In response to my current research project regarding experiences of heterosexuality among same-sex attracted people, I received the following email recently. This individual is quite interested in the research for reasons that are clear here. He gave me permission to include this portion of the email which speaks to the fuzziness of sexual orientation concepts as well as their inadequacy to guide value-based action.
I would probably have chosen to live a gay life if I was born 20-30 years later than I was. The option of choosing to pursue men in the early 80′s was nothing like it is today. I do love my wife very much, and do feel very attracted to her emotionally, physically and sexually – however I am not attracted to any other women at all. (Isn’t that what most women would prefer?) Yet, I am often attracted to other men, some so intensely that I am convinced I could have lived a gay life had I never married.
So, a rhetorical question, if I may:
Do I separate from my wife just because of this? I could say that as a married man, my real identity is that of a gay male, and I should be honest with myself and pursue what I feel in my gut. If I did, I think it’s quite possible that I could find another man to love, but eventually, still long for the softness and tenderness of my former wife. I may be living out a straight life now while secretly longing to live a gay one; or, if I chose to follow the path of some others, I could end up living a gay life while secretly longing for what I missed from my straight one. So I have often wondered, which is the real me? Am I really gay pretending to live a straight life, or if I switched, could I really be straight pretending to live a gay life?
Confusing? Hell yes, this dilemma has consumed me for much of my life. I know if I ever chose to leave my wife, I could never come back to her; it’s a one way road, so I have chosen to stay, “un-regretfully.” If I’m the only such man, then so be it; but surely you must come across other men just like me – do you not?
In answer to the last question, I certainly do come across other men like him and have written about this elsewhere. I began to explore the practical implications of men whose historical sexual desire includes men in general but only wives on the female side after reading this article by Daryl Bem (see especially the last paragraph). I am not sure where the term “spouseosexual” came from (from me or one of the people I have interviewed) but perhaps it comes closer than bisexual to describing this type of inner experience – although I wouldn’t quarrel greatly with any terms at this point in our understanding.
Yup, you’re right.
You know Steve…
I’m gonna let Dr. T respond to that one. I’ve known him and talked with him over the past several years…he knows why there IS a need for such a watchdog site. He knows most of my very painful story and the reason why I’m involved in a site like XGW.
It really is very callous and flippant for you to speak to me that way about it.
I’m finished with this Warren, few here are really interested in an open and honest discussion on this topic. Close at your discretion.
I’m sure he’ll appreciate your permission.
Steve wrote:
This is probably one of my biggest problems with these writers. They traffic in anecdotes and want to be taken seriously as having something to say about homosexuality in general. This is not a scientific approach and I will continue to call people to say only what we know and when speculating about the rest, to say so.
I think the frustration many people face can be traced to trusting theories that sounded like they fit but then when applied did not work to reduce or eliminate SSA. These people waste lots of time and money and often get depressed and self-critical to the point of despair. It is better to say we do not know and help people work toward a valued position individualized for them. My problem is not a man thinks his homosexuality is a reflection of masculine deficit (although I am not compelled to believed it anymore than I am compelled any personal theory of causation), it is when a person writes that homosexuality for others IS masculine deficit, apriori before understanding the individual.
Using these books to teach others what homosexuality is sets people up for lots of heartache in my view. Some may do ok with it and even find enough resonance with their own situation to feel motivation to move forward. However, I think one could get value support without telling people what caused their feelings in a definitive manner.
RE: XGW, I think in recent years, particularly under David Roberts leadership, the site has had some very good posts and broken some important stories. My observation is that the conservative world has very few people who are willing to question the status quo. In that kind of environment, outside observers serve a function. XGW stands in contrast to bombthrowers like Wayne Besen.
Steve,
My relationship with God is private and personal. My life from gay to ex gay is different than most. I was not a christian or believer of christ at the time. My views on sexuality are not the typical conservative response nor the typical liberal response. I don’t think everyone can take the path you have taken. I don’t think gay people should make that a priority in their life unless they want to. Many people with same sex attraction are going to have those feelings for the rest of their lives and some people come to different conclusions when they integrate their sexuality with their beliefs.
That is what has been revealed to me.
Warren, I posted this at 9:14 am, I will assume you missed it;
“I meant to put “proof” in quotes; so consider it revised.” . . . meaning, that if something has worked in my life, thats proof enough for me, without having to wait for some “professional proof” from the ‘academics’ and ‘researchers’.
Are you referring to me ore the men I quoted?
