particular person will always experience SSA and then move on to involve moral, religious, and practical responses to this fact.
One more time, this time without the typos: Alan Chambers, on the term “Ex-gay”:
Michael,
Like all dictionaries, Webster’s uses concise definitions, they don’t claim to get into nuances, but nuances are pretty important.
If you look up “repression” in Webster’s you’ll get a partial definition compared to, say, a dictionary devoted to words commonly used in psychology. In a dictionary devoted to psychology, you’ll get a longer, more complicated, definition.
Same with things like straight, bi, gay.
Anyhow, glad you don’t want to include Pedophilia under the umbrella of “Sexual Orientation”.
But WHY don’t you?
Like straights, gays and bisexuals, they’re simply attracted to children.
This is an important question.
So, again, WHY don’t you want to include Pedophilia?
Or, if you prefer, why doesn’t Webster’s?
There IS a reason — what do you imagine it might be?
K.
Timothy – I like the nuance in that statement regarding change.
Michael – I am not you are catching the nuance Katie is bringing. First of all, I do not think her points are stupid, any of them. I think she is raising the points that make this whole area so contentious.
Independent of “straight by faith” designations, there are people who are kind of mixed orientation. I have been looking for some analogies and mixed race came to me but I am not sure this works either.
People who are mixed orientation can feel quite emotionally drawn to the same sex but have little to no sexual urges in that direction. Or they can feel like sex would be good with the same sex but have no emotional pull that way at all. Congruence is what most gays and straights feel (attraction, desire and emotional complementarity all goes one way to one sex). However, there are people who are not congruent and vary according to circumstance. You can call that bisexual but within that category there is lots of mischief….
Michael,
MOST men and women have had same sex thoughts – MOST people are not SSA.
Mary said:
I really doubt that. More women than men, perhaps, but the research I have seen disagrees with that. In our research, anyway, we are not seeing it.
Timothy,
The word’s still out on whether not one single male has ever at one point experienced SSA and at another not.
Again, on the support group for sexually abused men, there seems to be a few.
I have no reason not to believe them, though others might have their reasons not to believe them.
I would imagine that it would be more difficult, not less, to let one’s attractions go where they may when there’s so much pressure to make them go where one feels they must….
Anyway, seems pretty much like selective attention to pay attention only to “ex-gays” in regard to the possibility of change.
There’s secular, non-believing, guys out there who also claim to no longer have homosexual attractions.
K.
….. and yes, even they might have “residual” feelings — but I’m not at all sure that their residual feelings aren’t the same type of experiences straight men have. Or men who would score 1/2 on the Kinsey scale — or who are viewed as straight enough to be awarded public recognition as straight.
K.
RE: Pedophilia – Apples and oranges to compare with adult sexual orientations. Children have no ability to participate as an equal or with consent. Hence, the distinction from adults being attracted to others of equal sexuality. And clearly, socially we need to create bright red lines of distinction.
OK, maybe not stupid. It’s offensive. She seems to be saying, “Well gee, if we let in those gays, we will have to let in everybody!”. There is no “club” to open up.
She seems to be using “orientation” to mean “natural or common, therefore OK”. I do not think that all sexuality is healthy, moral? TO me, “orientation” is a completely neutral term. It refers only to the direction on the desire, not their “OK-ness”.
@Warren: This is very wise:
I like the “not congruent” idea very much. Whether or not the attractions are congruent to one’s values or psyche is very important. And as you know, I have no problem with people who find their attractions “not congruent” and seek some sort of resolution so that they they can feel more congruent.
Debbie
OK. I apologize for the deletion of those two words.
Please accept my revised comments to read:
moving on…
You’ve spoken before of humility
I’m reminded a bit of Uriah Heep.
But yes, it is always important to take a real and honest inventory of who we are and what we represent. I quite agree.
It’s the language I have a big problem with…I agree with Alan Chambers. Just describe the change – or if you must coin new terms to describe the “process” or use confusing, vexing, provocative words like “ex-gay”, at least give us the best definition you can. Tell us what has changed. Is that too much to ask?
Katie:
Really? Where? We can’t even find Christian guys to make that claim. And God can do anything, right?
Warren,
It’s not always a case of apples and oranges: Ted Bundy, etc…
I doubt Ted Bundy a fully developed heterosexuality, because he didn’t have a fully developed developmental capacity to do just what you say distinguishes adult sexuality from pedophilia — the recognition and respect of the Other’s subjectivity.
And that’s my point: The notion of “Sexual Orientation” implies this developmental capacity. Period.
It’s the only thing that creates that clear, red line.
But you can be attracted to either adult males or females, and still not have this capacity, or at least not much of it.
Ted Bundy, etc…
So when someone claims that sexual orientation is defined merely by some attraction or another, irrespective of their developmental capacity to respect the other’s subjectivity, as long as it’s directed at adult males or females, I don’t think they REALLY mean this.
Or if they do, then they have to explain why it’s a part of sexual orientation to be attracted to killing adult women, but not a part of sexual orientation to be attracted to children….
But as you answered, and what I think most people mean, is that we assume that attractions to adult humans also implies the developmental capacity to recognize and respect the subjectivity of the Other.
But it doesn’t always imply this.
Michael,
Read what I’ve written a bit more carefully.
All I’m asking is why we allow Ted Bundy into the umbrella of sexual orientation, but not a guy who likes shoes?
You might find the question offensive, but that’s just because you want to defend something regarding adult attractions to other adults.
But I doubt your defense is about adults and adults of any kind whatsoever.
It’s about defending our human capacity to view others as fully human.
Period.
So again, my point is that we assume that sexual orientation is about more than brute attractions to adults — it’s about this capacity to relate to others in a way that respects their autonomy and humaness.
K.
Warren, I appreciate that you continue to address the facts:
.
And this, about the assertion that most people have SSA:
Katie,
That is a real point. How do we appreciate the sexuality and the person involved in our sexual life. Are they an object or really a human whom we care about? Do we treat them as something for our own gratification or do we enjoy that which we contribute to their whole being?
Katie,
I believe we have discussed this at length. Remember the compass illustration?
At some point this question begins to resemble, “why aren’t butterflies a type of flower?” The only answer is: because that’s not what the word is used for.
Just as “flower” is not the word for ‘all pretty things’, Sexual Orientation isn’t the term for ‘all things one may involve in sexual fantasy’.
There’s no “why” about it.
Sexual orientation is not an “umbrella” under which many things are covered. It is, instead, a term that identifies whether the gender of the adult person to whom one is attracted is the same as one’s own, the opposite, both, or neither.
It does not measure whether you like big butts, whether she’s got hips and knows how to use them, whether you wish you had Jesse’s girl, or whether smoke gets in your eyes.
Mary,
Thanks for not calling me stupid
Michael,
Mary doesn’t think I’m stupid
But really, this notion is implicit in discussions of sexual orientation, even if it’s not mentioned out right.
It’s implicit in Webster’s too.
And to follow up on what Warren wrote about non-congruance — it seems to me that a lot of the guys who are non-congruent are non-congruent because one sex or the other is being taken as a sexual object to a high degree, and that when you look their capacity for mutual relatedness within a dyadic relationship, they’re capacity for mutuality is higher in regard to the sex with whom they don’t have sex.
It’s often emotional/sexual splitting, which we see all the time in heterosexual and gay people, and aren’t all that mystified by it.
It’s only when the same type of splitting includes bisexual splitting that we now get all caught up in finding their sexual orientation terribly mysterious.
But that’s because we’re stuck in assuming that all attractions aimed at adults is the result of sexual orientation, and that our sexual orientation is unique, and completely different than any other set of attractions.
Which is at least questionable.
K.
I think it is legs and knows how to use them (could be hips I guess but then it wouldn’t be ZZ Top).
Ah, Jesse’s girl – great song.
All of which made me think of Toto.
TGIF
Timothy,
But when you create the compass, then define it, then create, then define it…..
We can ask why we feel compelled to both create the compass and define it in the way that we do.
Those who are out in the streets fighting for their equal rights to Identify as Sado-Masochists don’t like that the compass doesn’t include them.
Same with certain groups who promote attractions towards children.
So, no, Timothy, simply responding that the powers that be both created and defined the compass and that’s all there is to it, doesn’t get it.
No more than when heterosexuals defined the compass to include only heterosexuality, and dismissed all forms of homosexuality as a fetish.
So you might feel like it’s an old, already answered question, but you haven’t actually answered the question.
Accept to point out that the compass which used to hold only heterosexuality now holds any old attraction of any type to any adult.
K.
Katie,
I think you misunderstand. The term “sexual orientation” is already taken. It doesn’t “include” anything or anyone, it isn’t an umbrella, and it isn’t another word for attraction.
If you’d like to coin a new phrase, feel free.
We could, I suppose, have katiecannonism, which can mean an umbrella that includes Ted Bundy, pedophiles, and shoe fetishists, the disconcordant, those with a capacity for mutual relatedness within a dyadic relationship, and anything else you’d like.
But as for the term “sexual orientation”, that one isn’t up for redefinition.
It’s not even questionable.
Katie, I don’t think you are stupid. I think your analogy was.
Orientation only means the “prevailing direction” — as in the Church is built with an east/west orientation. Or the compass needed is oriented north.
As Timothy has pointed out “orientation” in this context refers to:
You are confusing”paraphilia” with “orientation”
From the DSM:
People of all orientation, can have paraphilias. They are different things.
Warren: Back to your idea of congruence, perhaps we need to look at several, different scales;
(1) Is the person SSA, OSA or some combination?
(2) Are these attractions primarily emotional, erotic, romantic? A combination?
(3) Are these attractions experienced as wanted or congruent with one’s values, self-image, etc.?
(4) How strong are the attractions? How intense? How frequent?
I am sure there are many, many more. SSA’s who like it. SSA’s who don’t. SSA’s twho do it. SSA’s who don’t. SSA’s who base their “identity” on it. SSA’s who don’t. SSA’s who already had some OSA. SSA’s that didn’t. Etc., etc.,etc…
Timothy,
The phrase “sexual orientation” was “taken” 30 years ago too, and didn’t include homosexuality, cuz homosexuality was considered a fetish or paraphilia….
So, now it’s “taken” again…. so one can’t question HOW it’s taken, how it’s used, what it means?
Come on, that’s silly.
And STILL doesn’t get at WHAT we mean by the phrase, especially what we implicitly mean whenever we say anything at all beyond “the general direction of one’s attractions in regard to men, women, or both”.
Michael,
No, I’m not confusing sexual orientation with paraphilias, though I think most discussions tend to once we get beyond the definition of sexual orientation as being “the general direction of one’s attractions in regard to men, women, or both”….
Because the above definition does not exclude things like paraphilias, so paraphilias are allowed to sneak in as long as your paraphilia belongs to the body of an adult.
But we don’t REALLY mean this, because we don’t want to let paraphilias in….
But if we claim that adult attractions can be pretty much like a paraphilia, then we’re told that we’re prudes, stuck in the dark old days of Victorianism, etc…. And that all our attractions to adults should be freed from these dark shackles because our sex is the most important source of freedom…. etc….
So….
Am I confused between the two? I’ll answer differently than above — probably.
Are you?
Probably.
Because I think our whole notion of sexual orientaton is pretty darn confusing, and promotes this confusion.
K.
And Micheal and Timothy,
Neither of you have yet answered the question:
Why do we protect the notion of sexual orientation? Why do we even want to make a distinction between orientation and a fetish?
Did Ted Bundy have a sexual orientation, or did he suffer from fetishes?
And before you simply answer with “both” — if he killed both men and women, would he have been a bisexual? Or simply a murderer?
K.
No Katie,
You’re just flat wrong.
The phase “sexual orientation” does not “include” homosexuality, or not in the sense that you mean. Not now, not 30 years ago, nor tomorrow.
It isn’t a bucket. Or an umbrella. It just isn’t.
And until you realize that the phrase “sexual orientation” is not a collective term that includes various things, your arguments will continue to befuddle and bemuse.
Sexual orientation was a phrase invented to explain a very specific thing.
It was not coined to describe all of ones attractions. It was coined to describe the gender of the person to whom one is attracted. It only asks one question (just one). It asks: “same or opposite”. That’s all.
And there are only four things described because that is the maximum number of answers: 1) Same, 2) Opposite, 3) Both, 4) Neither
These are answers for which there are also descriptive to go with these four answers: 1) Homosexual, 2) Heterosexual, 3) BiSexual, 4) Asexual
Homosexuality wasn’t “added” 30 years ago.
In Iran where they kill gay folk, “same” (homosexual) is still one of the four possible answers. In Sweden, where gay folk can marry, “same” (homosexual) is still one of the four possible answers.
Because sexual orientation says nothing about societal approval or social standing. It has never – EVER – been used to mean “acceptable attractions”.
And one of the possible answers to the gender of the person to whom one is attracted is not “shoes”. Because “shoes” is not a gender. Nor is S&M a gender. Nor is “little children” a gender.
You may really really really want sexual orientation to mean something else, but it simply doesn’t. And the reason is not about acceptablity or inclusion or PC or anything else. It’s because sexual orientation only asks one question.
If you want to ask a different question you certainly can. You can ask about height or shoes or S&M. You just can’t call it sexual orientation.
OK, you’ve been asking a lot of questions, Katie. I have one for you:
Why isn’t “red” a number?
@Katie: This is silly:
A definition doesn’t have to specifally exclude all other things not covered by the definition. If it did, we would have definitions like “DONKEY: Equus africanus asinus, is a domesticated member of the Equidae or horse family, and an odd-toed ungulat – not a tangerine.”
Because they are different things.
I think you are. It helps to consult several different dictionaries if you are not sure what words mean.
From what I have read, he was heterosexual. He was also a socio-path and a serial killer. Once again, your analogies are spurious. See, I didn’t call you stupid.
OK, that’s stupid. If he killed both he’s still a murderer. If he ensnared, raped, tortured and killed both for sexual pleasure, he sould be a sociopathic, sadistic, bisexual murderer.
Timothy,
Sexual orientation is a fairly new term, and while I haven’t read everything written on the matter, there’s certainly been an evolution in it’s use over the years.
And yes, many people have excluded homosexuality from it’s umbrella, preferring to put homosexuality under the umbrella of a fetish.
Gee, I can’t spend time directing you to such things, and I’m pretty certain you yourself know this anyway.
But Freud, for instance, wavered between seeing homosexuality as an orientation and seeing it as more like a fetish, despite the fact that, considering his time and place, he was pretty forward looking when it came to the matter.
Further, many people, many, many, have, and I think rightly, tried to sort out the difference between an orientation and fetishes, and how fetishes play into, or not, our orientations.
If a guy is attracted to breasts, and really doesn’t care about anything else about women — not if they’re tall, short, pretty, ugly, nice, mean, etc…. has no interest whatsoever in their personhood, many, many, people would distinguish this from an orientation and call it a fetish.
Who? Other than me?
So many people that all I can do is suggest you look up words like “partialism”.
And undoubtedly things like this get people confused, just as there’s indication that things like this confused Freud’s feelings about homosexuality — cuz he had contact with both gay men and men who had things going on that are more like fetishes than what we now consider to be a sexual orientation.
Going back to your definition:
Not everybody accepts it’s simplicity — so it’s not a matter of a Katie-ism. It goes to the heart of much of this debate.
My own suspicion is that a guy with a more or less fully developed homosexual orientation doesn’t experience a lot of fluidity or change.
But that change is seen more in men who have “partialism” — or “incongruence”– or not a fully developed orientation to begin with. Or, dare I say? that his homosexuality is more like a fetish — more an attraction to one’s own self-state than an attraction to others in their own right.
And that true bisexuality is rare.
I guess I could ask if an attraction to penises is the same as an attraction to men?
K.
On the Eastern side of our great land, it is just about quitting time, so this is my last contribution for the afternoon.
I am somewhere between in the sexual orientation wars. I understand the need and desire for precision but I have problems with the concept of sexual orientation as well. And so do many researchers who often break it down into sexual attraction and sexual preference and sexual behavior, etc. (thinking of M. Bailey in that regard). However, I think the references to fetishes obscures more than it clarifies.
Lisa Diamond also has some thoughts on the topic and I invite all to read this article (What Does Sexual Orientation Orient….?) which I think is a solid piece.
Diamond deals with the incongruences that I raise and indicates that the proper understanding of sexual behavior and attraction requires an understanding of the attachment processes which are interdependent with sexual desire.
Hope everybody stays in one piece.
Michael,
I don’t go into reading a bunch of dictionaries, but I have read quite a bit on sexuality, so it’s not that I don’t understand the terms.
Considering my situation, I’ll take a stab at guessing that I’ve read more than most people about partialism, fetishes, and the like.
My point is — I think — that when someone claims that for a person to say they’ve experienced a change in their “orientation”, though they still have fantasies of a homosexual nature, we can ask further questions — like — just what attracts them?
A penis? Irrespective of all other qualities?
If the answer is yes, is he really still SSA in a sexual orientation way?
Is an attraction to penises an orientation as long as that penis belongs to adults?
K.
And the question is relevant because in my experience, most men who have a penis fetish would rather claim an orientation as bisexual or gay than to claim they have a penis fetish.
K.
Katie: A feitsh is: Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
And people of all orientations can have them. They are different things. Only you want to make them the same, for some reason. It seems to me that you are actually saying is: “if we say that homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are all “orientations”, that means we have to say everything is and anything goes…let everything join some sort of “club:” make everything OK, let perverts sneak in to the party.
Warren,
It can obscure.
But not dealing with it can also obscure.
Like I bet it obscured Bailey’s studies, which is probably why he’s now studying fetishes.
We won’t understand orientation without understanding fetishes, or at least I don’t think so.
K.
Orientation is simply whether the attractions are SSA, OSA or both. Fetishes, paraphilias — mass murderers — are a different subject. Why do you want to equate them?
Or put it another way, if I am arroused by men’s black leather boots, then my orientation is gay, but my fetish is boots. I have both — an orientation and a fetish.
.
Michael,
I’m not making them the same.
They are different.
And you’ve totally missed my point, which is either because I”m not very clear or you’re stupid
Ok, maybe both….
What I’m saying is that sexual orientation is MORE than brute, any sort-of, attraction.
It’s an attraction to an Other, to another Subject, to another subjectivity, to a PERSON.
There’s a developmental notion built into the idea of sexual orientation.
A valuable one.
And that when we ignore this implicit notion of moral development, then we loose track of what we mean by the phrase sexual orientation to begin with.
And this, it seems to me, muddies the waters when it comes to a lot of the research in regard to things like change, etc….
Studies on the relative levels of anxiety among straight vs. gay men, etc….
And so on….
And it also creates a political atmosphere in which it’s very difficult for men who seem to be “bisexual” in an orientation sort of way to be allowed to “change” due to internal feelings, like the simple desire to more fully develop their capacity to relate to others as Subject with Subject.
And my point is just that simple.
K.
Ok, I lied.
Sure, Bailey wants to understand what directs (orients) sexual interest toward whatever (people, things). I do as well. However, sexual orientation as a construct is limited to people. If you mean orientation in the sense of direction then the world opens up. But if you Sexual Orientation as a socio-psycho-legal construct, I think speaking about it along with fetishes is confusing.
People in the biz want to know what cause neurons to fire upon awareness of a cue – lots of cues under lots of circumstances. However, when discussing pair bonding and relationships, I like keeping it to peeps.
DId I mention it was Friday?
In response to the boot thing….
And if you’re attracted to penises, but not men qua men?
K.
Two lies…
Hey Michael, what if you (not me, well not you but someone) are turned on by men’s boots only when a blond girl is wearing them?
I really gotta quit…
Ah, but there you go again… pair bonding….
Me too
And this whole issue of pair bonding is pretty darn important, and without it, you don’t get a fully developed orientation.
And I suspect that most people who experience change in their orientations, didn’t have one to begin with because the stuff out of which we become capable of pair bonding was interrupted.
But, it’s also the case that I’ve been immersed in the whole issue of sexual abuse, emotional neglect, physical terror, etc….
And, at least in this population, fluidity and change seems directly related to one’s capacity for intimacy, or pair bonding.
And that the issue really isn’t one of sexual orientation, but of attachments, or lack thereof.
K.
As far as I know, they come attached.
Are they anxious because they are gay, or anxious because they have been taught they are not OK if they are? I am sure Jews under the Nazi’s had high levels of anxiety. It proves nothing about being Jewish.
Who’s ignoring that? Moral development is not the same as psychosexual development. Sexual oriientation is about direction of desire. Moral development is about distinguishing right from wrong.
What? Who isn’t “allowing bisexual men to change”? I know of know “political atmosphere” that tries to limit a bisexual man’s desire to change anything he pleases — including a fetish, if he has one.
What on EARTH are you talking about? Everyone, gay, straight or bi would be well-advised to “more fully develop their capacity to relate to others as Subject with Subject.” You implying that gayness is all about objectification — therefore a fetish. Not so.
Katie
Nope. You are talking nonsense.
Now that sounds rude, but it is no more rude than you insisting that orientation is an umbrella. Again and again. Over and over. Rudely ignoring what anyone else says.
To address Warren’s reference to Diamond. We can argue about whether orientation is determined by attraction or love or romance or desire, but it is always defined by either being towards the same, the opposite, both or neither sexes.
And one can argue that one doesn’t like the concept of orientation. But we don’t get to pick and choose what is an orientation.
As for being attracted to penises, it may come as a surprise but a penis doesn’t have a gender. Nor does a breast. Or an elbow. Or a shoe. Or a canteloupe.
