So says The Nation and Truth Wins Out.
The Nation found a former patient and TWO sent a person in undercover to look for evidence of change therapy. The material seems pretty tame – the therapist involved indicated that change might not happen — but there is evidence here that Marcus Bachmann was either unaware that his therapists did not seek orientation changes or candid when he said his clinic did not provide the therapy.
No comment from Michele Bachmann’s campaign as yet.
There are many issues raised by these reports; let’s make this an open forum about the statements of the Bachmanns, about the undercover nature of the revelations, or anything else on the current report. I don’t want to rehash whether change is possible; we have been over and over that here. Please stick to this report and possible political implications.
David –
Look, Mr. Bachmann has had ample opportunity to come out and say that he didn’t say this, or as Warren suggested he should, apologize for the statements. His decision not to do these things gives what TWO says more weight.
I’m quite in line with David Blakeslee on this ‘investigative journalism’ with the Bachmann counselors. I’ve felt from the start this is the worst sort of behavior for anyone to initiate.
What was TWO supposed to find inside that office … with that therapist? I, too, would have liked to have been a fly on the wall during those sessions. Would TWO have reported if said therapist happened to be gay affirming … beyond what TWO thought was likely, would they have been honest enough to say if the therapist fit more in the SIT framework or was quite frank about outcomes? Would TWO have reported those results? I think not. This was a witch-hunt from the get-go.
However, I remember that these are just my opinions. I know others have far different thoughts on this.
they took hidden video footage, so there was at least a small electronic fly in the room.
additionally, I find it odd that ease of higher education and gender-equal opportunity to become wealthy are what cause the breakdown between the sexes and of the American family, ultimately.
I remember learning in 4th grade class that medieval kings retained their hold on their people by keeping the population “poor and stupid.” I’m sure glad a Democratic Republic isn’t the same way.
Throbert:
When a propagandist purposely distorts the proper use of a term, it is important to properly define the term. Your analogy of “quantum leap” is a poor correlary (sp).
It is more like Sara Palin saying “death panels.”
David Roberts said:
First, I’m not sure why it wasn’t very clear to you other than that it gets stuck on your strongly held personal notions and biases. And didn’t I make it clear that the planted clients, out of the hundreds of professional help outlets available in the Twin Cities, CHOSE Bachmann’s clinic? Are they to assume NOTHING from that? And, didn’t the one plant SAY that their homosexuality presented a religious conflict for them? (In short, “I’m an adult who doesn’t live in a vacuum. I’m not oblivious to the fact that most people have no moral quandary whatsoever with homosexuality, however, I want help with mine and I found your agency.”)
Second, where do we draw the line on religious belief, David? You can’t prove there’s a God…can’t even prove that there’s a ‘higher power’. The belief, therefore, in a Creator or an assisting power to draw upon in times of need is a religious belief.
When it comes to any sense of morality, is there no drawing on a sense of communal beliefs that is, in itself, drawn from a widespread belief in a higher power. Why not kill other people? It appears to be ‘natural’; we see it over and over again throughout much of the animal kingdom. How on earth will we determine which of our beliefs are religious and which are not?
Well, I guess we strongly disagree. I DO NOT believe that a counselor should keep their religious beliefs to themselves at all times. At times, the client has come in part because of those beliefs.
And we strongly disagree in the simplistic “For spiritual advice, there are clergy.” There are times when we can all use a little advice but, mental health professionals exist because many times ‘advice’ just doesn’t cut it. We might actually need some clinical tools for diagnosis…some charting for progress…some values clarification…reinforcement tools…etc….etc. That goes beyond ‘spiritual advice’ and needs to do so. I live in a real world where sincere believers actually do have psychological issues equal to those of non-believers and therefore might actually need something more than just advice.
Jayhuck said:
.
Sorry, I’ve read The Nation piece but I find your statement too abstract. What, specifically, is ‘this’ (from ‘say that he didn’t say this; what are the statements he should apologize for and why the need for apology? (I don’t believe the initial reference was to the word choice ‘barbarians’…I’m hunching that we’re wanting him to apologize for lying or covering up. But, please, correct me if I’m wrong in that.)
