So many problems with this…where to start?

love and grace,

pam

I immediately think of “gay” episcopal bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, whose ordination is at the center of the currently fracturing Anglican church.

Bishop Robinson participated in some amount of reorientation therapy, with some obvious success — having been “happily married” to a woman for 12 years, and fathering 2 children (i think that’s correct) with her.

Then, 12 years later, he split up his family, settled down with a man, and proceeded to split up his church.

I can only scratch my head, when asked “is he gay? is he straight? is he bisexual? whatever he is, or was, did he change over the course of time?” There’s more than enough factual evidence to answer YES to all of these questions. The only answer that seems to hold any weight at all is the answer he would give for himself.

For all we know, he might be Marie Antoinette. Maybe someone should ask him… 😉

To those of us who see the dialog of reorientation within the context of its emphasis among those who use it for political machination, we care greatly about how “real” a shift in orientation may be. However to others, including some who seek a change, it may be less important that there be a “real” change than that there be some identity that results in a manageable life.

Take, as illustration, another possible situation where there could be a disparity between “reality” and perception. Suppose, for example, that a person was convinced that they were Marie Antoinette. And suppose that this adoption of this identity was the only way this person could withstand an otherwise miserable existence.

Now some might say that it is in that patient’s best interest to face reality, she’s simply NOT Marie Antionette. Others might say so what, who cares about whether this person is or is not who they think they are… what matters is this person’s well being, and a delusion may be preferable to the reality if there is an adequate support system and no one is hurt. A good argument could be made either way.

I’m not suggesting that sexual identity is nothing more than delusion. Nor am I suggesting that it is an indication of mental illness if one thinks that one’s sexual orientation has changed. I’m simply suggesting that in the case of individuals, the “realness” of change may be less important than the identity of change.

Of course, that’s not the whole story. The reasons why realness may matter is because it impacts others. When this identity is used to make claims of “real” change for political purposes, then the personal is no longer primary. Identity and values, while adequate for the individual, cannot ethically be used as a shield for political claims.

And then there are the issues of potential spouses. Identity change may well serve a person for life, but if it doesn’t then it’s small consolation for those who bought into someone else’s identity.

When politicians are told that the individual actually is Marie Antoinette and they should vote accordingly, or when a potential spouse is told that he will be afforded the priveleges of marrying nobility, then the question comes back: just how real is that person’s identity.

Because of the specialized equipment and medical facilities required to do it, I don’t think the prevalence was high, but when we’re talking numbers of the 13% range, I think it’s important. And since Kaisar-Premanente has been a large health care provider, it’s concievable that they may have had such facilities for clients who requested it.

Whis is a second point I want to make. Most case reports that I’ve read describing aversion therapy involved clients who requested such therapy. While it may have occured in mental instititions and other non-voluntary settings, those case reports don’t appear to have been written about much in this country. (South Africa, for example, is another matter altogether)

Today, we see it as unethical. I’m not one to retroactively apply today’s standards to treatments which were considered legitimate 40 years ago. We learn with time, fortunately.

Another question to ask him: Does Kaiser Permanente have any records that would allow for analysis of the long-term outcomes for this group of clients? After five to ten years or longer, was there any difference in how satisfied/successful the various groups of clients remained.

Obviously, some of us will expect that long term, the clients who embraced heterosexual adaptation might have had a higher level of dissatisfaction. But perhaps that isn’t true at all. It seems to me that if an organization as large as Kaiser Permanente can actually identify a population of this size, there’s an opportunity here for follow up research that would establish some objective answers to the questions we constantly debate.

Do you mean to say your numbers are higher because of you clientele? In what way?

Also, among those 90% who see you for sexuality issues, what percentage of that 90% achieved a heterosexual functioning, and what a gay orientation or celibacy? And yes Michael, we can discuss the term “heterosexual functioning” if you’d like 🙂