Today’s Sydney Star-Observer reports on 5 ex-ex-gays who have denounced their former programs. I was struck by the mention of discipline in the arsenal of techniques.
Many former leaders believed that homosexuality was a choice, including Vonnie Pitts, the former leader of Living Waters, an organisation that conducts disciplinary programs for those pursuing “sexual wholeness”.
I don’t know much about Living Waters. Readers who do, what could she be referring to by the use of the term, “disciplinary programs?”
The emphasis on rigid gender roles sounds sadly familiar:
After attending Australia’s first ex-gay program in 1972, Anthony Venn-Brown spent 22 years trying to change his sexuality.
The program, he said, was about “modifying your behaviour to become more masculine”.
“You were never allowed to work in a kitchen – that was women’s work,” he said. “You were always doing maintenance work and manual labour outside … and they also removed any articles of clothing from my wardrobe that they believed were not masculine.
…and
“They believed you should have a good, strong male role model because your father was emotionally distant. Therefore they gave me a minder, who would be with me 24 hours a day and who would make sure I was behaving myself.”
Theories have consequences and thus it is important to stay true to the data and to be tentative where the data are not very clear. Dubious theories of sexual orientation development can lead to dubious practices — as is illustrated here. I may have mentioned this before on this blog, but this reminds me of an illustration Ariel Shidlo gave at the 2000 APA convention when he and Michael Schroeder presented their data on harm from reorientation. He noted a young man was asked by his reparative therapist to give up a piano scholarship because piano playing was too feminine. He gave it up but, of course did not lose his attractions to men. The client however, was angry and frustrated.
I don’t like labels either and I believe both JAG and Ann spelled out the reasons. But, I do understand that sometimes they do assist in the discussion.
It’s no secret that I defend the usage of the term ‘ex-gay’. I honestly don’t see the term as misleading. Sure, people add their own value to the term…but, as JAG pointed out, that happens with EVERY label.
We discussed terminology at some length a few months back. At the time, I believe I theorized that it really isn’t the TERM ‘ex-gay’ that most have trouble with; it’s the CONDITION itself. People have a preconceived opinion that everyone must define themselves by their sexuality. LOL! It really is a lot like people who insist on asking “What’s your sign?” Well, what if I don’t happen to believe in astrology–or what if I believe it’s somehow linked to witchcraft and/or dark forces? I know that, when I answer, they’ll have an “Aha! That explains it!” moment. And they’ll labor to make me fit their zodiac notions (from the personality descriptions to the ‘this is how your day is going to go’ stuff). So, what force says I have to play their game at all?
As a Christian who believes homosexual behavior to be sin, the term ‘gay’ just doesn’t cut it. (Actually, since the term ‘gay’ was intended to be positive and affirming, I’m not sure why people want ‘ex-gays’ as part of the mix anyway. Wouldn’t that take away from the positive and affirming sense?)
‘Bi-sexual’ doesn’t cut it either because it actually implies that the two sexualities are operating somewhat simultaneously and that the individual is at peace with both.
Even ‘celibate’ has it’s shortcomings. It doesn’t give a clue as to what I’m being celibate FROM.
I prefer ‘ex-gay’ because, despite the fact that it doesn’t tell everything, it does reveal more than any of the other labels.
There’s one more reason I prefer it. To date, no one has presented a better alternative. For all the griping about the term, even those that claim to ‘hate the term’ still use it. It seems they haven’t found a better term either. Some have occasionally used “SSA” but I’ve found it awkward. The one major purpose of a label to aid in conversation or discussion. When I say I’m ‘ex-gay’, people immediately get a better grasp of who I am than if I say I’m “SSA”.
Jayhuck–
Please follow the conversation timeline closely here: 1) JAG asked my friend Gene what he meant by ‘ex-gay’. 2) I chose to respond with a simple definition that Gene and I share…”FROM a gay past”. 3) You respond “Eddy, I have to disagree with you there…” …and then you tangented off into the TERM being divisive and fraught with multiple and confusing definitions. We were discussing how we DEFINE it; what exactly did you disagree with in my definition?