Katie, I’m beginning to think that you are being contrarian. I think you are just trying to get a reaction. You’re trying to muddy the waters and pretend not to understand and bringing up absurdities all for your own agenda – perhaps because you too dislike the concept of orientation, or perhaps in compliance with the anti-gay talking points, or perhaps just to get a laugh. I don’t know or care.
Whatever your thing is, I’m done playing your game.
Well, I am incredibly dizzy after reading this, but I think at the very end I understood what Katie was actually saying, and no, Michael, I don’t think she is saying at all that “gayness is all about objectification–therefore a fetish. ” I think she has said that she believes there are homosexual and heterosexual orientations, and I don’t think she finds homosexuality inferior to heterosexuality.
What I think she is saying is that among some with whom she has worked, (males who have been abused), she has seen some men who until they sought help in the group never had the capability to establish intimacy with anyone of either sex before, and that these men’s sexual identities were hard to figure (homosexual? heterosexual? bi? neither?) because they weren’t wholly and healthily emotionallly developed human beings because of their trauma in youth.
Thus, I think what she has been saying is that in some of these men she has seen (or been told of ) change. The “change” is that they have moved from being someone with sexual fixations to someone who is forming an actual sexual orientation (it matters not if that orientation is homosexual or heterosexual.)
Katie, I may have screwed up what you were trying to say, but I gave it a go. Sorry if I am not on target. If this isn’t “it,” I give!!!! LOL.
If a lesbian uses a male shaped dildo while engaging in sex with her female partner – is she straight?
If a man recieves / experiences anal stimulation by his wife/or female partner with a male shaped dildo is he gay?
If my shrink asks me about an experience with a woman and she tries to put herself in my shoes is she gay? Am I gay? Or are we imagining and remembering something?
If a person has a sexual dream about their own gender and has an orgasm in the course of that dream, are they gay?
Give me a break, will ya? Why is this so damn difficult? Why do you want to make is so complicated?
A person is gay if their orientation (SSA) is toward the same sex, straight if toward the opposite and bisexual if both. EASY. SIMPLE. Even my five year old daughter got it.
One day, at the park, she said, “You really love Gary, don’t you?” I said, “Yes”. She said, in a very off-the-cuff tone, “That means your gay…” and went back to her coloring book.
I asked her later, “Do you know what gay means, honey?’ She said, “Yeah, it means you like men, not women.” I didn’t have to tell her this stuff. She got it.
.
Regardling Carole’s comment that Katie may be basing her thoughts on the work she has done with abused men:
I have no doubt that some SSA men “never had the capability to establish intimacy with anyone of either sex beforebecause they weren’t wholly and healthily emotionallly developed human beings because of their trauma in youth.”
That’s a subset of SSA men. And I am glad to hear that they have healed to the point that they can now experience such intimacy.
But there is a lot that is undefined. And in no way would I present these kinds of questions to a child.
Still, you have avoided answering some basic questions. You say if you’re attracted to the same gender then you are gay. Yet, when confronted with some abiguity you start name calling again and are determined that I (an ex gay woman) don’t understand this part of sexuality?
Strange.
Question for any “ex-gay”, “former homosexua” or “from gay” on this blog: Are you now heterosexual? Be truthful.
ooop – ambuguity.
still can’t spell – ambiguity.
By your definition Michael – no one is heterosexual.
@MIcheal,
Read what I said a second time:
I didn’t refer to the men as either SSA or OSA for a reason–because her point was that these traumatized men might be moving in a healthy direction toward an actual orientation, no matter which orientation! That’s what I took her mention of “pair bonding” to mean. I don’t know why you added the “SSA” adjective.
I take it that the men in that “survivors’ group” which she has mentioned to us several times are men of both hetero. and homo. and maybe bi orientations. It seems to me that her point is that if they move to a healthy psycho-sexual place because of therapy, it matters not if they move to heterosexuality or homosexuality.
If I am right in interpreting what she was saying, her point is that they “change” by moving to an orientation, something they didn’t have before. All they had before were fixations–my word.
I was very confused by what she was saying until her post of 6:05. That one I understood! (I think!)
Mary,
I’ll take your questions as though they are serious. And we’ll see if these easily fit the description.
If a woman is attracted to women then she is gay regardless of whether her partner is using an implement to stimulate her of any shape.
A man who is attracted to women is straight regardless of whether he enjoys anal stimulation or what implement he and his female partner uses.
Imagining yourself in anothers shoes does not impact one’s own race, gender, height, or sexual orientation. But it does lend oneself to empathy.
If this recollection elicits a rush, an emotional tug, a heightened heartbeat, and a sense of longing, then yes you are probably same-sex attracted. Otherwise, I don’t know.
And yes you are imagining and remembering something. This recollection may not say anything about your orientation. But if it impacts you, it very well might.
Well, that would be a pretty good reason to consider that the might be. Dreams are not always literal, but few people who are not same sex attracted would be likely to orgasm to same-sex dreams. If this were a regular occurance, then I’d say that the chances were pretty good.
@Mary:
.
No. It’s not my definition. It is the commonly accepted, very widely used, easily understood (even by young children) ,dictionary definition. Not some vague, provocative or vexing term like “ex-gay” that someone made up years ago — to attract media attention — and never got around to defining.
By the dictionary definition of the English word “heterosexual”, there are billions of them — folks that have OSA, but not SSA. BIllions of them.
Now kindly answer the question. Are you (ex-gays and former homosexuals) heterosexual or not? If yes, what do you mean by that? If not, why not?
Anyway, off to beautiful Palm Springs with with my boyfriend (we are both homosexually oriented) to indulge our “fetish”. The weather may be too warm for it (105 today) but we are still taking the black boots.
Timothy,
I see it very differently.
A person can think about SSA and become sexually excited just because they are thinking of sex in general. A person who was molested can have an orgasm during dreams that are similar to the molestation. A woman or man can experience an orgasm while being raped and that does not make them a masochist.
Something that both you MIchael and Timothy have failed to ask is this: What does the person experiencing the event think and feel about it. Besides just physical arousal (which can be done by a machine) there is much more to sexual attraction, orientation and orgasm than just parts.
I am heterosexual. Sorry to dissappoint you. I remember but do not fantasize nor engage in SSA of any kind anymore. That is not to say that things could not change in the future.
I have another question: If a man watches two women having sex is he a lesbian or a gay man? Afterall, he is excited by non-heterosexual sex?
He’s a megalomaniacal heterosexual who thinks he’s god’s gift to women.
.
He sure as heck isn’t gay. I had to turn that stuff off when it came on Queer as Folk.
Also Mary it’s the same reason straight women like to watch to guys going after each other …. or at least my straight women friends have so told me.
Bailey (Baily?) did that work on arousal and did find that gay men were not attracted to watching lesbian sex, but could be aroused by straight sex, simply because a man was in the picture. Same reason straight men were turned off by watching two gay men but would watch two lesbians.
Carol,
Yes, you got what I was saying.
And if I get Bailey correctly, his bisexual studies have naturally lead him to look at fetishes, because, for instance, if a bisexually identified man reports he’s bi, but only gets a hard-on when viewing men, it MIGHT be that the reason is because he gets a hard-on when looking at penises, and as Michael pointed out, penises just so happen to be attached to men.
Michael,
I in NO way think homosexuality is a fetish or fixation.
I do think there are people who have fetishes, and all that other stuff, like relating fully with others, does not direct their sexual arousal patterns very much.
Timothy,
You’re often just rude. And when did asexual be allowed onto the compass of sexual orientation? Allowing it on is still a contentious issue in the world at large, and generally speaking.
But asexuality certain brings up interesting issues in regard to sexuality and sexual orientation, and the ways in which we employ these words.
Whoever,
It’s one thing to read studies, they’re really interesting, and have lots to say. I’m particularly attracted to studies on the brain when it comes to these issues.
But studies don’t take the place of what Mary mentioned: more in depth understanding of a person’s feelings.
I’ve spent the last 4 plus years engaged with groups for “mixed orientation couples” — 3 groups in this category. A group for “bisexual” people. And 2 groups for sexually abused men, especially one called Malesurvivor.org. I mention it’s name because the posts are public — you don’t have to join to read what people say. And because I believe it was Michael who wondered where I have run across men who claim change in orientation — it’s on this group.
In the groups for mixed orientation couples, there seems to be some men and women who seem sufficiently engaged with others who are bisexual, bisexual in the full, orientation, pair boding sense of the word. I believe bisexuality exists, and not just in women, though it seems rare — at least among the hundreds of people who join groups for mixed orientation couples.
Most seem to have an emotional division profound enough that I question if orientation is the right word to use.
For instance, many of the men are far more involved with penises than either men or women. Many say that if women had a penis, then that would be the best, and they’d be satisfied, and wouldn’t have sex with men.
Most of the bisexual men use what’s called “outlets” to satisfy their “homosexual” desires, some going so far as pasting penises about the house, and requesting their wives walk around the house with a strap-on. It’s no JUST anal stimulation they want: it’s a working penis, the penis visually arouses them — as well as the idea of being penetrated…. etc….
Why does this matter?
To me it matters in the following ways:
1) When every magazine in America puts out headlines stating that bisexual men are lieing, and are really just gay, it matters. And it seems to me it matter to Bailey as well.
2) Words are really important, and when you’ve got a guy who can’t decide between a loving relationship with a woman and a penis, then confusing this with an indecision between a loving relationship with a woman or a man really isn’t very helpful. And while we might say that the project to change one’s sexualized longings for love is problematic, I doubt anyone would seriously deny a person’s decision to attempt to reduce their focus on body parts and increase their focus on people — wherever they may lead in terms of orientation.
Gay people can be overly vitriolic in claiming that the guy just needs to come out of the closet, and straight people can be overly vitriolic in claiming that one drop of “homosexual” interest pushes them permanently into batting for the other team.
3) While I doubt that such things influences the outcome of most studies which recruit their volunteers from Gay publications, I suspect that this stuff clouds research into bisexuality quite a bit.
And by the way, while most of the people on the groups for mixed orientation couples and bisexuality are male, there are some women. And even among the women, it’s not the type of bisexuality that gets reported in the press. Yes, there are women who are truely bisexual, but there are also women who’s only desire in regard to sex with women is to go to strip clubs and get lap dances or hire a prostitute. While I have yet heard a woman go on and on breasts in the way the men do about penises, there are women who have no interest in the person of their female sex partner, they’re not after relationship, they’re after a “soft object”.
While things like penises vs. breasts and hard vs. soft bodies informs all of our sexuality, I’m not attracted to men only because I’m attracted to hard rather than soft.
And all of this, as Mary has implied, brings out the necessity of including our fantasies, our inner states, our feelings, our histories, our development, our relative capacities for what Buber called an I and Thou relationship — bonding, etc….
Sexual response patterns alone does not an orientation make.
Katie
Lynn David,
I’ve known lesbians who’s porn preference is male homosexuality.
Gay men who watch straight porn and don’t like gay porn.
Gay men who watch lesbian porn.
Straight women who watch lesbian porn.
Etc….
And straight men who watch lesbian, not because they think they’re god’s gift to women, but because there’s no penis at risk — cuz it’s safely in their own hand, under their own control.
And some who watch it because they enjoy imagining themselves as a woman.
And… other reasons too.
Which again brings up the importance of fantasy.
Some bisexual men are bisexual in their gender sense as well, and when they feel like feeling like a man, they like to have sex with women. When they feel girly they like to have sex with men.
K.
Timothy,
Don’t you think that one of the reasons NARTH is annoying is because at least some involved don’t view homosexuality as ever an orientation? They think it’s always a fixation on the lost father figure, an instance of arrested development, etc…
Yes, they use the words “Homosexual”, “Homosexuality”, “those oriented towards men”, “the Homosexual”, “changing from Homosexuality to Heterosexuality”,etc…
But if asked whether homosexuality is a fully developed orientation like heterosexualtiy, they’d say no — it’s arrested development, a fixation, etc….
So I’d disagree with the notion that the word “orientation” has, throughout history, in every instance, by all people, been employed in the same way for all people, no matter which sex (or no sex) they’re attracted to.
And again, asexuality remains quite contentious as an orientation per se as well.
K.
Since this quote seems related to comments I made to Michael ‘way back when’, I further need to qualify that the motive was not ‘to attract media attention’…it was to pique media curiosity. We already had their attention; when they approached us, we wanted them to ask what we meant by the term.
It should have been an obvious question for any investigative reporter to ask but it seems like it was years before they did.
Timothy,
Is an exclusive attraction to pre-op transexuals an orientation? And if so, is it an attraction to a woman with a penis, a man with breasts, an ambiquously sexed person, or to one’s own reflection as a being who both is and has it all and needs no other?
In my experience, it depends on the individual experiencing the attraction to pre-op transexuals.
In the case of a pronounced narcissistic attraction to pre-op transexuals as a reflection of one’s own desire to possess it all, is this an orientation?
Where is the compass needle pointing? To an Other? Or merely to one’s own reflection?
Which brings up the issue of asexuality. Asexuality encompasses many ways of being: No sexual interest in either men or women, but only a romantic interest. Neither sexual nor romantic interest in either sex.
And no sexual feelings at all, but has romantic feelings. Or no sexual feelings at all, and no romantic feelings at all.
And an exclusive interest in sex with one’s self, but not with either men or women.
I’m sure there’s also other manifestations, but this indicates some of the ways of being when a person says they’re asexual.
I’ve heard a few people say they have absolutely no sexual feelings at all. They never masturbate, they never even think about it.
I haven’t heard anyone say they are completely lacking in romantic interest, however weak and fleeting it might be.
And most have some sexual feelings as well, and at least occasionally masturbate, or at least attempt to, often with exclusive focus on their own sensations, sometimes through mirror masturbation, etc….
At any rate, I’ve never heard of a person who simply has no compass whatsoever. It is pointing, but may not be pointing at the outside world.
Though there may in fact be at least some cases where there is utterly no compass at all — just haven’t myself come across it. Have you?
Katie
Answer: Because I’ve never liked being rendered invisible.
I wonder if your five year old daughter would have gotten me and where I’m at? But I guess that’s not important.
Until the late 1800′s, everyone was presumed to be heterosexual with the knowledge that some had sexual dalliances with their own gender. The concept of ‘homosexual orientation’ was first introduced in the late 1800′s; the first usage of the term ‘gay’ was in the 1900′s. It is widely recognized by those who wish to be sensitive and inclusive in their thinking that the term ‘orientation’ can be offensive…some see it as relating to behavior; some to attraction–and many presume that attraction automatically leads to behavior. The distinction between ‘behavior’ and ‘attraction’ is MAJOR to the majority of ex-gays, formers, whatever. While criticising our use of the ambiguous and potentially misleading term ‘ex-gay’, you fail to acknowledge that the term ‘gay’ has multiple meanings (sometimes referring only to men, sometimes to both genders, sometimes referring to behavior while other times including affectional preference) and that ‘orientation’ is also regarded as ambiguous.
Michael, it is one thing to dismiss such alternate thinking when it’s ‘out there somewhere’ but your insistence that we accept YOUR definitions that fail to acknowledge our unique experience is both offensive and insulting. We are right here and yet you still insist on rendering us invisible via the only terminology you will accept.
You continue to bash the term ‘ex-gay’ and yet I still haven’t seen you provide or use an alternative. I counter that the terms ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual orientation’ are as misleading and unacceptable as ‘ex-gay’. (It’s simple really: To most people, if I say that I’m gay they think both that I’m attracted sexually to men and that I am pursuing those attractions. The fact that I’m not pursuing those attractions and the reasons why are a pretty big part of who I am.) Sorry, dude, but I won’t be boxed in by a label that doesn’t quite fit and that fails to acknowledge such a significant part of my psyche. Please accept the validity of that objection.
Don’t so many of these verbal jousts come down to this same point? You insist that we accept the label ‘gay’…that we say we ‘have a homosexual orientation’…that we can’t call ourselves ‘heterosexual’. Why do YOU make it so complicated? Haven’t we acknowledged the reality of our sexual attractions? (You’ve quoted numerous times that I still admit to homosexual attractions.) Why is it so damn important to you that we take on your labels? Why must every conversation take this detour? Isn’t there any way that we can proceed with productive discussion without getting hung up at this ballywick?
(I apologize for sporadic involvement. Ironically, as as uncle and a brother, I’ve been tending to some typically ‘straight’ sins that are surfacing in my immediate environment. Think “Peyton Place” meets “Desperate Housewives”. Stuff that’s almost ‘off the map’ and enough of it to fuel several seasons!)
Mary: Not disappointed at all. Still looking for an ex-gay male who is not SSA.
@Eddy:
I don’t see much of a difference here. In any event, too bad you guys never answered the question.
They are not “my” definitions! They are standard, commonly used, readily understood, dictionary definitions of wordds in the Enlgish vocabulary.
If you want words to mean something else, you have a responsibility to explain the unique meaning YOU give to them. If you don’t like the dictionary definitions, take it up with Websters.
I don’t think you can sum up what “ex-gays” mean by this word by substituting another word. “Ex-gay” can mean anything the person using it wants it to mean. It can mean “still having gay sex, but trying not to”. It can mean “I was alredy bisexual to begin with, but now I only act on the straight part”, etc.
I suggest that you drop the label and simply describe the “change” you are talking about. Or say, “I am a Christian with SSA who regards gay sex as sin — so I choose not to act on it.” — or something that fits your experience.
Then, make it clear that you are not. Easy. Saying you are “ex-gay” doesn’t make it clear. Like Alan Chambers says, “It is more confusing than anything” and “does not accuratley DESCRIBE what the change process is really all about.”
You can call yourself anything you like Eddy. Call yourself an egg roll for all I care, but I think EXODUS and “change” ministries have a responsibility to not “vex” and “provoke” by choosing to use confusing labels.
NOPE. Not true. Not inisting you call yourself “gay” is you don’t want to. Just define the labels you use. Make it clear the “ex-gay” is still SSA, not straight. That is all I am asking. It is NOT about accepting “my” labels. It is about being clear and honest about the labels you use.
Timothy and Michael,
And this makes my point.
I agree with Eddy that both of you have a notion of what is and isn’t an orientation, and then assume that ALL people have the exact same notion. But lots of people have lots of different notions.
And Eddy left out fantasy. I know Michael would say that if a man has a fantasy about having sex with a man then he must be either bisexual or gay in the deepest, most totalizing, definition of The Truth of our Being.
Even if he has no immediate attractions to men in real life situations and so never acts on his fantasies just because he has no real life attractions to men — his fantasy is enough to define the Truth of who he is in a totalizing fashion.
Why? Because, by definition, a short, concise, Webster-like definition, this is so.
As though it’s not merely humans who write those short, concise, hammer-like, definitions.
And when you have a hammer, everything is a nail.
While I’ve heard of a few cases in which men who like anal stimulation, and practice pegging with their wives, say they have NO awareness of a homosexual fantasy when doing so, most admit that there’s some sort of homosexual fantasy.
Some say things like: My fantasy is to have sex with a woman while having a fantasy of having sex with a man….
Gay? Bisexual? Or merely straight, because his fantasy is having sex with a WOMAN…. while having a fantasy of having sex with a man….
Where’s the compass pointing?
Life is messy, much more messy than a dictionary definition that even a 5 year old can comprehend.
Does a severely Autistic person nearly devoid of the simplest capacity for human relatedness have a sexual orientation? Or are working mirror neurons part of the brain’s construction of one?
If the two areas most looked at when it comes to sexual stimuli are not stimulated when a guy acts on his homosexual fantasies, bi/gay in an orientation way?
I mean come on — we’re putting people in little tiny boxes so WE feel better, the world is easy, we can think like 5 year olds and not deal with the messy. When really, we don’t yet know WHAT an orientation IS — yes, we have indications, clues, but we also have a whole lot more questions to be answered.
Timothy,
There are those who would claim more than the 4 orientations you allow onto the compass. Polyamorous, hetero-romantic/homo-sexual, monosexual, autosexual, etc….
And yes, YOU may not want them aboard, but there are political movements who do want them aboard.
But there is a move toward a proliferation of orientations, and for pretty good reason in my opinion. Mostly because the 4 nice, neat, categories which you feel comfortable admitting onto the compass doesn’t capture every person’s experience.
K.
Eddy: Please, please define “Ex-gay”.
Katie:
NOPE. I would not say that at all. Yes, I would say he is gay, homosexual, bisexual or SSA. But that has very little to do with ” the deepest, most totalizing, definition of The Truth of our Being.” It only refers to what sort of attractions the person has.
Michael,
Again, I invite you to read on Malesurvivor.org for men who say they are no longer SSA.
There’s not many, but they’re there.
Most got into therapy while quite young — 20′s. By 30 and 40, no SSA.
The guys who get into therapy later, like in their 40′s/50′s, I’ve heard of only 1 who says he’s completely free of any homosexual fantasy — and 2 for whom it’s extremely fleeting, and while still there at times, does not direct their sexuality.
The numbers are low, even among the younger men. But they’re there.
K.
But Michael,
You’re allowing a fantasy to define a person’s sexuality, and thus to define the person — they can’t, according to you, go up to someone and say — Hi, I’m straight. No, they have to say — Hi, I’m gay or bi or SSA.
That’s what I mean by totalizing — you’re defining how they should identify.
K.
I know you don’t like this — But as Mary suggested, if a person has a fantasy of killing someone, that doesn’t even begin to define how they should identify.
You seem to be saying — Yes, but by definition, we’ve decided that sexual fantasies when it comes to genders, is totally different than any other fantasy, and this is so by definition.
We haven’t come up with an identity word in regard to killing fantasies, so a person who has them doesn’t have to define themselves by their fantasies.
