Category: Professional issues

Freud on homosexuality: Letter to a mother

Commenters on recent posts have mentioned Freud’s views of homosexuality. I am looking for an easy link to the section in Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality where he discussed homosexuality. In the mean time, I thought I would post his letter to a woman who wrote him about her homosexual son.

Dear Mrs. X (April 9, 1935)

I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information about him. May I question you, why do you avoid it? Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis.

By asking me if I can help, you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way, we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies which are present in every homosexual, in the majority of cases it is no more possible. It is a question of the quality and the age of the individual. The result of the treatment cannot be predicted.

What analysis can do for your son runs in a different line. If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency, whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed. If you make up your mind that he should have analysis with me (I don’t expect you will!!) he has to come over to Vienna. I have no intention of leaving here. However, don’t neglect to give me your answer.

Sincerely yours with kind wishes,

Freud

P.S. I did not find it difficult to read your handwriting. Hope you will not find my writing and my English a harder task.

Source:

Freud, Sigmund, “Letter to an American mother”, American Journal of Psychiatry, 107 (1951): p. 787.

Pictures of the original letter are here and here.

APA task force on therapy and sexual orientation: An update

The APA issued a revised call for nominations for their Task Force on Appropriate Responses to Sexual Orientation on March 13th. Missing is the reference to external organizations but added is a list of criteria for inclusion on the Task Force.

1. Advanced knowledge of current theory and research on the development of sexual orientation

2. Advanced knowledge of current theory and research on therapies that aim to change sexual orientation

3. Expertise in affirmative mental health treatment for one or more of the following populations:

a. Children and adolescents who present with distress regarding their sexual orientation

b. Religious patients who present with distress regarding their sexual orientation

c. Adults who present with issues regarding their desire to change their sexual orientation or who have undergone therapy to do so

Homosexuality: Should we interfere in the womb?

In a March 2 column, theologian and Southern Baptist seminary President Albert Mohler created a bit of a stir when he allowed that a traditional Christian view of homosexuality was not threatened if innate factors turn out to be involved in the development of same-sex attractions. I was glad to read his thoughts on that point. However, more controversial were these points from his ten point conclusion:

7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.

8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

So Dr. Mohler rightly does not favor abortion, but he might favor non-lifethreatening pre-natal manipulations. In what appears to be an indirect reference to the Mohler suggestion in #8 above, Alan Chambers discounted efforts to manipulate development. He says:

But, I don’t believe that a pill or surgery or holding someone will provide the results that some hope for—there is no quick fix or formula to changing one’s sexuality. Instead, most successful and longterm change occurs when one decides to daily submit their mind, will and emotions to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Some find freedom from feelings and attractions while others simply find freedom from an identity that was incompatible with their faith.

First, I can’t resist pointing out the reference to Richard Cohen (“holding someone”), but the main point is that Alan does not favor the kind of early intervention suggested by Dr. Mohler. There are several big ifs in Dr. Mohler’s point #8 that I believe will keep us from realizing such an ethical dilemma for quite awhile. We have few clues how hormones might work pre-natally to effect sexual orientation in humans. Much work will be needed to define the mechanisms, if they exist at all. Furthermore, while such brain differentiation may be a direct causal factor in sheep, it may not be so direct in humans. Following the thinking of Bem, hormones or genes might in some way craft a brain that leans toward a same-sex sexual organization but certain socialization factors also may be important. One of the most significant problems for me is the possibility of unintended consequences of manipulating something pre-natally. While applying a patch or pill might mitigate against same sex attractions, it may lead to heightened aggression or other consequences unforseen. Finally, I am just nervous about suggestions to design children; I don’t like where that might go. I am not reassured that those making decisions like that might share my religious world view. I am always aware that somewhere else, or at some other time, others who don’t like some characteristic I hold dear, might find a way to make modifications that make sense to them, but would be abhorrent to me.

UPDATE: 3/15/07 – David Crary of the AP has a story on the reaction from the right and left to Dr. Mohler’s article.

APA and the sexual orientation task force revisited

More on the APA sexual orientation task force.

