Warning: Long post…
This post could be part three of the series on sexual identity therapy and neutrality but I chose this title because I want to focus on one specific issue, at least in my mind, with telling psychotherapy clients that “our bodies tell us who we are.” Saying something like this to a client is the expression of a natural law argument that is expressed by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi in his article “Why I Am Not a Neutral Therapist.”
Our Bodies Tell Us Who We Are
Philosophically, I am an essentialist — not a social constructionist: I believe that gender identity and sexual orientation are grounded in biological reality. The body tells us who we are, and we cannot “construct” — assemble or disassemble — a different reality in which gender and sexual identity are out of synchrony with biology.
The belief that humanity is designed for heterosexuality has been shaped by age-old religious and cultural forces, which must be respected as a welcome aspect of intellectual diversity. Our belief is not a “phobia” or pathological fear.
Natural-law philosophy says this view derives from mankind’s collective, intuitive knowledge; a sort of natural, instinctive conscience. This would explain why so many people — even the nonreligious — sense that a gay identity is a false construct.
Clients who already believe a natural law argument would most likely look for a therapist who believed as Dr. Nicolosi does. In that case, I do not see how he could be accused of imposing his values on the client; clients who are committed to this perspective (many conservatives, for example) might not work well with a therapist who did not articulate a similar view. On the worldview front, I suspect many people are directed by their spiritual advisors to look for counselors who are amenable to the teaching of their church. I also suspect, that feminists look for feminist therapists and so on. This will no doubt continue no matter what the professions pronounce.
What I want to raise now are some issues with the natural law argument. Specifically, I propose that if we know who we are via our bodies, then a fairly solid argument can be made against Dr. Nicolosi’s conclusions. He argues that genitalia and procreative capacity is the definer of correct identity. However, there is more to body than genitals and secondary sex characteristics. Brain is a part of body. As an organ of the body, the way the brain functions and is organized must be important as well. I am not here talking about psychological constructionism or the constructed opinion of a person that he/she is gay or straight, male or female. I am talking about the automatic response of the brain to triggers both sexual and otherwise that differentiate gay and straight people. In the research available, brain reactions differentiate people based on sexual preferences. In other words, if the body tells us who we are, and brain is body, then our brains tell us whether we like the same sex, the opposite one, or both. And our brains do this well before we have time to think about it.
I have written before about the pheromone studies conducted by a team led by Ivanka Savic from Sweden. Here is what I wrote about their study of lesbians:
This study shows that sexual orientation at the extreme (5-6 Kinsey scale) differentiates how the brain responds to a putative pheromone. The response from lesbians is not as clear cut as gay males. Lesbians process estrogen derived pheromones both in the normal olfactory fashion and via the hypothalamus (a link in the sexual response). The participants did not experience any sexual response so it is interesting that these lesbians’ brains registered the pheromones in a different way than did straight women. Lesbians were somewhat like straight men but not exactly like them. The reference is: Berglund, H., Lindstro”m, P., & Savic, I. (2006). Brain response to putative pheromones in lesbian women. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Science, Early Edition (www.pnas.org).
I also reviewed their initial study of males:
• The study does show involuntary hypothalamic response associated with self-assessed sexual orientation
• The study shows that gay males do react to the estrogen condition but in a different manner than they react to the testosterone condition
• The study cannot shed light on the complicated question of whether sexual orientation of the participants is hard wired.
• The brains of these participants may have acquired a sexual response to these chemicals as the result of past sexual experience. In other word, the response described in this study could well have been learned.
• If these results hold up, this could explain why varying sexual attractions seem so “natural.” Also, such conditioning could give insight into why changing sexual attractions is often experienced by those changing sexual preferences as a process of unlearning responses to environmental triggers.
There are other lines of research that also find large involuntary differences in brain response or perceptual response associated with sexual attractions. I could add the brain imaging work of Miichael Bailey which I referenced recently.
As noted above, whether these differences are innate in some way, learned early, or learned gradually through life, they appear to be real, substantial and involuntary. Furthermore, many ex-gay and ex-ex-gays testify to the perceived naturalness of the attractions to the same sex. For these individuals, if their bodies tell them who they are, I suspect they are experiencing mixed messages.
So what are we to make of the research on brain differences? Clearly, for those who are at the extreme ends of sexual orientation continuum, their brains tell them one thing and if they believe natural law, the rest of their bodies tell them something else. Here is one element of dissonance: which part of body to believe? I suppose in an interesting irony, those who go with brain are also following a naturalistic argument — if I feel it or experience it as natural, it must be supposed to be that way. Isn’t that what natural law arguments do? Read again, Dr. Nicolosi:
Natural-law philosophy says this view derives from mankind’s collective, intuitive knowledge; a sort of natural, instinctive conscience. This would explain why so many people — even the nonreligious — sense that a gay identity is a false construct.
For Dr. Nicolosi, what seems natural according to anatomy must be so. For the person arguing from brain research, what seems and feels natural surely must be so as well.
Now it does not seem to me that science can resolve this dilemma of belief and intuition. Science can collate stories of how people feel about their anatomy and inner worlds and report those results, but ultimately, it is up to the individual to weigh the evidence (which certainly includes brain reactions and body make-up) and make a decision. For reproductive anatomy to win out over brain response, one would have to argue that environment, during development, packs a pretty powerful punch in wiring the brain for sexual response. Of the two main theories (reparative drive and exotic becomes erotic), I would say EBE has more empirical support but neither describes the differentiation of brain from neutral (EBE) to gay or straight; or in the case of reparative drive theory, from basically straight to gay. Although I am not arguing for an inborn orientation, I am neither able to describe at the neurological level how the brain differences get there.
Reasoning as I am here, I suppose it might be accurate to say values tell us who we are or more precisely, we get data about who we are from what we value. From this point of view, sexual orientation could be more than what the brain does in response to triggers. It certainly would incorporate brain response and anatomy, but the guidance for action comes from chosen values and beliefs.