But we do have have identity words for attractions and fantasies in regard to genders, so everyone must define themselves through them — they must use them. Why? Because they exit…..
EVEN when it comes to ONLY fantasy….
Why must a person use identity words merely because we’ve created them?
But don’t have to merely when we haven’t created them?
K.
If I were to say that I identify as a lawyer, and you asked why, and I said because I have fantasies of being a lawyer, but no real desire to actually be one, you’d think I was crazy.
But if I have fantasies of having sex with a woman, but no real desire to do, you’d say I’d HAVE to id as SSA or bi.
Why? Because about 100 years ago a bunch of people decided that our sexual fantasies were intimately tied to our identities.
That’s the only reason.
K.
Timothy,
Why isn’t red a number?
Because red is meant to point at something other than number.
But neither red nor number is involved with notions of human identity.
And my questions relate to identity more than they relate to what words point to what object by their definition.
I can have a fantasy of being a lawyer without needing to identify as one.
I MUST identify as gay/bi/SSA if I have a fantasy of being gay.
It’s the question of identity that’s really at stake.
And sexual identity is an historically new concept, largely created by modern medicine.
Like Michael, it’s easier for me to view Rob as bisexual. It’s simple. It’s neat. And as you suggest, points to some pretty important stuff that’s really real.
It used to annoy me that Rob wouldn’t just go ahead and id as bisexual. I would accept him as a bisexual person. Probably would prefer it over the complexities.
But, I understand why he id’s as straight. His story and identificatory practices make sense, though it takes more words than one to get at it.
And it also takes analogies for most people to break out of the simplicity of simple little boxed-up and boxed-in definitions.
It also take realizing that not everyone experiences sex and sexuality in the same way, which is why I bring up the extreme.
But you don’t have to get to the extreme to find out that not everyone experiences sex and sexuality in the same way.
And that we all make identificatory moves in the direction of embracing as our identity those aspects of ourselves that we like the most, value more highly, etc…
The ONLY instance in which such moves are not allowed is in the realm of sexual identity.
There’s really no reason for this. Or at least not that I have found.
What’s your reason? Or Michael’s?
K.
From an outsider, straight pt. of view…
I don’t know what other people who call themselves “ex-gay” state about their sexual orientations because this is the only blog I read that discusses such topics, but here is my impression as one looking in from the outside.
Some, like Michael, object vehemently to the use of the term “ex-gay” because he feels it suggests to the larger community that men with SSA no longer have SSA. Science and personal stories seem to back him up on that. He asks that men who call themselves “ex-gay” either find another term or be more specific in describing their “changes.”
I can understand his concern, particularly if some in the larger community believe that SSA can be simply “gotten rid of if only people tried.” I can understand how that attitude would make life difficult for gay men. I assume this is why he objects to its use. I would imagine that these people who claim “a gay can change if he really wants to” are often, although not exclusively, people one finds in fundamentalist religious institutions.
However, on this blog, I have not read any man who had SSA comment that he no longer has SSA at all. I have not read any say they have moved from homosexuality to heterosexuality in their actual attractions. If I missed one, then I am wrong. So, at least on this blog, it appears no one is claiming what Michael or Timothy persuasively argue is undemonstrated (ie, no more SSA).
So, if the beef is with men who do indeed claim that they were once SSA but are no longer, as a reader of this blog I am wondering, “Why not take up the beef with them, not with people on this blog who haven’t made those claims? Just asking.
***************************************************************
Next, about the use of the term, “ex-gay.” A long while back, this same argument broke out. Eddy, as I recall, said the term to him meant “out of or from gay.” From the strict Latin prefix usage, yes, that literally makes sense; however, from a figurative, symbolic standpoint I can understand that in contemporary English usage, most people think of “ex” as meaning “no longer.” So, I do understand Michael’s point that “ex” can be very misleading to those who only hear the term. I also understand Eddy’s point that if people would only ask what is meant and listen to the answers, perhaps they’d understand the meaning of term. I will also add this FWIW: most educated Americans don’t misunderstand the term, but that does leave out a whole bunch of people.
Semantics, then, becomes a source of conflict, as I understand it.
When I ask myself what different term or phrase those like Eddy might find to describe themselves, I hit a bit of a wall. It becomes difficult to come up with an acronym or a phrase that encompasses all who call themselves “ex-gay” and even more important, one that wouldn’t cause more trouble and conflict than there already is, right?
For instance, let’s say that Eddy or others came up with” People Who Don’t Want Same-Sex Attractions” or ” People who Want to Live Their Lives Without Acting on Same-Sex Attractions” or “People Who Have Found Happiness By Searching for Their Heterosexuality” or ” People Who Find Homosexual Behavior to Be Against God’s Teachings” or “People Who Wish They Were Straight” or “People Who Are Trying to Leave Homosexuality Behind”.
All of these “describe” in some way where some of these “ex-gays” are or what their attitudes are. However, huge problems exist with all of them:
1) each category is too narrowly worded to include all who call themselves “ex-gay.”
2). The acronyms would never work–too long
3). Most importantly, I can just see the firestorm of conflict that would erupt.
Let’s pretend that all who see themselves as “ex-gay” threw away the term tomorrow so that it was never again used. They then chose one of the ones that I threw out, one they feel most described themselves.
We can all see what would happen. If someone chose “Christians Who WAnt to Shed SSA” they would come under attack as being religious bigots. They’d endure taunts and attacks from others who would tell them they were wrong for believing that Christians can’t act on homosexual feelings. And, then, there’d be a huge doctrinal argument.
Or, if they chose “People Who Don’t Want to be Gay,” I can see them coming under attack from those who told them they must be self-loathing, weak people bending to society’s norms.
All of the possible names I think of would be objectionable to some subgroups of gay activists, right?
Well, there’s this one I just thought of –”Working for Change” or Working Toward Change.” Neither states that change has taken place, but both seem to capture the essence that there are those who do want a change in their own lives and the words themselves are general enough to capture the variety of change that these people might seek.
How about it: WWC???? Or WFC? Something like that?
WWC? Where’d I get that? I meant WTC=Working Toward Change
Now, I realize that there’d still be some who made fun of these people who were “working toward change.” They’d probably sarcastically tell them, “Good luck, ” but still, such a term doesn’t contradict any facts that science has so far gathered nor is such a term so narrow that it couldn’t include all who call themselves “ex-gay” right now.
Therefore, the umbrella term could cover all, leaving each individual to be just that, an individual with his own life’s story and his own particular story of change he is seeking and working toward. This could include women as well.
Or maybe we should take a second look at why our sex MUST define all people’s identity, while allowing those who want to identify strongly with their sex to do so.
Look, there’s nothing like a rock that says this particular identity practice is a natural category — it’s historically contingent, even if attractions and fantasies are more or less stable in individuals.
You might take a look at a gay therapist’s web site — joekort.com
He’s gay, out and proud, does gay positive therapy, wrote the best selling book “Ten Things Gay Men Can Do to Improve Their Relationship”….. he’s a card-carrying gay man.
And — he’s written an article called “Are We What We Fantasize?”, he has a blog called “straightguize” devoted to straight men who have sex with men, etc….
If one allows that it’s possible for a person to have sexual fantasies that are incongruent with their orientation, then the debate about gay/ex-gay turns to matters other than identity, and probably towards more understanding.
For instance, Eddy MIGHT experience his homosexual fantasies quite differently than Michael. But we’ll never know if they simply engage in identity wars.
K.
And it MIGHT be that not everyone has to change anything at all except how they think about identity.
K.
@Katie: No. I am not “defining” the person. I am saying they are same-sex attracted, not straight. The “person” is so much more.
And I am not expecting anyone to “go up to someone and say — “Hi, I’m straight” or “Hi, I’m gay or bi or SSA.” That’s just stupid. I say, “Hi, I’m Mike…”
Now, would someone please define “ex-gay”?
Michael said,
In previous threads and in answer to you, I believe, Michael, Eddy has defined it as he uses it to refer to himself. That is where I first read about this dispute and read his “out of/from gay” discussion.
Gotta leave the discussion. Exercise time. Hey, how’s Palm Springs? Hot?????
Why can’t ex-gay mean that a person who previously had sex with men now only has fantasies, but no real desire to act on those fantasies?
Michael, I understand that you are trying to not define the person in their totality.
But you are allowing fantasies to define a person’s sexual identity, otherwise you’d accept that fantasies don’t create identity, though they might — depending on an individual’s experience of their fantasies and how it works with other aspects of themselves.
K.
Responding to Carole:
Bingo! It comes across as false advertizing.
Another bingo! In fact, I was told, by EXODUS leaders and many others, that I did not try hgard enough, did not pray enough, did not have enough faith, did not love God enough.
I have talked to many “Ex-gay Sutvivors” who went through the same kind of painful treatment from those who had previously claimed to love them. I have even been told that I was never saved, am going to Hell and that my father is Satan. So have other ex-ex-gays I have talked to.
Another Bingo! And so far, neither will any of the male SSA’s I have met elsewhere, when you press them for deatils. But they will not clarify it unless you really pin them down.
Fourth bingo!
No bingo here. I have asked repeatedly, ad nauseum, for Eddy of anyone else to define it — and they simp[ly won’t. Still waiting after 30 years. I have no problem with the term itself — I just want them to clarify what they mean by it. I ask, “Could you tell me what you mean by “ex”? Could you tell me what you mean by “gay” — “Does that mean you are no longer homosexual?
Personally, I think it would be helpful to decide first why we choose to claim that gendered sexual fantasies are a class onto themselves when it comes to identity.
Then the question of what may or may not be ex-gay might be a little more meaningful.
If one person claims that fantasies = identity, and another person doesn’t, then they will continue to talk past eachother.
In a sense, I don’t think Rob will ever be ex-gay or ex-bi, because he was never gay or bi in the same way you’re gay.
How do I know?
Because you went to the beach with your boyfriend.
Rob has never had desires to go to the beach with a boyfriend — no fantasies, no day dreams, nothing.
So, what would make him “ex-bi”?
That he no longer has any sexual fantasies?
But why is gendered fantasy with no desire for relationship any different than any other sexual fantasy when it comes to identity?
Really, I think you’d enjoy Joe Kort. He’s very cool, and is probably more articulate than I. Plus he’s gay, I’m not. And he really doesn’t like the whole “ex-gay” movement, so agrees with you there.
K.
@Katie:
No one is insisting that you define your “identity”. I am only asking you to define the terms you use. That’s all. I am gay, but that doesn’t define my “identity”. Is that what being “gay” meant for you? For me, it just tells what gender I am attracted to.
To me, “ex-gay” would have to include no longer longing for a sexually intimate bonding such that one might have with a boyfriend.
All else is up for grabs.
K.
Once again, the question “Can gays change?” depends entirely on what you mean by “gay” and what you mean by “change”. Why do ex-gays resist this request so stubbornly? They act as thoug people don’t have a right to ask.
Tell me. I will listen. Someone, anyone give a decent definition of the term. Just tells us what you mean.
I am waiting for an “ex-gay” to tell me what they mean by “gay” — because it obviously means something different to them than being “SSA.”
Oh, and good reasons for feeling they’re now straight — like the spontaneous desire to pair bond with a woman, etc….
Romantic, tender feelings when thinking about coupling with a woman.
Things like that.
And I don’t mean necessarily coupling sexually — but spontaneous positive reactions when daydreaming of petting a woman’s hair while watching t.v.
To me, Michael, this is more fundamental to sexual orientation than gendered fantasies, because our fantasies can be about lots of different things, and they can be quite cut off from response to reality or the outside world.
K.
Well, Michael,
I hope someone here speaks up, but it could be that those drawn to reparative therapy aren’t the same group of people who experience significant change.
But in my experience, men who have homosexual fantasies and yet consider themselves straight do so because they spontaneously have the types of emotional longings for women that you have for men.
The problem comes in when you claim they’re SSA in some identity sort of way, rather than being straight men with homosexual fantasies.
Like how I’m a realtor with lawyer fantasies.
While the fact that they have homosexual fantasies doesn’t lead you to claim they’re straight, it does lead them.
When all this came out about Rob one of my straight friends said that he could have sex with a man, sort of has wanted to try it — but then what? He has no desire for relationship with a man.
You might say he’s SSA or bi. He thinks he’s straight with an open and curious attitude.
And by the way, the guys on the support group for sexually abused men who come out of the straight closet, have nearly as much pain upon doing so as you experienced when you came out — loss of a social network, etc….
It’s not easy.
But they do so for good reasons.
Like one guy who’s lead a gay life for 10 years would wake up in the middle of the night or in the morning and spontaneously have daydreams of kissing a woman, using his pillow as a stand-in — while his male lover was next to him.
He felt awful, hid his attractions for years. In part because he loved his male lover.
Does he still have homosexual fantasies? Yep. He has a history of enjoyable sex with men, and in his case, a fairly satisfying long-term love relationship.
But he now feels he’s really straight, and probably always was. Why? Because of the tonality of the total experience with women as opposed to with men. With men he always felt a bit like he was faking.
With women it’s deeper and more fulfilling — both sexually and emotionally.
So, is he ex-gay? He’s at least ex-gay identified.
Though he still has the periodic homosexual fantasy — which he says feels more like memories than fantasies.
But you might take them to be fantasies.
K.
Being ex-gay “identified” doesn’t make you ex-gay and being straight “identified” doesn’t make you straight.
I could “indentify” myself as anything I please — it doesn’t change the facts. “Straight men with homosexual fantasies” are bisexual.
If they are not, what does bisexual mean? What do you mean when you use the word “gay”? Is it different than “homosexual” or “SSA”? They all refer to being attracted to one’s own gender, what’s the difference?
Something just struck me — why do we only one term for those who are attracted to both genders (bisexual) — but we need three terms for SSA/Gay/homosexuals and three for OSA/straight/heterosexuals? Aren’t these terms synonyms?
Something just struck me — why do we only one term for those who are attracted to both genders (bisexual) — but we need three terms for SSA/Gay/homosexuals and three for OSA/straight/heterosexuals? Aren’t these terms synonyms?
What difference does that make? So what if he is “ex-gay identified”? He’s still SSA. Still homosexual. Still gay. Not OSA, straight, hetero.
And yet, Michael, you claim you’re not using the word to define someone’s identity.
But you are.
While you may find this annoying, I’d still like to know what is the difference between my S&M fantasies and gendered fantasies when it comes to IDENTITY.
Yes, I’m attracted in some way to S&M. No, I don’t identify as having an S&M identity, and I don’t think you’d compel me to adopt one.
But you do want to compel a person with gendered fantasies to identify based upon them.
Why?
And before you say because we have these words in our vocabulary which points to gendered fantasies, and these are by, definition, used to point to identity, there’s a political movement afoot to recognize S&M as also an identity.
Or if you don’t like the S&M example — pick another: polyamorous, hetero-romantic/homo-sexual, autosexual, etc….
Rob doesn’t consider himself bisexual because for him his bisexual attractions are disasterous — no relationship of value with either men or women.
Lets assume that you have exclusive homosexual fantasies which includes being beaten. And you have romantic longings for women, but no ingrained sexual response patterns which respond to loving sex.
Then you fall in love with a woman, like her, think she’s beautiful and sexy, like being physically close…. but still no sexual response patterns to anything but being beaten by a man.
Bisexual? Sure. But which aspect of yourself would you most strongly identify with?
With the aspect that represents some hope of joy?
Or the aspect that is an endless round of being beaten?
K.
I think the big issue that is being overlooked is the individuals idea of himself or herself. Anyone can be stimulated by just about anything if their eyes are closed, their senses except for genital stimulation are blocked. And it doesn’t matter.
The important part is where does a person choose to be. Michael thinks it has nothing to do with choice – which is what most homosexual activists will say. I on the other hand think it has everything to do with choice as to how a person views themself.
Michael:
The common, understood by everybody definition of ‘black’ is one thing if you are considering paint for your walls or crayons in a box. But, lo and behold, that very common, easily understood word takes on a new meaning when applied to racial characteristics and color. To date, I haven’t met one single black person whose skin color is actually black. I’ve seen some very, very, very dark browns but never a black. That’s my way of pointing out that your appeals to the dictionary clear and simply clarity are rather senseless. I could use the dictionary to point out that many gays are not gay because they experience unhappiness; I could pull a dictionary definition out of context to explain that lesbians aren’t gay. But obfuscation isn’t my game, no matter how relentlessly you try to accuse me of it.
Both Carole and Katie have latched onto something that you seem unable to grasp. The term ‘gay’ operates both as an adjective and as a noun. In its noun form, it is a label and, by extension, an identity. In most of our discussions, you push for its noun/identity usage without even realizing it. That’s understandable…you don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between ‘trying to attract attention’ and ‘trying to arouse curiosity’…even after I pointed out that we already had their attention to help steer you to the difference.
I have labored at great depth to explain that we will not/cannot identify ourselves by the name of something we consider to be sinful…not when we are experiencing some measure of success in not engaging in that sin. I can say that I’m SSA…that set of initials seems securely adjectival in nature…yes, I am Same Sex Attracted. Am I gay? See, there’s that troublesome noun again. And the confusing dual definitions. Attraction-wise, perhaps. Behavior-wise–and, more importantly, identity-wise, no. Am I a ‘homosexual’? Same problem. Psychology’s definition and the bible’s definition differ. The bible says that if I’m not doing it, I’m not it. Since psychology’s definition came along much, much later than the bible’s usage–and since I’ve chosen the bible over psychology–I am not going to submit to psychology’s definition that refuses to recognize my individuality.
So, what is ex-gay? How dare you claim that I’ve never answered that question…especially when you’ve been quoting portions of my answer all afternoon. Although, like the term ‘gay’ (which can mean men only, can include lesbians, can include well-adjusted monogamous folks and gutter-whores simultaneously), ex-gay can have shades of meaning and variances, I think it is safe to say that an ‘ex-gay’ is someone who has stepped out of their identification with homosexuality. They are, as I’ve said before, ‘from gay’. They used to do gay behaviors; most used to go beyond behavior and fully identify as ‘gay’–whatever localized trappings there were that signified gay identification: loving Babs, a penchant for torch singers, the theatre, risque humor, burlesque performance, the arts…etc. I’m not saying they’ve totally abandoned their appreciation for all of those things but they’re trying to sort out what parts of the appeal came from gay-identification and which parts didn’t.
Because the level of identification with gay differs per individual and because varying individuals had varying expressions of gay (some inclined to monogamy; some drawn to fetishes; some casual dabblers; some immersed), the ‘gay’ part of ‘ex-gay’ will differ from individual to individual. In a similar manner, ‘change’ differs per individual. Change in behavior is (or should be) common to all but changes in the psyche, in identification, in the degree, frequency and nature of temptation…those are as unique as each individual.
Michael, do me a very big favor. Our history is that you will now come back and find some misspoken word or phrase and beat me to death with it. Please, even if you do that, first tell me what parts of what I’ve just said made any sense to you whatsoever. Did every single word read as nonsense or did some small part of it actually come across like a thinking person wrote it?
In other words, let’s discuss not debate. Let’s find out what ground we actually don’t have to cover again (and again and again and again ad infinitum).
Mary,
While I agree with you in essence, the word ‘choice’ is way too loaded to advance the discussion. I realize that you are using it in a different way but unfortunately it’s one of those words that occurred over and over again in ‘clobber speech’ by fundies and, with our history of missing each others intent on this blogsite, I’m sure that discussion involving the word ‘choice’ will lead to swift and sure derailment.
Eddy,
It might help if you also had reasons to be attracted elsewhere, rather than reasons to reject where you’ve been.
If there are any, and any not having to do with notions of sin.
While I totally get and respect what you’ve said and think identity is very personal, and that your thus far stated reasons for identifying as you do is good enough for me, I think what – in part – Michael is trying to understand is not the rejection of one identity, but the adoption of another….
Michael,
He’s right though in saying you keep falling back into using SSA as a noun, and defending it’s exclusive usage as a noun.
And that’s what I have a big problem with.
But don’t worry, I too struggle again not doing so because, like you, I was brought up in a culture in which it’s nouness is taken for granted.
But it really shouldn’t be — anymore than other forms of attraction.
K.
Eddy,
I agree with your response to Mary.
But what I think is necessary is to talk about choice in regard to nurturing either this aspect of ourselves or that one.
Michael,
That’s why I asked which aspect you would choose to nurture: Non sexual, but romantic attractions to men — or sexual but brutal attractions to women?
And once you decide which aspect to nurture, we’re pretty darn close to also choosing which aspects of ourselves we choose to more fully identify with.
K.
Finally! Now we are getting a little closer to a real definition of “ex-gay”:
.
Eddy, you could just say so without the confusing/misleading label. I have NO problem with people renouncing things or accoiding things that they believe are sinful.
I think I understand that when you call yourself “ex-gay”, you do so, in part, because you don’t want people to think that you think it’s NOT sinful — or that you are NOT “having some measure of success” in not “engaging in that sin”.
Sounds like to you, “gay” means: “I have SSA, I don’t think it’s sin, I like it — and, by God, I’m doing it!” So “ex-gay” might mean: “I used to think it was OK to have gay sex, but now I think it’s sinful — and I am trying not to do it anymore.”
So here’s a working definition from two men who helpe coin and populatize the term:
Eddy:
To which I would add this clarification:
Sorry I meant to type: “Eddy, you could just say so without the confusing/misleading label. I have NO problem with people renouncing “identification with” or avoiding behaviors they believe are sinful.”