I could be very wrong here, but I think what Throbert was trying to say is that Reparative Therapy seems to have both a technical and non-technical definition. It may be understood differently by those within and those outside psychological circles. This involves something more than a single propagandist.
David,
If you want to know what the “this” is, what Bachmann said, scroll up or reread the piece in the Nation. Mr Bachmann’s silence on this issue is telling. You appear to claim we can’t trust anything TWO has said about this man, yet this man is not defending himself by saying that what TWO has said about him is wrong. whew
So what does that mean then?
Ooops – that last post should have been addressed to Eddy.
And it needs to be reworded for the addressee – will have to tackle that later
Keep taking the tablets, Eddy.
Jayhuck–
As I already said, I already read The Nation piece and I still need the clarification I asked you for. Is it really that much of a bother for you to clarify your statement? It is not my intent to send you on a wild goose chase or to give you busy work.
But, seriously, never mind. I’ll accept your attitude for what it is.
David R:
Nothing to say—your responses speak volumes!
Eddy,
I’m only echoing a statement that was already made by Warren. This all revolves around his use of the word Barbarian in his answer to a question from the show’s host that specifically had to do with gay teenagers. IMO it would serve him well to apologize for the Barbarian statement as well as for the lying.
Warren said basically the same thing I was trying to say. He did it before me and he did it better. I will repost it:
David B –
If the allegations are wrong, then why doesn’t Mr Bachmann challenge them?
Jayhuck,
You must know that it is the tactic of the propagandist, on both the left and the right, to throw accusations about in hopes of engaging your enemy in a conflict.
Once engaged in the conflict, the propagandist often, not always, finds additional things wrong with the enemies response.
My comments, though, are less about Bachmann, than the actual therapist involved.
I have suggested that TWO release a transcript of all the sessions recorded to either support their allegations in context or reveal additional distortions that made treatment of this false client a hopeless case for the therapist.
David,
My issue is with Bachmann, his lying and his outrageous choice of words.
David Blakeslee# ~ Jul 13, 2011 at 10:13 pm
“You must know that it is the tactic of the propagandist, on both the left and the right, to throw accusations about in hopes of engaging your enemy in a conflict.”
that isn’t quite the case with Bachmann. He was the one who said (or implied) his clinics didn’t attempt to convert gays to straight. Now, he may not have been lying, however, he was being deceptive about what happens in his clinics.
“I have suggested that TWO release a transcript of all the sessions recorded to either support their allegations in context or reveal additional distortions that made treatment of this false client a hopeless case for the therapist.”
I think TWO should release the full transcripts as well. However, the fact that the case was “hopeless” is irrelevant. The issues are whether or not Bachmann deceived people about his clinic and what happens in these therapy sessions. I’d also be interested in seeing a break down of the clinics revenues, and how much comes from the various treatments offered.
Attempting to “convert gays” to straights is a word nightmare.
It implies coercion and persuasion of a person who as a defined view (“I am Gay!”).
Both instances reported by TWO describe a situation where a person was in conflict with himself and his religious beliefs—
That ain’t conversion therapy.
TWO is being manipulative and dishonest for a political agenda…because THAT IS WHAT THEY EXIST FOR!
If a Gay Identified person had entered the clinic and reported emotional distress and the therapist HAD TRIED TO CONVINCE THEM THEIR DISTRESS WAS DUE TO THEIR ORIENTATION and had then tried to CONVERT OR PURSUADE THEM TO EXPLORE CHANGING THEIR ORIENTATION that would have been CONVERSION THERAPY
GAYS HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM THIS CLINIC POORLY INFORMED CHRISTIANS DO
David B., are you saying in the comment above,
1.) That the Bachmann Clinic DOES NOT practice ‘Reparative Therapy‘?
2.) How does SOCE differ from ‘Reparative Therapy’ as a subset of SOCE?
3.) What should be a professional therapist’s response be to a client whose pursuing therapy … “to no longer want to have same sex attractions”?