Here I am very close to a school of psychological thought known as acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Steven Hayes is often considered the founder of ACT and has been the subject of several popular articles on the subject. Regarding values as reflection of self-direction, Dr. Hayes says:
Values are like directions on a compass. They’re never achieved, but in each and every step they influence the quality of the journey. Values dignify and make more coherent our life course—and they put pain in a proper context. It’s now about something. Let me go back to that movie A Beautiful Mind. It’s only when the hero has to decide between what he values and entanglement with insanity that it’s possible and sensible to accept the delusions; to notice them; and to abandon trying to control them—all in the service of being a husband, father, and a mathematician. In the same way, we only put down our avoidance, addictions, and mental wars because it’s costing us something dear, whatever it is that we want our lives to be about. Without that cost we would be lost.
It’s amazing how often people have never really thought about what they want in their lives. They’ve been fighting a mental war, waiting for life to start, and have never really asked or answered the question of what kind of a life they’re waiting to live. The joyful vision of ACT is that you can start living that very life NOW, with your thoughts, feelings, memories, and sensations. You start that journey by asking what it is that you really want your life to be about.
Where there is conflict between givens, we step up and choose meaning. For some, there will be a synthesis of religious beliefs and sexuality; for others, the conflict will seem like competing sides where one side wins out.
Ann
I’m not sure about lesbian sheep.
Asinine statements will simply cut discussion.
Okay, here’s the deal. I just counted approximately 30 comments on the homosexual sheep and those chimps, yet when I raised some pretty straightforward questions about the potential for the human brain to be rewired….and Warren brought questions of a similar nature forward later…the response was minimal. Why, I wondered, would we avoid these questions that we actually have personal experience with (we’ve ALL changed our minds about something in our lifetimes…I hope) to focus our attentions on speculations about homosexuality in sheep? Gee! A rational man might think that people aren’t willing to talk about stuff that hits close to home. A rational man wonders why that is.
I mean no disrespect to anyone by saying this, but this has to be one of the most humorous and surreal discussions I’ve witnessed
Folks, let’s focus. Whatever science learns about the nature of sexual attraction, practical decisions must be made by people in the mean time. My concerns with a naturalistic argument is that what seems natural to one does not seem natural to another. As I understand the natural law argument, truth is based on what seems natural according to the created order. My problem with this is that brain science is demonstrating that sexual attractions are real and measurable neural pathways and that activation of these pathways differ according to stated erotic preferences. Research has not demonstrated a learning pathway from undifferentiated sexual response in early life to sexual preference in adulthood, nor has research demonstrated a convincing pathway from pre-natal factors to adulthood. If anything, the proposed theories account for very little. So saying to a real live adult, “your body tells you who you are” presents the traditionally religious SSA person with serious dissonance which is not completely addressed by saying look to your genitals.
Regarding wiring and re-wiring, we do not know how sexual attraction gets wired so anyone who says they know how to re-wire it would be guessing. Even if we know how concrete sets (to mix metaphors), doesn’t mean we can apply a reverse process to extract the elements and remix it. Studying those who have changed (and those who tried and didn’t) aspects of sexuality would be one way to explore this. I hope to do some of this via brain scan soon.
Apologies for the sheep stuff. Looking back I don’t even know how that got started.
All we, like sheep, have gone astray…
Studying those who have changed (and those who tried and didn’t) aspects of sexuality would be one way to explore this. I hope to do some of this via brain scan soon.
I think what you meant to say, Warren, is those who SAY they’ve changed, right? Changing a behavior, as I’ve tried to say before, doesn’t prove any kind of change in “wiring” for the simple reason that that said change could have any number of reasons behind it – none of which have to be a change in wiring. Whew, hope that made sense
To help bring us back into the fold I think Eddy offers us an excellent question that should be addressed, but I think the answer should begin with a solid definition of “wiring.” What wiring? Is this wiring a “habit” or some biological feature like genitalia or gene? I think we need tight definitions so that we’re all talking the same language. Habit is sometimes seen as “soft wiring” as differentiated from biological “hard wiring.” Can a human being behave in a way contrary to what his/her “hard wiring” “calls for.” The answer must be clearly “yes” because the obvious human “hard wire” calls for heterosexual relationships and yet people behave contrary to what it calls for. The obvious “hard wiring” calls for sexual complementarity and so people search for some other wiring that may interfere with what is obvious. This has not yet been found but the sheep studies seem to suggest that it may be somewhere. Nevertheless, sheep do not have human will or reasoning abilities and that brings us directly to Eddy’s question.
If there is some other inherent (or not inherent) physical feature that counters the preponderance of physiologically inherited features defining one’s sex, so that the person is attracted to someone of the same sex rather than the expected opposite sex, can that individual change his/her behavior if he/she wishes the behavior to correspond with the preponderance of inherited features? I think the answer is “yes” but if the behavior is very pleasurable and engaged in for a long period of timeit will be very difficult to change.
For the sake of objectively examining this question I would like to not use a hot-button example like homosexuality and rather talk about thumb sucking. There may or may not be an inherent factor “calling for” thumb sucking. Breast sucking can certainly be recognized as inherent in mammals and hence this desire to suck is transferable to the thumb. As the child becomes very “attached” to sucking the thumb it can be very difficult to break the so-called habit and the child can speak of having that desire as long as he/she could remember. If the total society then does not indicate any disapproval of thumb-sucking and indeed declares that it is a good and natural behavior, it is conceivable that the child will grow into adulthood sucking his/her thumb. At a certain point scientists can observe that anywhere from 2 – 7% of the adult population are thumb suckers. The examination of this issue is both philosophical and scientific. Neither discipline should be ignored even if one is rather weak in one or the other. I am leaving the discipline of psychology as a possible “balancer” of science and philosophy, though this might be disputed by some.
The power and significance of human will and reason, of psychology and epistemology, must be taken into account.
Here is one way to address the wiring issue…
From what little I’ve read of that article, that is how I would say I understand wiring.
Thanks Warrren and Jose for your less abstract thoughts on ‘wiring’. Good reading. (Warren, I followed your wiring link and figure I’m going to need at least two cups of coffee before wrapping my brain around it.)
