So now that the dust has started to settle from the APA convention in Toronto, let’s review the status of the Reorientation Wars.
Does therapy change orientation?
In anticipation of the APA’s report, NARTH fired an opening salvo with their paper (What Research Shows…). Perhaps sensing, incorrectly as it turns out, that the APA would advocate a ban on reorientation therapy, NARTH tossed every positive reference to change they could find into the paper. They noted problems in defining sexual orientation but did little to distinguish the various definitions and their meaning in the many studies they cited. They concluded, of course, that therapy can change orientation.
The APA on the other hand, differentiated sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity. Sexual orientation for them is the biological responsiveness to one gender or both. According to their literature review, the evidence that therapy can change orientation is not sufficient to permit therapists to inform clients that therapy can change their orientation. However, sexual orientation identity (i.e., self-labeling) may shift and be responsive to a variety of factors, including religious mediation.
It seems to me that what NARTH is calling sexual orientation includes the APA’s sexual orientation identity. While this statement risks taking us into the “all or nothing” dead end discussion about change, I do not mean that one must change completely for change to be important and psychologically relevant. I suggest instead that what many studies measure is how people see themselves, even if their sexual responsiveness (orientation) has only shifted by a degree (e.g., an average of less than a point on the Kinsey scale in the Jones and Yarhouse study). Jones and Yarhouse suggest as much in their recent paper when they write:
There is also the question of sexual identity change versus sexual orientation change (see Worthington & Reynolds, 2009). Recent theoretical (e.g., Yarhouse, 2001) and empirical (e.g., Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Yarhouse & Tan, 2004; Yarhouse, Tan & Pawlowski, 2005; Wolkomir, 2006) work on sexual identity among religious sexual minorities suggests that attributions and meaning are critical in the decision to integrate same-sex attractions into a gay identity or the decision to dis-identify with a gay identity and the persons and institutions that support a gay identity. In light of the role of attributions and meaning in sexual identity labeling, is it possible that some of what is reported in this study as change of orientation is more accurately understood as change in sexual identity?
I believe the answer to their question is that it is not only possible but probable that change in sexual identity is what is being reported. The distinction between orientation and identity (or attraction and identity as we often describe it here) is key, in my view, in order for us to understand the experience of those who say they have changed while at the same time experiencing same-sex attraction. I also believe that men and women are different and their change may be different. Women seem to describe less exclusivity than men. Fluidity may be more likely with complete shifts described. I think we need to accommodate atypical experiences such as men and women who completely shift for a time and then shift back. Whatever the pattern, I hope we can agree that sexual attraction patterns may be one thing while meaning making aspects may lead two people with the same attraction pattern to identity in disparate ways.
Is sexual reorientation harmful or beneficial?
NARTH says reorientation might harm some people but that for the most part it is not harmful. The APA says existing studies are not good enough to allow conclusions. Point for the APA here. All we can say is that some people report harm and some people report benefit. The APA notes that the benefits can occur in programs which promote congruence with religious faith. This is clear and the Jones and Yarhouse study demonstrate that health status improves modestly for those who remained in the study. However, I would say we do not yet know much about what the potent or beneficial elements of those programs are. The APA report identified some of those elements.
Homosexuality and pathology
NARTH says homosexuals have more pathology than any other group of similar size. The APA says homosexuality is normal. By this they mean that homosexuality is not a developmental disorder or indicator of a mental disorder. The two recent reports go off in different directions but some observations can be made.
The NARTH report spends lots of time reporting on greater levels of mental health and health problems among homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals. The APA report does not do this. However, I believe the point regarding different levels of symptoms would be stipulated by the APA. However, the APA raises the minority stress model as responsible for many difficulties faced by non-heterosexual people. The NARTH report discounts the role of stigma.
I doubt the APA would dispute the health status data for another reason: greater group pathology does not mean inherent disorder. The APA’s position is not that gays have equal health outcomes but rather that the unequal health outcomes do not imply inherent pathology – that SSA is not inherently the result of pathological development. This is of course in great contrast to the reparative therapists. Joseph Nicolosi says that the only way you get SSA is to traumatize a child.