I had no intent on coming back to add any further comment, but did not want this to be left misunderstood
I deleted two comments that related to other blogs. I am not interested in fighting over how other blogs conduct business. That chatter here will be deleted.
Regarding “what works for me”: I have no problem with individuals offering their experience but I also have the ability to evaluate critically how that relates to the big picture. Some say their SSA comes from being born C-section which prevented a failure to bond with mother in the nursery. I don’t believe their theory about themselves, but I respect their right to articulate it. I do not however, believe it to be a general principle for SSA. People believe all kinds of things but I do not think belief is proof.
Pam–
As always, I appreciate it when you drop in. In one of your posts, you touched on the dynamics of the blog. I agree with you that it does seem that individuals rally in support of ‘their team’ and in taking the offensive against ‘the other’. Many times it appears that we look for that one unfortunately chosen word or phrase or that one overstatement and launch into a fresh diatribe–forgetting to say, “By the way, I agreed with most everything else you said.” So, the challenge does not appear to be a challenge to that one portion but rather to the whole statement. I think we can all use some work in that area. I’ve been trying but the old ways are rather entrenched!
LOL! But there was a time when I challenged Mary so regularly that she was actually surprised when I finally supported something she said. Conversely, I’ve expressed agreement at times to things David or Timothy said only to find that it didn’t seem to get through to anybody. I read responses from both David and Timothy in the Wendy thread and the Alan thread over at XGW and couldn’t believe it was the same guys I continually get into trouble with over here. Naturally, I wondered if I wasn’t somehow reading them through a filter of expectations and prejudgements over here–and I’ll concede that I may have. But I’ve also not seen Timothy run so hot over at XGW as he does here and David’s patience seems stronger there as well. (These aren’t conclusions–simply musings.)
We share so many concerns on so many levels that I feel it’s most unfortunate that we can’t seem to work our way past the “us and them” mentality and see what we can really learn from each other. That’s where Jayhuck and I usually had our breakdowns. I’d make a statement about us mutually learning or mutually compromising and it seemed he always came back with “I agree but it’s your side that has the most to learn, that has to give the most.” That may or may not be true but I still believe we have to come to a mutually respectful sense of ‘us’ and then deal with the individual needs for learning and compromising as they surface.
I’m not ready to post over there yet but I do promise I’ll come check out your new thread.
Thanks for verbalizing all of that Eddy.
I’d usually rather eat a big bag of rocks than feel like I’ve hurt someone’s feelings, even though I can be awfully sarcastic at times. The key for me is to remain in a spirit of humility, and I’m not always successful, but I try.
I’m glad you’ve done some reading over at XGW recently…just because I it IS important for all of us to come together and follow Romans 12:18-
“If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”
I appreciate your kind words, your humble and honest comment, and your encouragement to me personally.
I can’t help but wonder why no one has said a good reason for Steve to stay with his wife is because that is what God has commanded. Isn’t obedience to God’s commands (keep your vows, abstain from fornication, etc) better than following our lusts? Won’t we be blessed for that, both in this life and the one to come? I don’t mean to be judgemental, only to put this discussion in light of what God has said in his Word. Am I being too simplistic?
I guess it was because it was something for you to say….good point!
Listening; You suggested that Steve stay with his wife — and I tend to agree. If a gay man has enough heterosexual desire to meet his wife’s God-given needs, he should stay. But what if he does not? I sure didn’t. I had to fantasize about men each and every time in order to function.
I divorced because she deserved to be with a fullt heterosexual man who desired her spiritually, romantically and sexually — and could meet all those needs.. She deserved that and now she has that.
It was a painful mistake that we married. It was painful being married, listening to her cry herself to sleep because I had no sexual interset in her. She couldn’t help think there was “something wrong with her”. There wasn’t. She was just straight.
It was very painful to leave. But it would have been much more painful for both of us if I had stayed. Would is have been fair or loving to expect a young bride to have a sexless marriage? That’s not what she “signed on for”.
You asked, isn’t staying “better than following our lusts?” Of course.. But when two very young people like us realize they have made a tragic mistake — getting married when one is gay and one is straight — then I think it is best to annul such a marriage and let the woman find a true husband in every sense of that word.
Michael,
Did you answer wh you married to begin with? Was it out of obligation, intimidation, …? Just wondering.