Jayhuck–
I think Warren’s question is fine as it stands. He wants to evaluate those who have ‘changed…aspects of their sexuality’. While the points you made do need to be considered in Warren’s proposed brain scan imaging; there is nothing wrong with the way he used the word ‘change’. I guess I’m saying that it’s fair to elaborate on what he said to further make your point but to suggest that what he said is incorrect is stretching it. LOL! I’ve been admitting for going on 30 years that I haven’t ‘changed completely’ but I most certainly have ‘changed aspects of my sexuality’. The reasons and the degree of change may be up for evaluation and study but there has been change in aspects of my sexuality. Is it behavior only and not any real wiring change? That’s precisely what Warren wants to evaluate. (In essence: I agree with your concerns and comments as elaborations but I think Warren’s statement is accurate as it stands.)
On a lighter note….I’m totally with you on the surreal tone. I felt like I had entered the twilight zone. My thanks again to Warren and Jose for bringing the discussion back to human brain wiring and also the human’s capacity for spiritual understanding and response.
Eddy,
The reasons and the degree of change may be up for evaluation and study but there has been change in aspects of my sexuality.
That is all I’m really saying. Ex-Ex Gays used to say that there had been changes in aspects of their sexuality too – so while I feel there is merit in embracing your change, I think its vitally important to start to figure out WHY those changes are happening. And saying there has been a change in your sexuality does NOT mean that there has been a fundamental change in the hardwiring of your brain. I think – at least I hope – we’re on the same page with this
To find out if we’re on the same page, I’d need the answer from you to this question: If I said that “I experienced changes in aspects of my sexuality”, would you accept the statement or would you infer that I was making an overstatement? (Would you feel impelled to suggest that I further qualify my words?)
I really do need a basic ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in order to pursue this any further with you. Feel free to elaborate or qualify as needed but please recognize that my question(s) are simple and straightforward, I do need your honest ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Here’s hoping we’re on the same page.
Ooops! My bad. I should have directed my last post to Jayhuck. Anyone is free to respond, of course, but I was answering Jayhuck’s previous post directed to me.
Eddy wrote:
“Okay, here’s the deal. I just counted approximately 30 comments on the homosexual sheep and those chimps…”
I just wrote what I did to clarify some misconceptions. Which seem to continue in one quarter.
Eddy further wrote:
“I raised some pretty straightforward questions about the potential for the human brain to be rewired….”
And it seems I gave an answer to that…. but was it on this thread? No, it wasn’t…. where?? Dr T. even commented that he agreed with my post, so you’d think I would remember what I said or where it was…. though his agreement might have only been concerning the scope of science…. ok, found them. They were in the Homophobic Therapies Documenting the Damage thread, my posts numbers 49625 and 50553. And if the link to 49625 doesn’t show up just scroll up from 50553.
In my post #49625 I commented:
And in my post 50553 I further stated and clarified the idea:
How’s that, Eddy
________________________________
Warren wrote:
“….brain science is demonstrating that sexual attractions are real and measurable neural pathways and that activation of these pathways differ according to stated erotic preferences.”
Back when you showed the Baily MRIs (or whatever scan they were) I asked that since homosexual men had a greater response in the midbrain, which I would consider to be the instinctual, old-mammalian brain, I asked if you or others were now going to claim that homosexuality is the product of the “animal which is man” and not of reason. Now I wonder if that does not state a grain of reality and it has to do with socialization.
Here is what I have in mind. I have this overall idea concerning man (conjecture, certainly not hypothesis or theory – and yes, the idea of a godless atheist) in which his cognizant statements of family, morality and certain religiosity is a restatement in the cognizant mind, thus a rewiring of the neoccortex, of that which is first stated (hard-wired) in the instinctual mind, the old mammalian brain. Through further positive socialization in our youth, it might be that the reaction of the cognizant mind is then divorced from the instinctual mind, thus that area of the brain, the old instinctual mammalian brain, may not be activated for certain reactions, such as heterosexual attraction. It would be as if one hard drive (the old instinctual mammalian brain) had permanently uploaded to active RAM (the human neocortex).
But that isn’t seen in gay men, and my idea thus is that socialization from an early age doesn’t occur for the homosexuality and thus the instinctual sexual orientation in the old instinctual mammalian brain is not fully uploaded to the human neocortex – thus the Baily MRIs showing midbrain activity during arousal. And it is thus that heterosexual sexual orientation would be fully uploaded – via positive socialization – to the human neocortex; and the instinctual sexual orientation, simply becomes the cognizant mind’s sexual attraction (as i differentiated them in 49625). But the correlation between the MRIs and socialization may simply be serendipetous.
_____________________________
But after your admissions as to the brain being the control, Warren, I have to ask why you should state that: “…saying to real live adult, “your body tells you who you are” presents the traditionally religious SSA person with serious dissonance which is not completely addressed by saying look to your genitals.” I heard much the same thing the other day on Oprah as my mother flipped between channels, a transgendered woman stated that: “gender is the the brain, sexual orientation is between your legs.” I find these statements to be insulting as the timing of both directed them towards gay people. Because we all know that the brain is the originator of all reactions.
_______________________________
There I go again with the exposition… put it down to my German roots which push me for an explanation. So then it would be that a person’s socialization in heterosexual society (and religious thought) would be the great motivator to change that sexual attraction of the cognizant mind (human neocortex) and divorce (separate) or ignore (suppress) the sexual orientation of the instinctual, old mammalian brain.
How a Christian might do that I do not know. Divorce will obviously give one the better result, but I thought divorce was a sin?
Was my somewhat esoteric post too long?
It didn’t show up for me.
Or did its links and length trigger an automated warning flag for moderation?
Thankfully, I saved it on Notepad, so…..
Eddy,
If I said that “I experienced changes in aspects of my sexuality”, would you accept the statement or would you infer that I was making an overstatement?
I have never, EVER suggested that what you are saying is not true. I’ve never believed it was an “overstatement”. But I also believe you cannot further qualify the statement either.
Eddy,
The short answer is YES!
As for change, I do believe in prayer and the power of positive thinking. However neither of these things has been shown to be overwhelmingly effective or consistent.
People interested in change need a roadmap. Somebody needs to interview the people who stopped acting on or reduced their SSA and find out how they did it. Take all of the simple, practical ideas that worked/helped and broadcast them online. There has to be some simple but effective ideas floating around out there.
Drowssap –
I could very easily be wrong about this, but I think the experience has been different for each person.