The reparative impulse to find trauma behind every gay person is misguided I believe, conceptually and for sure empirically. Women have greater levels of mental health problems than men but we would not consider women inherently disordered. NARTH has chosen some good studies to cite in the section of their paper which relates to health status (as well as some really bad and irrelevant ones). However, I don’t think it really gets them where they want to go.
And where do they want to go? This is clear from their press release complaining about the APA task force report. They state:
Further, if some clients are dissatisfied with the therapeutic outcome [of reorientation therapy], as in therapy for other issues, the possibility for dissatisfaction appears to be outweighed by the potential gains. The possibility of dissatisfaction also seems insignificant when compared to the substantial medical, emotional, and physical risks associated with homosexual behavior.
NARTH would suggest that these medical and emotional risks, along with the incongruity of homosexual behavior with the personal and religious values of many people will continue to be the motivation for some individuals to seek assistance for their unwanted homosexual attraction.
According to NARTH, gays ought to seek reorientation therapy because being gay is a risky life, full of health and mental health disadvantages. Their hypothesis is implied but hard to miss: reduce the SSA and reduce the health risks. The assumption appears to be that ex-gays will have better health outcomes than gays. One problem with this line of thinking is that there is no empirical evidence for it and some evidence against it.*
One researcher quoted in the NARTH paper regarding health risks was New Zealand’s David Fergusson. Dr. Fergusson has done significant work in this field. I asked him to look at the section of the NARTH paper in which his work was quoted. Here is a statement he provided about it:
While the NARTH statement provides a comprehensive and accurate analysis of the linkages between sexual orientation and mental health, the paper falls far short of demonstrating that homosexuality should be classified as a psychiatric disorder that may be resolved by appropriate therapy. To demonstrate this thesis requires an in depth understanding of the biological and social pathways that explain the linkages between homosexual orientation and mental health. At present we lack that understanding. Furthermore it is potentially misleading to treat what may be a correlate of mental disorder as though it were a disorder in its own right.
Fergusson also told me that one would need to develop studies to demonstrate that any changes in orientation associate with improvements in health status. The Jones and Yarhouse study provide some very general assessment but many potential confounds are uncontrolled. For instance, it is not possible to say that the modest shifts on the Kinsey scale were responsible for the shifts in health status. These folks were quite religious and religion is associated with enhanced health status. I suspect religious gays have a better health status than non-religious gays, on average. The point is we do not have evidence that sexual orientation status per se is what leads to the differences in health status.
While I am on the subject of health status, I need to mention that there are other factors which NARTH ignored. One, gender non-conformity is strongly correlated with adult homosexuality and is also associated with poorer mental health. Two, homosexuals report higher levels of sexual victimization which is also associated with higher levels of mental health problems. And, three, no one can discount the possibility that biological factors which associate with the development of homosexuality may also influence the development of emotional problems (i.e., in the same way women are more likely to report depression than men).
So where are we? I hope we have a larger middle and smaller numbers of people at the opinion extremes. People on both sides can agree that erotic responsiveness is extremely durable for men and perhaps less so for women, but behavior and self-identity reflection is alterable. People on both sides agree that conclusions about benefit and harm are not possible in any general sense. Also, I hope we can agree that full informed consent should be conducted prior to engaging in counseling. Regarding health status, both sides can agree that homosexuals have higher levels of problems but there is little agreement about what the differences mean.
Those on the far sides of the continuum will continue to argue that change is possible or change is impossible, and/or that reorientation is always harmful or never harmful and/or that health status difference mean something vital or irrelevant about inherent pathology.
The wars will continue but perhaps fewer people will be engaged in them; now is the time rather to reason together.
*Nottebaum, L. J., Schaeffer, K. W., Rood, J., & Leffler, D. (2000). Sexual orientation—A comparison study. Manuscript submitted for publication. (Available from Kim Schaeffer, Department of Psychology, Point Loma Nazarene University, 3900 Lomaland Drive, San Diego, CA 92106) – In this study, the authors found that mental health was better among the gay sample than the Exodus sample.
Michael,
Yes, I believe this is true. For some, sex is the primary interest and the romance is brief and a necessary, if not always desired, component to having sex. For others (including SSA individuals) sex is not the primary interest, rather an emotional connection and love relationship is. I don’t think either scenario is out of the ordinary or should be held up for scrutiny – it is just what works for the people involved – this is where truth and mutual understanding pplays a vital role.