4.) Is it legitimate for a therapist to say … “Yes, that is a legitimate goal and outcome”?
Can we dismiss this as “leaving the lifestyle”, which assumes you’re pursuing same sex behavior, in whatever form that happens to be. Assume that the client wants to live in harmony with their faith beliefs.
I’m asking these questions assuming that I am a POORLY INFORMED CHRISTIAN on what SOCE actually means vs. Reparative Therapy.
5.) Am I poorly informed to think the best information we currently have is that ‘change’ from gay to str8 happens seldom in men … women, a bit better?
6.) Am I poorly informed when I think my therapy choice based on telling by therapist I want to live in congruence with my faith choice of chastity with my SSA … and, I’m open to where that leads … change or not? Should I be seeking a therapist that pretty much tells me … I’m a heterosexual with a homosexual problem” … and, when we uncover the stumbling blocks … I’ll be heterosexual?
David B., I’m sincerely seeking answers to the above questions. I hope I haven’t come across as snarky or whatever. I’m very willing to concede that I’m poorly informed …
.
David Blakeslee# ~ Jul 14, 2011 at 12:00 pm
“Attempting to “convert gays” to straights is a word nightmare.”
I’m not interested in playing semantic games with you David. If you want to do that there are others who post here who will probably be happy to oblige you.
My statement was that Bachamann was deceptive (and possibly lied) about what “treatment” is performed at his clinic.
Now if you wish to discuss that, then I will. However, if you want to play word games, I’m not interested.
“GAYS HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM THIS CLINIC POORLY INFORMED CHRISTIANS DO”
I disagree, this clinic helps fund Bachmanns so they can denigrate gays (by associating them with “barbarians”) and try to deny gays basic rights. And I suspect the clinics treatment of gay christians, fosters a hostility towards gays.
Teresa,
No snark noted.
1) I am not sure what kind if any kind of therapy the Bachmann clinic is practicing…it seems to be religiously affirming while providing incomplete and inaccurate information to “professing” Christians. Christians should be upset about misleading Christians.
2) SOCE involves a huge set psychological techniques applied to change of attractions, some of which may be an adjunct to individual therapy and Reparative Therapy is a specific technique, psychodynamically based is what the clinician does in the office.
3) A clinician can answer that they way they answer many questions, “Although that is an ideal for you, there is not guarantee that will occurr. People generally are able to modulate the behavior more than they can modulate their thoughts and feelings. With SSA, there is some likelihood therapy can lower the intensity and frequency of your attractions, but it is unlikely they will disappear. There is no guarantee they will turn to opposite attractions.” The Ethical error at the Bachmann clinic would be the same if a person came in saying “Can I be free of Depression?” That is the ethical violation.
4) No
5 and 6 are answered by 3 and 4.
I realize David Blakeslee seeks to set a moderate and realistic standard when he suggests a clinician could say:
But compare that to Warren’s statement in another recent post regarding his survey of over 300 same-sex attracted men and women who are or have been married to someone of the opposite sex:
According to Warren, many of these survey participants had been involved in some type of change therapy and/or Exodus-affiiliated ministries.
This would suggest that a fully honest clinician would need to disclose not only that same-sex attractions do not disappear with therapy, but actually grow stronger in intensity and frequency over the long term. This is true even for those who avoid same-sex activity, do not identify as gay, and maintain a heterosexual marriage and family.
“Does anybody have any kleenex?”
When we ask for a Kleenex we are not asking specifically for kleenex brand of facial tissue, we just need a facial tissue. The word kleenex in daily usage has come to mean facial tissue.
When the general public reads or uses the words “reparative therapy” it has come to mean a person going to therapy to change their sexual orientation. I have been reading this website for about a month or so, and even I forget that reparative therapy is that specific flavor of therapy the Nicolsi practices that begins with you had a bad parent. I know I read that on this website before but had actually forgotten that there is a difference between sexual orientation therapy and reparative therapy until I read it again in these comments.