I could very easily be wrong about this, but I think the experience has been different for each person.
Jayhuck,
You are 100% right as far as I am concerned!
Jayhuck
Ann
I’m sure you guys are right. For those interested in change its different for everyone. But without some simple and commonly effective steps success is going to be rare. Aren’t there 10 simple things people can do to get started? People need a roadmap for success.
Sidebar: The roadmap can’t be solely based on willpower.
Last point: If people can’t reduce SSA or start feeling OSA it shouldn’t be viewed as some sort of moral or personal failure. If someone tries and doesn’t get there, no big deal. Maybe they weren’t ready for OSA yet, and maybe they never will be. Congrats on the effort.
my 2 cents
Drowssap –
If people can’t reduce SSA or start feeling OSA it shouldn’t be viewed as some sort of moral or personal failure. If someone tries and doesn’t get there, no big deal. Maybe they weren’t ready for OSA yet, and maybe they never will be. Congrats on the effort.
I ABSOLUTELY agree with this. There is SO much emphasis put on changing and sometimes marriage, that I think, too often, the people who can’t change or who change only very little are made to feel inadequate or inferior – not directly of course. Its too bad that, in our society, we don’t prize celibacy more than we do – it is a noble thing and for many can even be a better and holier state than marriage.
Drowssap,
I think you make very good points – my concern has always been how this subject is generalized by most and then causes limitations to those who are seeking answers. For instance, the fallacy that one has to be a Christian to change their SSA. How has that been accepted and endorsed? Unfortunately it is promoted at the exclusion of any other resource. I understand that it is crucial to many but is meaningless to others who have a different religion or none at all. YES, as in all things that we endeavor, a road map or guideline can put us in the right direction. It is daunting when someone does talk about their suggestions in this regard and it is villified by all those who don’t agree. I am looking forward to the day when those with unwanted SSA will be respected for their decisions instead of chastised. I also think the majority of those who have made a personal decision to no longer identify themselves as gay or be in same gendered relationships choose to stay anonymous. As in most things, those kind of decisions that have been made quietly and without fanfare are more sustainable than those who chose to go public.
Drowssap–
I think it goes a little beyond ‘the power of positive thinking’. Sometimes, it’s rethinking something that is the most powerful and, IMHO, produces significant and lasting change (to whatever degree).
I used to be so effeminate that I was often mistaken for a woman. I had what many considered to be ‘a gay walk’ and ‘gay mannerisms’. When I went ‘ex-gay’, I still had them. No one drilled me on how to ‘walk like a man’ and I wasn’t chastised for having mannerisms that appeared ‘gay’. However, both my walk and my mannerisms changed dramatically over the course of the next several years. I recall that I had a very narrow view of what a man was…and I didn’t fit that image at all. When the truth finally dawned that I was indeed a man just not ‘the worldly version’ of a man, my exaggerated effeminacy began to disappear. I also recall a teenage incident where I had quit baseball and joined the swimming team. When I swam in my first meet and actually outswam 2 of the other teams swimmers, I was expecting words of congratulation from my dad (who also happened to be the manager of the pool). He missed my race entirely. I recall thinking to myself “if that’s what a man is, then I want no part of it.” When I forgave him for this parental injustice, significant changes happened again. (I believe those same changes COULD have occurred had I remained gay-identified but that they probably wouldn’t have. The effeminacy would likely have been viewed as part of my gay self.)
Please note what I didn’t say: I didn’t say that all, or even most, gays are effeminate. I said I was. I didn’t say that my walk was gay or that my mannerisms were; I said they were PERCEIVED that way by others (but I’ll add that I perceived them that way too.) I didn’t say that gay men weren’t real men. Neither did I say that all gay men have issues with their sense of maleness; I’m saying I did. I also didn’t say that all gay men have traumatic issues with their fathers; once again, I’m saying I did. Further, I’m not saying that these were the only changes that occurred in ‘aspects of my sexuality’ but simply that these changes did occur and I”ll add that they are so far gone that I don’t even think I could re-create them if I tried. There are other aspects of my sexuality that changed to a lesser degree and some that changed more. Some changes were more permanent and others seem to require periodic ‘booster shots’, as it were, through prayer, bible study, fellowship or counseling.
This is why I support the direction Warren is taking with SIT. A mixed up young person such as I was could benefit from a neutral environment to safely explore these issues. Some are persuaded that Warren is far from neutral but I’m personally persuaded that SIT is far more neutral that any other option that either side currently offers. I agree that it shouldn’t be this way but the ongoing political polarization has made it so.
Lynn David
I’ll have to let you off the hook on what we were discussing earlier. But when an appropriate thread pops up my links are ready.
Lynn David
I would propose that the greater aspect of the totallity of sexual attration is a subconscious element which is what should be called sexual orientation. I would further propose that such a subconscious element is either a product of biology or the earliest of human neuro/psychological development such that this element tends towards immutability.
How about simplifying that to “missing neurotransmitter.” Gay people may (or may not) be one neurotransmitter away from being straight, and visa versa.
Example:
The neurotransmitter Orexin regulates sleep. Without it people experience narcolepsy.
http://www.dailyadvance.com/health/content/shared-auto/healthnews/somn/517910.html
10 simple things people can do to get started
1. Stop thinking you can’t and start to think that you can
Eddy,
What is “maleness”? What does it mean, according to you, to be a male? I’m not trying to be adversarial here, I’m just curious what your take on this is. Culture, by and large, usually determines what it means to be a male – but I’m interested to know what the idea of being male means to you.
Ann,
I believe that most people who seek out reorientation therapy do it primarily for religious reasons – and the vast majority of these people are Christians – which is why I think you tend to see mostly people from that faith tradition seeking that kind of help/therapy.
Eddy,
I’m also curious if you think SIT therapy should be a standard for ALL people, or just for those people who are struggling with their orientation and their value system?
Personally, if the idea is to use SIT as a standard therapy system for all kids/adults, then that same neutral environment to explore issues surrounding sexuality should be offered to those kids/adults who believe they are straight.
My understanding (and I mean my own personal view) has been that SIT or Reparative Therapy is ONLY to be an option if someone is struggling with their orientation – since being gay is not a disease and is considered normal, I see no reason to make SIT a standard for all.
