Earlier this week, NPR produced a report briefly telling the stories of Rich Wyler and Peterson Toscano. Wyler is the co-founder of People Can Change and Journey into Manhood, both of which seek change of sexual orientation via a variety of highly provocative techniques. Toscano sought change for 17 years and then accepted that he was not changing despite a variety of methods.
In that report, Wyler and Toscano both referred to the belief that attachment disruptions with the same-sex parent contribute to homosexual attractions (Toscano now believes the theory to be completely false). Regular readers of this blog know some about the source of those ideas.
One of the more recent theorists and therapists who traffics in the reparative therapy is Joseph Nicolosi, co-founder of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
Nicolosi often refers to mainstream theorists and therapists in his talks about reparative therapy. Specifically, of late, he asserts that he has incorporated the research and insights of therapists who focus on assisting clients with disruptions in important attachments. This is not unexpected given that reparative drive theory proposes that attachment disruptions help create homosexual strivings. One such therapist referred to often in Nicolosi’s recent book, Shame and Attachment Loss: The practical work of reparative therapy, is Diana Fosha. Fosha is an accomplished psychotherapist who is widely credited as a leader in experiential therapy. She is author of the book The Transforming Power of Affect and Director of the Accelerated Experiential-Dynamic Psychotherapy Institute.
Nicolosi describes Fosha’s work with the label, Affect-Focused Therapy. In fact, if you search for Affect-Focused Therapy and Diana Fosha in Google, Nicolosi’s references to her are the first few hits. Generally, Nicolosi credits Fosha and other like-minded therapists for making reparative therapy more effective.
Over the years, I have appreciated the contributions of attachment theorists to various approaches to therapy and so Nicolosi’s reference to Fosha made me curious. I decided to contact her to find out her views on the idea that attachment disruptions play a part in orienting sexual attractions toward the same or opposite sex. I also asked her if there was new research in her area of practice that might shed light on the prospects for sexual orientation change. Here is what she had to say.
Throckmorton: Dr. Fosha, are you aware of any evidence that past attachment problems with same-sex parents can lead to homosexual attraction?
FOSHA: No. If you really think of it, half of people who have attachment problems have attachment problems with the same-sex parent. There are no studies that I am aware of that in any way link attachment problems of any kind with gender identity, sexual identity and issues of attraction. None. Attachment problems predict interpersonal problems and affect regulation patterns, and are a risk factor for compromised resilience in the face of trauma across all sexual orientations
Throckmorton: Do you know of any evidence that affect focused therapy (AFT) can change gays to straight or in some way alter a person’s sexual orientation?
FOSHA: None
Throckmorton: So then, you know of no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed from gay to straight by addressing and ameliorating attachment issues with parents or others?
FOSHA: No, none. When attachment disruptions are addressed successfully, people are generally happier and may develop stronger adult relationships, greater resilience and greater well-being, but their essential sexual orientation stays the same, whether they are straight or gay.
Throckmorton: Do you or your organization offer any trainings or educational experiences using AFT to achieve sexual reorientation?
FOSHA: No.
Throckmorton: Do you or your organization have any position on using AFT to try to achieve sexual reorientation? Are you neutral about it; favor it or oppose it?
FOSHA: I have not read Nicolosi’s work, so I would not presume to be definitive, but based on what I know from the popular media about such methods (whether this applies to his or not, I do not know) leads me to strongly oppose such efforts– and view them as misguided at best, and dangerous at worst.
While Dr. Fosha is candidly unaware of the specifics of reparative therapy, it is informative that she does not see any relationship between attachment problems and sexual orientation. If such problems were frequently associated with sexual orientation changes, I would think she would see evidence of a relationship in her work. Her experience mirrors my own – attachment problems are so pervasive among same, other and both-sex attracted people that one cannot point to these disruptions as the general driving factor behind sexual orientation.
Tag: NARTH
Roots of reparative therapy – Momism as a root of homosexuality
Yesterday, I quoted the bookjacket of Their Mothers’ Sons by Edward Strecker which proposes smothering mothering as a culprit for the failure of boys to become men. Today, I want to quote a bit more from the book, specifically in reference to homosexuality. Of course, Strecker sees mom as being at root of the gay.