I have decided that as long as someone like listener is here asking questions, that I will return to offer my point of view. In response to your question, no listener, you’re not being too simplistic; quite the contrary. If I were not a Christian and had no concern for Gods will for my life, I would more than likely be living a gay lifestyle. It’s somewhat difficult for me to explain, but being a Believer, God has now given me the discernment to be able to see my life beyond my lusts, or my desire to do what I knew to be wrong. This is not a condemnation of anyone else here or a challenge to the decisions anyone else has made – I’m speaking about myself only. However, if tolerance is what we are all striving for, then I think my views should be tolerated as well. The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality Listener, and I refuse to believe a homosexual life is a valid option for the Christian man or woman; and I can clearly see how the non-Christian would have no problem with it.
I have not mentioned this before, but there was a time in my life where I turned my back on God and chose to do what I wanted. Over a decade ago and for the first time in my life I allowed myself to become involved with another married man. At the time it felt like it was the right thing to do for me, I was “experimenting”, or so I justified. While I was blinded to reality of what I was really doing, the fact was I was being unfaithful to my wife by committing adultery. What I discovered during this time was that while there were some new experiences that seemed to have me captivated, I noticed that my relationship with God became one where I was always trying to justify to Him why I was doing what I was doing. I finally came to the realization that I could not do both, worship my creator and live contrary to the way He designed me to live. I eventually confessed all of this to my wife, asked her forgiveness, and will remain with her for the rest of my life. It was certainly not as simple as that, we did go through some difficult times together as a result of what I did, but God helped us through it and our relationship is better now than it has ever been. She is always aware of my participation in groups such as this, and fully supports my efforts in wanting to work with other Christian men to deal with these attractions toward other men in a non-sexual way.
Michael, I must comment on your use of the term “gay man”. I am not a gay man; I am heterosexual. You may choose to argue with me all you want, but I will retain the right to “label” myself how ever I decide, and you are clearly free to do the same for yourself. I actually don’t think you are trying to make a point here by inferring that I am a gay man; as I realize it’s just the way you have come to think after many years of living a homosexually oriented life – this is a natural thought process for you. If a man exhibits any same-sex attraction, confusion, curiosity, whatever you want to call it, then he is a gay man, and if he is married or otherwise pursuing a heterosexual life, he is either living in denial, in the closet, or rejecting his true self. I propose that you shouldn’t come to that conclusion with every person. A man can certainly experience and deal with his same-sex attraction in whatever way he chooses. Regardless of the fact that we do not know what causes homosexual desire, we can only speculate, that alone is no reason to simply accept it as a given. While there are many theories on cause, there seem to be a lot more related to learned behavior than there does a genetic condition; so I have chosen to consider all of the “nurture” theories and have been working on the ones I believe are most applicable in my life. For me, the proof is identified in the personal results, not researcher’s critical evaluations. I consider my “true self” and my identity to be the life I have finally chosen to live, not the one I might have lived.
Regarding the above exchange with Steve Florida and involving Michael from marriedgay.org, I want to apologize to Michael. I allowed Steve Florida’s uncivil remarks toward Michael to go on without check. I do not think this was appropriate. Steve Florida did not articulate a view that I agreed with on the whole and I am not an associate of his in any way. I appreciate and empathize with the conflict expressed by the original post but I think the discussion became unproductive.
I appreciate Michael allowing me to gain access to research participants via his informative website.
Those of us subscribed to the email comments received Steve Florida’s response to the previous comment which Dr. T judiciously deleted.
It occurs to me that as Christians we will never ever fully agree on which specific behaviours constitute sin….and in the end, I honestly believe that sin is a matter of the heart….which is simply my interpretation of a whole slew of statements and situations made from Old Testament to New. However…..I believe we CAN all agree on matters involving how to treat one another with dignity and respect, even within the course of bitter disagreement. In fact, I believe it’s absolutely VITAL to our kingdom life that we learn these very valuable lessons while we are here on this earth.
Steve Florida showed his true colors in the end. No…I’m not saying he’s “of the devil” or even that he’s not a Christian. I am saying that the motivations of his heart were laid bare with the comment he left in anger at Dr. T.
It baffles my mind when I see folks (gay, straight, ex-gay, or polka-dotted sea turtle *heehee*) come in here and claim Christ as their example, then spew venomous remarks such as those Steve blurted out in his response. He can be faithful to his wife, he can be free of same sex desires, he can be the banner boy for all things traditional family and against any form of alternative sexuality…..yet….when he treats his brothers and sisters to that sort of ranting…what has he really gained?