Jayhuck–
Simple definition: maleness is those things that identify one with the male gender.
Since ‘disidentification with a sense of maleness’ was my point–and I indicated that I had distorted views, my current concept of what things are essential to maleness are not relevant to the topic. My current views of what it means to be a man–given the topic of this post–would be a serious detour in the making. Theories of masculinity and feminity: how much is learned vs how much is innate, how much is cultural vs how much is common to all men regardless of their culture, how much is twisted or distorted through increased media exposure. We’ll go further when we’re a bit closer to topic.
Eddy,
Fair enough
You are right Mary. When I stopped thinking that there was nothing that could be done to change I was able to begin the journey of change that seemed to elude me for years. Now I no longer doubt that change occurs. If change in my behaviour away from same-sex activity and living more inline with my true value system makes me feel better about myself then nothing anyone says contrary to this should influence my choice.
For all of the biology that has been presented here I say I have heard it all before. I use to let it influence how I felt about myself and that influenced what I thought would make me happy. I now see so much of this to be agenda driven and very far from actual science that I have started to look elsewhere for answers. I am not saying that I do not believe that science cannot give us answers, but when it claims to be unbiased and yet is extremely agenda driven it is not science.
Concerned,
If change in my behavior away from same-sex activity and living more inline with my true value system makes me feel better about myself then nothing anyone says contrary to this should influence my choice.
This much I wholeheartedly agree with!!!!!
concerned
What simple things did you do that helped you change either your orientation or behavior? If something works it needs to be known.
I simply surrendered my will to change over to the will of God. I know that sound religious and all, but it was not at all like what you think. My trust in others took me out of the isolation that I had put myself in for so many years. Because I felt I could not change and I believed what I had been reading about this being so much hard-wired I began to believe there was nothing I could do to change. What I have learned is that surrendering my will helps me to understand what it was that was really missing in my life, it was healthy relationships with friends and family. Nothing in the kind of behaviour I was involved with before could have ever given me this. The fact that I have now been able to stop this behaviour has helped me to look at myself very differently. No it has not been an easy thing to do, but nothing in life worthwhile is ever easy. That is the biggest deception of our age.
Concerned,
No it has not been an easy thing to do, but nothing in life worthwhile is ever easy.
What I find interesting in the above statement is that I’ve heard many gay people say the exact same thing – I think the ex-gay and gay camps have more in common than maybe either wants to admit.
I understand the general idea but could you be more specific on what you did?
Day 1) Today I stopped behavior X and started behavior Y.
I mean specific steps. I’m not saying they would work for everyone but maybe they would work for many people. Its gotta be like weight loss, cut calories and increase exercise. Something simple that tends to work.
That is the biggest deception of our age.
If scientists ultimately determine that SSA has biological origins it doesn’t automatically mean that change is impossible for everyone.
The brain is mallable.
However, it would explain why change is so difficult if not impossible for so many people.
Timothy Kincaid wrote about attempting change and coming up blank. I believe him.
I attempted change for many years also and would have to say I came up blank. I think what changed for me was that I began to believe that if the choices I made in my past got me into the mess I was in then different choices today might just help get me out. And that is where it began.
Different choices on how I react to situations gave me a different way to look at the world. I am in no way saying that what I have found for myself will work for everyone who deals with homosexual feelings, but I will no longer accept anyone saying that no one has really changed. They can believe what they want and gay science, I am, sure will support what they are looking for.
Concerned wrote:
…the isolation that I had put myself in for so many years….
…surrendering my will helps me to understand what it was that was really missing in my life, it was healthy relationships with friends and family….
…Nothing in the kind of behaviour I was involved with before could have ever given me this…..
So you’re saying you got caught up in a behavior which separated you from friends and family? Your isolation was due to their disgust of your behavior? Otherwise, why should being homosexual do that, if for no other reason than your friends and family shunned you because you were homosexual? Was that it?
If so, then you reprioritized your friends and family over your behavior…. but not a sense of self? Because your self had nothing to do with having a homosexual orientation…. no hard-wiring, right? So then in your case homosexual behavior must have first occurred without any homosexual attractions? Why?
And why so difficult? Nicolosi says once a gay man realizes what “made him gay” then *poof* he’s straight.
________________________
Drowssap wrote:
If scientists ultimately determine that SSA has biological origins it doesn’t automatically mean that change is impossible for everyone.
The brain is mallable
I agree. I think the mind can also be a trickster.
It’s just that of the Exodus ministries which i have found which speak of or have polled their “clients” for the reasons for being homosexual (or rather just having homosexual behavior), 98+% mention daddy issues/lost love/hunger, a good three-quarters mention being mommy’s boys, and less than half might mention having been sexually or emotionally molested. A host of other “reasons” are also given (especially in one Exodus ministry poll). These reasons seem trivial to me. I mean my dad died when I was 17, but I knew I was homosexual long before that. It’s like they picked them out of a book by Nicolosi.
It seems to me that people in the ministries are often giving themselves these simplistic reasons just to fool themselves, to give themselves a reason for an out. In other words, a trick of the mind, to hold to as a truth by which you then concentrate upon your change. But just how true is that truth for so many people? And if that truth cannot hold up and is exposed as the trick it is? Well, that is often the problem with reparative therapy.
No Lynn,
That was not it at all. I isolated myself because I could not accept that homosexuality was acceptable to them or for me. I could not find what it was that fulfilled me as a person by doing what I was doing, and yet I was always hearing from pro-gay propaganda that the only way I would be happy would be to accept that I was gay. Now I am grateful that that did not come as an easy choice to make.
And no Nicolossi does not say this at all.
Lynn David
I don’t know a lot about Exodus but from what you write I am in complete agreement. That sounds like a bunch of hocus-pocus.
Whether SSA is the result of a gene, environment or socialization it appears that real biological changes have occured. I don’t believe in the notion that if gay men come to grips with their father, POOF they will be straight. That is nonsense. For those people who hold the possibility of switching to OSA it is going to take a lot of consistent, mental retraining.
Think how hard it would be for most people to switch from Democrat to Republican or visa versa. It would be that times 1000.
Jayhuck,
I do agree that ex gays and gays have alot in common. Both groups have had to fight people, society, and themselves to get to a place of contentment.