Yes, this sounds right – healthy sexual interest and attraction is different from lust. I haven’t thought about it this way in awhile and glad you brought it up. The lust part is a self indulgence and not conducive to any sustaining relationship. The healthy sexual interest is. I know this is what you wanted with your wife. We know so much more now than 20 or so years ago. Back then it was an all or nothing hype that many believed. Now we know so much more and can make decisions based on truthss and reality and mutual understandings and two people can grow together rather than grow apart. Nothing is hidden.
I know. I really admire your introspection. It says so much about the kind of man you are. I am not sure whether there are really any words that can describe how two people interact with each other. There are too many variables that can and do affect a couple – lots of seasons they go through and only they can decide how to respond to each one. Your intentions were honorable and in the right place. Had you known all the things you do now, I do not believe you would have been hurt like you both were.
I do not think you were wrong at all to believe that. It is what we were brought up to believe and it was reinforced by society. It comes easily to most and is the ideal scenario that most people look forward to.
I understand. You were also being compared and measured to others and listened to a lot of unrealistic hype. None of this was realistic. You lost yourself trying to be someone else. I know you believed in change and wanted to have sexual feelings for her and to have your ssa eliminated. I can see how you could have felt very alone and very defeated when neither happend to the extent you believed it should. This is why I think the SIT framework and the truthful approach ministries, etc. are taking will be invaluable to help prevent this happening to others.
Very, very true.
Yes, I know and my heart is glad because of it
Yes, Ann. You hit the nail right on the head. Very alone and very defeated.
Does therapy change orientation? It doesn’t seem to, although it may change other things — for the better.
Is sexual reorientation harmful or beneficial? The jury is still out.
Is homosexuality pathogical? Not necessarily. Gays may have more symtpoms, but women, also have greater levels of mental health problems than men — and we would not consider women inherently disordered.
Warren said:
Did I miss something? I didn’t realize that we had come to any conclusion re Warren’s opening question…in fact, there was some discussion as to ‘spousosexual’ as a reorientation. So this statement puzzled me just a bit:
My apologies. I totally understand it as one person’s opinion (likely shared by very many) but I don’t get it as a summary of all the discussion that has transpired. I think we’d need to agree that the jury is still out on that question as well.
Eddy,
I hope this particular thread is allowed to stay open or be revisited often as new information and thoughts become available. I think this topic has been very valuable as things are being reasoned out and I see that as an ongoing experience that can bring understanding – perhaps not always agreement – that can narrow the gap. I am not sure anyone can make a definitive statement about any kind of conclusion as we are talking about the human experience and, as we know, that is ongoing and not always the same for each person.
Ann–
I agree. I think in that long polarized battle over the word ‘change’, extreme talk and thinking was in evidence from both sides. I’m sure that battle still impacts our thinking and communicating and sometimes clouds it.
But, if we can respect that fact that people are individuals and that one person’s experience doesn’t necessarily invalidate the experience of another (that goes both ways, by the way), reasoned dialogue can…and ought to…continue.
I am intrigued by your suggestion that this is a thread we might revisit from time to time. Very plausible and an excellent suggestion.
Michael,
I wonder if the greater amount of mental health issues that you spoke of may have more to do with an overall greater sensitivity (highly sensitive people) represented in women and some who experience SSA. That sensitivity may leave them open to great stress as they may or may not be aware of the way they interpret the world around them. I believe this may be something to examine as some shamon (two spirited person) in the aboriginal culture were looked up to because of their ability to pick up on signs around them that others did not see.
Warren, to kick off this thread, you originally asked:
You said:
You seemed to suggest that NARTH might be twisting the datd to reach that conclusion. You then said:
You said: . The Yarhouse study seemed to suggest the same thing — namely a change in identity, not orientation:
You said:
I understand that (1) some people still believe that sexual reorientation is possible, (2) that spousosexuality may be rightly thought of as a shift in sexual orientation and (3) that people’s individual experiences and stories should not be discounted.
But you seemed to be suggesting, Warren, that the scientific evidence, so far, seems to suggest that idenity — and not orientation — is what is being changed through therapy. Is that the way you understood it, Warren?