We should be about the business of edification of one another….and we can absolutely do that even in our disagreements.
I can see Steve’s frustration. He wrote in here with a perspective that was attacked. Michael does show a bias towards gay affirming only therapy. And Jayhuck continues to call anyone with any SSA a gay person. Even though it has been discussed at length that some people identify as gay and some with SSA do not identify that way and Jayhuck continues to disrespect other people in this manner. So – I can totally understand his frustration.
And yes, we should edify eachother. I’m as guilty as the next for being opinionated and impatient.
Mary,
We must have a different perception of what it looks like to be “attacked”.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why you would justify the sorts of things Steve said to Dr.T. I can only imagine how frustrated Dr. T. gets with all the bantering that goes on back and forth at this place….and yet….to speak to someone in that manner is inexcusable. We don’t respect that or mark it off as “frustration” when Wayne Besen does it….yet it’s understandable when Steve Florida turns loose on Dr. T and his site????
Your logic makes no sense to me. One can’t claim Christ in one sentence and then act that way….well….obviously they can because Steve did….but he doesn’t gain respect or understanding when he does so…..well….he doesn’t from alot of us….but I guess he does from you.
Pam,
Steve is not paid nor does he regularly join in on blogs etc… I’m not excusing him.
As for the likes of others who are paid and earn their income solely by attacking ex gays – then we have a different story. So I don’t compare the two.
I don’t like that he attacked Dr. T. But he (Steve) is not very experienced at discussing this subject with others – as he said.
I can feel his frustration. That’s all I meant. And by following your lead – to show a little more towards eachother.
Mary,
Again – we have problems with definitions – and NO I don’t call ANYONE who has SSA gay. I, like most of the people I know, and from what I can tell, most of America, equate the word GAY with HOMOSEXUAL. So if someone tells me that their primary attraction is to men, it would be common for many to label them as gay – right or wrong, good or bad, etc. That’s sort of how it is. If someone is primarily attracted to the opposite sex but has only minor SSA I MIGHT call them bisexual, but I’m not sure. UGH – why do I feel like I’m repeating myself?
Sorry – let me rephrase that – if someone’s primary attraction is to the same sex, then I would call them gay. If they ask me to identify them as something else, then of course I would, but just knowing that fact – almost everyone I know would call that person gay – in the sense that they are homosexual.
Jayhuck,
How do you find out to what gender is someone primarily attracted to if he/she does not tell you? How do you objectively measure their ‘homosexuality’/'heterosexuality’ or some ratio between them? Some people can have erections that are not related to sexual fantasy, while others are hardly able to have them no matter what they see. That does not mean they are not attracted to anything. What about primarily same-sex attracted people who can have good sex with opposite-sex partners? Do they have to fill in a form and run a couple of tests to have their sexuality labeled by some external authority in these matters? BTW, there is no such authority right now, not even in theory.
Until we know exactly what causes what we call ‘sexual orientation’ we don’t know precisely where it’s seated and what form it can take and how much variation it can have. Unless the person starts talking and they say what they feel and maybe whom they identify with – if there is a sexual label in their culture to identify with, I don’t see why should anyone’s sexuality be labelled according to categories that have no objectively measured criteria as yet. That kind of science should be equally valid in any given country, not just in the US. I know you know, we’ve discussed this before, but I just wanted to reiterate the argument here.
Evan, what does the cause of homosexuality have to do with how someone identifies? Jayhuck said that if someone’s primary attraction is towards the same-sex he would identify them as gay. (And he did mention that he does this by how the person in question states their attractions).
Some see the label gay as SSA
Others use the label gay to refer to SSA+pro-attitude towards SSA+cultural identity
It isn’t as though it is a precisely defined term – after all it started as underground codeword.
Walk away Jayhuck…just walk away!!! lol
Thank Patrick. I think you did a good job explaining me
Pam – LOL
Patrick,
I was only objecting to this part:
‘If they ask me to identify them as something else, then of course I would, but just knowing that fact – almost everyone I know would call that person gay – in the sense that they are homosexual.‘
I think that what those people are can only be determined by themselves. That’s why I argued that both the ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ labels would not do justice to how they lead their life, to what is important in their life. If they are not ‘sexual’ with any same-sex person and do not have a ‘gay’ self concept why would someone outside them have the right to tell them what ‘they are’? That’s why I was talking about the insufficient scientific grounds for determining who’s really ‘gay’ and who’s not. There hardly are ways to determine that if a person presumably takes the test.