Consider the following excerpt:

The charge of the Task Force is threefold:

(1) To revise and update the APA resolution Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (1997);

(2) To generate a report that includes the following:

(b)The appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for adults who present a desire to change their sexual orientation or their behavioral expression of their sexual orientation, or both;

(3) To inform the Association’s response to groups that promote treatments to change sexual orientation or its behavioral expression and to support public policy that furthers affirmative therapeutic interventions.

The task force is charged to look at interventions for those who want to change sexual orientation but also those who wish to change “their behavioral expression of their sexual orientation.” This is where their work will overlap with the sexual identity therapy guidelines. Given the motivation for the task force (to address reparative therapy as harmful), I am concerned that any and all efforts to live in alignment with one’s beliefs might be targeted. Or perhaps, it would signal a good thing in that the APA might continue to insist that therapists should affirm a homosexual orientation for some clients but for others, allow therapists to ethically collaborate with clients to change behavior in ways that match client values. Such a stance would not be dramatically different than current policy.

I would hope the APA would not attempt to direct the objectives of clients in this arena via sanctions on therapists. I also hope the task force will respect religious diversity to the same degree it respects sexual orientation diversity. Point #3 above makes it appear that the task force is being asked to advise the APA about how to address therapists that conduct therapy where clients are free to modify “behavioral expression of their sexual orientation.” I wonder what that foreshadows.

Perhaps, it is good that this workshop occurs before the August convention…

Montel Williams revisits sexual reorientation

By now, it is no secret. The Montel Williams Show on Thursday, March 15, will devote the whole hour to a show they’ve titled: HOMOSEXUALITY…CAN IT BE CURED? Click the link to read the description of the show. Guests include: Mike Jones, Lance Carroll, Alan Chambers, Richard Cohen, Peterson Toscano, and Dr. Alicia Salzer (the producer of the documentary Abomination: Homosexuality and the Ex-gay Movement). Here is something interesting; Alicia Salzer is the director of Montel’s After-care program. I wonder if she would ever refer someone to a sexual identity therapist?

This episode is generating buzz. I have seen pre-show notices from sources as diverse as Evergreen International, JONAH and Division 44 of the American Psychological Association. Steve Schalchlin has a blog entry describing Mike Jones’ view of his appearance. In contrast to Mike Jones’ view, Elaine Berk of Jonah, who was in the studio audience, said the show was not fair to Alan and those who were there to defend Exodus.

Elaine gave me permission to quote the following:

The taping of the Montel Williams show was last Wednesday. It was quite an upsetting experience, to say the least. I wish each one of you was there – it was high drama.

Montel made fun of reparative therapy the whole time even though the show was supposed to discuss reparative therapy – the show was a set up. FYI, Exodus doesn’t do reparative therapy and that’s what the show was about, so it was ridiculous from the get-go. Montel was out to demean “our side of the story” and did so at every opportunity.

One of the Exodus couples was bumped when they politely protested to Montel that he wasn’t allowing the ex-gays the appropriate amount of time to speak. I give them credit. Montel was floored that this couple had the nerve to dictate to him what they would accept from him. There was a 15 minute delay with producers and production people running out onto the stage as they decided what to do now that this couple was bumped in the middle of the taping.

Alan Chambers of Exodus, the only ex-gay up on the stage with several pro-gay activists, was not feeling well and didn’t respond forcefully to the abuse given out by Montel. I don’t know what happened but Montel pummeled him with words & questions. It was so sad and aggravating to see.

Then, a hero emerged!

All of a sudden Arthur Goldberg was yelling at Montel from the auidence. Arthur yelled something like, “You’re not being fair. You understand what he (Alan Chambers) means, it’s implied in what you read.” Montel was so shocked when Arthur yelled that he was being unfair and misinterpreting what Alan Chambers was saying that Montel didn’t say much back – Montel tried to come back at Arthur but then Arthur yelled again, “This is a civil rights issue and you just don’t understand.”

. . . and then the taping was over.

At that point…no one said anything and everyone was hustled off stage.