It’s the language I have a problem with — not your decision to live according to your values. Keep in mind, Alan Chambers doesn’t like the term either — and for reasons very similar to my own. That’s a founder of EXODUS and the current President of EXODUS who agree on this issue!
As John Boswell pointed out so well:
Now to Katie’s rather odd question:
Whether gay or straight, I would nurture romance, devotion, kindness, loyalty and loving sexuality. I would never choose to nurture brutality.
Michael,
Ok, you and I agree a bit here, in that it does seem rather important when discussing attractions (even while setting aside labels and identities) to get clear on just what the attractions are.
If a person has no heterosexual attractions at all, then it seems silly to say they’re heterosexual, or have heterosexual attractions.
But to get to one of your things you keep bringing up:
Is change ever possible for anyone, even if they never show up in reparative therapy settings? Cuz frankly, I don’t see that focusing on sin would help much in loosening one’s sexual response patterns. For me, at least, it would simply fuel the attraction, but then again, I’m someone who’s rather attracted to the “forbidden fruit” no matter the fruit — call it forbidden, and you’ve piqued my interest, for better or worse.
Where I really disagree with you is where there’s attractions of some sort aimed at both genders in some way. Then there’s a choice a person makes in regard to which aspect they choose to nurture…. and thus which to more fully identify with.
I don’t know how successful men are who are exclusively attracted to men who will their way to being attracted to women. Just doubt it’s very successful.
In my experience, people who experience fluidity do so a bit more spontaneously than this — even if there’s some effort, it’s balanced by working on accepting one’s spontaneous attractions no matter where they lead.
K.
Michael,
It’s not such an odd question when looking into the issue of “change” and identity.
I’m glad you answered as you did, not surprised cuz you seem like a really nice guy. And I’d make the same choice, I sort of like weird, but mean scares me.
The reason this isn’t an odd question is because of the whole “bisexual” label, because few men are bisexual in a way in which their dual attractions are both grounded in life-affirming pursuits.
So they identify with that aspect that feels more life-affirming.
As you say you would as well.
K.
You know a lot of different people.
.
Yes, women are naturally bisexual (according to Bailey) and most straight women and lesbians are eclectic in their choice of porn. I already pointed out that gay men will watch straight porn and why. But gay men who only watch lesbian porn…. now, you’re making things up.
Fantasies are indicative of identity at an early age – in the first flush of puberty (with no abuse). Later on, people having experienced all sorts of things and learned about what is extant in the world may pile other ‘items’ on top of their base sexual fantasies. But it is that base to which Michael has been referring.
.
One may have a novelty fantasy about being gay but it is not the base upon which all of a person’s sexuality has been built. However, as Bailey has pointed out most women are at least emotionally bisexual, so you may be expressing your bisexuality in that respect.
But that is why your abuse victims have so much trouble it is their base/foundation which has been disturbed early in their years.
Lynn,
I agree. I think Rob would have been straight but for his abuse experiences.
Yep, gay guy who only watches lesbian porn. Not gay in the more typical way — lots of gender questions too.
K.
I don’t mean personally know in a face to face way….
Just have spent a lot of time hanging out in online groups who talk about their sexual fantasies and habits.
And there seems to be every combination under the sun, even if it’s not common.
K.
Michael,
See above Lynn — doesn’t that make sense?
K.
I agree. I just think it’s equally silly to say one is “ex-gay” when one is still entirely SSA. I get what Eddy is talking about. As far as I can tell, he’s entirely SSA but doesn’t like “gay” — because he doesn’t want people to think that it’s OK with him or that he is still doing it.
Great question. Once again, it all depends on what you mean by “change”. For a male to change from entirely SSA to enitrely heterosexual? Nope. Doesn’t seem to happen. A better question would be, not “Can gays
change?” but “In what ways do gays change and to what extent?”
During my time with EXODUS I did notice the “fueling of the attraction” you mention. Many sincere, motivated, Jesus-loving men would come to our prayer/Bible study/support meetings, confess their sin — and then hook up with each other after.
These guys kept calling themselves “ex-gay” –because they thought it was sin, did not want to “identify” with it — and felt guilty about doing Not all, but a disturbing number. I think that for them talking about it while simultaneously trying not to do it was simply to much to ask.
Timothy once suggested an “ex-gay” bumper sticker (or was it a T-shirt?):
Katie: This I disagree with:
This does not seem true of exclusively SSA men. However, EXODUS’s Joe Dallas, a bisexual “ex-gay”, seems to believe, as you do, that we are all “both” — as he explained to Joan RIvers during an appearance on her old TV show:
Michael:
You don’t have it quite right–neither where I’d now fall on the scale or my reasons for not accepting the label–with our history of miscommunication I feel that’s it’s very offensive for you to speak for my point of my view. There is so much more to my thinking than ever gets expressed here, a much broader picture that I’d like to present of my own personal point of view… but we’ll never get there because you can’t talk beyond your preconceived boxes and your preconceived notions.
I believe I’ve mentioned that I travel in some circles where I know people perceive me to be gay and I don’t take any steps whatsoever to correct them. I am very strongly against the oppression of gay people and figure I can take the heat and maybe change some attitudes. But, when people have even a basic understanding of psychology, of principles of integration, identity, etc., I raise the bar. I expect and pretty much demand that they see that I don’t quite fit their label…and I will be seen. I will not go invisible. When the conversation involves people who express familiarity with both psychology and religion, I do demand that they recognize my position. I am very strongly against the oppression of ‘ex-gays’ and/or conservative Christians. My motive goes more to championing the rights of others who hold this unpopular ex-gay view than anything else. The term ‘ex-gay’ might not be much but it sure beats the laughable morph definition you’ve suggested:
“someone who has stepped out of their identification with homosexuality but should not be presumed to no longer have SSA, no longer engages in any form of h-behavior or is now heterosexual by the standard meaning. ”
Eddy,
Yeah, I thought about that word but that’s how it is. I am not saying that we choose our feelings all of the time (though we do some selection of how we will feel many times) and we do choose how we feel about our feelings. I may be Catholic by tradition and culture and still have Catholic attributes in my vernacular, feelings, and understandings – but it does not mean I embrace Catholicism anymore.
Unlike many gays who just accept that they are gay as in it is something that their body is… I think sexuality can be nurtured, bent, turned, conditioned, etc….. Our lives, conduct, feelings, being do not have to be left up to the direction of the wind and can be directed by an individual.
Don’t be ridiculous, Eddy. No one is suggesting that you introduce yourself this way. I am just saying that when we use the term “ex-gay” in these public discussions (debates) on “change” that we make it clear what we mean by the terms we are using.
It is not “laughable” in this context to point out that “ex-gay” does not refer to to the absence of SSA and should not be taken to mean the the person who so labels himself is “straight”.
Go for it, Eddy, tell us. You have the floor. Don’t blame your lack of specificity on me.
I dunno MIchael, you seem pretty stuck in your impression of sexuality. That little test I gave you is an example. YOU FORGOT TO ASK THE PERSON HOW THEY FELT ABOUT THEIR OWN BEING AND SEXUALITY. Instead, you fell right in line with telling others what their sexuality is based on your experiences with your own sexuality.
Michael,
Yes, it would seem difficult to decide to nurture what isn’t there.
On the support groups for mixed orientation couples there are many gay identified heterosexually married men. When some of them describe their feelings, they really make me wonder what we – or they – mean by “gay”.
I’ve gone around and around with a few of the guys, and have just come to accept that there’s some internal reason that is not easily communicated for them to id as gay — though they don’t seem simply gay to me.
I think you’d more easily accept their self-definition as being gay than you would a man identifying as straight when there seems to be some indication he’s not absolutely straight in all respects.
However that might be, and picking up on what Lynn said about foundational orientation as opposed to later add-ons:
If a guy were straight – ie, without any hint of homosexual fantasy – up til he was 50 years old, then experienced rape by a man and developed homosexual fantasies, would he be compelled to id as SSA or bi?
Even if his homosexual fantasies were just a rerun of his rape?
K.
Mary: I did not forget to ask people how they FEEL about being SSA. I assume you guys don’t like it. Am I wrong?
I am asking if, by claiming you are “ex-gay”, you mean to say or convey that you are no longer SSA or now heterosexual. PERIOD. THAT’S IT. I am asking you to clarify your terms.
I am not trying to “tell them what their sexuality is”. I am asking what it is. When I do, they get defensive and evasive. Why is that? Don’t I have the right to ask – “What do you mean by that word?” – when it is not clear? I would ask a Spanish-speaker what they meant by “mentiroso” if I wasn’t sure.
And these definitions, these terms, are not based on MY — repeat – not based on MY experiences — but on commonly accepted, generally understood, English, dictionary definitions of homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality. Crack open a dictionary. Nowhere will you see, “These definitions were created and mandated by Michael Bussee..”
You guys make up the new words. Therefore, I believe it is your responsibility, especically in this form of public discourse and debate, to clarify your terms. Sorry. but contrary to what Humpty Dumpty said, words do not mean whatever you or Eddy want them to mean.
Michael,
Yes, there’s dictionaries.
But there’s also more in depth discussions to be found in papers and books on the subject.
There you will find the more simple Webster definitions expounded upon, debated, refined, disagreed with, etc….
And that’s so with any word relating to psychological states.
Repression, depression, etc….
Stick with Websters only and you get a pretty restricted education.
Stick with pop media, same thing.
K.
Eddy: Be honest. How often do people you have just met ask you about your sexual orientation? No one asks me. If they do, I usually ask, “Why do you ask?” If it seems appropriate to the relationship and situation, I say, “I am gay”. Then they say something like, “I hope you don’t mind that I asked” and I say, “No, not at all”.
If they asked, “Can you tell me what you mean by gay — is that different than homosexual?”, I would tell them what I understood those words to mean and how I mean them — especially if I knew the term was not widely understood, or I was using it in a very personal or unsual sort of way.
I would clarify that I am SSA not OSA. I would do this in the same way I would clarify the word “Christian” if they weren’t sure how I was using it. If the conversation went deeper — and they found out that I used to consider myself “ex-gay” — I would explain what I meant by that rather vexing and provocative term, and why I now consider myself to be “ex-ex-gay”.
In asking, I would not suppose that they were trying to “define me” or my “identity”, “dicate what my sexuality is” — or ought to be. They would simply be asking for clarification, which I what I have been trying to get from ex-gays and EXODUS for the past 30 years.
I thought I was making some progress when Alan Chambers told me he thought “ex-gay” ought to be “officially retired”, “was more confusing than anything” and “didn’t really reflect what the change process was all about”.
Much to my surprise and without my prompting, he suggested that we “do away with it entirely and see that it is never used again”. I asked him if he was serious — and if I could quote him. He said “yes”.
Of course, shortly after this, Alan went on publically referring to himself as a “former homosexual”, offering no clarification of what he meant by that — or why it was more accurate than “ex-gay”. The linguistic mess flows from the top down — and only you guys can clean it up.
Michael,
I am talking about the test questions I asked previously:
And your answer:
It’s pretty obvious you have no interest in what the person thinks of themself.
Only in what YOU think of yourself.
OK guys, if you don’t like what you call “MY” definitions, would you kindly offer YOURS for:
Gay. Ex-gay, bisexual, homosexual, straight and heterosexual.
Maybe I would not be arguing with you guys if I knew what you meant. Maybe this is just the Tower ob Bebel all over again — with each of assuming that the other person understands our language.
1) It is enough to define ex-gay as I have without your additions.
2) Please stop saying that I haven’t defined it or infer that I make it mean what I want it to mean. I explained it. I used English. You even accepted the definition although you wanted to add your unneccessary disclaimers.
3) A good definition isn’t all that wordy. Check your dictionary. You seem to be looking for an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary.
4)
Pardon me, but this is total bull! You are involved in a conversation involving Mary, Carole, Katie and Eddy. We have ALL made our meanings clear. Why do you continue to speak to and about people who aren’t involved in this conversation and then accuse us of their shortcomings? Please, try to stay in the room.
5) No, Michael, I didn’t ask for the floor and I don’t have the floor. You’re still coming from debate and I am holding out for discussion. You seem to have missed my point when I made that statement…I have determined that you are of a mindset that isn’t yet capable of appreciating my overall point of view. I’ve tested the waters a few times only to find you locked within your preconceived notions of ‘me and people like me’. Today’s dialogues do not demonstrate any difference in your willingness to hear with an open heart and mind.
6)
Please name the new words we’ve made up. Even ‘ex-gay’ is a composite term made up of an existing word and a prefix that are both in your dictionary. We seem to be in general agreement on ‘gay’…but ‘ex’ has several accepted meanings and you’re trying to base your huge objection on that. Until you stop using the word ‘gay’ which has at least as many meanings (some ambiguous and confusing) as ‘ex’, you’re playing a game where you’ve set yourself up as umpire…and not a very fair one.
NOPE. I do care how they feel about themselves — but that is a different question than what their attractions are.
And Eddy, the clarifications ARE necessary. Without them the word IMPLIES “no longer homosexual”. You want to leave that important detail OFF; And that stirkes me as deliberately dishonest.
Michael:
Wasn’t it just a few hours ago that I defined ‘ex-gay’? What, are you hungry again?
When I elaborated on it’s definition (or was that in an earlier post) didn’t I say that there were definitions for gay–one that spoke more to behavior, another to attractions and even more that sometimes included women and sometimes excluded them? Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over again and yet continue to miss our very important (at least to us) point about the issue that they are labels, they are nouns…that to a Christian, identity is a very basic part of their journey…that the label or identity does not fit if we are not engaged in pursuing those behaviors?
We are at that point now, Michael. You’ve been asking questions and demanding answers. I want an answer from you to that question.
Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over again and yet continue to miss our very important (at least to us) point about the issue that they are labels, they are nouns…that to a Christian, identity is a very basic part of their journey…that the label or identity does not fit if we are not engaged in pursuing those behaviors?
Feel free to rant but do not change the wording of the question. Please answer it as it has been asked.
I keep asking the same question over and over because you will not concede that it is very important to make clear that ex-gay does not mean that the person is not OSA or straight.
Eddy, I can argue your point better than you do. I know both sides of this argument inside and out. You want to LEAVE OFF that ex-gay does not mean “no longer SSA” or “now straight”. You want to leave that impression — which is dishonest. I am trying to get you to stop the BS-ing and tell the truth.
Michael,
How many times and in how many ways does it need to be defined for you – let the person who is living the life define for themsleves how they sexually identify.
I’m just pointing out that you are uncomfortable with others being other when they have same sex attractions. Not everyone who is same sex attracted is gay. Not every lesbian is into male shaped dildos or not into them. Not every married man is into anal stimulation. Not every married man is into women either. Not all gay people will remain to identitfy as gay.
Niether will all straight identified people today remain so. Some will change.
I totally get that you don’t want to “identify as gay”. I want the public to get that EXODUS does not, and has never, made gay men into heterosexuals. The public has a right to know.
No, Michael, the clarifications are not necessary. If someone wants clarification, they can ask. If I’m speaking, I make the clarifications in the course of my dialogue. You do know what I mean by ‘ex-gay’ don’t you? And you even have a pretty good sense or how ‘ex-gay’ for me differs from ‘ex-gay’ for Joe Dallas or Alan Chambers. I insist that you stop accusing me and the others who are speaking here on this blog of the inconsistencies you witness elsewhere. We are also concerned about those inconsistencies but we will not be held responsible for them nor we will we continue to answer for them. You are in dialogue with us. You only have the right to hold us accountable for our own words and elaborations.
You guys love this concept of “gay identified” or “straight Identified”. I get it. But for ex-gay males, the SSA continues — no matter how they “identify” themselves.
Say, “I know longer think of myself as gay” or “I prefer not to label myself in that way” — but don’t give the dishonest impression that you are straight. That’s a lie.
Mary, you have always argued that words mean whatever YOu wants them to mean. No wonder there is so much confusion. From now on when I say “apple” I really mean the Empire State Building — and you have no right to question that, OK?
Yes Eddy. I know what you mean by “ex-gay”. And you don’t mean “no longer SSA” or straight. You won’t point that out here, so I have to.
“Insist “all you want Eddy. I don’t get my permission, or “rights” from you. You are just Eddy. An ex-gay who is not formerly SSA or straight.
I still think that you want to mislead people. When you admitted to me that you used “ex-gay” to “vex and provoke” the media, I saw red. I still do.
Oh, man, what a mess….
@MIchael, you just said to Mary,
Michael, way back back up in my post of 2:33 pm, I pointed out that since I have been reading this blog, no gay man on this blog who calls himself “ex-gay” has tried to claim he never has SSA anymore. In other words, my point was that they weren’t trying to mislead anyone about what “ex-gay” means.
I also pointed out the possible and practical reasons that a name other than “ex-gay” hasn’t been coined. Don’t you think there is validity to those reasons?
In your post of 3:48, you responded, but I notice that you cherry-picked to what you responded. Is that because you want to “win”? Is that it? There is no winning here. If you think there is, then define what would be a “win.”
THEY AREN’T CLAIMING TO NO LONGER HAVE SSA– SO WHAT’S YOUR BEEF? AND FINDING ANOTHER “name” has all kinds of problems. So, what you are upset about WITH THEM?
If there are men on other blogs who claim that they are “ex-gay” AND THAT THEY never, ever have feelings of physical attractions to other men, then why not press them, not the ones on this blog, for the ones on this blog have made no such claim!!!!!!
Further, the idiots who made you feel as you did, who demeaned you, who told you God didn’t love you, that you were hell-bound, who told you you didn’t try hard enough or pray hard enough are IGNORANT. Don’t let them torture you like this. Don’t turn what they did to you to others. They are ignorant and by ignorant I do mean “without knowledge.” Take heart in knowing that each day more and more people understand that people don’t wake up one day during puberty chosing their sexuality.
Since “gay” can include meaning “being sexually involved with one of the same sex” I think it’s pretty obvious that when some say “ex-gay” they are saying they no longer involve themselves sexually with other men. A person of normal intelligence would understand this.
Language is an imprecise tool to explain much in life.
Definition for vex:
Definition for provoke:
Your words for why you did it. Not mine.
MIchael,
As well, you seem not to accept people for who they are but rather how they fit into your world model.
When people speak about themselves – try listening to them without your myriad of gay filters.
Mary, You get me wrong. I Do accept you for who you are. I know you guys think gayness is sin. I know you can’t in good conscience accept the word “gay”. I know you are trying to please God.
I know you you are trying to avoid gay sex. I know you are happier now. I am happy that you are happier now. I wouldn’t want to take that away from you for the world.
I know you are sincere. I know you do not mean to harm people. I know you are good people. I have no quarrel, at all, that you have decide to step out from a “gay identity”. I know that “lifestyle” was not for you.
Just, please, even though I know you hate it, try to define terms — and realize that even though I know what you mean, young, hurting, confused SSA kids who come to EXODUS for “help” or “change” may think that they are going to become heterosexual.
And they may be made to feel horrible, inadequate, unloved and worthless when they do not. So, Eddy, the clarifications are necessary. You may not like it, but you owe it to those kids.
@Lynn David said,
And, someone else (or maybe you) said women are “emotionally bisexual” but I just scanned and can’t find it so sorry for the lack of attribution…
I know that Bailey and a woman reseacher who works with bonobos (don’t know her name) have reported that when they hook up women to their little genital machine and show pictures, women have reactions to all kinds of pics, including those of bonobos fooling around.
I told my girlfriends one day at lunch of this and told them that some researchers were confounded by the results, even saying that women might be “bisexual.” The five women at the table laughed so hard one of them snorted red wine out of her nose on the white table cloth. We couldn’t stop laughing and the whole restaurant, I am sure, wanted in on the joke.
We understand why, hooked up to a machine, there might be increased blood flow, thus increasing labial swelling. We can even understand why a man like Bailey would mistakenly assume that such reactions could mean women are “bi-sexual.” (He’s a man and when he sees blue, he sees blue and cannot see it as red.) What we couldn’t understand is why the woman researcher didn’t “get it” or more specifically, we couldn’t understand why she would be surprised by it. We weren’t.
Men see something and are literal about it–a gay man sees an attractive man–wow, reaction. A straight man sees an attractive woman–wow, reaction.
Women can be moved to physical arousal by the symbolic, the suggestive, the figurative. We can hear a beautiful piece of music, look at a beautiful painting, watch a touching scene in a movie or an especially funny one in the same movie, and be moved to arousal because we can make the leap from one thing to another—I liken it to the way the brain has connections. Some people have more brain connections than others.
We women have connective capabilites in this area of arousal that I really don’t think most men have. What we SEE gives rise to other visions, one we construct. That is not to say that certain scenes cannot and do disgust us, but I am convinced that Bailey’s machine doesn’t measure what scene the women has constructed in their head–what connections they made.
I recall the researcher saying women’s sexual responses were much more complex than men’s–touche. However, I think it is really far off to conclude that those reactions meant women were “bi-sexual.” As for “emotionally bi-sexual”?
I have no idea what that means. Do you?
Can someone tell me what causes the “your comment is awaiing moderation” to hold up a comment? I re-posted it and the same thing occurred even though an interim post went up.
Is there a word in the post that causes some kind of alert to hold it back?
Okay, I see it went through–sorry–it’ll double post probably.
Michael–
I am no longer in the ministry. I am here on this blog involved in conversations. Your false accusations re my motives are just that…false accusations. I am trying to lead no one anywhere. I am trying to engage in conversations that lead to understanding here. STOP reading motives that do not exist. STOP being my judge. PLEASE answer my question…the one in bold. It goes to a point I made, Katie made, Mary made and Carole made. It’s a valid question and deserves an answer.
You are so full of crap! Forgive me, I don’t usually resort to such but crap is crap!