So my objection had to do with people deciding what someone else really is in sexual terms, based on their saying so. I am not disputing meanings of words, I am disputing this logic of imposing a ‘reality’ about someone based on your beliefs of what is real in sexual identity terms. One could have, for instance a combination of attractions but only identify with one type of attractions. If it works for them, who’s to say what they really are?
Just because I know someone is primarily attracted to people of the same sex does not mean I would necessarily know how they would like to be identified. I’ve had several people tell me who they are attracted to but never had someone offer to me how they want to be identified.
MY POINT, however, was that the world classifies people according to who they are primarily attracted – not to how they want to be seen.
But it does have to do with definitions of words. We have the word gay being synonymous with homosexual – and its only meaning is that someone is primarily attracted to someone of the same sex. It doesn’t speak to whether they are married to someone of the opposite sex, want to be called straight or bi, etc. It is an objective statement, not subjective understanding of their sexual identity.
There is also the word gay, used often by conservative Christians and therapists to mean someone who IDENTIFIES as gay – THIS is a subjective understanding of the word. Does that make sense?
The word gay is used by many in this country in a vastly different way than it is used by some Christians and Christians therapists
Jayhuck,
If an object is grey, objectively it’s both black and white, so to speak. If I were a scientist I would study how come a homosexually identified person is able to be attracted to one particular opposite-sex person and have sex with that person. You know what I mean.
Or how some people can be ‘primarily’ OSA and heterosexually identified and play parts in gay pictures, or be able to have homosexual sex in prisons (how is that possible if they are not at all attracted?), etc. I think there are many people that do not participate in debates like ours but do a lot more stuff than we can imagine, especially young people… If we don’t hear them talk we keep entertaining the same old views.
This ‘primarily attracted’ phrase is a dogma that cannot be thoroughly proved right now. Most research is based on self-report and some unreliable measures of sexual arousal. If we want to be really fair, both in objective and subjective terms, we need to look at the entire picture. Maybe it’s a cultural difference here: I know people from the US like to think in pragmatic terms, in terms of ‘what works’, so ‘primarily attracted’ may sound good enough for ‘what really is’. If that is the case and it’s a cultural thing, I’m OK with it.
I meant ‘if we don’t hear them talking‘.
Before I got involved in discussions with people who are (or trying to be) ex-gay – I did use gay, homosexual (and SSA though I never saw that term till I was involved with Bridges-Across) interchangeably.
I think Jayhuck is right that ‘gay’ has traditionally referred to someone’s attractions. However, I am also aware that when talking in a mixed group of people (like here or BA etc) – more precise terminally is often needed. BA even invented there own lingo – some of it to just be shortcuts (side A/B etc) but some of it so we can talk to each other – without talking past each other.
I don’t know about many of the people here, but I’m a guy in my late 20s and see a lot of people my age talking on message boards about “doin’ both guys and girls” and not asking themselves much about why and how to identify. To someone who is somewhat familiar with the research, that comes kind of surprising. Hello, Dr. Bailey, these people are deluding themselves! Dr. Bailey: ‘There is no bisexuality; it is a subjective experience.’ Professor Bem: ‘They are discordant with their own sexual orientation’. Hats off to science, I honestly don’t know who’s right but I’d really like to find out, because I’m interested in how can the same brain work in both directions. I don’t see any research on that. Someone must be right and the other one wrong or in a state of delusion.
But then, again, how does it work for them? Does self-identification come at a price? Are some people heterosexually identified because they are same-sex attracted? Do they use self-identification as a sort of cultural and psychological crutch? I have more questions than answers. Unfortunately some believe they have more answers. I hope better research will solve some of these issues. (I’m not at all interested in reading research on flies and mice, it’s actually boring sometimes, but I don’t find any good answers in research on humans. It must be a cultural-political thing.)
Patrick,
In american society it was once acceptable to refer to people of african descent as n_____. Then later that was changed by those very people because that was demeaning to them and black became the preferred reference. Then again another change and today the acceptable term is African American. Nonetheless these people are primarily defined by their skin color (varying shades of black)
Using Jayhuck’s reasoning – these people are black and that’s what they should be called (irregardless of the term African American) because by physical description – they are black. They are not African American.
But among others who are respecting of a person’s right to choose how they will be defined – for those who prefer African American – we so say. For those preferring balck – we so say. And on and on.
