We all know how Beethoven gets the gay juices flowing…

This is definitely the funniest thing I’ve heard all day – Thanks

Let me give you some of my favorite rules:

For men:

“Clean business-like haircuts must be worn at all
times. Hair must be long enough to be pinched between two fingers.”

“Men may not wear any jewelry (other than a watch and a wedding band) unless approved through a C.O.C. In addition to a watch and wedding band, women may also wear a pair of simple earrings (one earring per ear.) The clients may not wear Abercrombie and Fitch or Calvin Klein brand clothing, undergarments, or accessories.
Men: Shirts are to be worn at all times, even while sleeping. T-shirts without sleeves are not permitted at any time,
whether worn as an outer garment or an undergarment. This includes ³muscle shirts² or other tank-tops. Bikini-style underwear is prohibited.”

Women: Bras must be worn at all times, except while sleeping. Thong-style underwear is prohibited.

No athletic or excessively baggy shorts may be worn on campus at any time. No hats, jackets, or overcoats are to be
worn on campus
Women: In addition to these guidelines, women may also wear skirts which fall at or below the knee. Women may wear
tank-tops only if they are worn with an over-blouse. Women may wear open-toed shoes or women¹s dress sandals
without socks. Bras must be worn at all times, except while sleeping. Sports bras may only be worn while working out.
No sleeveless blouses may be worn. ”

All I have to say is thank God for these rules. I think there is nothing more scientific than linking the exposure of women’s (or men’s) arms with arousal somehow, taking away my right to wear a thong that no one else will see anyway, and restricting my brand choices.

Very arbitrary. I think this was to protect the counselors from arousal? I’m not sure…or maybe make the residents as unattractive as possible?

Also photos?

“. All photographs will be taken for the purpose of sobering re-evaluation. Clients may request to have pictures returned to them via C.O.C.”

Personally, I think it would make me sad to see the old photos…when I was able to dress well, and not be wearing my k-mart issued underwear. Maybe it is to show me that I “looked gay” before? All stylish and dashing…

Then there is the “media policy:”

“No television viewing, going to movies, or reading/watching/listening to secular media of any kind, anywhere within the client¹s and the parent¹s/guardian¹s control. This includes listening to classical or instrumental music that is not expressly Christian (Beethoven, Bach, etc. are not considered Christian). The only exception to the media policy is the weekly movie.”

We all know how Beethoven gets the gay juices flowing…

Per the reports from when “Zach” was forced to go, Calvin Klein underwear was forbidden at LIA and department store brands were encouraged. Clearly whoever made up that rule had never worried about finding a brand with adequate support.

The modesty rules were closely connected. If what you were wearing was ‘too revealing’, you could be sent back to your room to find something more appropriate. I think there was more of a tolerance for muscle shirts than there was for the ‘open to the navel’ look. Shorts couldn’t be too short and pants couldn’t be too tight. Other than that, you were expected to cover up after showering and lounging around in your underwear was discouraged. (Although I haven’t heard the specifics, I’m guessing that bikini underwear and thongs would likely have been taboo altogether.)

As to full disclosure, even LOVE IN ACTION advised those joining the live-in program about their dress code, modesty rules and house rules.

I’m just curious – what were the modesty and house rules? Do you happen to know? I’m also curious about this “dress code”? I’ve heard about some very odd dress and modesty codes from these groups, I just wonder how many are true.

Please don’t ever retire from blogging here

You wondered: Are there ex-gay groups that use similar tactics — isolation, peer pressure, therapy-like processes led by unlicensed laypersons, and involuntary attendance?
Are there ex-gay groups that similarly decline to provide full disclosure in advance?
Are there ex-gay groups that make participants sign away their rights?

To my knowledge, most of the ex-gay groups do not have events that use similar tactics. LOVE IN ACTION was the rare live-in program and they had several offshoots. Most of the ex-gay ministries offered one on one counseling, a weekly men’s group, and occasional weekend retreats. Isolation wasn’t a factor since they got to go back to their world after their one to one (usually, the only required one to one was the one that screened for appropriateness to join the men’s group). Before and after group meetings, people had their own worlds. Peer Pressure existed in a similar degree to the Peer Pressure in AA. The group did have a common stated goal and would encourage you towards that goal and admonish you, if needed, when you wavered.
The therapy-like processes led by unlicensed likely exist in several ministries. I was always more concerned about practices that were therapeutic but that were unlike conventional practices. In my day, there were various Christian ‘specialists’ in ‘inner healing’ and ‘deliverance’, in particular. Some of the practicioners ‘raised my hackles’ a bit. Involuntary attendance was not–and I believe–is not a major issue. For many ministries, weekly group attendance wasn’t a must but fairly regular attendance was encouraged. In a group discussing personal issues of sexuality and identity, it would be important to have people who felt committed to one another. Spotty attendance weakens that bond but, if it’s for good reason, group members are usually forgiving.

Most ‘weekend retreats’, by the way were a mix of seminars and group recreation (clothed)…not therapy games but things like snow or water tubing, volleyball, hiking, etc.

As to full disclosure, even LOVE IN ACTION advised those joining the live-in program about their dress code, modesty rules and house rules.

I’ve never heard of any making participants sign away their rights but we’re all familiar with the story of the teenage boy who was forcefully enrolled by his parents.

LOL! I wrote Alan Chambers an e-mail about a month ago telling him I’d retired from blogging here. This sounds like a good time to let him know I’m back and also to ask him to weigh in on these questions if things are different than what I’m surmising from the past.

I would be curious about these practices that remain in any ex-gay programs and welcome commenters to provide evidence if indeed there are such programs.