WHAT??? Haven’t I clearly stated numerous times that I still have homosexual temptations? Didn’t I just say a few posts ago that people presume me to be gay and I allow them to? LOL. And then you accuse me of not pointing out that I have same sex attractions and that I’m not (conventionally) straight.
While in the ministry, I spoke of falling in love with my male ministry partner in Bible school and dealing with that. I taught classes on “The Reality of Temptation” and “Lessons for the Battlefield”. I wrote numerous articles dealing with the nitty gritties of facing up to ongoing or recurring homosexual temptations. I’ve spoken of those experiences several times on this blogsite. Your allegations that I’ve taken or am taking part in a cover-up of the reality that SSA will likely continue or that gays won’t become straight are both ludicrous and slanderous.
So, Michael, I’m not the one that’s slinging the bull. Your pretense that you’re trying to get me to stop with the bs and to tell the truth is the real bs. “Wayward Emotions”, “The Reality of Temptation”, “Masturbation Dilemma”, “Overcoming the Obstacles”, “Reckoning With the Roots”…which of those suggests that an individual no longer has to contend with SSA? which of those suggests that an individual becomes conventionally straight?
You have crossed a line, sir. Your little word games have now turned into out and out lies…and the proof is staring us right in the face. I have cited several of your lies in this post and given evidence of why they are lies.
Beyond that, you have chosen to ignore a valid question while you still demand answers to questions we’ve answered several times. You get no more answers from me until you answer the important question I asked of you.
Michael,
And there is some lesbian or gay indentified man who is unhappy in that indentity and they feel they have no choice because people like you insist that gay is gay. I used to believe that.
I don’t hate you MIchael. I find your circuitous definitions tiresome and innaccurate and debilitating to ex gays.
Did it ever occur to you MIchael that there is another side to the coin – one in which there are no bad guys and just two different stories simultaneously occuring?
Carole,
Your comment at 12:04 is very good. I see something that has the smoothness of a vagina and I think of sex but not sex with women. Men think it has something to do with what is beyond us…uh uh. I think that’s why women’s bedroom that are very feminine are exciting to both men and women.
Uh oh!! This just in. Breaking news.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/20021701/detail.html
Well, I wonder how the reparative therapy is going. LOL!!!
@Mary,
I suppose if they got pictures of those penguins and then showed them to women hooked up to a machine, the women would “react”? LOL
My goodness. I am surprised and humored as are you, over the “conclusion”
And I’ll bet many women would react.
Eddy, I was not lying. I was not aware that you have always made it clear that “ex-gay” did not mean “no longer SSA” or “straight”. I have not read any of your publications, but would like to.
Sorry, but I will continue to add “still SSA, not straight” every time you use the term. I know that really annoys you, but I think it’s necessary — whether you think so or not.
Because I feel that I do not get a straight answer — forgive the pun. You feel you give it. I have felt you were dodging it — so I kept pounding and pounding. I do appreciate the definition you offered earlier. Thanks. I still think it needs the qualifiers.
I do understand that. I have always understood that. I did not miss the point. You don’t “identify” as gay. That’s fine. “Gay” means something negative to you. To me, it’s just another word, a neutral word, a synonym for “homosexual” or “SSA”. For me, it does not mean the person likes it, does it or identifies with it.
I do understand that, too. I always have. And I think you know that I also believe that “identity” is very important to the journey of the Christian. I try to “idenify” with Christ, as I know you do.
I have always understood that, too. “Ex-gay” means you don’t do it — or at least are trying not to. And more power to you — in living according to your understanding of God’s will and purpose. That is all any of us can do.
Good night. Sorry for being such an irritant. If we could talk OFF the blog, meet each other — instead of slinging BS and insults at each other on the blog — I think there is a good chance we would not argue very much — and might even be firiends.
We have MUCH in common. Both love the Lord. Both care about His SSA kids very much. Both understand the struggle to integrate our sexuality and spirituality. Both are still SSA, not straight.
Enough. I need to sleep. Hope you can forgive my stubborn, snarky, arrogant tone. I will try to be less upset with yours. For some reason, you just really honk me off sometimes. Maybe because I see in you traits I do not like to see in myself (The old speck and beam deal…) Tonight, I will ask the Lord for His forgiveness — and for more patience and kindness in dealing with you.
PEACE. OUT.
Sorry, Mary, wanted to respond to you too. I do see that there are many sides to this coin. It is not all black and white. There are many variations, many layers to sexual attraction and identity. I realize I don’t act like it sometimes, but I do undertsand that.
You find my “definitions” (which are not mine) tiresome and innaccurate and debilitating to ex-gays> And I find the evasiveness and resistance to answering “what do you mean by gay and what you you mean by change” to be equally “tiresome and innaccurate and debilitating” to gays. Guess we are even on that.
So we agree onsome things, but on this? No way.
Honestly, I have never, never found a woman’s bedroom, even the “very feminine ones” to be “exciting” — and I would guess that most SSA men don’t either. Nicely decorated maybe — but definitely NOT exciting.
Michael,
While many gay id’d men have no attraction to the opposite sex, many do. They still, however id as gay.
Do you have a problem with how they id as well?
K.
Michael,
And you keep saying “You all have religious reasons” and the like.
I’m not religious.
K.
Carol,
I find Bailey’s conclusion that women are bisexual silly too. Glad you brought it up.
K.
Michael-
Sorry, but I don’t buy it. It was in previous discussions with YOU that I elaborated on the titles of my talks and teachings.
I suppose I can believe that you haven’t read any of my Exodus ‘teachings’ but it sure calls into question your ‘authority’ to speak out against Exodus since you have an inside track. Don’t you think it comes off just a bit insincere that you claim to know Exodus and all of it’s evils but that you haven’t even read the Exodus writings of the one person who engages you in public discussion the most? And, in many of our little talks, you make claims of knowing me and where I come from…even after I make comments that challenge you to stop seeing your generalized picture of Exodus when you speak to me…and now you admit that you haven’t even read the Exodus teachings I’ve mentioned at least 4 times over the course of my dialogues here as examples of how Exodus was presenting a more balanced view than what you keep asserting. Sorry, dude, but that’s simply outrageous.
Even if you didn’t take the time to read the teachings I’ve cited, I’ve mentioned most of those titles in past discussions. I’ve specifically mentioned the incident of falling in love with my male ministry partner while in Bible school. In fact, I even saw some parallels between that and how your relationship with your Exodus colleague and prayer partner started. How on earth did you miss it? How can you now claim that this is all news to you?
I will once again say ‘no’ to your suggestion that we chat offline. You continue to quote things I’ve said here on the blog out of context–but there, at least, I have the blog evidence to fall back on and to back me up. I’m sorry but I could never trust you offline. Beyond that, the notion that we somehow have things to discuss that the others can’t hear…well that just isn’t so. Truth is truth. If we labor to tell it as clearly as possible…if arriving at the truth is our shared goal…then we should be able to get there right here in this somewhat public forum. Offline chatting with one who has tried so desperately to discredit me and my words…not a good thing.
Michael,
No one here has been evasive with you – not in the least. I have answered you clearly and directly. Stop seeing others when you read my posts – a tiresome trait of yours to mix people up into one category for your easy filing system.
I’m still reeling from this revelation from Michael:
It’s not that I’m offended that he hasn’t read any of my publications but rather that I’ve mentioned them from time to time as possible fodder for conversation only to have them dismissed or rebutted. I recall that I mentioned my “Roots” series…approximately a years worth of monthly newsletter teachings…and Michael’s response was that I was trying to take credit for the roots concept itself. Now it’s quite clear. He hadn’t read any part of the series but still felt obligated to take a dismissive jab at me while concealing the fact that he actually didn’t know what I’d written and how it agreed or disagreed with the concept he accused me of ‘stealing it from’.
If he wasn’t making constant attacks on me and others on this blog for being dishonest and less than forthright, this might be forgiveable. But, for the moment, I don’t see it. Michael has consistently given the impression that he has monitored Exodus closely for years and, beyond that, that he is quite familiar with me and my views. Since I was a key figure in Exodus and an invited teacher at numerous Exodus conferences, this is no small oversight on Michael’s part. (Not only did I publish such radical ideas as “Wayward Emotions”, “The Reality of Temptation” and “Roots” in our ministry newsletter but Exodus recognized the value of such teachings to the point where they invited me to teach them at their annual conferences. This goes directly against Michael’s oft-repeated statement that Exodus pretends that your SSA goes away and you ‘become straight’.) These facts that run counter to his allegations ought to silence them once and for all but I’ll wager that he’ll continue to make his unfounded and untrue allegations.
Even the olive branch approach smacks of posturing. No admission to lying–which I documented. But rather a circuitous loop and an appeal that perhaps if we could discuss these things offline, we’d be friends. Is the suggestion that he’d be more truthful and forthright offline? More willing to listen to elaboration of concepts (such as roots) before dismissing them summarily? Perhaps the suggestion is meant to be that I’d be more honest offline. While I concede that every one of us would likely be a bit more revealing in a ‘one on one’ rather than a public blog, the suggestion that I’d feel the freedom to be a bit more revealing in a ‘one on one with Michael is an unfathomable stretch. I submit that the olive branch was/is a posture to distract from the fact that he’s feeling quite a draft on his lower half.
Yes, I know I’m being a bit brutal. I used the word ‘outrageous’ in my prior post. My response to something ‘outrageous’ is outrage. Go figure!
RE: Bailey and bisexual women. Not exactly what he proposes. He has said that women don’t have a sexual orientation in the same way men do. Chivers followed that with her “bonobo studies.”
Also, Diamond is cut from a similar cloth in that she believes in the dual process idea of attachment and sexual pathways being separate but related. Women can move more easily into a sexual feeling as a consequence of relationship than men can would be one prediction from this. Is this bisexuality? For awhile maybe. In my work, I am finding men like this too. Not sure how much the prevalence difference (women more than men) is due to biology or social structures.
Warren,
Nice clarification.
What I see when I read people’s stories is that there are both men and women who both do and do not move across the Kinsey scale in a relatively congruent fashion, for lack of a better way of saying it.
While I’ve read many more women expressing this experience than men, there are men who also seem to lead with their hearts and the sex follows.
Or something like that.
But I also wonder if men who have had a sexual crush on a man at some time in his life would admit this as easily as a woman.
And also, as you mentioned, where there might be real differences in the rate of experience between men and women, it might be more due to social sanctions, how boys are actively encouraged to divorce sex from love, etc….
But also, and this is something I have never read a really good discussion about, there does seem to be women who do bisexuality more like it’s claimed men do. It’s interesting to me that this still seems a taboo subject, just as it’s still taboo to look very carefully at women who sexually abuse children. We just really, really want women to lead with their hearts, to be the source of love and nurturance.
K.
No longer identifying as gay does not always equate to the absence of same gender attractions, but rather the judgement that something else (which is always personal and unique) is more important than those attractions. Please see the below quote.
“Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear.” –
— Ambrose Redmoon
It is not axiomatic that we label ourselves for a lifetime just because other people think we should. Rather than identifying with a label, what is the matter with saying, if you are so inclined to explain, “I think differently about myself than I used to and right now the only expectation I have about these personal feelings is to continue to learn about myself and see where it takes me.”
Using a label leaves open the door for a myriad of interpretations – why would anyone, content with or unhappy with, same gender attractions leave themselves open to that kind of scrutiny or judgement or assumptions from others? It is really the source of misunderstanding which has led to so much of the contention
Michael,
Here’s an excerpt from an out gay man who’s now questioning his sexuality. Not for religious reasons, not because he thinks it’s sinful, etc….
But because of internal reasons.
And this is NOT one of the guys I’ve had in mind when talking with you. He’s new to the group.
——————
perhaps because you are staight or bisexual? it simply could be a case of CSA sexual confusion and your innate sexual orientation is surfacing through these feelings/fantasies…which would not be unlike some homosexual men who have the similar feelings after living as hetersexuals,( they report feeling like they are pretending or feeling uncomfortable with sex with females and think about male relationships)….its not true that this (latent changes in sexual orientation) only happens one directionally, ei gay to str8 only…i read that many people do go through changes in thier sexual attractions from time to time though these changes might be distressing at times they are not specifically harmful…and there is nothing that says you cannot choose to live the way you want, whatever your motivations…and i personally think there is nothing wrong with wanting kids and a hetersexual life…certainly not any more than it would be wrong to not want it…regardless of the reasons.
i personally relate because i have the same feelings, and ive lived as an “out” affirming gay man for many years and always felt something not quite right with where i was then…and when i look at my behavior, it seems there were obvious signs that i was not where i should be,..plus ive had sexual attractions toward females, as a kid and as an adult(even while i was in a relationship with a man)…and i still find females attractive and im not at all opposed to having sex with one…though i generally dont fantisize about them sexually now (i did as a teenager though), but im romanically attracted to them… but because of CSA and other childhood issues have made my attractions to females confused and difficult to deal with.
i have a friend who identifies as gay, but he still routinely has sex with both females and males. though he prefers males over females, but even the males he is attracted to tend to be rather femimine in appearance and manerisms…intersting.
———————-
Who knows where this guy will end up, but this indicates the beginning of the process for the few guys I’ve been in contact with who say they’ve changed in orientation — or, if you prefer, have uncovered their more innate orientation which got knocked off course.
However that may be, I doubt this guy will ever one day be utterly free of any hint of homosexual feeling in some way or another. He may never be a 0 on the Kinsey scale.
And of course, it’s far too early to know where this particular man will end up.
But this is what it looks like when a guy begins to come out of the straight closet — if he does.
K.
P.S.
There’s no indication that this guy’s sexual attraction to men is based in an overt fetish either.
He seems to be able to relate to, and bond with, men qua men.
K.
Eddy: I am done. Will not address you or your comments again on this blog. Done. Done, Done. We get nowhere. You don’t trust me. I don’t trust you. Done.
I think we are just equally matched in terms of how obnoxious we find each other. I feel the same way about you that you feel about me. It’s personal.
To the rest of you. Call yourselves whatever you please. You don’t owe me or anyone else an explanation. If you think gayness is broken, disordered and sinful, that’s your choice. Live you lives however you desire. Believe whatever you want. I will do the same.
Cop-out. Always follows the olive branch speech. Avoids the serious challenge presented, takes a final hit and then walks away–only to resurface with the same old same old when the heat has died down. At least that’s my take on it.
A beautiful day for lounging at poolside–without the computer. Au revoir.
To the rest of you. Call yourselves whatever you please.
Michael,
I would prefer not to use labels at all to describe someone’s, including myself, personal sexual preferences. That is just what I think and it works for me.
I was about to rev up the Kumbayah…
I do hope the views will not go away. I think there is much to be gained (I know my awareness has improved) from the exchange of views.
@ Michael,
Take some time away if you must…but consider how hard we are all trying to “get” eachother. Leaving is an option, of course. So is engaging honestly through difficult confrontations.
Carole said it well on July 11:
In fairness, I think the argument about what “change” was became intensified with Spitzer’s article…and with Joe’s repetitive use of the word “cured.”
Eddy has been clear as have many others I have known over the years…its about bringing their behavior in congruence with their values (a basic Christian calling for many behaviors we all agree about).
Yeah Michael, when confronted – you back out and run away. And you have made far too many assumptions about people – far too many. I am sort of tired of how many times Eddy has to remind you of his teachings while at Exodus. Somehow you just move fluidly between an exgay person and some association with Exodus (one which I have never had) You complain to those of us here about being evasive but you duck and roll when confronted with the plain truth that we are not your enemies and your complaint is with someone or something else.
This from a guy who experienced rape by a man in his late 20′s. Previous to this, he was exclusively heterosexual. It seems extraordinarily counter-intuitive to see that, even as an adult, a sexual assault can change a person’s fantasies, but early childhood abuse would have minimal impact.
Over 4 years, I’ve noticed 5 or 6 men come through the group who experienced rape as an adult. Each of them developed homosexual fantasy.
————————
Charlie;
This topic is such a brain opener for me.
My fantasies before the abduction/assault I visualized healthy hetro content.
After the rape and all the years of dealing with the falshbacks and uncomfortable sexual reactions my body went through while my mind was continually being subjected to alcohol and THC. This went on for ten years. I gave up on my dick and went solo in my mid-thirties.
Masterbation was never a problem for me. I tried men twice after the assault in desparation for sexual gratification, women were equally disapointed as the two men, nothing worked except masterbation.
My fantasies changed to male/male around the same time and I was disgusted after my solo sessions. For most of my thirties and forties I had intrusive m/m events in my fantasies of me being with a man and I would switch back and forth to women. It was very frustrating.
I fixed it with test driving the equipment and using a female nudity mag. When a m/m visual scenario developed I shut it down and with practie I was able to move on to the actual m/f sexual relation without the physical and mental interuptions associated with the assault.
Good topic
It’s very confusing for a person who has suffered sexual assualt as a child or an adult to put together the response of their body with who they are. I wish more people knew and understood this about sexuality. Just because you have an orgasm or intrusive thoughts does not make you that person.
Ok, last one until I find the ones I’m looking for…
I don’t know Micheal, your definitions demand a person like this to identify with, and thus actively nurture, pain, loss, isolation.
Of course a guy like this should be politically allowed to id in whatever way allows him some peace of mind.
Just as your coming out of the gay closet has allowed you to develop a life and go to the beach with a person you care about.
I really don’t think that you would sit in the same room with this guy and demand he be utterly free of any homosexual/homoerotic something before he can choose to nurture his more life-affirming aspects of himself.
While you’re a hard nut to crack, you don’t strike me as devoid of a little compassion.
K.
—————
I know in my experience until I got EMDR I was having fantasies about sexual things with my cousin, the perp, while I masturbated or I would have fantasies, especially when I was a younger teenager, about kids who were 5 or 6 years younger than me. As I got older those fantasies really really bothered me, especially because the rest of the time I was thinking about girls I liked and the other stuff didn’t fit in.
After EMDR for a lot of that the fantasies just stopped. It was also a realization that by revisiting those fantasies or watching gay porn and getting off to it that I was feeling this torn up wrecked feeling afterwards. It got to the point where I realized that I was ripping my soul apart by doing that stuff. Then after reading some words on Joe Kort’s website I realized that it was all related to trying to make sense of what happened, and even if I thought of it as being sexual it was an expression over the anxiety those experiences caused me. I would have NEVER wanted to actually perform any of the fantasies that went on in my head about younger kids, I knew how wrong those were.
I also think if I hadn’t gotten to the point where things felt so split between who I was and what was happening in my head I could have continued that pattern for a much longer period of time. My abuse ended when I was 9. I started masturbating when I was 11, and for the next ten years EXACTLY everything was so crazy like that. Now at 22 and about a year through this whole journey into the what’s and why’s and how’s and an AWFUL lot of deep introspection I feel that I’ve arrived at a scary place in life, but scary in a good way.
Scary when you start a new school and you’re nervous about meeting new people, or nervous about all those rumors about upperclassmen stuffing you in lockers or giving you swirlies. For the past 11 years I had been living this life that was confused, broken, and masked. I got so used to wearing a mask and covering up who I was that it just became involuntary. I didn’t want people to know how I felt, I didn’t want to show any emotions. So I put on the goofy joking personality and ran with it. It’s become a part of me to the core now, but it’s existing there because I like that part of me, it’s not a mask anymore.
Sexually though, I’m at a new place. It’s a fresh kind of discovery like when I was 11 or 12. I’m not being controlled by fantasies that happened because of what my cousin did to me. All the homosexual and homoerotic thoughts and fantasies that felt so opposite of the rest of me fade and dissipate more and more every time I go to EMDR. I make my own choices now, and I can decide what I feel comfortable with and what I like, instead of trying to turn myself into my cousin and reliving my relationship with him along with the abuse in my mind. I feel ready finally to meet a girl or start dating, something that I was convinced I was too broken or damaged to do in the past.
Allowing myself to be that emotionally open is scary too, because in the past I’ve been very guarded about everything in my life, with the exception of two or three of my best friends who are basically brothers to me. Scared that if I get to the point in a relationship where I do reveal this part of me and my past, that I’ll be left because they won’t understand or be able to handle the emotional baggage. I’d say I feel like I have my life back, but this all started when I was 6. The sixteen years since that have been all I knew in my life, and for most of that time I hid my feelings and repressed my emotions and just put my head down and pushed myself forward. I’m not used to having things so new and opened up. I’m still digging through and finding things that I’ve kept buried for so long, and each time I free those things, I feel happy, but also scared. I don’t know what all this is going to make me.
Oddly though I feel like it’s simplifying me as a person. All these things I had implemented to protect myself, all these barriers, they’re falling. I couldn’t even tell you what they were, there were so many of them. Good to have em gone, but it’s weird at the same time.
Mary,
Yes, it’s unfortunate.
And it’s more unfortunate that both the gay world and the straight world demands of such experiences to be classified as sexual orientation, or one’s fundamental identity.
Hopefully things are changing as more men are speaking out publicly, which takes guts because they also get publicly laughed at and ridiculed.
K.
And pushed by others to accept a gay id. Inhumane. That’s why the Michaels of the world need to be educated more on sex, sexuality, sexual violence and abuse etc…
OK Eddy. Let’s try again. Tell me. Your rules.
MIchael,
How about this for rules:
1. Stop confusing all ex gay people with Exodus
2. Stop taking snippets of a paragraph out of context
3. Start listening to others
And that’s just for starters.
Yes — mine, too. I have scanned some and read some of the posts since Friday. Actually made a few notes yesterday because I wanted to say a thing or two, but to do it in the right light after doing some thinking/meditating and praying. Won’t happen until tomorrow as I am sticking to my resolve to have family relaxation time today. Had a great morning at church.