BTW: Please spare me the ‘well, OTHERS define it differently; I guess I was responding to them’ defense. I AM NOT THEM. Please respond to MY words. Please try to understand them-in their context-before you reply. That’s the least that any of us deserves. One blogger inferred that you seem to LOOK for something to spin negatively. Was it 2 days ago, that you countered one of my blogs by feining you ‘didn’t quite get it’ …asking me to choose an example other than poker? It seems you were hoping I would respond with one of your favorite ‘target answers’ to zing. LOL! I refused to take the bait and you brought them up anyway! “Oh, I thought you were talking about…” Duh, no I wasn’t. I said what I said. I said all I meant to say. It was clear. It turned out that you DID get my point and that you had NO valid exceptions yet you managed to respond negatively at least 3 times. Am I totally off the wall here or is there some truth to the intentional negative spinning I perceive?
Gene–
I did get your message left long ago on an old thread…and then another that Warren passed on. He tried to pass a personal reply from me to you (back in May) but it sounds like it didn’t reach you.
Sorry, ALL!
I’d say ‘back to topic’ but we’ve even detoured from our detours on this one.
Eddy,
All I was trying to say is that the term Ex-Gay has a different meaning depending to whom you talk – and the term has also come to embody a great deal of misunderstanding and divisiveness. You may use it of course, many do – But I am on the same path as you and wanted people to know why I cannot use it. That’s all
Eddy,
Are you saying I couldn’t share with Jag, on a public forum, my views on the term? Granted, I was not the one that was asked, but it IS a public forum, and the question was out there for all to read. I am sorry if you felt I spoke out of turn, but I felt I had a right to comment on it, even if I wasn’t the person the question was addressed to – we all do that on this blog. I’m starting to wonder about all the anger you keep addressing at me. I’d be happy to talk to you in private if you like.
Few things are as limiting and/or choking individuality as attaching a label to a person – it is like ivy or kudzu growing on a tree. Where once there was a beautiful tree, now all that is is seen is the ivy. Take away the ivy and the tree breathes and grows and is beautiful again.
Jayhuck,
I’m sorry if it sounds like anger. I’m also sorry that you were unable to recognize the lengths you’ll go to to disparage a point from most anyone who represents the ‘other point of view’. You just responded to David this morning with a mix of “I’m not sure if this is what you’re saying but…” and one paragraph, at least, that is totally unfounded or supported.
I’m still waiting, by the way, for you to clarify “Eddy, I’ll have to disagree with you there”. You addressed me and were responding to me. Since JAG also used the term ‘ex-gay’, it had to be more than the term. What specifically did you disagree with in what I said?
Eddy and Jayhuck –
The reason why I asked Gene about the term “ex-gay,” was that from the “outside” (not being a part of the ex-gay community), it does seem a controversial but inconsistently defined term.
Seeing that both of you disagree about its use, and your differing perspectives on it, has been helpful. For scientific purposes, it has routinely been difficult to say when someone is ex-gay…is it behavior? thoughts? etc…the personal seems equally difficult.
I heard a minister once equate homosexuality to any other sin…like thievery…he stated “when do you stop being a thief? when you stop stealing.” Saying that if you stop homosexual behaviors, you stop being a homosexual. As Mary and others have pointed out – and as any client or individuals will tell you – there is far more to it than that.
Thank you for your honest conversation.
Eddy,
I’d rather take this discussion offline. I’m not going to have this talk with you here.
I’m glad I could help Jag
Thanks, JAG.
My point all along–one that I even hope to make to Alan Chambers–is that the term ‘ex-gay’ is actually QUITE descriptive. I keep hearing that the term is ‘fraught with confusion’ but it never seems to be the term itself that is really at issue. Some people hear ‘gay’ and go ‘oh, yuck, those people’ and you can tell they have all kinds of nasty images in their heads. Some people hear the word ‘gay’ and it speaks to them of their loving committment to a wonderful partner. The term ‘gay’ is interpreted differently by both hearers but the term itself is adequate. Is the word ‘gay’ fraught with confusion and divisiveness because these people respond to it so differently?