I think that is a very good question, Concerned. I wonder the same thing. Not that gays are inherently more pathological because they are gay, but that they experience more stress because of more sensitivity to cultural pressures, etc.
concerned–
It has also been suggested that perhaps the sensitivity came first…that males who were ‘overly sensitive’ perceived that they were unlike other males in that regard…that some branded their sensitivity as ‘like a woman’…hence they identified themselves as ‘other’ from ‘normal males’ and that this thinking could have paved the way for adopting a homosexual identity.
Michael – I think that a better case can be made sexual identity change than categorical sexual attraction (orientation) change. It probably has happened especially among women, but the research to date is insufficient to claim that therapy can accomplish it.
When you break it down it is so obvious. The NARTH paper for instance says that behavioral, psychodynamic, bioenergetic, cognitive etc therapies all demonstrate some kind of change. Doesn’t that mean then that anything works with a small number of people? Maybe it isn’t about the therapy at all. Maybe two people should just talk about the weather for a couple of years and then see how many people say they have changed. There is nothing in the current literature that would allow a therapist to inform a client why sexual orientation might change and how likely it is for that person. O might change but there is insufficient evidence to allow therapists to assert anything specific to clients about the process. So dont tell them therapy can do it, but help them work out a life as close to what they want as possible within the givens they have.
Concerned, at the beginning of this thread, Warren asked if homosexuality was pathological. He pointed out that several things might lead to a higher incidence of mental health problems for gays:
Some argue that homosexuality, per se, is pathological — and Warren seemed to suggest that some (like NARTH) tend to de-emphasize the role of social vicitimization in the development of mental health problems. DId I understand that correctly, Warren?
Thanks Warren, that helps my understanding. You asked: Does therapy change orientation? I summed up what I understood the research to show by saying, “It doesn’t seem to, although it may change other things — for the better.”
I undertand that some shift in orientation may be possible for some people, that some seem to develop some OSA even though generalized SSA remains for nearly all, and that In the future, new scientific information may show that therapy can indeed change sexual orientation.
But at the present time, the research seems to suggest that sexual reorientation change from SSA to OSA through therapy is not not supported by good scientific evidence. Would that be fair to say?
Eddy said – the jury is still out.
I think that is what insufficient evidence means.
Very pressed for time today but hope to comment more later…
On the subject of gay mental health as a function of sociocultural versus other factors, just a few weeks ago, Warren gave this on another thread and gave the link referenced–it’s Bailey’s latest work. http://www.springerlink.com/content/e56wr5723721186t/?p=db00a3c95d5a4434b39c7ff155c9de3f&pi=4
They concluded:
That last clause contains a big “if.”
Warren said that by the end of the summer he’d have more about this study and more correspondence with Bailey so if you’ve specific questions about the study perhaps you could email such questions to Warren and he can ask them of Bailey.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e56wr5723721186t/?p=db00a3c95d5a4434b39c7ff155c9de3f&pi=4
Eddy,
It has also been suggested that perhaps the sensitivity came first…that males who were ‘overly sensitive’ perceived that they were unlike other males in that regard…
I think you are onto something here. Perhaps is is not the overly sensitive male that is abnormal, but the overly macho, masculine male image that is being pushed onto us by Hollywood (Rambo, etc.). Perhaps that is what is abnormal. On the other hand the effeminate male that is often protrayed to representing gay characters is also not normal for many sensitive men.
concerned–
I agree–there is absolutely nothing wrong or pathological about sensitivity. In fact, I tend to prefer it in people, don’t you? But, as I’ve said when riding my favorite horse: society, culture and the media have given very strong messages that sensitivity in a man is ‘unmanly’, ‘girly’, ‘gay’, etc. It is to be shunned, supressed, demeaned.
I feel that these pressures are strong enough and pervasive enough to push some into embracing a homosexual identity. I have some issues with the scenario that some others picture: that their homosexuality caused victimization and that led to the heightened sensitivity. One problem I have with that is that it feels like we’re crossing our definitions of ‘sensitivity’. One sense is of ‘being more aware and in tune particularly on an emotional level to what’s going on around you’ ‘; another sense is more akin to ‘touchy, vulnerable, easily hurt or wounded’. One meaning is definitely more outward directed than the other. She was sensitive to his sensitive areas.