So, hi and bye for today.
Mary, please. Don’t misrepresent me. I am not pushing anyone to “accept a gay I.D.” I have no desire and no right to do so. If they don’t want to think of themselves as gay or call themselves gay — that is perfectly OK with me.
Why would you assume that I am not?
MIchael,
OK. That is certainly reasonable. I acknowledge that I have violated rules like these that should not have to be stated. They should just be common courtesy — and I have been discouretous.
I don’t assume Michael. By your comments, you seem very ingnorant to the variety of sexual experiences and intepretations. You put everyone into three categories.
For a five year old – that might make sense. But for the real world where there is much more complexity, it doesn’t make sense nor does it seems realistic to anyone with any experience in this avenue. Hence, my conclusion about you.
Michael,
I really believe you when you say that you don’t want to shove an ID down someone’s throat.
And I don’t know how you feel about this yourself, but I feel saddened when people discuss their feelings that homosexuality is a sin, cuz I personally don’t think you’re sinful for wanting to love a man.
Ouch, that hurts me, if not you.
But, you have suggested that a guy would have to be devoid of homosexual fantasy in order to be viewed as straight. That the right category would be bisexual, at least. Or at least not heterosexual.
While I can see that the word “bisexual” makes sense in ALL cases of someone who has overt sexual feelings or fantasies about the same sex in some way, and that it can be a useful word in some way…. it’s not useful as a noun in some cases.
For instance, I think it’s a good idea that Rob see through the lense of bisexuality when exploring his feelings.
But in doing so he’s coming to a place of being more sure, not less, that he’s not a bisexual, because in doing so he’s more able to separate out the various meanings and feelings of his bisexual attractions.
So Rob now ID’s as straight, though he still has homosexualy related fantasies.
But their repeats of his abuse, down to what’s said, cuz when you hook up over AOL you can write a script, and agree to stick to it.
Considering his age, I’d be surprised if he gets to a place of never having such thoughts and fantasies.
According to you, he’s not allowed to ID as straight, or if he does, then he’s being misleading, using words that fit him, but don’t adhere to simple definitions that most simple folk use.
It took me a long time to sort of get the pain of someone who struggles with their sexuality — be that they’re heterosexually married but gay, or homosexually involved but straight.
But I think I get it now — to some small degree.
Just like you, Rob’s at the point in his life that he really doesn’t care if he’s straight, bi or gay. He just wants a life. To get out of the closet and breath and be whoever he is.
K.
Boy! Mary, do you have this wrong! Completely and totally wrong. I must have done a really crappy job of stating my poisition on this. I was asking for a clarification of terms not telling you how you should feel or how you must “idenitify” yourself.
I amit that I can be very pushy, demanding and yesm Eddy, even childish about wanting to nail the words down, but I am not “demanding” that any SSA person, should or must “like it”, “identify with it” or “nurture” it in any way. NO. NO. NO.
I have no right — and no desire to do that.
As a Christian and a therapist, I would never demand, suggest or even imply that they should nurture a part of themselves that causes them to feel “pain, loss or isolation.” NEVER. You have me wrong.
Believe it or not, I would encourage a client who was finding benefit in an EXODUS type program to continue with the program — while being thoughtful and realistic with regards to their expectations.
Since leaving EXODUS, I have, as a therapist, done this very thing several times. And I never told them my prior involvement with or opinion about EXODUS, unless they asked.
I told them that as far the reasearch has shown, ex-gays are not heterosexual — and that if that was their hope or expectation, they might be well-advised give that idea some more thought. And I have even given them info on how to contact EXODUS if they didn’t have it — though most have already googled it.
As a therapist, I never, ever tell a client what they should feel, what they should call themselves, how they should identify themselves or what part of themselves their should nurture. They come to therapy, usually, because they have already decided that they want to nurture healthy parts of themselves. And I try to help them do that.
Here it is different. Outside of therapy, in public discourse, I am very outspoken. obnoxious, pushy and down-right rude at times. I don’t like it. I try to control it, but sometimes I get frustrated and lose my cool. I should know better. I am not proud of my temper. It is something God is dealing with me about.
I can be a pis-headed jerk here – about things I believe deeply. In therapy, however, it’s all about them, not me. I provide therapy. Good therapy. They feel better. Clients report it and their doctors notice it.
I am well educated, well-trained and well-respected for helping clients deal with loss, abuse, addiction, sexuality and other life issues in a caring and ethical manner. And I would be happy to supply letters of reference from three local psychiatrists who are experts in these fields and who know my work on a daily basis who think so.
Mary, you are quite right in saying:
\
No, it just makes you a person who has those feelings, thoughts or attractions. I understand that your “identity” is all of you — how you perceive yourself, how you feel, what you believe, what you have experienced, what God has created and what you have developed — and more…
Your “identity” is much bigger than your orgasms or intrusive thoughts. I was trying to clarify the words, not trying to dictate your identity or rob you of it in any way.
Your “identity” is a personal, even sacred thing, and I have no right, no need and no desire to dictate it for you.
Mary:
.
No, I put sexual orientation in three categories, OSA, SSA or some combination. I am talking about which gender they are drawn to — not who they are.
Who they are is MUCH more complicated.
To Ktite:
Yes. You understand. That is what I am saying. In terms of the three broad categories we commonly refer to as “sexual orientation” — homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual — he would be bisexually attracted.
How he feels about that, what he believes about that, whether or not he chooses to identify as that, nurture that or act on that is a different matter.
I understand that there are degrees — some guys are 98% hetero. Some are 85% and so on — the categories exist not to force people to be anything but to describe the direction of their attraction Towards the same, opposite or both sexes? I amstrictly referring here to which gender arouses or attracts them, not who they are.
.
That is fine. I am totally cool with that. I have no interest in telling him how he “should ID”. I am not “allowing” or disallowing anything here. I have no power to do that even if I wanted to. I have never suggested that indiviudals don’t have the right to call themselves or think of themselves in any way they feel comfotable. I don’t think Rob is misleading anyone.
But, it is different when it comes to public ministries, ex-gay counselors and scientific organizations who offer to help gays “change”. They need to be more careful in how they identify what they do – clarifying their terms — not telling people who they must be.
For his sake, I pray he finds that.
Just in case anyone is still in the mood, here’s Kum-ba-yah performed by 44 nuns. Very pretty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdO3R5MlbxA
Michael – this is exactly WHAT YOU do!
Quit saying it Mary. It just is not true. I do not tell people what they must be. You can be any darn thing you like and call it whatever you want. I reallly mean it. Honest.
I was only trying to clarify the meaning of words. You can keep believing that I am telling you to “be” something if you want to, but it is not true. You are misrepresenting me.
Nope. Not my rules. The rules of responsible, intelligent blog discussion.
Mary offered a few that I agree with.
You don’t ‘invent’ ways to thwart the other sides attempts at rational discussion. (Goes back to our discussion of my roots series and the fact that you offered rebuttal without having read it.)
You occasionally look for ‘common ground’ rather than always seizing on one mispoken word or phrase.
You don’t dodge a legitimate question…neither do you respond with insinuations about why the questioner would ask such a thing. (You don’t presume another’s motives.)
It may be okay, under certain circumstances, not to tell the whole truth–particularly if its something very personal. (I realize that I have at times pushed too hard re your relationship with Gary.) But, it’s never okay to lie or to purposely mislead in a conversation.
It is not okay to hold one side to a higher standard than the other. (Continually bashing those who you deem to be on my side for being less than honest, for being purposely confusing in their dialogues when you are at least as guilty of the same.)
Michael, I know you have a flair for debate but I have stated very clearly that I don’t wish to debate…I want to discuss. I believe that some of the offensive things you did towards me weren’t done with personal malice as much as they sprang from the debate spirit. But that doesn’t make them anymore true…it doesn’t make them less counterproductive. It may make them less offensive–but not by much.
The lack of personal respect that I feel from you is overwhelming. To purposely waste my time as you have. Insisting that I answer your questions over and over again, responding to your rebuttals…and then to learn that you weren’t really paying any attention to what I said…but rather were only looking for the flaws to seize upon. I don’t like it; I won’t like it. I see that you still have not acknowledged that you wronged me. I demonstrated untruths that you wrote. You don’t like the word ‘lie’…I get that…but check your dictionary. Telling an untruth is telling a lie. Saying that I hadn’t stepped up and revealed that I still have SSA…that’s an untruth…it’s a lie. Portraying me as part of the evil Exodus machine that obscures the reality of ongoing same sex attractions while making the unfounded promise of straightness…that’s an untruth; it’s untrue about Exodus and it’s untrue about me personally..therefore it’s a lie.
Not my rules, Michael, the rules of civil behavior. What do we do when we realize we’ve spoken an untruth about someone and they are present? I would expect it to be something more satisfying to the one the false statements were directed at than saying “I wasn’t lying”. What do we do on a blog when someone has nailed us for telling an untruth (whether unintentional or intentional)?
Eddy. You are right. I was wrong not to read your works. I will have to catch up for lost time. Which one do you recommend I read first? I am convinced now that I was wrong. You have never tried to give the impression that you are heterosexual.
Mary: Give me one instance where I told you what you must “be”. Just one.
Calling a man who was raped by another man gay because he had an orgasm and now has sexual thoughts and arousal by that is just wrong. His sexual orientation is no more gay than it is victim.
It seems I have one comment awaiting moderation that I wrote before Michael’s 7:13 post.
Anyway, Michael, it really doesn’t matter which ones you read first. What matters–what I found so offensive–was twofold. 1) I’ve presented the list of teaching titles that I presented today a number of times…in discussions with you…yet, today, it sounds like it’s news to you. 2) In those discussions where I presented those topics (And the ‘Roots discussion’ stands out), you offered rebuttal without having even read them or asking more about them.
I’m not sure how many of them are still in print. “Lessons for the Battlefield” was never available in hard-copy form but was a taped presentation at an Exodus conference. The ‘Roots’ series was compiled into a booklet and I suspect that it’s still available. (LOL. I saw it on Amazon.com for something like $35; we sold them for $3.50!) A second compilation booklet “Understanding Freedom: The Struggle With Life-Dominating Sin” may also be still available.
I never claimed that I was rebutting your published work. I was rebutting what you post here.
If I can find them — and I promise I will look — I will read them. If they change my mind, I will let you know.
I just have to say that I truly admire Michael for his above approach.
He’s had — how many people jump on him? And here he is admitting he could be a little more, well, don’t know…. something.
Really Michael, it takes a really good guy to do this. It really does.
But I have to say that it really does seem that the better question to ask a guy who’s been raped is how it has effected him rather than ask if he’s straight, bi or gay.
And that in such circumstances, it might be far more helpful to allow the notion that there’s heterosexual folk with homosexual fantasies.
Among other reasons is the fact that a lot of people who come to such fantasies due to rape are “attracted” in much the same way you’re “attracted” to a car wreck.
Maybe a better word would be “compelled by” rather than “attracted to”.
But there’s still fantasies.
But like my S&M fantasies (a mirror of my physical abuse history), I’m not attracted to them, or find them attractive. I really don’t like them.
And I’m not opposed to light S&M play acting among people, and don’t think that such things are always connected to a physical abuse history.
Just that for ME they are, and thus are in no way “attractive”, though I still rely on them at the age of 45.
It’s really not all fun, fun, fun.
And nor, do I feel, are they a “natural” part of my sexual make-up.
Without my physical abuse history I’d imagine I’d be sexually adventurous enough to play at thing like tie me up, tie me down. But such things in real life just really, really, scare me.
Though still, there’s my fantasies….. fairly extreme S&M.
And I don’t even watch the news because I have to be very prepared to see depictions of violence – otherwise I get triggered like crazy.
Yet, there’s these fantasies…..
And yes, this is a good analogy to some people’s homosexual fantasies, and at least to a few gay men’s heterosexual ones.
Take care,
Katie
I completely agree. I never did that. Let me say it again: “I am talking about which gender they are drawn to — not who they are.”
How he feels about it, whether he likes it, identifies with it, chooses to nurture it or act on it is an entirely different question.
Now can we sing Kum ba ya?
Michael,
So then you admit that people who seek relief from same sex sttractions can change.
Either that or you know the reason behind every person sexuality.
Katie, I completely agree with this:
And if I had a client who was raped — and I have counseled many sexual abuse victims at hospitals, treatment centers and in private practice — I would never, never “ask if he is straight, bi or gay.” I might ask if this has had any effect on how he sees himself in that regard — and how he feels about that — but that would not be why he was there or why I was there.
Somehow, I must have given you guys the idea that I would. How I gave you that impression I don’t know, but I simply have not — and would not — do such a thing in therapy. Never. Never. Never. Never have. Never will.
I wholeheartedly agree!
At the very least can you see how some people who are same sex attracted do not identify as gay. Are not gay?
This is kind of what everyone has been saying. Ex gays say this and you seem to not like that.
Yes, Mary. I admit that people who seek relief from same sex attractions can change!
I have never said they “couldn’t change”. I said that I have never met an ex-gay man who was not SSA.
Change? Of course they can. Of course they do. But lose their SSA and become heterosexual instead? I don’t think so. After 30 years, I am still waiting to meet just one.
.
Of course. I never said they can’t — aren’t allowed to — or don’t “identify as gay” I have met many, many such persons.
That depends on what you mean by gay.
By the way Eedy, when I said that “you have never tried to give the impression that you are heterosexual”, I didn’t mean you couldn’t — I just meant you haven’t so far.
Don’t knwo why I keep messing uy your name –Eddie, Eedy. I swear it is my bad eyes and shaky hands — and not intentional. Sorrry, Eddy.
Once again, it brings us back to the point I am trying so hard to make. You cannot answer this question without first coming to some common agreement on the meaning of these terms.
You have to define what you mean by “gay” and what you mean by “change”.
I don’t know about Kumbayah but how about this:
Hey, this nails me too so I am not trying to say I am better at this. I am not. I do aspire to be though.
Michael,
You still avoid the question. If a person who is raped is not gay – and wants to stop having thoughts and arousal from gay images and thoughts – then what is he to do? Not change? He certainly does not identify as gay.
Hey Michael,
Again, there are at least a few people I’ve come across who say they have no SSA.
And I know the question would be: Well, were they every REALLY gay to begin with?
Don’t know, but they sure felt gay.
This is sort of an interesting question.
On one of the support groups I’m on there’s a gay id’d guy who says that before he discovered he was gay, he had wonderful, spontaneous, intense, attractions to girls. So this is one thing he says.
But then he says he was always gay.
So I’ve asked him why he doesn’t view himself as straight at one point in his life, and gay at another?
Because, unlike a lot of people who shift in their identity, he didn’t discover that his attractions to women were far less intense than his attractions to men.
They were intense, full, and very real.
But, nope, he’s always been gay….
He’s a really smart guy, and open to being grilled, so I’ve grilled him.
In the end he believes he was always gay, not due to his feelings, but due to his belief that all gay people are born gay — so he must have been as well.
Even if he really, truly, felt heterosexual for much of his adult life.
And no, he no longer has any heterosexual fantasies, though he does still find women attractive — just no sexual fantasies proper.
And oh, he doesn’t like gay porn. Only straight porn. Go figure? lol.
Katie
If a person is raped… I didn’t realize you were zeroing in on vicitms of sexual abuse. As a therapist, I would deal with the abuse. Victims typically blame themselves is some way. I would deal with that mis-conception. They were victims. It does not define their sexual orientation or who they are.
As a victim of violent crime myself, I would certainly do everything I could to help him stop having intrusive thoughts — and suffering because of them. Perhaps group work with other surivivors of abuse. Individual therapy. Medication. Spiritual and familly support.
Perhaps EMDR — which has shown some effectiveness in reducing painful intrusive memories. I would never tell the guy that if he had images or got aroused that he must “accept that he is gay.” That would be non-therapuetic, unethical and just plain stupid.
Then Rob wouldn’t be misleading anyone in stating he’s gay, though he has homosexually oriented fantasies?
And Michael, as far as I know, his fantasies are still exclusively homosexually oriented, I don’t think he has any spontaneous heterosexual fantasies, except when we’re making out.
And initially having sex.
Then I’m pretty sure he retreats to homosexual ones.
I’m not sure about this because when I ask him he just stares blankly at me.
So that’s what I imagine. Not that his staring blankly at me happens only when I ask him this question. It happens a lot when the subject turns in any way to what happened to him as a child and how he now feels about it, etc….
Blank stare. Absence. Gone. No body home.
K.
@Katie:
Interesting. Sure wish I could meet one.
Yup. That would be my question. Did the guy have OSA to start with? Was he entirely SSA and now entirely OSA?
I have to say, I don’t know what to make of the guy who “identifies as gay” but has had “intense, full, and very real” sexual attractions to women. I am completely baffled.
Now, he “no longer has any heterosexual fantasies”, but “only likes straight porn.” What the heck is he doing while he’s watching the straight porn? Not fantasizing?
And oh, he is capable of talking, to some extent, about what happens at moments like this — “Being in a bubble, or somewhere else”.
Dissociation.
He dissociates a lot.
He now believes that his sex with men was done while in a dissociative state, and that his fantasies have the same purpose, to escape, hide, go somewhere else.
Unlike a lot of guys, he always had the question in his head: Why am I doing this? Etc…
Or, like one of the posts I posted above quoting the guys — it feels like a foreign power over him rather than originating through him.
The problem comes when you’ve got gay id’d guys who have lead a gay affirmative life for some time, and who then come to question their life.
If you admit that sexual abuse victims can be gay one day and then not another day, and allow them to id as straight guys with homosexual fantasy, then this does open the door to others who were not sexual abuse victims, but have other reasons, other associations, different psychological shifts, to do so as well.
Or so it seems to me.
Like there might be one man on the planet for whom the lost father really did influence his sexuality, and then he gets this need fulfilled in other ways, and so now shifts his attractions to women….
I don’t like NARTH at all. But still, there just might be one lone person on this planet for whom their scenerio fits.
K.
Michael,
About the gay guy who only watches straight porn — I can’t make heads or tails out of it — and I’ve asked him many, many times.
He’s very articulate too, but I still don’t get it.
I tease him about it — he’s the most queer gay man on earth….
But he does keep saying the same thing over and over when I ask, I just don’t get it, though he’s consistent
People are funny.
And oh, he’s heterosexually married, very much in love with his wife too.
If I were his wife I’d just kick him in the butt and tell him to wake up and smell the heterosexuality.
But, then I tell myself he must have his reasons….
K.
It’s not Rob I am concerned about really. He sounds confused and confusing. I am only concerned with therapists, counselors or organizations that claim to “change” gays without clarifying their terms.
I know it is none of my business and I don’t mean to be rude, but why are you dating a guy whose “fantasies are still exclusively homosexually oriented”, and “doesn’t have any spontaneous heterosexual fantasies, except when the two of you are making out –and initially having sex”?
Doesn’t that bug you to think he’s not really there? Not really attracted to you? I know is bugged the heck out of my wife — and hurt her deeply to know that I was attracted to my gay fantasies — not her. I don’t know how you deal with it. It must not be easy.
You say:
Sounds like he is overwhelmed. The question is too painful. He is dissociating. Is he getting any sort of therapy? Are you?
He’s “very much in love with his wife”? Does she know the two of you are having an affair?
Katie, with all due respect, why are you dating this man? Frankly, I am more concerned about your emotional health at this point than his. Why are you with a man who is not really with you?
I would be asking, not “can he change?” — but can you? Why not date a traight guy? Is there something about being with a truly heterosexual man, who has only spontaneous heterosexual attractions to you — as a female — that makes you feel uncomfortable?
Why a married guy, who thinks of himself as gay and has to dissociate to have sex with you? I suspect that you are dissociating a lot too.
Sounds like he is misleading himself and his wife.
Michael,
Don’t ever be concerned about asking me too personal of a question, I’m pretty open when it comes to this stuff.
Why am I with him? Because I have no doubt at all that he’s attracted to me, just scared of sexual intimacy. To me, his homosexual fantasies are no different than if he resorted to fantasies of shoes, in the sense that it’s not about men for Rob.
It’s about escape.
Do I like it that he escapes? No.
But life’s not perfect.
And I love the big goof a lot, and he’s been really good for me. He’s not a burden, he lightens my load.
And I believe that over time he’ll need to escape less and less.
But if he doesn’t, that’s ok too. I’m not making decisions based on hopes of change.
He holds my hand and strokes my hair and rubs my back and cuddles me a lot.
He’s very affectionate with me — spontaneously so.
And he gets spontaneous erection just by looking at me.
So he’s attracted to me….
It’s the actual sex that’s the problem, then he escapes. But maybe I do too, and so maybe we fit in that way.
We’re both a bit injured and bruised, broken even. We get eachother.
It’s been a healing relationship.
That he’s attracted to the type of sex he’s attracted to is hearbreaking. I don’t like that it also involves men — yuk
But, again, it’s not about men, and he’s not attracted TO men. Doesn’t even get an erection.
So there you have it: Men = shoes, but yet… still men, yuk, but….
That’s how I deal with it.
And just to let you know, aside from Rob, I find two men holding hands cute, but I find gay sex weird. Guess that means I’m not a gay man. Wew! That would cause all sorts of problems….
Katie
Silly,
Rob’s not married — that’s a different guy!!!! Different story!!!
Rob’s not married, he’s marrying me.
K.
Katie, frankly, Rob sounds gay. Many gay men who have sex with women, date them or marry them report that they have to dissociate to some extent to have sex with their woman. I know I did.