The major challenge has been that many have ‘misused the term’ to mean ‘complete and total healing’ or somesuch. I know a number of gays who ONLY pursue anonymous sex yet I know that they don’t DEFINE gay. If I suggested that the gay community find a better term because these people give a negative flavor to the term, most would find that laughable. I think most of us realize that the term doesn’t define us; we define it. The part that defines is the part that we hold in common. So, even though we might have a disdain for those who ‘trick around’, we do realize that they are included in the term ‘gay’.
I believe it’s precisely the same with ‘ex-gay’. I’ve always been unhappy about SOME of the people who also fit the basic label but I have to realize that the term was meant to be inclusive–simply “FROM a gay past”. For more details about what an individual meant when they said they were ex-gay, you’d have to take the same path you take when they tell you they’re gay. Develop a conversation where you find out what their version is like. LOL! Exodus believes this way too. Why do you think they settled on the name ‘Exodus’? There was a genuine sense of wilderness when we started out and a real sense that it was going to be a long journey.
The discussion of the term ‘ex-gay’ has come up several times over the past year on this site. Every time, the naysayers have spoken up against it but STILL have never answered my challenges regarding what’s wrong with the term. And they’ve never offered an alternative that even they are willing to live with.
I was around when Exodus labored over terminology back in a time when even conservative Christians didn’t know who we were or what we are about. We were, as a group, young, creative and reasonably smart. About a dozen possible terms came to the table and, of them all, I felt–and obviously still feel–that ‘ex-gay’ says it best.
Eddy –
Thank you so very much. I completely see where you are coming from, and I think, as you observe…that this has been the primary sticking point with the term “ex-gay”:
“The major challenge has been that many have ‘misused the term’ to mean ‘complete and total healing’ or somesuch.”
I think this has many reasons:
1. Sadly, because the only people that many are exposed to, are those who go on talk shows, etc…who make statements that this is the case. That they had a transformation and now are completely heterosexual.
2. That some wonder why individuals, if they are currently straight, feel the need to define themselves by their past. For example (and not to be taken negatively) I am from a graduate school past…I call myself a “doctor,” not an “ex-grad student.” I was once a grad student in my past, but now am something entirely different. We call people who were once married “divorced,” not “ex-married.” etc…It’s confusing to many why many define your current state by their past. Why not call individuals straight?
3. From my end, and this is entirely my opinion, why would you tether someone to a past that they no longer relate to? I wonder if this is good psychologically. Now, you know I have no problem with being gay (heck, I am one), but if you did…it would seem to equate with many other things. If I didn’t want to associate with my thieving past (completely fabricated by the way), I wouldn’t constantly call myself an ex-thief. Even though technically it is what I am, that reminder verbally would likely set me back in trying to make progress for my life.
4. There seems to be some hostility on the part of evangelicals and political parties to use ex-gays against gays. It creates a tension between the groups that doesn’t need to be there. The message is often…”see, if they can change, why don’t you?” Truth is, I’m a gay christian woman who has never felt compelled to change in the least to be consistent with my faith.
Others sometimes use the “ex-gay” term to justify not giving those like me rights, because I should just “change” who I am like you did, and be “normal.” The term ex-gay has been very controversial in the gay community for this reason. They constantly play us against each other. In churches, politics, etc…until we don’t talk to each other.
Truth is, what is right for one person, isn’t right for everyone. But this philosophical truth seems too much for the average person to grasp. We should join forces for equal rights…that would be phenomenal.
Both sides would get much crap for it, but wouldn’t it just be an amazing statement of solidarity?
Eddy,
I believe Warren doesn’t like the term either – you might ask him why. I’m betting he might have well-thought-out reasons on the matter.
Jag,
For me, I don’t use the term for four main reasons:
1) It has been confused with complete and total healing
2) It has also been confused with healing period. There are some ex-gays that never see a decrease in their desires or see the change they wanted to see in their sexuality. For them their life is a day to day struggle with these feelings they believe are wrong.
3) Ex-gay often simply means celibate, and there is nothing wrong with that. And this ties in to reasons 1 and 2
4) The term has been too often connected with politics – and this is where I think it becomes divisive. The term, from my and some other peoples perspectives, is synonymous with Exodus – and we all know how Exodus turns people off and immediately makes people in the gay community defensive – primarily because they use their change to support inequality and oppression of gay people.