I have problems with seeing ‘being victimized’ as a major player in increasing someone’s overall outward sensitivity. The most obvious response to being victimized is to turn inwards…to become more aware and in tune to your own pain. But, it seems the sensitivity meaning that’s coming through is the sense that ‘gays are more sensitive’ outwardly. A predisposition to care-giving professions…is that a stereotype? I’m not so sure. Another reason I believe we are leaning toward that ‘outward’ usage is that there would be cries of protest and outrage if the generalization were that ‘gays and women tend to be more ‘touchy, vulnerable and easily hurt”.
Branding ‘sensitivity’ as ‘effeminate’ is another issue that makes me want to hop right back up into that saddle. Outward sensitivity is HUMANE; outward sensitivity is even Godlike (as best exemplified in ‘For God so loved the world’). How many hours of counseling did I devote to unscrambling guys’ attempts to ‘go macho’ and to get them to embrace and accept their God-given sensitivity?! “Sensitivity isn’t your problem; society’s intolerance of it is!”
And this hasn’t come up specifically but I want to clarify that I do not believe homosexuality, per se, is pathological. I’m not even sure that homosexuals as a group have more pathologies than straights–even if you went by percentage. If anyone has any relevant statistics, it would be helpful to hear them.
Something just struck me. Warren might be talking about extremism.
“The far sides of the continuum…” Great phrase. Who would those be? The “far sides” — the extremists? Warren suggests that they are:
1. Those who argue that change is possible ————-or change is impossible,
2. Those who argue that reorientation is always harmful or —————never harmful,
3. Those who argue that health status differene is something vital or —————- irrelevant with regards to inherent pathology.
I found myself wondering to night — what would the middle look like? I ask beccause I fear I have been am extremist at times — insting that my view (and only my view) was right.
I am wondering because I believe that the truth about these things is usually somewhere in the middle – althought I tend to express the extreme. So what would the middle be — the most reasonalbe?
What’s in the middle, — reasonable and compassionate center — of “possible” and “impossible”? What is the middle of “”always harmful” and “never harmful”? What’s in the middle of “something vital” and “irrelevant”?
Is this what you were asking us to do, Warrren? To try to find and express that middle — the place where the reality and respect is most likely to be found?
Think Switzerland…
I’m thinking.
Warren recently used the phrase “to reason together.” That is what I took his statement to mean. The middle can be a place of reason or it can be a mushy, wimpy, undefined “lukewarm” place that is of no use to our Lord. Michael knows what it means to be possessed by Him, to be compelled as in a vise, same as I do. We may want to find the wiggle room, but God has a place for us that is clear. The individual conscience can seek and find that place. It is not hidden.
“‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ says the LORD. ‘Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow’” (Isaiah 1:18).
Isaiah spoke these words to a “sinful nation … weighed down with iniquity” … who had “abandoned the LORD.” A nation outwardly preoccupied with religion but inwardly dying.
The “evil” that Isaiah prophesied about comes in many forms. It lives in extremism and religiosity on both sides, as well as in secular self-sufficiency. If there is one thing I have learned in my more recent visits to this blog, it is the futility in extremism. “Bridging the gap” may mean different things to different people, but to me it means “reasoning together” with God in the equation.
Ricola!!!
I am not looking for the middle of extremes for the sake of finding a middle. If the extreme position is correct then I would go with that. However, on this topic, we just don’t know much. What we do know leads me toward what is the middle of many extremes.
The impulse of an advocate is to find what proves the point. Rather, I want to know what is, even if it is inconvenient to my assumptions or the assumptions of those I agree with on other issues.
I think we know more than many want to admit. And you know enough, Warren, to be in great demand as a media guest right now. It doesn’t appear the press see you as the expert in “We don’t know much.”
Well said, Warren. I feel the same way. Neither extreme can prove that it is correct. And simply looking for the middle for the sake of finding a middle can lead to what Debbie spoke of:
But, I think we do know enough at present to make some meaningful statements about what the middle might be.
Is change possible or impossible? That seems to depend largely on what kind of change we are referring to.
Orientation? Identity? Lifestyle? Certainly, the last two change — and some do report some shift in orientation — although almost all report that some SSA remains. Based of what we do know at present, complete change from SSA-only to OSA-only does not seem likely. If it were, one would expect some solid, weel-documented evidence of it by now.