I don’t think his abuse made him gay, but I sure think it hurt and confused him. Chances are he was and still is gay. He even tells you he identifies as gay and only has gay fantasies. I would believe him if I were you. I would not marry him or make babies with him.
Rob’s the guy I”m marrying, he’s the one who like penises, not men qua men.
Rob’s the fetish guy, and the guy I’m marrying.
K.
Michael,
Rob does not id as gay.
That’s the other guy.
K.
Katie: Sorry got the two guys mixed up. Have you spoken to any other women who marredi or are now married to gay men? It might help. I also found this on the web. It might be useful.
http://www.gayhusbands.com/straightwivesbook.htm
I know. That’s what my wife thought, too.
Michael,
There are times in which Rob and I have intense sex, and he’s all there all the time.
It’s just not consistent. Has to do with where he’s at in therapy and the like.
It’s up and down.
Right now it’s down.
But to answer your question, yes, he’s in therapy.
I am too.
The therapist doesn’t think Rob’s gay at all. And he does therapy with gay men.
It’s interesting because another therapist who’s on this blog sent me a private message saying he doesn’t think Rob is “fully gay” — I think what he meant is that Rob doesn’t have a fully developed homosexual aspect, and so isn’t truely bisexual either.
Pretty much what Rob’s therapist thinks too.
And every other therapist I’ve spoken with, which has been a lot.
A guy attracted to sex acts involving either a penis or a fist, isn’t attracted to men in the way you are.
For a gay therapist’s perspective on this, go to joekort.com.
I’ve done therapy with Kort via phone. He was a life-line in the early days of all this coming out about Rob.
K.
Katie, sorry. Could we give the other guy a name so I don’t get him mised up with Rob? I am afraid that I am getting more and more confused.
In any event, if you marry, I hope you do so with eyes wide open — both of you — and that he resolves these issues (to the best extent he can) before you say “I do”. I would give it five years or so just to be safe.
Not saying you must. But from my own personal experience of being married to a woman who thought I was “just scared of sexual intimacy” I think it would be wise. It could save you both a lot of heart-ache down the road. You didn’t mention, do you intend to make babies with him? If so, it could also save a lot of heart-ache for them.
Michael,
I’ve been involved with three support groups for mixed orientation couples.
It’s been great. Among other things, it’s often very clear to me when the husband is truely gay/bi, and when he isn’t.
While I know that some gay men initially experience their attractions to men in a fetish-like way, etc… are a bit schizoid (the closet can have that effect), the really gay guys don’t do the things Rob does.
Like get an erection when their wives undress, among other things.
What I see in the case of splitting is that a guy’s sexuality can’t be determined until the splits heal to a large degree.
As Rob heals, his sexuality becomes more clear.
But he’s still scared.
You might really do some reading on Malesurvivor.org. I think having post after post after post — from a variety of people is really interesting, cuz you get a groove on what’s what in a that’s more difficult to get in dealing with a very limited number of self-reports.
If Rob id’d as gay and told you that he gets erections whenever he sees his girlfriend naked, can’t wait to hold her hand and kiss and cuddle, you’d question what he was talking about.
K.
We’ve been seeing eachother for over 4 years.
No babies, I’m 45, he’s 55.
Both have all the babies we want.
I’ve had the concerns you’ve mentioned — big time.
I still get concerned at times.
But the better part of myself knows what’s what. No gay man can fake the nuances of our physical communication.
And the wives married to gay men do NOT experience the nuances. It’s absent, and they don’t understand why.
You have to define what you mean by “gay” and what you mean by “change”.
Michael,
Yes, you are right and I believe these have to be individualized for each person. I always understood your feelings about people who make claims about themselves and that it should cover everyone else too – I have spent time with you and understood then and now how you have been hurt by this – I know what you wanted and how hard you fought to change your feelings through all the things you wanted to believe. I know you are not an activist, rather a man who wants to love his family and God. My request is that the same respect and truth you so rightfully deserve is also given to those who are not content with their same gender attractions and do not want to identify or solidify or justify these unwanted feelings with a label or an explanation. People take different paths to life situations and circumstances and it hurts to hear over and over a blanket claim, usually from someone who is angry, that no one can change any aspect of these unwanted and that they should be accepted as there will never be any change. I mean it really hurts. This is why I do not accept labels or others telling people who or what they are based on something they never wanted to begin with. Would you consider listening to what an individual said about where they are rather than have them identify as either gay, straight, ex-gay, etc.? I have to tell you when I think of you, I never, for a minute, think of you with any of these terms – ever. In fact, I believe I wrote about you once on this blog and if that is re-checked, I doubt any reference to any labels regarding sexuality will be found.
I am relieved to hear that. Is he involved in couseling or just you? It is a very good sign that the two of you can talk about it — if indeed you can — but I thought you said that when you try to talk about it he “just stares blankly at me. Blank stare. Absence. Gone. No body home.” That’s not a good sign.
Dont be so sure. I did. But I was thinking about Gary and how it was going to feel — on a purely physical level, it felt good — I was not turned on by her.
When I was making love to her — and she seemed to enjoy it — I was thinking about him. In my mind, I was “nuancing” him. Felt like I was cheating on her — and I was.
I hope you are scared a bit, too. It could prevent you from making a big mistake now and going through a lot of pain later. My ex-wife and I both experience a lot of pain about it — thirty years later.
Huge sigh of relief here. Good that you have known him 4 years. I would still advise giving it another four years or so — with both of you in regular therapy — before you say “I do”.
Just a word to the wise. Not saying you must do anything.
Michael,
Just wanted to say that I like what Ann wrote to you. I haven’t found you annoying because it’s obvious it comes from a place of pain.
You seem like a really nice, caring person.
And I understand your desire to protect others from the pain you’ve been through.
And appreciate you concern for me in relation to Rob as well.
K.
I think the word “fantasy” that Katie uses is confusing the issue. A sexual attraction is not a “fantasy”. When a pretty girl smiles at a guy and he blushes (and gets butterflies) that is not a “fantasy”.
When she leaves his presence he may or may not “fantasize” about being with her, but his spontaneous reaction is not a “fantasy”.
Secondly, Katie keeps bringing up S&M “fantasies”.
I ask in all seriousness: would you fantasize about hitting a tree or a rock or a fire hydrant with a whip? Is pruning or breaking up rocks with a hammer arousing in any way?
Do such “fantasies” purely involve yourself alone? (in other words, do you fantasize about hitting yourself?)
@Ann:
That is both wise and reasonable. I will take your sie counsel and try my best to do that.
I don’t think I have ever said that “no one can change any aspect of these unwanted feelings, that they should be accepted or that there will never be any change.”
Michael,
Did you do things like pick her feet up and kiss them, just out of the blue?
Absent mindedly stroke her hipbone while watching t.v.?
Say things like “I love your tummy” in the midst of a conversation about where to go to dinner?
Walk up behind her while she’s doing the dishes and smell her neck and tell her you just love the way she smelled?
Call her up just to say you love the sound of her voice?
Search her out to take a bath with in the middle of the day?
Day dream about her? And feel compelled to call her to tell her so?
Dwell on the small of her back with the tips of your fingers and say that you just love how it curves just so?
Tell her that while she’s sitting in your lap that you feel as though you could just take her entire being into yours?
Things like this?
K.
Regarding dissociation:
Things are getting better.
And yes, we can talk about this stuff.
Again, at times it’s quite easy.
Then there are times where he just shuts down.
Right now I”m not asking any questions, just doing what I do openly — like typing on this blog.
Then I’ll tell him about it, and sometimes he just opens up. Sometimes not.
All this stuff was the focus of our lives for about 3 years.
It’s good that it’s less so.
Still, I do hope one day that we can both just talk with neither of us feeling scared or at risk.
And I also hope we get our sex life back on track.
Rob’s scared that it will never be like it was before all this came out.
And part of what this means to him, is feeling intimacy during sex for the first time in his life. And I know that back then he didn’t retreat like he does now.
But now the pressure’s on to “prove he’s not gay”….. and all that stuff.
K.
Michael,
I never said you did
Michael and Eddy,
My admiration for both of you runs deep – I prayed for you today and this verse came to mind.
Colossions 1:9
Michael–
.
I attempted to introduce some thoughts from my ‘roots’ series into a conversation here in an attempt to demonstrate that there were more theories out there than just reparative. Your response was that the roots theory was based on already existing roots theory and I should be ashamed for trying to take credit for it. Hence, you passed judgement on the material that I wanted to bring into the conversation without even having read it and attempted to villify me in the process.
It’s clear to me that you never will acknowledge that this was wrong and that you never will apologize for doing it or for telling the untruths I cited earlier in this blog. As time goes on, I may speak to the blog in general about comments or statements that you make but I will do my best to avoid speaking to you. I have no further interest in anything you might say to me. It will be understood that if you address a comment to me, you’re really just posturing…pretending to speak to me but, in reality, posturing for the blog. (going for the points)
Michael,
The reason I zedroed in on the rape victim (and I hinted at this in a previous post) was to make a point later on. YOU DON”T KNOW WHERE SEXUALITY COMES FROM. MOST OF US DON’T.
So whether it is from a glaring and identifiable event such as rape – defining a person by what they are “drawn” to is of no use.
We must look at each individual and let that individual decide for themselves what is their orientation. It is not up to you to decide. If it is osmething they have always felt – be aware that that can change over time too. I’ve heard many many people talk about thier life with such certainty only to change how they view their life later on. And that certainty has changed, too – not to uncertainty – but to a newer perspective and certainty.
As ambiguous as this is, that is the way it is. When you hear exgays say they have changed – you are right – everyone is telling a different story. And that’s the truth.
So whether it is a rape victim or a seemingly uneventful life that has “drawn” a person to homosexuality or heterosexuality it is for that person to decide 1) How they feel about it 2) What to do with it 3) Whether or not to “nurture” it and 4) Whether they are gay, straight or bi.
Eddy:
I was responding to the ideas you were talking about, not your published works. I should have made it clear that I had not read your stuff. That was wrong. I apologize. I was not telling any untruths. I was disagreeing with the concepts, not rebutting your published works. I am sorry.
Fine with me, Eddy. I feel pretty much the same way about you. No big loss.
@Mary:
You are absolutely right. I have never claimed that I know where sexuality comes from.
Again, you are absolutely right.
To all of you:
You accuse me of not listening. I admit I don’t sometimes. But sometimes, you don’t listen very well either. I say “ex-gay males are still SSA, not straight” and you hear:
I have never said ANY of these things. You accuse me of saying them because that’s what you want to hear.
Like me sometimes, you are not really listening.
Michael,
You say you have never claimed to know where sexuality comes from but you seem to be pretty clear on where is does not come from, even though many who have experienced trauma or broken relationships in their lives can relate their SSA back to this at some point.
Seems pretty unscientific to me, but I guess that does not matter to you.
Concerned:
NO. You are wrong. It does matter to me. Science does matter to me. Contrary to what you are saying, I am “not pretty clear or where is does not come from“. I have no idea where it comes from.
I also have no idea where heterosexuality comes from. I have my own guesses – but they are just that — guesses. No one else knows for sure where SSA or OSA comes from either. They have to guess too.
I hear that some people believe that their SSA came from “experienced trauma or broken relationships” — and who knows? That may be exactly right — for them.
Unfortunately, there is no “science” to prove it one way or another. They may have turned out SSA even if they had great relationships and no trauma.
But MIchael,
you have consistently said that a person who does not want SSA or like SSA in themselves should be counseled to acceppt thier SSA because change was not possible. That SSA or being gay was inborn.
I felt like I was beating my head against a wall, but I got what I wanted from Eddy and others. Maybe they said it clearly many times before and I just wasn’t listening — or didn’t really want to hear — but I got it. Thanks.
Although the “ex-gay” may have experienced major life changes and even some
changes in their sexual attractions, the term does not imply a change from gay to straight — and it does not indicate that the ex-gay is no longer SSA.
I won’t need to ask again.
Mary:
Simply not true. I never said those things. Quit putting words in my mouth, will ya?
Show me one time where I said this. I have never said that an unhappy SSA “should be counseled to want, accept or like their SSA.” NEVER.
I would not say that because I do not believe that. It’s what you want to hear me say — but I have not and will not say it — because I don’t believe it.
Also, I have NEVER said that “change was not possible”. NEVER. I have asked “ex-gays” to descibe the “change” they are talking about. I only have said that ex-gay males are still SSA.
Lots of changes are possible — changes in identity, attitude, behavior, self-image, feelings, etc. It may even be possible for an exclusively SSA male to become an exclusively OSA male. But so far, there is no good scientific evidence tof that.
I have also never said that SSA was “inborn”. I know that for me and many others it “feels” inborn. Like I said, I have no idea. It may be. It may not be. It may be some of both — nature and nurture. No one — and that includes me – knows for sure. Right, Dr. T?.
I am having trouble locating Ed Hurst’s printed works. I googled his name and found lots of references to Ed Hurst the realtor or Ed Hurst the disabled veteran but so far, only this review otf one of Eddy’s books:
http://www.ecinc.org/Reviews/rvwntr_1988.htm
The reviewer claims that Eddy claimed that homosexuality is “curable”. I will keep looking. Maybe Amazon.com will have something.
I found this, but not sure if it is the same Ed Hurst.
http://soulkiln.org/
Amazon.com has “Overcoming Homosexuality (Helping others in crisis)” by Ed Hurst, Dave Jackson (Contributor), and Neta Jackson (Contributor) (Paperback – Jun 1987) — 11 Used & new from $3.77
I will order one. I can afford it.
Hey Michael,
I think I really get what you’re saying. And sometimes I even agree with you because I experience my own personal experiences in regard to this stuff sort of like those pictures where, if you look one way it looks like a vase, if you look another way, it looks like a face.
On the support groups I’m on for mixed orientation couples there’s lots of men who seem gay and married.
And then there are lots of men who just really don’t.
For instance, there’s a couple where the husband has been “out” for years. They have an open relationship. He participates in gay events, sometimes gives talks about being a bi/gay heterosexually married man, etc….
The world is open to him. He’s permitted to have sex with men, he’s permitted to have boyfriends, etc….
What does he choose within this openess?
He loves his wife, and seeks out male strangers who will spank him while he wears his “tighty whities”.
That’s it.
No relationship, no boyfriend, no dates, dinners, afternoons at the beach.
And he’s tried. But everytime he gets to know a man, he loses all sexual interest.
Just a stranger who is willing to play the daddy who spanks him while he wears his little boy underwear.
You have said to Warren that you understand that incongruance is a problem.
I’m not suggesting that all people who are truly incongruent (as opposed to simply not yet out of the gay closet) are incongruent in this fashion.
I AM suggesting that this is typical of incongruence, common. How common?
On the groups for both mixed orientation couples and sexually abused men, very, very common.
So sure, this guy can feel good and positive and accepted by identifying as bi/gay (and he can’t decide between the two, so calls himself bi/gay). And that’s fine with me, we all need acceptance.
But he’s not bi/gay in the way you are.
When he dreams of growing old with someone, it’s a woman by his side.
When he fantasizes about getting spanked, it’s a male stranger. Not a friend, not a companion. That’s a turn-off.
Focus on fantasy as opposed to dreams can hide some pretty important stuff.
Like you’re gay, in part because you have homosexual fantasies. But also because when you dare to dream, you dream of men. And considering how long you lived in the closet, I’m sure you can relate to just how difficult dreaming can be.
Rob? My fiance?
It’s not just homosexual fantasy. It’s fantasy of being violated. Sex=violation. Violation=sex.
So, when we have sex, it begins great, then he starts fantasizing of violation and pain, because for him to achieve orgasm, pain is necessary.
Since I’m not willing to administer pain, he’s on his own.
He’s written me two “love letters” in which pain is very much confused with love. He loves me so much that I could lock him in a closet and stomp on him with high heals. The other one was a fantasy of me fisting him.
Incongruence? Yeah, well, someone needs to get to the specifics of just what makes up the incongruence.
Again, not ALL men are incongruent like this.
But among the incongruent population I’d bet a million dollars that a very significant minority are, and that a very significant minority also come from either a physically abuse or sexually abusive background.
Rob’s had lots of chances to come out of the gay closet. And he too has tried. Same thing as the underwear guy — if even so much as names are exchanged, it no longer works.
Gay? Maybe. But not gay like you are. You blessed with the ability to dream.
Katie
Michael’s search for materials written by me is certainly riveting. I’m not sure I get the point of it though. My previously written materials have not been the topic of conversation; I offered some of the titles to refute his allegation that I’ve inferred that ex-gays no longer have SSA. The book Michael has found is a collaboration and the wording is mostly but not entirely mine mine.
LOL. The ever open and honest Michael reveals that the ‘reviewer’ says that I called it ‘curable’. Drat. The reviewer failed to used a full quote (we call it ‘context’)or to cite what page had that reference.
Just like the reviewer, whose goal was to pick the book apart, Michael has brought the use of the word ‘curable’ to the forefront and failed to mention that the reviewer goes on to say that I still admit to same sex attractions. (Michael skims past the part that goes directly to the point I made, that refutes his misstatements in this discussion and only mentions the reviewer’s comment re use of the word ‘curable. Why doesn’t that surprise me?)
The reviewer, by the way, is Dr. Ralph Blair of Evangelicals Concerned, a man who set himself up in opposition to Exodus even before Michael left some 30 years ago. I’m glad Michael was able to locate such an unbiased review.
Eddy,
Michael’s trying. I think it takes a pretty big person to have stuck in there like he has.
I like him, in a cyber sort of way.
How often do hear a person sincerely apologize? In my life, it’s pretty rare, and admirable when it happens. Nice – even sweet.
Well, that’s my defense of Michael.
Have a great day all.
K.
Michael,
From what I understand, the term “ex-gay” is used as a way to separate oneself from an identity they no longer wish to be part of. What path the person takes from this point on is personal and yet to unfold but it is clear to them that they want to be separated from an identity that would justify their current or past or stong or diminishing attractions through a same gender sexual relationship or activity. So, should the term continue to be used, my humble suggestion would be to use it in the spirit to indicate a personal separation from an identity rather than use it to describe a new identity.
Katie–
I must have missed Michael’s apology…perhaps he delivered it in a post addressed to me after I informed him that I’d no longer read posts from him addressed to me.
You and I will have to disagree about the fact that ‘he’s trying’. He’s ‘trying’ alright but in another common sense of the word. What I see him doing is purposely steering every conversation to his bias. Making unfounded allegations and assertions against those who disagree with him; being unresponsive to legitimate challenges; playing to the crowd rather than truthfully responding to those who challenge him; changing the real focus of a discussion when it suits him or when he’s been cornered. As he’s said in the past, he’s a master debater.
I articulated the misstatements he made about me and the message I presented while with Exodus and all but demanded retraction at least 3 times before deciding I’d no longer be involved in dialogue with him. I further demonstrated his rather dubious tactic of offering rebuttal to my ‘roots’ theory when he hadn’t even read it. His overall pretense all along is that he is rather an expert on ‘all things Exodus’…he uses that to lend weight and credibility to his anti-Exodus statements…yet, when cornered, finally admits that he hasn’t even read the specific pieces he rebutted. LOL. I don’t expect him to know everything that’s ever been said by Exodus or its affiliates…but I see two very serious failures here. 1) He pre-judged the theory that I was attempting to bring into the discussion for consideration using his ‘Exodus expert’ status to lend weight to his unfounded criticism. 2) He is guilty of blogging with a bias so extreme it has caused blindness. How else do you explain that I’ve cited the teaching titles a number of times in dialogues with him–and he missed it!?!! Yes, that’s his defense. He wasn’t lying…he simply missed the key points in my numerous responses to him. It seems like proof to me that he’s not interested in productive dialogue; he will skim right past words of value and significance–he will avoid the very point the person is trying to make–in search of some tidbit, some misspoken word or phrase that he can use to denigrate the person he views as his opponent.
He and I do tangle alot but that’s mainly because he insists on bashing Exodus–often unfairly–every chance he gets. I was an Exodus insider for years after Michael left; I support the bashing that has merit but I will continue to challenge the misrepresentations and overstatements such as I documented in this blog.
Not to worry about future entanglements, though. I gave up on my quest for my due apology–both for the misrepresentations of me and for the obstructive and uninformed rebuttal–after 3 attempts to secure it. For me, dialogue with Michael is not worth the effort.
Eddy,
I do not like the bashing of Exodus OR Narth – I have been confused and perplexed by both at various times but never to the extent that I felt it necessary to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Ann–
So good to ‘hear your voice’ again!
I agree! Both Exodus and NARTH have said and done things that are regrettable. Yikes, haven’t we all??? But honest and productive discussion will not be advanced by adding untruthful allegations, exaggerations and characterizations to the list of true offenses. (I have no awareness or association with NARTH other than what I read here.)
Eddy,
Really, from an outsider’s perspective, it just seems to me that passions run high. I understand that, my passions run high when people try to claim that abuse doesn’t overly affect people — “cuz, see, it doesn’t affect everyone to a high degree”.
Yikes.
I know without a doubt it’s effected me — in both negatived and positive ways.
And it’s frankly scary to me that therapists don’t address this issue in a sustained, forthright way when working with people with sexual identity issues.
And, finally, I feel passionately about respecting love where and however it happens. In my world simple acts of kindness are miracles, much less love. Heck, getting out of bed is a triumph.
So it’s really difficult for me to hear that homosexual love is a sin. It’s heartbreaking.
And it seems to me, though I could be mistaken, it’s more this issue than anything else that makes people’s blood run higher.
Again, I could be wrong about that.