Concerned,
I’m glad you have stuck to your guns. It’s your life and it’s a good one (just in case you have not heard that in a while)
Lynn David–
You mentioned above the 98% claiming dad issues and love deficits, another sizable chunk (and obviously overlapping with the 98%) as momma’s boys and somewhere less than 50% being sexually or emotionally molested. When you said ‘these reasons seem trivial to me’ were you including these or did you only mean those other unnamed ‘reasons’? I’m having an especially difficult time viewing sexual or emotional molestation as a trivial reason.
It sounds as if you’ve ruled out the significance of both upbringing and traumatic molestation. I’m wondering, then, if there could be ANY reason that you’d regard as non-trivial.
I believe that the only ‘reason’ for homosexual identity that ALL within Exodus would agree on is that it’s ‘a snare of the enemy’. They believe that the transaction that took place at Calvary was very real. That Christ lived and died buying our souls back from the power of Satan. (Yeah, a real satan…a proud angel.) To varying degrees, they recognize that Satan and the angels that fell with him have been doing their best to corrupt God’s human and earthly creation. That’s where the ‘snares’ come in.
It would appear that some snares are employed more often than others. (the 98%) Often, a combination of snares are employed.(the overlap of the 98% and the 75% for example) If we stick with this scenario, no two snares are exactly alike–just as no two people are exactly alike. So, when you encounter a snare you’ve never seen before, you’re likely to deal with it in a private session. If it’s showing significant commonality, then you’ll likely be hearing lectures and discussion on it at leadership conferences and seminars. In the polls, Exodus was simply trying to determine which factors were most common–and which other factors may have been overlooked.
One problem, of couse, is that the polls are subjective. Another is, that depending on how long and how deeply the pollee had been involved with their ministry, they could simply be parroting what they’ve been hearing in the groups or one to one’s.
(It’s my personal opinion that both the ‘distant dad’ and the ‘smother mother’ results suffer from this. And, is another reason why I’d like to see a program like SIT where professionalism might improve the accuracy and relevance of the results.)
I guess I better answer some points and questions.
First Concerned wrote:
I isolated myself because I could not accept that homosexuality was acceptable to them or for me. I could not find what it was that fulfilled me as a person by doing what I was doing, and yet I was always hearing from pro-gay propaganda that the only way I would be happy would be to accept that I was gay.
Gee…. what were you doing? Well, I guess I can imagine. But my question is why do it? Hey, I admit to some rather unconventional behavior also. Dating women – looking for a relationship – on the rare weekend and even more rarely hooking up with men at a reservoir park during the week while in my 20s. Then at 29 I ended up with a cancer which sorta cut into any intimate activity. What I found therein was my own peace which valued an intimate emotional relationship above all and, yes, the acceptance that I was gay.
From what you say, I imagine that it was the overall social order – family, church, etc – which gave you your negative view of your life as you led it. But why style your life in that isolation and whatever? I don’t see any of your “pro-gay propaganda” as being in favor of that. That is self-abhorance. But today, those who lead in the gay community are more often family-oriented people. People whose ethic tends towards monogamy. Because like me many if not most value an intimate emotional relationship above all. I mean the local gay-pride picnic near here looks more like a church social.
But I understand that you had to do what was best for you at the time and under the circumstances, which I cannot at all know. I’m just a little miffed at your tendency towards an anti-gay rhetoric is all, I guess.
Oh and lastly… Nicolosi did say that, but I cannot now find where. Well, he said when one’s “masculinity is restored” then the orientation changes. See Jim Burrows report of Nicolosi’s talk at Love Won Out at:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/04/12/290
________________________________
Eddy asked:
When you said ‘these reasons seem trivial to me’ were you including these or did you only mean those other unnamed ‘reasons’? I’m having an especially difficult time viewing sexual or emotional molestation as a trivial reason.
I meant the other reasons were trivial. I’m not sure if the other reasons are trivial or if they are reactions to a gay (less than masculine) child by the father. My question is always which came first the homosexual child or the father who is distant. Some of the trivial things were like missing a child’s performance at school or something like that. The poll I had in mind was I think from “People Can Change” – which I guess is not an Exodian affiliate.
Even my dad disappointed me often when I was young, it was the nature of his work. But we still had a strong bond of love and as I got into my teens I often went with him to help in his work (he was self-employed). Those early disappointments seem trivial to me if a father still makes the effort otherwise as my father did.
Then I wonder why my father and his brother weren’t gay. Their father was a drunk, physically abusive – even took a gunshot at their mother, and then finally he abandoned the family during the depression. Classic neoFreudian/Nicolosian case for it if you ask me. And that has me wondering about the daddy issues.
Ok, on the spiritual issues, though there are some more mundane things that an Exodus therapist would concentrate upon.
…
Lynn David,
You may be right and I will not judge you on the happiness you found in living your life as a gay man, but again, I do not believe that is necessarily the way others will find happiness. For myself I have found happiness by leaving the past identity behind, as difficult as that has been. Labelling oneself as “gay” is a very strong lore in our culture today, but it definitely left me feeling unfulfilled. I no longer see it of value for me. Now all that I ask is that you are able to accept that and be happy for me rather than judge me for what I may or may not have done in the past. What matters for me and my family is how I live my life today. I am sorry if you cannot accept this for what it is.
Coming to understand my masculinity, not in accordance with the image being set by Hollywood or theatre, but the image that is presented in scripture has set me free to be myself. You say:
“I imagine that it was the overall social order – family, church, etc – which gave you your negative view of your life as you led it. But why style your life in that isolation and whatever?”
You are partly right on this and today I am thankful for that negative view. Coming to a clearer understanding of my masculinity has freed me of the bondage of seeing myself as being gay, because some wished to put me into their little compartment because that is how they personally identified themselves.
Lynn David said in post 54066:
My question is always which came first the homosexual child or the father who is distant.
I’d put my money on option C, the therapy intent on finding the distant relationship with the father.