First, I provide Strecker’s basic diagnosis of the sad lot of sons who find themselves in mom’s grips. Strecker’s laboratory was war. He lamented that over 3 million men dodged the draft or were discharged for psychiatric reasons during World War II. Strecker acknowledged for all people there is a inner battle between self-preservation and fighting for the greater good. Some men became valient fighters, even accepting with grace their wounds, whereas others wilted in the face of the demands of war. Why the difference? According to Strecker, it comes down to maturity. He wrote:
Why did the desire for self-preservation defeat one group of men, the their discredit, and not the other? The answer in ninety percent of the cases can be given in one word, IMMATURITY. The majority of men who failed, like the majority of men who fail for the same reasons in ordinary life, were IMMATURE. (p. 21; emphasis in the original).
So what causes immaturity?
You guessed it.
Mom.
Strecker wrote:
Maturity is not an inborn trait; it is not hereditary. It is the result of early background, environment, training, and unselfish parental love…Given the opportunity of having known when he was eight to twelve years old, any one of the men who failed in his opportunity to serve in the armed forces because of neuropsychiatric tendencies, and, particularly, of having known his mother, a competent psychiatrist could have forecast with reasonable accuracy the boy’s future immaturity. In the vast majority of case histories, a “mom” is at fault. (p. 23).
For Strecker, immaturity, and therefore mom, is also at root of homosexuality. While he does allow for “biological deviations” as involved in homosexuality, he also implicates “mom and her wiles.” Strecker provides a letter from a teen who calls himself a “sissy” and a “mother’s boy.” The young man also describes homosexual attractions. Strecker’s then diagnoses the causes of the boy’s homosexuality from his letter.
The essential parts are there, and unedited, and a study of them shows two familiar types of silver cords – “you will never find anyone quite as pretty and worthy of you as mom,” and “sexual intercourse is a horrible affair in which the husband is the beast.” Mom, as the paints her in his letter, in undoubtedly the ‘pretty addlepate’ who by her actions and what she has said and implied has poisoned the boy’s mind against normal, mature heterosexual living. In various ways, mostly devious, he has been made to know that no girl could measure up to his mom, so he veered away from the normal companionship with girls that a part of every high school boy’s life. Sex was degrading, unnatural, undesireable — his mom had told him so. Naturally, when completely entwined by these two silver cords, his normal, healthy masculine instincts were stifled. The result — a tendency toward abnormal sex life.
Strecker also points to mothers who really wanted girls as another force behind some homosexuality. He then invokes one of the many psychoanalytically based theories by suggesting that some men remain in love with mother past their childhood which results in overwhelming guilt. This guilt is then transferred to other girls and women as an adult. Thus,
heterosexuality in a complete way is impossible for him to achieve and he may turn to homosexuality in his need for some sex outlet, as the lesser evil. (p. 131)
Lesbians are almost ignored but not quite. Strecker saves some blame for dad:
All the same forces operate against the daughters of immature fathers — pops — as well as against the sons of moms. The pop who mentally seduces his daughter may implant a tendency toward lesbianism.
Strecker concludes:
I want to repeat that while innate factors often go into the making of homosexuality, yet the environmental influence is strong enough so that moms and pops are to blame. (p. 132)
Dr. Strecker provides no references or evidence for his statements beyond the letter from the young man. Readers are apparently expected to believe him because he is a psychiatrist and an advisor to the armed services. Strecker puts much more weight on mothering than current reparative therapists do, but, in my view, Strecker, writing in 1946, would fit in quite well at the 2011 NARTH conference.
NARTH likes half of the NYT Magazine's coverage of sexual identity issues
NARTH is recommending the Glatze article but not the article by Mimi Swartz which addresses the APA position on sexual orientation change.
At least they tell readers
While the story is his own and does not necessarily represent a typical NARTH client his observations and thoughts are very interesting. They represent a perspective usually missing in the popular press on the subject of homosexuality.
Missing from the NARTH post is the perspective of the longer article of the two. Gotta go to the popular press for that.
The UK counseling association condemns actions of reparative therapist
I wrote about it when it was news, and now the case has finally been decided. Lesley Pilkington lost.
