Category: Uncategorized

I recently wrote to the Dept of Health and Human Services about a drug and alcohol abuse website that catered to a GLBT audience. There were multiple inaccuracies on the website and I thought it could have done a better job providing information regarding STIs and the associations to drug and alcohol use. At any rate, here is the reply I received from an anonymous contractor to the DHHS:

I find it interesting that you use a higher education email account to communicate such rhetoric. Does Grove City College know that you use their email account in such a manner? You are an educator??

Of course some of the regular readers and critiquers of this blog have wondered the same thing.

I complained to the DHHS about the email and after about a week the website was taken down and is still down I believe. I learned later that the person responsible was no longer in the position and I thought the matter was settled.

A few days ago I received an email from the link on my website that came from the mystery person who sent email I printed above. I did not expect this but the person involved apologized for her rude email. She wanted her name withheld but here is the email she sent.

Hi Dr. Throckmorton, this is not exactly a question…more of an apology. My name is ___ and I used to work at NCADI (National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information). You and I traded a few emails. I would like to apologize to you for my rude emails to you regarding the LBGT site. I had no idea that such a site existed; I had not been informed by anyone at NCADI that this site was up and running AND asking for feedback. I received numerous emails regarding that site and I had no idea what everyone was talking about until I asked a requestor what site he was referring to. He sent me the link and when I went to it I was horrified-not by the site but by the fact that there was an “invitation” to leave your feedback. I was mortified when I realized that we (NCADI) were asking for feedback and that I was dismissive of it. Not that that is an excuse for my emails, I was being defensive because I thought this was a bunch of malicious people attacking my companies web site. The point is, whether or not I agree with any of it I never should have attacked the feedback that was requested. I wanted to apologize as soon as I found out but was told by my supervisor to “not contact you under any circumstances.” Since I no longer work there I wanted to take this opportunity to tell you that I am very sorry for the rude emails. It is not something I have ever done before and something I will never do again. Please accept my deepest apologies.

I wrote back and accepted her apology. It is pretty impressive for her to look me up and make the contact.

A commenter on the Brokeback article brought up the recent article by Tim Wilkins where Tim said he would not go see Brokeback Mountain because it would be tempting for him. Thus, if Tim still has attractions to men then is he really ex-gay or is he still a homosexual? Clearly, Tim believes he is post-gay at least, meaning that he has structured his life around his more recently acquired heterosexual attractions and not his homosexual attractions which may have initially seemed more natural. So if he has changed, then what does change mean?

I have met people who say they were completely unattracted to women, attracted to men and now completely unattracted to men and attracted to women. However, I have met many people who kind of switched emphases: they were mostly homosexual with some heterosexual attractions and are now vice versa. Many critics see this as being bisexuals switching home teams. I think this is change.

I also know others who haven’t changed their homosexual feelings very much but rather have added heterosexual attractions to their experience. I believe this experience also represents change.

Still others have had no change in homosexual attractions and little or no addition of opposite sex attraction and yet they commit to following the teaching of their faith which forbids all sexual expression outside of marriage. A person who makes that commitment certainly has had a changed mind.

In short, change means different things for different people. Inasmuch as ministries and conservative groups promote change, I would like to see them be more specific about what change means. I would also like to see critics of post gay people be less dismissive of their choices.

Another thought on Brokeback…

View a clip of Dr. Robert Spitzer discussing his research regarding sexual orientation. The clip is from the documentary, I Do Exist.

Scientific American MIND Nationwide Poll Reveals Surprising Perceptions of Sexual Orientation Among Americans

50% Believe Choice Plays No Role in Sexual Orientation; 47% Believe “All People Have the Potential to Be Attracted to Members of Both Sexes”

NEW YORK, NY — (MARKET WIRE) — 02/06/2006 — Half of all Americans believe sexual orientation is “innate, genetic or predetermined by other factors such as environment,” a new nationwide Zogby Interactive poll shows. The surprising findings are the topline results of a survey commissioned by Scientific American MIND (SciamMind.com), the magazine that probes the workings of the brain and its impact on behavior.

Just 11% agreed with the statement, “sexual orientation is a conscious choice,” while one in three (34%) said they believed that “sexual orientation is determined by both choice and other factors.” Six percent were not sure. The margin of error for the survey, which included 4,236 interviews, is +/-1.5 percentage points.

While expressing a widespread belief that orientation is not an active choice, respondents also appeared to believe that sexual orientation occurred along something of a spectrum — with both straight and gay people having the potential to be attracted to individuals of either sex.
Some 47% of poll respondents, a slight plurality, agreed with the statement, “I believe that all people have the potential to be sexually attracted to members of both sexes.” But a distinct majority, 53%, said they believed that “a straight person may occasionally experience sexual attraction to individuals of the same sex.” An even higher percentage, 62%, said they believed “a gay person may occasionally experience sexual attraction to individuals of the opposite sex.”

Scientific American MIND commissioned the poll to probe public attitudes on the question of “Do Gays Have A Choice?” — the focus and title of the magazine’s article by Robert Epstein exploring recent research on sexual orientation. The article, which is distinct from this survey, appears in the February/March issue of Scientific American MIND, which hits newsstands this week.

The Scientific American MIND poll also found: — The belief that sexual preference is predetermined is widely held across demographic and political lines. It was particularly prevalent among Americans aged 50-64 (53%); single people (59%); Hispanics (57%); and
Democrats (72%).

— The belief that sexual orientation was either fully or partly a choice
was more widespread among conservative groups. It was especially prevalent
among those who classified themselves as “very conservative” (80%), with
only 15% of that group believing sexual orientation was predetermined.

— Men and women are deeply divided in their perceptions of sexual
orientation: 60% of females believe it is innate, genetic or predetermined
by other factors such as environment; a far higher percentage than men
(39%).

— The belief that “all people have the potential to be sexually
attracted to members of both sexes” was especially prevalent among adults
under 30 (66%).

Robert Epstein’s article in the new issue of Scientific American MIND, “Do Gays Have A Choice?” explores recent research that suggests that sexual orientation may occur in along a continuum, ranging from exclusive same-sex attraction to exclusive opposite sex attraction. Readers can see where they fall on the spectrum by taking a quiz in the magazine and on its website, SciamMind.com.