I am currently talking with several other Christians who feel as I do that the term is just problematic. We don’t really feel we need a label. I hate to use this comparison because it usually upsets me when others do, but a small comparison can be made to alcoholics – although I want to make it clear that gay people are not in any way like alcoholics because being gay is not a disease. No matter if the alcoholic never drinks again in their life, or even if they overcome most of their feelings for alcohol, they will never call themselves ex-alcoholics. They will always refer to themselves as alcoholics, primarily because it is a reminder to them that they can never let their guard down, because if they do they often get into trouble – I hope that makes sense and that I haven’t offended anyone.
I might also add that the others I’ve been speaking too and who feel as I do, have thought about creating a web presence to offer and alternative to groups like Exodus – not sure if this will ever happen, but I’ll let you know
Eddy,
I hope that better explains where I’m coming from.
JAG-
Thank you! First, before anything else, I have to take exception to one–and only one–comment from your recent response. “I should just change who I am, like you did, and be normal.” LOL! I’ve been called many things in my life–but never ‘normal’. It seems that, no matter what I am…or what I am doing…somehow, I manage to be an abnormal version of whatever it is. Perhaps, if any one label could be applied to me, it would be ‘unique’. LOL! Call me anything you want but never ‘normal’.
I sense we have a kindred ‘analytical/problem solver’ mentality and I love talking in ‘points’…keeps me focussed and helps me to not forget something important.
Re point 1. I totally agree. Long ago on the blog, I cited that dynamic. The ex-gay who’s simply plodding along doesn’t give the news the sensationalism it demands. (I occasionally wish/dream that the most unusual mix here would become newsworthy. Then, we could give a little spotlight to the other versions of ex-gay.
Re points 2 and 3. We debated those ideas when considering the term. The use of the word ‘straight’ was an option only considered by a few. They were of a ‘name it and claim it’ theology. To the rest of us, it felt like a lie. The word ‘straight’ has a common, widely-accepted definition; we knew we weren’t that.
Some wanted a term that had no connection to the past. I remember cringing at ‘Christo-sexual’. A little ‘over the top’ I’d say. We wanted a term that would give people some sense of what we all had in common…’gay’ is where we’d been; ‘ex’ suggested, at the least, that we were moving away from it. (It didn’t even imply Christian! Exodus didn’t have any proprietary rights on the term. I’d have no problems with a Jewish ex-gay…a Hindu ex-gay…even an ex-gay who was ex for non-religious reasons.)
I think you hit on something when you said “I’m not an ex-grad student…I’m way different now”. I agree with that, yet, I find myself saying, in certain conversations, “I’m an ex-hippie”, “I’m an ex-Catholic”, “I’m an ex-smoker”. (No longer ‘ex’ on that one, BTW.) The coupling of ‘ex’ with those terms actually suggests that, to some extent, those things are still part of me. So, you ARE way different from a grad student and adding ‘ex’ would only be confusing. But, if you add it to the sense of hippie, Catholic, smoker, etc., it does suggest some form of present-tense connection.
4) I couldn’t agree with you more. While I was involved with Exodus, I was a persistent voice that we needed to avoid being drawn into right-wing politics. (1) I felt we already had enough on our plates (2) I sensed it would confuse our message and how we were perceived {I score a bullseye on that one!} (3) I found it hypocritical that churches would target one particular ‘sin’ from a list of sins. (4) Even more hypocritical that their very first statement to the gay community is not the message of love, hope and redemption but something more like a surly “we don’t take to your kind around here.” (5) Finally, I felt that whatever it was we hoped to gain (increasing our profile, gaining financial support, finding churches that we could recommend as a safe place to grow) would be outweighed by the negative associations. (Another bullseye.)
Penultimate finally: Your post evoked memories of those times when we were discussing terminology. At the time, I appreciated the ‘ex’ part for its ‘from’ definition. But, I also had no trouble with ‘out of’. LOL! Wouldya believe I still have that same dictionary?!Anyway, it goes on to say “and hence (meaning ‘by inference’) ‘utterly’ and ‘thoroughly’.” Everybody I knew used it in the ‘from’ and ‘out of’ sense; it greatly disturbs me that the derivative meaning is what many are hearing.