Is therapy to change orientation always harmful? Never harmful? Where is the middle? Probably sometimes helpful and sometimes harmful. We have many folks who have gone through change programs who report both. And both should be taken seriously.
Is health status difference something vital or irrelevant with regards to inherent pathology? Probably important to some degree. Perhaps being gay does predispose some folks so suffer more. Does this prove that gayness is inherently pathological in some way? Probably not, but who really knows for sure?
Warren, I also agree with what you’ve said.
I believe that we shouldn’t we be hasty to define the middle or to box it up in any way. For the time being, it is enough to suggest that there is indeed a middle and to recognize the impact that extremism has had on obscuring the middle.
The great polarization has had far reaching impact on all of us, and I believe, on the scientific and psychological community as well. It has impacted self-report and has impacted how we’ve chosen to interpret self report. It has impacted research and the lack thereof and how we’ve interpreted the research and the lack thereof. It has impacted discussion, questioning, and reasoning.
We’ve had some success in recognizing the great polarization but, IMHO, have only taken baby steps in having any discussion not seriously hindered by it. And that’s just here on this blogsite…one of the most likely places for the reduced polarization to exhibit itself.
So, by all means, let’s reason together. Let’s recognize our own capacity for extremism and for being a ‘carrier’ of the great polarization. Let’s create an environment where the middle ground can be explored and developed before we actually map it out and start staking claims to the turf.
Warren: Even though it may be too early to say anything definitive, would the following statements seem reasonable to you at this time, based on current research? Do they seem extreme?
(1) Sexual re-orientation of some kind may be possible.
(2) Sexual reorientation therapy may harm some and help others.
(3) Something may be inherently pathological about gayness.
For what it is worth — not much probably — I have offered some of my thoughts, based on what I understand the current research to show. Much more is to be learned is to be learned. And, the middle, where the truth most likely is, of course, belongs to everyone.
Thank you, Warren, in advance for considering my questions. No pressure to respond to them right away. I know you are a busy man and other commenters may have questions. Have a great day.
A few posts ago, I said:
So, if there is any research out there that supports Michael’s 3rd statement for consideration:
Anyway, if there is any current research out there that supports this, I’m going to be a bit ticked at blog contributers (including Warren) who didn’t respond to my request as quoted above.
Warren:
I know we are only talking opinions here and not established fatcs, but yo you have an opinion you would like to offer about the 3 extremes?
Do you think change is possible, impossible — or something in between?
Do you believe that reorientation therapy is never harmful, always harmful — or something in between?
Do you believe that increased mental health problems among gays is vitally important, irrelevant — or something in between — with regards to whether or not homosexuality, per se, is inherently pathological?
Here is what I believe, for what it might be worth:
On change: Lots of changes for gays are possible. Sexual behavior and sexuality identity seem to be more flesxible than sexual orientation. Change from SSA-only to OSA only, if it happens at all, is extremely rare.
On reoriention therapy: Very postive experience for some, very harmful experience for othes. Ex-ex-gays I have talked to report both — they were helped in some ways and harmed in others.
On inherent pathology : No. I do not believe that there is anythinig inherently pathological about gayness. I think it is possible that gays are more vulnerable and may therefore suffer more.
I would be interested in your thoughts, Warren, when you have time. As I said, please attend to other commenters first.
I realize that this was directed to Warren but I’ve been mulling over it for the past hour. I’ve been wracking my brain trying to come up with some parallel in the world of psychology where we define ‘change’ as the complete and absolute change of not only behavior but attraction? Smoking cessation doesn’t discount their success by occasional desires to smoke. Overeating? Gambling? Compulsive lying?
In the phrase “Change from SSA-only to OSA only”, I hear absolutes. That the ‘change from’ means “none, nada, zilch” attractions to the same gender..and that the ‘change to’ means a generalized attraction to all of the opposite gender.
The former discounts occasional temptation or remembrance (suggestive of amnesia)…even if quantified to less than 10%; the latter seems to discount true spousosexuality in favor of a more generalized attraction…even if that wasn’t the goal of the individual or their therapist. Am I right or am I reading into this statement.
1) Is this the new definition of ‘change’ that we’re all agreed on? Is this the ‘change’ that psychology is trying to measure? Is this their definition?