Writers who use the words reparative therapy to talk about Sexual Orientation Change Efforts I don’t think should be beaten up about it any more than you would complain about some one writing about needing a kleenex instead of them writing about needing a facial tissue. They general usage of the term reparitive therapy has become a generic term and not the specific term that you would like it to be. For the people writing here, reparative therapy has a specific meaning but for the general public it does not, and bloggers and others I think are fine to use the term in the generic sense, especially when they are reaching a general audience. The only problem is that spell check doesn’t recognize the word reparative, LOL.
StraightGrandmother–
I agree with you to a point but did you ever have that unfortunate experience of asking for a Kleenex (to clean your eyeglasses) and someone handed you a Puffs with lotion? Believe me, sometimes it matters!
It seems we’re locked in a conversation where one side constantly assails the other for it’s unclear word choices (most notably: the decades long wrangling over Exodus’ use of the word ‘change’) and yet they won’t accept responsibility for their own unclear and unspecific speech.
Ironically, I’d been mulling all evening on how this latest peeing contest actually rides on the unclear and unspecific speech. Allow me to explain: I was a part of the Twin Cities church and para-church culture for more than a decade. Outpost, the ministry I was part of is even cited in The Nation article that leads into all of this commentary. As an insider of the para-church culture, I was privvy to some stuff others may not have even noticed. For example, the Twin Cities had Christian support groups named “Alcoholics Victorious” and “Overeaters Victorious”. These came about due to a strongly held belief that identity is a key factor in any struggle and one should not identify by what had them in it’s grips but rather ‘In Christ’. Many people here don’t understand that…they tend to laugh it off…but that doesn’t change that it’s SO significant to some that it was worth establishing new support groups with new names. An unknowing outsider might comment ‘oh, you attend one of those ‘Anonymous’ groups’ and they’d betray that they didn’t understand a core part of the individual’s idealogy.
So, on to Nicolosi and ‘Reparative Therapy’. RT has some pretty specific beliefs and methodologies. Some of them conflict–to the core–with the approach of some others. Bring on the Bachmann’s. The allegations are that they offer ‘reparative therapy’ or ‘change therapy’ but that they deny it. We think they’re lying. But revisit The Nation article. I can’t find where the Bachmann’s believe in ‘homosexual orientation’ in the first place. A term meant to be a descriptive label turned into a box. We won’t fully define what homosexual orientation is (there are hints that beyond sexual attraction there might also be issues temperament, artistic appreciation). The point is…it hasn’t been fully defined and no one can yet say where ‘it’ comes from. And the Bachmann’s reject it. He says so in The Nation article “and the core value…in terms of how God created us, we’re all heterosexuals.” Don’t need to ‘change’ an orientation that doesn’t actually exist.
It follows then, if Bachmann does use the word change but doesn’t believe in a homosexual orientation, then his use of ‘change’ is clearly NOT ‘change of orientation’.
Bachmann is further challenged on truthfulness because he says he doesn’t try to ‘cure gays’. LOL. The truth is that he doesn’t. Bachmann does not view the presence of homosexual feelings, desires or proclivities as a sickness. He views them as sin. The remedy for sickness is healing and cure; the remedy for sin is acknowledgement, repentance, God’s grace, fellowship. And Bachmann does elaborate just a bit on some of those disciplines.
Anyway, I suppose there are some generalized conversations where it might be acceptable to categorize everything generically as ‘reparative therapy’, but it sure seems foolish in this forum where people claim to be pursuing a deeper and clearer understanding and comments and answers seem to ride on word choice or nuance.
Since when did psychiatry become clinical?
Eddy,
You’re off base here. Many Christians, my old Church included, do view sin as a type of sickness, one that can only be healed by the “Church”. Its original meanning has something to do with missing the mark, but to somehow separate the idea of sin from sickness bypasses a large number of denominations that view it this way. I’m not completely clear what you are trying to say here. These Churches view Grace, fellowship, etc (call it The Church) if you will, as the cure, the remedy, for sin, the sickness. Surely you must realize this
Thank you, Eddy, for this. Quite a radical difference from what the Catholic theology states about homosexual feelings, desires or proclivities. Now, if this is indeed what the Bachmann’s think and believe, I’m definitely not in agreement with them.