Finally, you said:
“Truth is, what is right for one person, isn’t right for everyone. But this philosophical truth seems too much for the average person to grasp. We should join forces for equal rights…that would be phenomenal.
Both sides would get much crap for it, but wouldn’t it just be an amazing statement of solidarity?”
I don’t think I’ve ever heard it said any better! I like to think that somehow WE are working towards that here.
Jayhuck–
Thanks for your reply also. I think that the combination of your post and JAG’s drew the above comments out of me. It felt productive. Yay!
Two (I think) additional comments though.
1) Re “I’m not really sure we need a label anyway.” That’s true, MOST times we don’t. Except for blogging here, my sexuality rarely comes up in conversation…so I don’t need a label, I don’t see myself in the label as I go about my day. I’m just me and I just happen to be in a stage of ex-gay. Personally, I’m quite proud that we found a term that’s been flexible enough to accomodate me and my experience over these past 30 years. LOL! For the reasons I spelled out above, I not only favored the term ‘ex-gay’; I may have been its chief supporter. I was in a slightly abnormal
position of being ‘board material’ but my co-director was already on the board and we had a ‘no more than one from a ministry’ rule. It was the first time that I didn’t defer to her to communicate my input to the board. LOL! I even wrote a few letters and made a few phone calls.
Is it any wonder that I want to rescue the term despite what Exodus political involvements have done to it? It still fits–just like I knew it would. If I need to hook-up for a little support…say by searching the web…I need something simple to search. “Ex-gay” works. Search it and you’ll find Exodus, Ex-Gay Watch, this blog. Anyway, as you consider doing away with ‘ex-gay’, you’ve simply GOT TO replace it with something that people can use to connect or search. Maybe, instead of a label, we could call it a handle. Anyway, we need that label, that handle, that term for times like those.
To your online group idea: Check out MySpace. It’s free and easy to do. I searched both ‘gay’ and ‘ex-gay’ under their groups and was surprised how many there were. (I said ‘groups’…I think it’s a blog family similar to here except that everybody comes from the same basic p.o.v. so the conversations get a little boring.)
And, now, a neat trick of tying both paragraphs together: As you and your friends explore the idea of a replacement term, try the MySpace thing. But, here’s the challenge: Don’t use the term ‘ex-gay’ ANYWHERE for your first month…not in your profiles, not in your headlines, not in your comments. Call it ‘the term’ as you’re discussing a replacement. Then, start using it. I’m positive that you’d see a dramatic increase in new friends and site visitors simply because they found you through searching ‘ex-gay’. (There were a good number of ex-ex-gay blogs that I can recall.) I think they might have a several day ‘lock’ on setting up a public blog but you can set up the basic account and profile in an evening and toy with the blog graphics possibilities in ‘personal blogs’ so you’re ready to fly. (You and each of your friends would set up a personal MySpace profile. Next, you ‘accept’ each other as ‘friends’. Then, one of you…the primary ‘topic’ or “blog’ person would set up the blog.
You can converse on the blog, on your individual profiles, and through personal e-mails.)
2) Lol! There is none. I just realized that was the MySpace idea. So, at last, I think I’m done….
I’m starting to enoy this conversation again.
Hope you are too! I’ve GOT to get outside. The sun beckons.
Eddy,
I guess, for me, people have been leaving active homosexuality behind for decades without a label. I don’t really see the need to replace it. I wish you the best on reforming the term ex-gay though, because it certainly needs it. For the time being I am a Christian who is homosexual but not practicing. For me, for the time being, that’s enough.
Eddy,
BTW – I really like your idea of “The Term” – Maybe I’ll rethink my need of a label, at least to see what I can come up with
Yes, I’m enjoying the conversation again as well!!!!!!
Eddy,
BTW – I really like your idea of “The Term” – Maybe I’ll rethink my need of a label, at least long enough to see what I can come up with
Yes, I’m enjoying the conversation again as well!!!!!!
I thought that commentary had been shut down due to Warren’s work schedule. Apparently, I haven’t read everything on that.
But, reading the words above, leaves me with a reality check:
So, how do you live? Do you have sex? Are you alone? What is LIFE like for you? Not just the Internet.