And if not sin, then ala NARTH, always a form of arrested development or unmourned mourning for the lost father.
And it’s not that I don’t think NARTH is on to something in this regard — for some people.
I know that part of my heterosexuality is fueled by my ability to mourn and mourn again the lost father, and that my homophobia is fueled by my inability to mourn the loss of my mother. I doubt I’ll ever have the strength for that.
Still, what they do with this insight isn’t all that could be done, and certainly doesn’t describe everyone. And they refuse to talk about the unmourned mourning when it comes to heterosexual development.
K.
Katie,
I agree with you about abuse – it does matter. I also agree with Mary that the abused can feel pleasure, whether initially or developed, from the unwanted sexual attack(s). Is it a form of self defense? I don’t know. People with multiple personalities become different identifies to cope. I have also wondered if the initial pleasure could be the beginning of same gender attractions in some individuals. Children and young adults that are introduced to sex, either by the same gender or opposite gender, through secretive and manipulative methods, can become desensitized to their shame by feeling physical pleasure, which, of course, can become addictive and exclusive to the gender that introduced them to this pleasure.
Hey Ann,
I agree with you.
And I also think things can get completely turned around from your scenerio, depends up the person.
For instance, it’s also common in men who were sexually abused by their mothers to have homosexual fantasies and end up with a gendered “Whore/Madonna” like configuration — women are Madonnas, men are Whores.
And probably more importantly, that the person experiencing such splitting insure that they themselves are the Madonna when it comes to how women perceive them, and who cares about how some strange man does? Non-sexualized love and unloving sexualization. Pretty important when you equate sex with violation.
So I don’t know, just seems that how the person tries to maintain ties to others comes into play on a very individual level.
I know when I contemplate the icky feelings I get when imagining having sex with a woman that they’re connected to warding off the type of intimacy that would provoke feelings of loss in relation to my mother.
Men? It’s much easier for me to get in touch with my feelings of loss in regard to my dad, so I can go there in a way I just really can’t in regard to my mother.
Every time I get into therapy I can talk about my dad. My mom? Too much guilt, too much loss. It’s simply not a place I can dwell.
I think some men are like this who experience sexual abuse at the hands of their mother, no matter how much they long for them.
K.
Katie–
Believe it or not, it’s often difficult for me to imagine why some things are deemed ‘sin’, lol, especially when done in moderation. My basic premise (my bias) is that I believe that ‘God’s ways are higher than my way; His thoughts higher than mine.’
I believe what adds to the confusion is that MANY have twisted the essence of the biblical directives. The notion of ‘gay/bad, straight/good’ is perhaps the most offensive twist of all. Any thinking person KNOWS that much of what is viewed as straight and acceptable may be straight but IS NOT acceptable according to the Bible. The explosion of the divorce rate and of what we used to call ‘illegitimate births’ (LOL, That phrase is probably not politically correct anymore…) are prime examples of how we, as a society, have strayed from the Biblical norms.
This blogsite is not yet capable, not yet ready to actually discuss whether or not ‘homosexuality is a sin’. The terminology is too loaded. For example, the term ‘homosexuality’ includes not only behavior (which it appears the Bible speaks to) but also thoughts and attractions. “Thoughts” and “attractions” can include lascivious and lustful thoughts (which are deemed sin) but can also include ‘passing thoughts’, attractions and temptations which may lead to sin but are not sin in and of themselves.
Going beyond that, though, even if it were concluded that the Bible does NOT deem homosexual behavior sin, it seems clear that the same admonitions regarding lasciviousness and lust that we perceive as directed towards heterosexuals would, by extension, apply to homosexuals as well. Bed-hopping, husband-swapping, cruising the parks, sex in the dark (Humor on that one…I was enjoying the rhymes), non-monogamous partnering, infidelity, objectification, etc. …by extension, these would be sin…even if ‘love’ were involved.
I know a hetero man who began cheating on his first wife when his ‘first love’, his ‘soul mate’ became available to him once again. There’s no doubt in my mind that this was indeed love…but it caused great pain to his first wife and left two boys with a broken home and a confused childhood. Ironically, after nearly 15 years, the man cheated on his ‘first love’ and ‘soul mate’. That might be a main reason why I challenge the notions of ‘love’ and ‘soul mate’–both terms are actually pretty vague and undefinable and leave out one of the principal elements of the meaning of love…it is a committment that transcends our feelings. (We love our haughty and rebellious teenager not because they are lovable but because we have committed ourselves to loving them.)
Love that incorporates committment at its core weathers the storms, strives for mutually healthy resolution, accepts that other bonds and attractions may be available but remains committed. Certainly there are viable exceptions…only God and the individuals involved can judge the committment.
LOL. It appears that I forgot to undo the italics. They were supposed to end after ‘which may lead to sin’.
Katie,
I have often heard that the mind is the most effective and powerful sexual organ we have. Do we use it consciously or does it have a “mind” of it’s own regarding how we use it for our sexual discernment and/or pleasure? I think both. Being aware of the differences, and how feelings and desires are attached to it, can make a very big difference in how we respond. One of the greatest things about an orgasm is how out of control we feel when it happens – it is what leads up to the orgasm (physical desire, emotional love and connection, fantasies, etc.) that would be an interesting pattern to watch and if we feel comfortable with those felings. If not, then no one should feel trapped by unwanted feelings, even if those feelings ultimately produce an awesome orgasm.
Sorry to be drifting in and out of this discussion. Life necessitates it right now.
I do believe there is a real danger in becoming too absorbed with these discussions, and I strive to maintain a healthy balance so I don’t get tunnel vision. It does happen at times, though.
I applaud the genuine and honest effort by those here who really struggle (gee, who doesn’t?) with what really constitutes the heart of the matter. Clearly, there are no pat answers to the deeply vexing and complicated questions we tend to raise over and over here. LOL. We are an interesting lot of philosophers, aren’t we? It’s a hoot sometimes, and frustrating at others, but I confess I like this diverse neighborhood and the Mastermind it has become in ways I could not have anticipated. So there’s my confession for the day. Thanks, Warren, for having the guts and the stamina to keep this thing going.
Some of the questions raised in this particular thread are rhetorical and some aren’t. Any time you open your mouth to attempt to respond or cast some light on the subject, you risk awaking the many-headed philosophical hydra that wants to probe everything ad infinitem. That’s when taking a little time-out is generally in order for me, anyway. Too much navel-gazing.
Michael did raise some questions for me. Can I answer them to his satisfaction? Probably not. Should I try? Who knows? Michael, we may never grasp the best terminology to define who you are, who I am or the multitude of shades that compose this rainbow of humanity. Language is a whole study in and of itself, and the semantics of this Great Big Discussion are intriguing.
I imagine you (Michael) would like some of what Alan Chambers has to say in his newest book, “Leaving Homosexuality.” I do. Let’s say I find myself in basic agreement with his parameters of expectations for “change.” You’ve no doubt heard or are aware of him saying these things before, so I am not going to reiterate them here. I’ll see if I can find something to cut and paste as I don’t want to nor have time to write it out for you or anyone else. Harvest House may have put a Search Inside the Book feature on his book at Amazon, which would help those looking for specifics. Or just get the book.
I do want to try to clarify something once and for all (although I am sure it will be raised again. Sigh). You said, Michael:
Now, of course I and others are going to infer from that comment that you believe that last sentence describes me. It doesn’t. I do not have any SSA attractions at all. ALL of my SSA diminished over the years to the point that those attractions are gone. And I had many strong ones that raised their heads and caused deep, deep anguish in my life for quite a few years. And nearly wrecked my marriage.
You seem to be saying that you want to believe but you really cannot believe that this is possible. It is. I know there is the whole female-male differences thing, but how valid is that for an excuse when it no longer seems to be allowed in objecting to homosexuality in the first place (men and women are different — wait, no they’re not)? Reason me that.
I would advise that we resist trying to find some rule to apply to everyone or even various subgroups of SSA folks. We are all unique, even while being created in the image of a loving God. I just don’t see why we have to keep beating this poor horse to death. We are amazingly resilient beings, but with different built-in and environmental factors that shape us in unique ways. There will never be a one-size fits all approach.
Michael, I think you are driving yourself nuts looking for answers to questions that may have none (in this life) or searching for meaningful parameters to tie this up in some kind of package. I don’t want to be a party in sending you over that cliff, brother. It’s OK to lighten up over this a bit. Some questions are valid; some are not.
I could say more, but I think this is quite enough for now. Got tons to do.
Hey Eddy,
I’m really glad you wrote this, it lets me know very well who I’m talking with.
I don’t know, when I think of Rob’s behavior, it’s difficult for me to see it as sin, I see it as tragedy. But then again, maybe the Devil himself is more a tragic figure than a sinful one, or maybe sin itself is the real tragedy….
Oh, and I’m referring, not to Rob’s homosexual activity — but to his infidelity and objectification of others.
I have no problem with saying his behavior is wrong, unethical.
Sin?
I don’t know. He’s too good of a person. A good person who’s done bad things.
But I guess that’s why Christians say: “Hate the sin, love the sinner”, etc…
Sin…. evil…. I think of Hitler, Ted Bundy… etc…
Rob? Wrong. Bad. Unethical, immoral. And just so very sad.
Heck, the guy’s so good he walk across the Home Depot parking lot just to put the cart back.
He’s a true and steady friend, an exceptional father, a trustworthy co-worker. Kind and gentle.
And sexually messed up.
Katie
Michael,
I haven’t forgotten to provide some posts by the guys who say they are no longer SSA at all, just takes time to wade through hundreds of posts.
Debbie,
I suspect that we would accept a woman saying she’s no longer SSA much more quickly, and also allow her continued homo-erotic feelings.
Men? I suspect that homo-erotic feelings would be construed as unresolved SSA.
Mary,
Ditto
K.
Debbie,
I believe you and I believe in your ministry and am thankful for your contributions. I like to hear personal stories instead of labels. I wrote an earlier post that made an attempt to distinguish between the decision to separate from an unwanted identity without feeling a need to create a new one to replace it. Only time will tell how one’s personal story will unfold.
Eddy,
My feeling is that part of the problem is what we mean by “sin”. I have come to see this to mean, simply “missing the mark”, which in fact is what the original translation of the word is. Simply put, we continue to shoot for the perfect way that God has designed for us, but we so often fall short of this. When we miss this target all our loving God does for us is ask us to pick ourselves up and try again. I guess for me that means not dwelling on how I may have failed or believing that I must not be able to do any better than that so why try, but rather resetting my focus on the target I am aiming at, (for me personally that should be the example Christ has set for me through his life) and taking another shot at it. I suspect I will miss that target over and over again, but I do believe I am getting close with each subsequent attempt.
How does this relate to SSA? I do believe it is a sin, as I do not feel that acting on those feelings leaves me feeling more fully human, there is still something lacking. I guess the main thing that might be lacking when I act on my SSA is that I am aiming for the wrong target.
That is just my simple take on the issue of sin, whatever kind it is.
OK Eddy, Here it is again. I apologize. I apologize for being rude and pig-headed. I apologize for my childishness and snarkiness. I apologize that I have not read your works.
But that’s all I can do. I will not apologize for lying — because I have been telling the truth. I cannot apologize for misrepresenting you, because I do not think that I have been misrepresenting you. I also don’t think I have been “obstructive.” Stubborn? Yes. Obnoxious? Yes.
Uninofrmed, perhaps. I recall that you had mentioned that you had writtin some things — and I should have, at that point, asked how I could obtain these things so that I could read them. For that, I am sorry.
It is not easy to find ANY reference to them on the internet by the way. You try it. All I could find was the Amazon.com listing for one of your booklets and no mention of anything else. I did not hunt for Raplh Blair’s review to make you look bad. It was the onbly other thing I could find. Did you actually say “curable”?
Regarding EXODUS and NARTH “bashing”, I will continue to do iot becaue they deserve it.
Eddy, you repeatedy imply or accuse me of lying – and I resent it. I have only said what I believe is TRUE.
What “untruthful allegations” have I made against EXODUS? Name one.
I completely agree with Eddy on this one. And yet, wasn’t it Eddy that said he couldn’t get a gay Christian to admit that these things were sin?
Katie and Ann,
I really like the way you look at these issues and I also feel your own experience with men dealing with SSA is much more representative of what I think so many experience in their life than what Michael and Timothy so often want us to believe. I think we need to start with relationships and personal stories rather than labels and judgements. My experience has been once individuals begin to be completely honest with the path their lives are on it becomes much easier to recognize how events in ones life play a much larger role in the identity they now have than anything innate in them. “The Truth will set you free”.
@ Debbie:
I have heard several “ex-gay” women make the same claim — and I believe them. I believe you. What I have said repeatedly is that I have never met an “ex-gay” MALE who could say the same thing. Perhaps female sexuality is more fluid than male sexuality.
@Katie:
I don’t get what you are saying. Doesn’t “SSA” mean homo-erotic?
See why I keep pushing for definitions. If SSA and homo-erotic are different, how? If SSA does not mean “gay” — what does “gay” mean? What does “homosexual” mean? What does “change” mean?
I am not trying to dictate how people see themselves or how they live their lives. We throw words around here without coming to at least a BASIC agreement on what they mean. No wonder there is so much arguing. It’s Babel all over again.
Concerned,
I admit I’d like to hear more of your story, so the invitation to share is open if you care to.
And I generally agree with you. I don’t know if I had an overwhelming bio-chemical, inborn, stuff that directed my heteroseuxality or not. The only thing I do know for certain is that my experiences have played a very large role in how I experience my heterosexuality — what it’s made up of, etc….
Where I think we might disagree is, even if it could be proven that orientation is 100% determined by life experience, that gaining insight into ourselves would turn a gay man towards heterosexual strivings — or to at least turn away from his homosexual ones.
Even if 100% of all gay men are gay because they’ve experienced a lost father, being gay would be a really good way to resolve, in a mature way, that loss. What better way to maintain healthy ties to the lost father than through a loving relationship with a man — as a healthy, adult, man? A man who works through his mourning and comes out the other side to embrace his father – as an adult.
And this isn’t to say that for someone else the drive might be more like the desire to sit at the feet of a gender master because no gender master was around.
So honesty and self-reflection might lead one person to better embrace their homosexuality, to grow and meet the future rather than the past, and lead another to attempt to fill that empty spot in other ways.
Maybe through sitting at the feet of feet — God?
Anyway, this is my main beef against NARTH.
And also they ignore the necessity of identificatory love even within a heterosexual relationship. Male dis-identification with women can lead to Ted Bundys.
NARTH emphasizes difference as the core of healthy sexual relationships at far too great an expense in recognizing likeness as equally important and valuable, and mature.
K.
Michael,
If terms and labels continue to describe, then shouldn’t there be a distinction between an attraction/desire and the actual activity that some chose to engage in?
My thoughts can turn very lustful when I think of David Beckham – if an opportunity presented itself to have sex with him I wouldn’t because he is married. My discipline keeps me from taking on the identity of an adulterer.
Michael,
Homo – EROTIC…. The straight football’s player desire to slap a man’s but.
A straight man’s desire to embrace his friend in love and feel erotically moved.
A straight man’s demand that straight porn show only enviably large penises.
A straight man’s desire to be held by brother, kissed by his pal, etc…
Homo – SEXUAL — the desire to do all these things plus have sex?
And yeah, I don’t think there’s a bio-chemical chasm between the two. Which is probably one of the reasons so many straight men are so homophobic. It takes a pretty centered man to embrace his homo-eroticism. And know for sure that the erotic and the sexual aren’t the same thing.
I feel erotic when I look at a painting I like, but don’t want to have sex with one.
Music — erotic.
Looking at my son — erotic.
I think men in general are afraid of the erotic. It’s one of those emotions we knock out of guys, along with a bunch of others. You know — buck up, don’t cry, don’t lay your head in the lap of your very best friend on earth.
K.
Katie,
I think I understand what you are saying. I do not mean to imply that the SSA is all about ones experience and I do not believe that it is so simple to say if we get in touch with these experiences the attractions go away. I do not believe it is that easy. I think the feelings become diminished or changed when we begin to put a different focus in our life. For me the biggest and most useful change was an acceptance that the SSA was more of a way to build relationships with men so long as I was able to place some boundaries on these relationships not to involve sexual fantasy or lust. This opened me up to learning how to appreciate other men for who they were and to begin to learn from them rather than to simply objectifying them for their physical looks. I guess in many ways the change has been one of appreciation over attractions. That has been very freeing for me. It may not be for everyone. What I realize now is that my previous acting out behavior actually put up barriers to what I was really looking for instead of helping me find fulfillment. Of course I also believed what I was being told by some, that I would never find happiness outside of total acceptance of my “gayness”. Well that to me is just someone else trying to justify the choices they have made in their own life.
Thanks. Katie. I now understand how you are using the term “erotic”. I kinda like the way you use it. It is much broader that I would use it, but I get how you do. Thanks.
You see, folks don’t have to accept MY definitions. I just want to know how they define the words they are using.
Some of the thing you mention “straight” men doing or feeling I would consider “bisexual”. But that’s just the way I use the word, not the way the word must be used.
Maybe it’s kind of a male thing, but when I use “erotic” I mean “arousing sexual desire”. Music has done that for me and some paintings have. Never looking at my child.
By the way, some of the football players who like to slap men’s butts are gay.
Remember David Kopay?
There is also what some have referred to as “homo-social” — guys who really prefer the complany of guys — some even openly state that they don’t reall like women and don’t really want to be around them — except for sex.
I go to the gym almost daily. Every guy looks at every other guy’s genitalia. I am sure that most of them are straight, but they just can’t help looking. Some seem to like to show it off, but I don’t think they are necessarily gay or bisexual — just proud I guess…
In case anyone missed it, I know that there are many shades, many layers, many complexities when it comes to sexual attractions or identity. It still seems reasonable to describe three basic “orientations” — homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual.
I agree, that those categories don’t explain everything, they don’t define a person’s “identity” — and they don’t mean that there isn’t some sort of “flux” or “change” during a person’s liifetime.
How many times and in how many ways must it be said?
It is the person who decides and defines for themselves. If gay people were not so insistent on anyone with SSA feelings being identified as gay we would not be having such an issue.
Maybe an analogy would help. Three basic categories : tall, medium and short. These labels don’t have to imply any value judgement.
They don’t have to define a person’s “identity”. There are many variations — what is “tall” in one culture may not be in another.
But the labels are still useful, especially when trying to pick out your “tall” friend in a crowd.
Katie–
‘concerned’ may have addressed that word ‘sin’ better that I could have. Another of the twists is that we’ve all had a tendency to develop a ‘sin-meter mentality’…we see big sins and little sins (the Catholics have mortal and venial sins). Folks are quick to point out that it is an ‘abomination’ for a man to lie with a man but they fail to recognize that it’s an ‘abomination’ for a man to lie. (“Lying lips are an abomination.”) As I’ve often quipped, “Some of my best friends are sinners.”
All–
I note that Michael has addressed a comment or two in my direction in this most recent flurry. True to my words earlier, I have not read them. If any readers who have my personal email address see that he’s said anything that I would consider significant, please give me a heads up. If it’s simply ‘more of the same’, spare me. As I suggested, more than likely any questions, challenges or statements he directed to me are, in reality, debate-style posturing for the benefit of the blog. I’ll engage in discussion with those of you who care to. Michael can play his debate game with whoever is foolish enough to indulge him.
For the moment, though, I’ll have to concede that he has control of the playground. Perhaps I’ll stop back later.
Michael,
I disagree with your labeling system. If someone is tall medium, or short by their cultural standards then they identify as tall, medium or short.
You are failing to really hear. There are people who belong to a different perspective than do you. Really. You just have to ask them as cumbersome as that seems to you.
@Mary:
I get it Mary. You think words are completely individual things — and that no one has the right to ask you what you mean.
.
Katie,
I’m not sure I would call being gay a sin. For me – it just does not fit into my construct of how God intends things for me. I have gay friends and I don’t make a big deal out of it. They have their own relationship with God. I’m just walking my own path. I did not used to believe this way. I was an activist lesbian with my family’s support. I could not imagine that I would ever see things differently. Then slowly over time – I began to change. I still cringe at the religious right that protests against gays in a mean and uncompassionate way. I still cringe at those with bigotted ideas about gays and the awful things said against gays.
Michael,
I’m not surprised that for you the erotic and the sexual blend into eachother, and that my description of the erotic is what you would consider bisexual.
No wonder you guys are so messed up
We girls? I get to enjoy a full emotional/erotic life. And yes, I think if you get rid of the erotic, you reduce all sorts of emotions, make men overly policed and overly self-policing when it comes to an important aspect of life, and one that re-inforces the depth of emotional existence generally.
Lots of guys who question their homosexual behavior find they really just want a big, sloppy kiss from a guy — not sex.
But, as you suggest…. what then? Oh my gosh, I’m GAY!!!!! Blah, blah, blah….
So then you get the guarded citedal, the man imperviouse to letting things in – especially to letting feelings of dependency in. Nope, that’s woman’s lot, children’s stuff…..
Anyway, homo-erotic, pretty important stuff —– and probably shouldn’t be confused with the homosexual.
It does damage.
K.
No MIchael you don’t get it.
I don’t think all words are individual things. We see someone with light brown hair and we get an image.
BUT ON THIS GAY/SSA ISSUE – the person is in charge of the description not the person outside of the individual.
Michael – I think individuals are completely individual things especially when it comes to sex, sexual identity, and sexual experiences.
@Mary:
Which gay people are “insisting”? I do not insist that all SSA people call themselves — or identify themselves — as “gay&