Your characterization of the NARTH (Nicolosi isn’t the only one using this approach, just the most vocal) reparative therapy is a bit of an over-simplification, but not far off the mark. The basics are they try to find the root cause of the person’s homosexuality (i..e bad relationship with the father, early child-hood trauma etc) and apply psycho-dynamic techniques to “repair” the damage caused by this early childhood “developmental flaw”
Ken and Lynn,
I’ve often wondered about this myself. I’ve had my own theory surrounding the distant same-sex parent phenomena that exists for some gay kids (as well as straight kids). I believe, at least for some, that the parent distances them self AFTER the child reveals, directly or indirectly, that they are gay – or simply different in another way. By this I mean that the parent through some event guesses the child might be gay, or the child specifically tells them, and then that parent distances them self from that child – it would make sense that it might be the same-sex parent in such cases. For example, I’ve been witness to fathers slowly distancing themselves from sons that aren’t perhaps what they hoped for – I also think that this could happen at just about any age other than the extremely young.
I say all of this with the understanding that many or most gay children do not grow up with distant parents –
and that this is just a personal theory and is not supported by science.
I’m just a little miffed at your tendency towards an anti-gay rhetoric is all, I guess
Lynn David,
Anit-gay rhetoric? Just because he has a different perspective and experience than you hardly indicates an anti-gay rhetoric.
Concerned,
PLEASE keep sharing your perspective and experiences – they hit home for many of us and I applaud you for your courteous responses when your point of view is scrutinized.
Jayhuck,
Doesn’t temperment also play a part as to how the child interprets his / her experiences as to parenting or other issues? I know many people, including myself, who have grown up with exactly the same set of circumstances within a family environment and have responded to life in a completely different way. Temperment is the only thing I can attribute it to. If one is born with a sensitive nature then their experiences will be very different from the child who is resilliant and can move through experiences rather than be suspended in them. I think temperment that is not conducive to resilliancy (anger, over-sensitivity, shyness, agressive, etc.) can be modified throughout one’s life, preferably starting in childhood.
Ann,
Yes – I’m sure the temperament of the child also plays a part in this process – although I thinks its wrong to assume that even an overly-sensitive child can’t be resilient! Maybe it depends on what we mean by resiliency!
I think – and let me emphasize THINK – that in the end, we will come to understand that our behaviors are the products of both our DNA and the environment.
Ann,
I have a strong belief in the tempermant idea. My sisters and I grew up in the same environment but responded in a variety of ways. Unusual ways — but a variety nonetheless.
I think – and let me emphasize THINK – that in the end, we will come to understand that our behaviors are the products of both our DNA and the environment.
Jayhuck,
Oh yes, I think they complement each other as well in the development of our thoughts and behaviors. A sensitive child can absolutely be resiliant, however a child that doesn’t “absorb” it’s experiences the same way will more than likely move through them easier without trying to understand them the same way as a sensitive child – in other words, the sensitive child will try to figure it out while the less sensitive child moves forward toward the next and new experience. The same with adults – some will allow everything to bother them while others will move through the same experience like teflon.
Lynn David–
Thanks for your reply. Since we recently had the post about the silver-haired daddies…I couldn’t bring myself to use it in this other context. (Believe me, I wanted to…but feared it would be misconstrued…and that the humor would be missed.)
Exodus does focus on the more mundane…what’s that old line about ‘an idle mind being the devil’s workshop’? Those ‘snares’ I mentioned are most often mental and emotional. Doesn’t really matter if your relationships were good or bad…it’s how you perceived them to be.
I thought my dad was disappointed in me…that I wasn’t the kind of son that he’d have chosen to have. In return, I was disappointed in him…and concluded that that I didn’t want to be anything like him. Turns out that dad was very proud of me. He admitted years later that I was asking questions at age 6 that most people wouldn’t ask in their entire life. He didn’t have the answers–got intimidated and backed away. I, in turn, felt the distance but ascribed my own reasons to it. I also have a boatload of brothers. Our differences in tastes, interests, drives and beliefs also played into my ‘messed up’ teenage and young adult head. With dad, there also came a point when there was really nothing he could do to have any further impact on me. (It wasn’t until after a Christian counselor persuaded me to forgive him–even as wrong as I believed he was–that I recalled that he actually spent an entire Saturday in a high school auditorium attending a city-wide spelling bee because I was our school’s winner.)
I think of ‘rejection’ as almost having magnetic properties. If you expect rejection, you’ll almost certainly get it. My basic sense of rejection ran so deep that I imagined offenses when there were none and was ‘visually impaired’ when it came to the good stuff.
Another problem with rejection is that it is extremely common to make assumptions based on it. There must be a reason he doesn’t love me…there must be something wrong with me. Self-rejection, hatred or loathing is one of the first things that most of Exodus would deal with with a new client. One of the first lessons I taught was that ‘conviction’ was a guilt feeling from God designed to draw you closer to him; ‘condemnation’ was a guilt feeling (from within, from society, from satan) that’s purpose was to drive you away.
I appreciated the further talks on the temperaments. LOL! Growing up in a large family, you don’t need to be convinced that they exist! And looking back at a large family, I can see how differing temperaments played into how we each responded to our environments…home, school, church, neighborhood. None of my brothers turned out gay but, let’s just say that we ALL gave mom plenty to pray about…3 of us moreso than the rest. Lynn David, I tend to think that the temperaments are the ‘wild card’ that cause some to respond to the dad issues as they do.
One final point, homosexuality isn’t the only snare we believe satan would use to drive a wedge between a person and their creator. Could be licentiousness, selfishness, greed, media addiction, overeating, alcoholism, compulsivity. A person could be so rich and comfortable that they never see their need for God. The focus on homosexuality that you see here and within Exodus are NOT motivated by a desire to single out one specific behavior. It is, however, a recognition that the church at large has been dismal in presenting a complete Gospel message. (They stop at ‘you’re a sinner’ and forget to add that ‘Jesus loves you, anyway’.)
Concerned wrote:
You are partly right on this and today I am thankful for that negative view. Coming to a clearer understanding of my masculinity has freed me of the bondage of seeing myself as being gay, because some wished to put me into their little compartment because that is how they personally identified themselves.
Not to harp, but there you go again about other people classifying you in one way. And yet you are happy about people putting you into their little compartment because that is how they personally identified themselves drawn on by their negative views of what you were. Where is the you in all of that? The view of the major religions are just as much a little compartment as any other view from without. I guess my point is that one can create their own set of values, drawing from either side to create what is best for your life.