Now, when I say “you”, I am speaking universally for any and all people who would relate to these “words”.
Maybe that is the biggest issue with this whole debate: take a ‘slice’ of someone’s life — maybe the time they spent in the Living Waters program and fast forward to today.
How many years does one wait to have a life? How many years does one suppress, repress, or shut down? How often does one “act out”? Or have a partner for a length of time?
Hmm…sounds like the concept of a study as to is it real? Does it work?
IOW I could go out, have a relationship for 5 years (for example), then go into a Living Waters program, remain celibate for the next five with suppression and repression which has been my MO and then go revolving door ad infinitum.
Where does it end? I can appreciate that the name that Exodus chose did depict a *journey*. But, even the Israelites did not wander in the desert forever, they eventually did reach the Promised Land.
Jayhuck and Eddy –
I just wanted to thank the two of you for your thoughts and opinions on the subject of the label “ex-gay.” why you may or may not apply it to yourself and what it means to each of you. Thank you for sharing that.
After reading both of your comments, it made me think of how much we all have in common. We all question the labels we are given for where we are, whether we choose to embrace or reject them. We see the inconsistencies even *within* groups of those labels. One “ex-gay” should not be assumed to be the same as another – as one gay or lesbian person should not be assumed to be the same as another. Yet we hear this mistake repeatedly for both…and it stigmatizes us all.
So often we are placed into separate “camps,” but in the end it seems the married “lesbian” woman has more in common with her “ex-gay” peers than one could imagine…I’d argue that we often share a more similar value system, set of experiences, perspectives, etc…than many you or I might be lumped with by the “titles” others may give us regarding our sexuality- or we may give ourselves.
Getting to my point – It adds to the notion of how falsely constructed these labels are, and how false these “camps” are.
I truly wish, after having this conversation with both of you, that there were some real ways of bridging those gaps that exist that tend to separate us. For example, I’d love to attend a church where we could worship side-by-side…but may ex-gays attend a conservative church where I am not welcomed, and truthfully I may attend a gay-friendly reconciling church where ex-gays may not feel as comfortable either. Odd how that is.
Do you see that as a possibility, or do you think theological differences would prevent the camps from coming together, even to work together toward issues like housing or employment rights?
I really thought about and appreciated what you both had to say tremendously, and thought on it a great deal. The separation that exists seems more and more motivated to serve political ends, than to true human resolution and growth.
Are there such places where both groups meet and discuss without “debate,” but just for conversation, personal expansion, and possibly worship?
Just some thoughts rather than pointed questions – sorry for the novel.
Are there such places where both groups meet and discuss without “debate,” but just for conversation, personal expansion, and possibly worship?
Jag,
Make sure you let me know where this is because I want to come too.
Ann and Jag,
I don’t know of such a place, but it would be nice if it existed.
AM –
You ask some very difficult questions in your above post, and I am so sorry that you have felt such frustration in your search for self.
You said one particular thing that I wanted to respond to:
“Where does it end? I can appreciate that the name that Exodus chose did depict a *journey*. But, even the Israelites did not wander in the desert forever, they eventually did reach the Promised Land.”
You mentioned that you have a pattern, and that this tends to just be a revolving door of sorts for you that you state is (in sum) relationship – program – celibacy – repression….
AM, it is not my place to tell you how to live your life or where your quest will lead. For me, I know that living my life as honestly and as genuinely as I could meant finding personal happiness. For me, that’s being a married (to another woman) christian woman who is a part of a reconciling congretation who is supportive of my faith beliefs and my family. For others, being genuine may have other meanings.
I never did try, although it was encouraged by family, to change…there was something internal in me that knew from my first female experience in college (with a minister’s daughter at that!) that this was me. Even though I had dated men for quite some time, it was the first time I finally knew what all the fuss was about.
There is only so long that one can continue to attempt the same things finding no fulfillment. I would humbly suggest that maybe if Living Waters sets you on the same pattern time after time, that you think on that for a bit to determine your course. Whether that means a different program, an individual therapist, working toward ex-gay, working toward accepting self as gay, or just letting life happen while you pursue it with vigor and your personal values.
Best of luck to you.