The article by Strudwick is intriguing and provides insight into the British system — which may be changing if critics have their way.
I wonder who the US conversion therapy organization is…
Skip Narth, read Collins – UPDATED with NARTH statement
NARTH really wants to be on the same page with Francis Collins, the current Director of the National Institute of Health. Or at least they really want you to think they are. NARTH is now accusing Exgaywatch editor of somehow duping Francis Collins into criticizing a NARTH article by Dean Byrd which cited Collins. Yes, that is right, NARTH believes David (Skywalker) Roberts and the Jedi Knights at XGW used their mind tricks on the current director of the National Institute of Health, causing him to misrepresent a NARTH article.
You need to go read Roberts post at XGW to get the story.
About the current NARTH apologetic, there are a couple of observations I would like to offer.
Throughout the current article, NARTH confuses genetic with biological. Perhaps, “simple biological theory” means genetic to NARTH. But such a description obscures more than it clarifies. Note this passage:
In April, 2007, NARTH posted a peer-reviewed article which considered what science could and could not say about the genesis of homosexuality. The article basically focused on whether not homosexuality could be explained by a simple biological theory. The article cited a number of studies and scientists, including Dr. Francis S. Collins, and basically, concluded that evidence for a simple biological theory of homosexuality was lacking. The article made no mention of alterability of homosexuality.
The first problem here is that the NARTH article does not consider what “science could and could not say about the genesis of homosexuality.” It did not focus on “whether not homosexuality could be explained by a simple biological theory.” Nor did it conclude that “evidence for a simple biological theory of homosexuality was lacking.” What it did do was briefly discuss estimates of heritability based on several twin studies.
The problem with NARTH’s description is that biology is more than heritability. There are genetic factors which show up larger than expected by chance which is all Collins had to say about the matter. He did not opine on prenatal hormonal influences, such as prenatal testosterone. Collins did not opine on the reasons for maternal chromosomal skewing which occurs far more often in moms of gay men than in moms of straight men. Collins did not discuss brain scans demonstrating differential responses based on sexual orientation to male and female sweat. Nor did Collins say anything in his book about differences in brain symmetry between gays and straights. Thus, Collins did not review all of the biological evidence, nor did NARTH in its “peer-reviewed” article consider “what science could and could not say about the genesis of homosexuality” or demonstrate that a “simple biological theory was lacking.”
In the current article, NARTH labors to demonstrate that Collins agrees with them but doesn’t deal with the fact that he did not agree with them when he commented on the matter. If NARTH contacted Collins directly, it is not disclosed. Their problem is not with XGW but with Collins who said that the original article used his quotes which were “juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.” (quote from Collins to Roberts).
That is good advice. Skip NARTH and go read the Language of God by Francis Collins.
UPDATE: In preparation for this post, I wrote David Pruden and asked if NARTH had made an attempt to contact Dr. Collins with their concerns. First of all, Mr. Pruden clarified that he did not write the article, but rather NARTH’s executive committee did. Here is the response of NARTH’s executive committee to my inquiries:
If Dr. Collins had problems with a NARTH article, it was his responsibility to contact us.
So the problem here is Dr. Collins?
I also asked about NARTH’s peer review process. They wrote:
NARTH’s articles go through the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC). Scientists, both affiliated and unaffiliated with NARTH, are peer-reviewers. As you are aware, peer reviews are blinded reviews and the identity of peer-reviewers remain anonymous; otherwise the peer review process would not work. The peer review process is similar to the peer review process at other places. Steve Simon’s involvement was noted at the end of the article which was posted in 2007.
So the reviewers are their advisors and some unnamed people who are not on their board. Most journals publish an editorial board member list so one can see the qualifications of those who vouch for the integrity of the content. The SAC is published but the outside reviewers are not.
I also asked if NARTH was going to publish the results of their Freedom of Information Request. They replied:
The FOI request resulted in a significant amount of information, only some of which was related to this article. Perhaps you might be willing to publish your communication with Dr. Collins to see how that compares to the information we have obtained.
Click the link in order to see what Dr. Collins wrote to David Roberts and me. I posted about the matter here in 2008 when PFOX’s Greg Quinlan misrepresented Collins’ views.