As far as masculinity goes, I’ve always tried to be true to what my own father told me. He was dying of cancer and knew it even if mother and I didn’t, and he wanted to impart some wisdom. The one thing he told me that really stuck was that, “you should do what you’re man enough to do.” He used a rather mundane example, that of exceeding the speed limit, not for a thrill, or just because you could do it, but for a real need, a purpose. I’m sorry to say that in my 20s I wasn’t being “man enough.” It took my own bout with cancer but when I finally came to acknowledge my homosexuality that I finally came to be the man my father was talking about there.
_____________________________________
Ann wrote:
Anit-gay rhetoric? Just because he has a different perspective and experience than you hardly indicates an anti-gay rhetoric.
Well, I guess it was words such as this that stuck in my craw…..
Concerned #53718: “For all of the biology that has been presented here I say I have heard it all before. … I now see so much of this to be agenda driven and very far from actual science that I have started to look elsewhere for answers. … when it claims to be unbiased and yet is extremely agenda driven it is not science.”
Concerned #53781: “They can believe what they want and gay science, I am, sure will support what they are looking for.”
I’ve been in discussions of evolution/ID [aka. creationism] and the arguement from the creationist side has often been to calumnize a whole body of science (most often including my own profession of geology) and the conscientious scientists themselves as either liars or fools. This seems to be at the heart of many of their arguements as well as Concerned made it a part of his. So call it anti-gay or anti-science, but I find it to be an attitude which is completely at odds with the 8th commandment (I’m former Catholic, so it might be your 7th or 9th). Thus the viewpoint should surely be a sin for such a person. But as an atheist I see it more simply as an extraordinary lack of faith in one’s fellow men.
. . .
Ann,
I agree with you completely.
Eddy,
They stop at ‘you’re a sinner’ and forget to add that ‘Jesus loves you, anyway’.
I would agree with this as far as Evangelicals are concerned. They indeed have a dismal history concerning loving the homosexual. Chad Thompson in his book “Loving the Homosexual as Jesus Would” does a good job taking Evangelicals to task.
Jayhuck said,
“that many or most gay children do not grow up with distant parents”
“I believe you mean to say many or most gay children you know”. My experience is just the opposite. I know many men who struggle in this way and the story is more often than not that there was a distancing from the same-sex parent or even both parents. I know that was true in my own case.
Ann,
I agree with you on the temperment idea and I strongly feel this is the route of this for myself. A couple of years ago a friend gave me a book call, “The Highly Sensitive Person”. I did not have to read far into it to realize this was all about my life experience. That sensitivity made me much more susceptible to rejection and judgement from my father and perceived feeling of rejection by him. This really challenged my sense of my own masculinity.
LYNN DAVID,
The issue I have with this science as you are calling it is that I am trained in science and do firmly believe in what science can reveal to us, but what I have seen in much of the science is more media hype than science and as a scientist I have a responsibility to challenge that.
Concerned,
I’m not saying that there aren’t gay people who grew up with distant parents – But in the group of people that I do know (and you’re right Concerned, I should have said it like this
), the number of straight people with distant parents equals the number of gay people with distant parents. Add to this discussion the fact that we often don’t seem to know when the parents actually distanced themselves or why, and it just becomes a weak case for supporting the distant-parent causal theory for homosexuality. Maybe no one was trying to make this case, but I got the sense that perhaps we were headed in that direction – my apologies if I was wrong!
Concerned wrote:
“but what I have seen in much of the science is more media hype than science and as a scientist I have a responsibility to challenge that.”
Now this has me scratching my head…. sure the media has reported on the research and sometimes a story is written concerning the totality of it. Other times there have been some debate about the efficacy and purpose of the research in the media; such as when some gay activists got all hot under the collar against the Oregon sheep study.
I fail to see how this reportage is hype when you can go to the original scientific article (and I have attempted to locate those when available on the Net). But sometimes a newspaper article is all one can access at the time. [In my gay mind] hype was more in keeping with the way Jones & Yarhouse came to present their study in a book form at a recent conference of persons amenable to their viewpoint.
Moreover, to be gay is simply newsworthy these days. I’m not sure who made it so, but I think what most of us lump as the “anti-gay side” is the cause. I remember after the Supreme Court issued its finding in the case of Lawrence v. Texas that the “family” organizations immediately started their rumblings [aka clamoring for contributions] over “gay marriage” and how homosexuals were going to destroy civilization which has continued to this day. So if the media coverage seems like hype, I think you only have the real anti-gay side to blame for for the most recent spate of it this century.
Lynn David,
You are right in part of what you say and I do apologize for offending you by my comment about the science. I must also clarify for you that I am not from the US and when I say media hype I look back here in Canada when the culture war over same-sex marriage was at it peak in this country. There was little open or honest discussion on this debate allowed.
Anyone that tried to stand against the power of the governing body of the time was shut down through ridicule and chastizement. How does this allow for all voices to be heard? I did go to many of the original articles on the gay gene and I found that the authors often said something quite different than what the media reported and yet that is the source that so many people seem to rely on for their understanding of science. In this country it was often the public media not the religious right that had the reporting mixed up. That is the part I have trouble with.
In many ways I should be thankful to you for your position because it has clarrified for me my own position and why I had such distain for the approach used up here not that long ago. I do not wish any ill upon anyone so I will leave it at that.
You’re welcome, Concerned. During those times I remarked several times to a Canadian friend of mine (straight) that it seemed as if the Canadian government was going too far in policing speech concerning sexual orientation. Her opinion was that all was as is should be…. but to me it didn’t fit the idea of free speech in America. Which is to say you really didn’t have to apologize to me. I’m just a bit sensitive in that regard towards science and those who diligently work therein when someone starts making blanket statements to rebuke it/them.
Lynn David
You are right for being concerned about the policing of free speech by interest groups. What your friend doesn’t understand is that the pendulum is constantly swinging. A few scientific discoveries from now society could completely rethink it’s position and end up going too far the other way.
Whatever the outcome its better that everyone is heard. At least then the only people who are angry and bitter are the crazies, not half of middle America who feel looked down on.