2) Are their other areas of therapy that are similar in this ‘absoluteness’? That judge not only change in behavior but absolute 360% change in attraction on an ‘all or nothing’ scale?
I dunno….it sounds extreme to me.
Warren, Even though I am asking what you think the middle might be, I think I should have said that I realize the extremes are possible, too, and may be true.
Change in orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality may be possible or impossible. Reorientation therapy may harm no one or everyone. Gayness may be inherently pathological or completely healthy.
I tend towards some of the extremes on some of these, as you well know.
Warren, I also want to acknowledge that “sexual reorientation” might need to be broadened to include some degree of change from gay to straight — or vice versa, the lessening or increas of one attraction or the other, etc.
Some change is still change. It doesn’t have to be complete to be real or significant.
Some people do report some shift in sexaual orientation, including the development of sexual feelings for their spouse, for example. This is very noteworthy and suggests need for more study.
I have also heard a few stories of complete transtormation from gay to straight — and even though these are rare, they ought to be taken seriously
Wow, I read the author’s blog entry, and far too many of the responses. And all I can think of is …are you all just complete imbeciles?
I’ve been straight for some 20 years. Started reorienting myself at 23. Was so gay I at times wished I was a woman so my desires and actions would be acceptable. And now, what do you know… I’m straight. Not some idiot saying they are straight when they have no lusts for women. Straight as in I love T&A and marriage seems a drag because I see women I’d like to have sex with numerous times a week. Sometimes several times a day.
Wake up, if the course you are taking or the psychologist or analysts you are working with aren’t facilitating change – then fire them, they have proven themselves to be blithering idiots… Then find a different direction.
But no, here I read this theoretical position, or that theoretical position, or that hypothetical or this hypothetical. If you want to never change, or for the shrinks … if you want to never be capable of facilitating change, then you’re on the right track here. I didn’t read all the comments but of the tremendous number I did, it’s apparent no common sense abounds here.
It’s simple people. Work your issues. Question your beliefs. Get in touch with all the enormity that is you. Get in touch with the conflict, the dichotomies. Hear your internal dialogue if you can. Be present to everything that has happened to you. Cry, Rage, Laugh …. you can’t help but change. But if some idiot shrink isn’t sure you can change, then the odds of them being able to help you change aren’t very good are they? If you don’t believe you can change, the odds of you changing are pretty low. And if all you want to do is deal with the issue on some surface level doing mental masturbation, instead of genuine emotive work … then prepare to go nowhere ….. work your issues, change of sexuality is a by product.
Thank you for posting. I am a believer in change. The mantra of fixed sexuality has been devasting to many people. We don’t have to accept homosexuality OR heterosexuality as being “it”.
Work what issues, Tom? I had no issues to work save that I am definitely oriented to men not just sexually but romantically. I started trying to change that at the age of 20 with a psychologist. It didn’t work then or when I tried again at 25. Why? Because there was no issue other than my sexuality.
.
You seem to have found one or two or more, or at least made one up to fool yourself into believing you could change. I wouldn’t be so blunt but you’ve been pretty sure of yourself to call those such as me names like an “imbeciles.” I have known a few ex-gays and most all have not exhibited the lack of understanding that you have. Ok, there was the one guy who claimed to be ex-gay and that the Toronto Blessing (laughing and carrying on) had cured him. But then he claimed all gay men were child molesters, so I just had to ask him how many he had molested while gay. It’s just that you remind me of him.
…
LD, if you went into therapy because of pressure from someone other than yourself then I can understand your anger. Obviously, Tom should not be calling people imbeciles. However, just as his circumstance should not dictate yours neither should your circumstance dictate another persons. Some people really do change and some people really do have issues that contribute to their sexual dissatisfaction. You are not one of them.
I am someone who is exclusively a Lesbian (and have been all of my life). People who appear to change their sexual orientation after ‘therapy’ are bisexual. Bisexuals mislabel themselves all the time. The ‘therapy’ only appears to ‘work’ with them.
The “Fluidly” argument of ‘now I’m Gay’, ‘now I am Straight’ makes all LGBT sound crazy and sexually confused. It gives religious fanatics all the ammunition it needs against the LGBT community.
It is also bull shit. If you are sexually attracted to both genders to any degree — you are bisexual. And therapy or misidentification can not change that