This thread certainly took awhile to get to the nitty gritty, but I’m glad it finally did. If this is what a good deal of Evangelicals think, God help us all. No wonder persons with same sex attractions often feel between a rock and a hard place. Just imagine walking around having feelings you’re not responsible for arising, but you’ve just sinned by having them. What a radical difference between str8 persons who have opposite gender attractions arise which they’re also not responsible for; but, they’re not in sin, unless they continue to linger with them.
Geez, love the sinner, hate the sin … is meaningless in this whole context. Worse than meaningless, it’s downright hypocritical. My attractions are part of me. I don’t set them on a shelf when I go out for the day; and, neither do str8 people. Why do str8′s get a break in this department? Plainly, this is saying just being homosexual (or shall I say “a heterosexual with a homosexual problem”, or some other weird definition) is sinful.
Why do I have to repent for something I didn’t cause?
The more I think about this, the worse it gets.
Teresa, as much as I read where you’re coming from, being raised Catholic myself, I have always thought this was a big joke , too.
ALL have sinned. Duh! That’s why we needed a Redeemer!
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Do you think Jesus was gambling with her life…that there was ANYONE present, other than Himself, without sin.
A couple of points I honestly don’t understand. Why would any psychiatrist declare his religion to a patient? Why would that ever be necessary? Surely that would interfere with what’s supposed to be going on? Do people still talk about ‘transference’ these days? When I was in analysis I wanted to know as little as possible about my analyst. Was he supposed to give me jewish therapy? Leaving aside for the moment what would seem to be Bachmann’s complete lack of training or credentials (which I would consider to be the main take-away from this story) I thought the point was to make one examine one’s assumptions not to reinforce them. Otherwise, if the therapist advertises his religious beliefs to attract customers who share those beliefs isn’t one entering a loop? Reinforcing in each other one’s mutual world-view? How is that supposed to ever lead to insight on the part of the analysand? Color me puzzled.
And also, I don’t understand how one can be a conservative evangelical. I thought the point of evangelicalism was to break out of old forms, to challenge orthodoxies to enter into a more personal relationship with the divine. This seems a fairly new development that I don’t understand.
Nick,
This is an interesting and important point.
Behavioral therapy and ACT have noted that when we resist an idea cognitively, it tends to lessen in the short run but intensify in the long run. This is true of all “unwanted” feelings and thoughts, not just SSA.
Psychology generally has been on the wrong path when dealing with depression and anxiety and it is no fault of SOCE and Reparative therapists that thoughtfully applying similar techniques to people with unwanted SSA has had a similar, long term outcome.
Please see Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for more details of this general problem in psychology…
before selectively applying it to this topic.
And Warren,
Please check in here as you agree or disagree…I think you agree we have been on the wrong path, despite extensive training and theory, with psychology generally the last 50 years.
There is no shame in admitting this and it is dishonest at its core to selectively criticize a group that has thoughtfully applied well reasoned theories and interventions based upon what were sound psychological theories. Especially when that group (religious conservatives) have been either ignored or overtly pathologized by professional organizations like the APA.
We now know that religious practice has many positive life correlaries; something Skinner, Jung, Freud and Rogers all resisted. Their clones became the APA and all research since then has been cluttered with their bigotry.
I think the issue here is the “truth in advertising” standard.
Regardless of whether such intensification applies to many types of unwanted feelings, I believe it would make a huge difference if every therapist or religious ministry involved in this area made clear that same-sex attractions do not normally change or even lessen in intensity over time.
We are now seeing some of these groups backing away from explicit promises of a 100% change in orientation, but they continue to push the idea that over time, with proper therapy or religious adherence, one will experience a significant lessening of same sex attractions and increased heterosexual desire and functioning.
If even THAT is not true–and Warren’s study seems to corroborate what many of us have experienced individually–then people need to know that. It’s important not only for those who are trying to come to terms with their own sexual identity, but also for their families and potential families.
Shouldn’t any woman considering marriage to someone with same sex attractions be told that even after 25 years, even if the marriage is successful, her husband will likely feel even “more gay” than he is now? Shouldn’t that give pause to therapists and pastors and church members encourage such marriages as a sign of “healing.”
Nick: I think our findings are going to have something for everyone but mostly they will cause significant reflection on the issues you are raising.
David – I definitely believe religion has been underappreciated so I am very happy the APA created space for conscience. I just wish my religious friends could get off the culture war thing and see what is happening. We need people in the other professions to wake up and smell the incense.
David B., I was going to bring this fact to this thread. In fact, Freud hated the Catholic Church, in particular … of small note here. The bigger deal in all of this, for faith beliefs of all types, is that for years Christians of any stripe viewed Freud and psychoanalysis as WRONG. It was viewed as stripping ‘man’ from an essential … which was the spiritual. How this later became accepted, and not only accepted by almost every Christian Denomination but openly embraced, is quite amazing.
We forget to look at the historical roots of what was going on mid-1800′s. Darwin and evolution, Freud and psychoanalysis, Marx and Communism. These 3 giants of social ‘science’, and dare I say, change or social engineering, loom large in our present social dilemma. Science, instead of being the handmaiden of Theology, the Queen of Science, became reductionist … and, men simply became molecules to be studied, tweaked, and ultimately enslaved in a gulag of ‘test tubes’, and addictive technology. We seem to no longer be the actors in our own lives, but acted upon by a science that “knows all” and “will deliver us from every suffering” … our present redeemer.
There may not be any shame in admitting this, but the ‘religious conservatives’ should no better, in a sense. Have none of us understood the last 150 years of history, especially the faith groups? Therapy, particularly psychotherapy based on Freudian techniques, etc., has a history within the Churches of antagonism. Is this no longer taught in Church History in courses related to Moral Theology, Philosophy of Science? Are we all caught up in being ‘dumbed down’ from the mid-1900-s on?
Perhaps, the roots of our solution lie in the past, and not the present or future.
So, I’m not misunderstood from my previous Comment; I am not advocating being ‘Amish’ here (no slur against the Amish Anabaptist Religion). I support science and its progress. The dilemma is who acts as the Grand Inquisitor or Ethicist on what are legitimate scientific endeavors, what are dangerous and immoral scientific ‘progresses’? Should that be left up to a majority vote? Are there never any areas that science should breach? Who decides and when, and on what basis will those decisions be made, if ever? Should bio-neural scientific studies be curtailed in the area of ‘sexuality’ because this touches a ‘core’ of who we are as ‘being’ who we are?
Has the answer already been decided ‘just because’, and now we’re the dog being wagged by the tail of ‘science’?
Eddy, if we tone it down here a notch, here’s the essential question:
Some Evangelical Christians deem simply having a spontaneous, same sex attraction as being ‘sinful’. I believe that’s what you said, in my paraphrased way, about Marcus Bachmann.
Have I understood this correctly, Eddy? A man with same sex attractions has a spontaneous attraction to someone in life’s passing, however. That man in no way feeds the attraction, is not lusting, etc.; but, simply having the attraction … that man has sinned? Is that what you mean?
If it is, take a similar man with opposite gender attractions … said man has a spontaneous attraction to someone in life’s passing, however. That man in no way feeds the attraction, is not lusting, etc. but, simply having the attraction … has that man sinned?
This should have read: I believe that’s what you said in the quote below concerning Marcus Bachmann:
Warren,
Please see the question above about ACT if time permits.
Teresa–
Forgive me, I should not have posted ‘on the fly’ this morning.
To work with your latter paraphrase,
Thanks for catching me on that one…I was focussed on differentiating between sickness and sin and failed to differentiate between temptation (i.e. feelings) and yielding to the temptation.
Eddy, thank you for the correction. This changes the whole picture. Much appreciated, Eddy.
Bachmann responds to CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20079857-503544.html