For those preferring SSA – we so say. We don’t call them gay if they do not identify as gay. Nor do we call them a fag. We respect a person be indentified as he chooses. Some people really do feel and identify as heterosexual with same sex attraction. They are not gay or homosexual.
If a man identifies as a woman – we call him a her and allow her to cross dress, cross behave, etc….
Why is this so hard to understand? Because popular culture says otherwise. If you feel like a man but are a woman – you are a man. If you feel more African American then you are and you are not black. But for those with same sex attraction in conflict with there heterosexuality – they are supposed to be called GAY. Because popular culture has decided that is the way it is??? I think not. Think outside the mob.
Evan,
I totally understand. Between my girlfriends and I we say horrible things about eachother and laugh about it. But what is between friends or those with a specific understanding of the humor in the communication is far different than insisting that your definition of someone is more correct than there own definition of themselves.
Mary,
I totally agree. It’s not serious name-calling what I was referring to. I was just reporting how people of some age, especially young people, act according to what they see in the culture and they think it’s cool. They don’t seriously mean that, they are way past any demeaning or derogatory intention. It would be stupid, not fun. And it’s just between friends. Many of my friends say when they meet something like: “What’s up, bro?”. Some of them even wear clothes like they saw on African-American hip-hop singers. So culture can be really strong in the way someone identifies himself/herself. It’s not always about what they really are. It’s about what they like or find that it represents them. It’s the same case with gay or ex-gay or straight or bi or undefined.
Evan,
I was only talking about the way the world works right now. I wasn’t talking about an idealic world where we know all the information we need to know in order to make an accurate assessment or declaration
And one can always insist, but do it silently (it’s called a thought) – because no one really needs anyone else telling them who they are – would they want that done to them?
Evan,
Culture can work many ways on people. It can, and has, been used to cause repression in gay people – even today. Some people find it easier to call themselves straight or even bi, even though they only sleep with people of the same sex and claim they are only attracted to those of the same sex. It can get pretty complicated. I’m sure there are SOME primarily straight people who have adopted a gay identity but its less likely considering the fact that its still very difficult in today’s society to be gay – or live as a gay person. And only in some circles is it considered cool. The great thing about young people is that most of them are much more open minded when it comes to homosexuality, are more supportive of their gay friends, and don’t tend to carry around the baggage and biases many of us adults do.
Jayhuck,
Right, but if the world doesn’t change, you know, that leads to global warming… I guess that’s why people talk about the need to change and get beyond past politics. We could use some changes in this area too, keeping all the progress we have made so far. The best indicator is how young people identify and settle (or do not settle with an identity), and I must say it’s not ‘the way the world works’ right now. At least, that is the feeling coming from my generation.
Jayhuck,
In the previous post I replied to your 104224.
Some of the past problems are still carried over, as you mentioned about ‘being gay in the present society’. But as far as I can see that is much less, much less of a problem with people of my age. Actually people I know don’t pay much attention to that stuff anymore. They just get on with their lives and, you know, live and let live. But for the people just growing up right now, things are not so clear, precisely because of the old-style politics of identity. They have trouble understanding why does the establishment keep talking about this gay/straight divide as if it’s about people coming from Mars and people coming from Venus. You know, it’s like the divide itself can produce conflict both inside people and between people. I think this status quo will be shattered. I think gay people are intelligent and understand that there are limits to how much identity politics society can accomodate. Finding the middle ground could be more productive and could reduce tensions on both parts.
Evan,
I can tell you that I thought of myself as straight until I got to college. *I* was completely repressing my true feelings. When I got to college, to an environment that wasn’t as threatening as my conservative home town, when I stopped, and really thought about which gender I was attracted to, it was absolutely clear. I was gay. I had never slept with a guy, had never been to a gay club, nor did I need to to know I was gay. I had spent my whole adolescent life being attracted to men but had managed to repress that knowledge and identify as straight because I knew that was what was expected of me – by my family, my church, my town, etc.
When I got to college and that light bulb went off, I felt like I had been set free from a prison – one of my own making, mind you – but still
I think gay people are intelligent and understand that there are limits to how much identity politics society can accomodate.
I’m a little disturbed by this phrase. It sounds like something an anti-gay person would say. Is the public only going to tolerate so much? That depends on WHEN we are talking about. I saw a Gallup Poll the other day that showed how much more tolerant the public has grown over time – and as far as I could tell, that tolerance and seeing gay people as equals is not diminishing. So there may not be a limit as the one you are talking about Evan. But you are right, things should be done slowly so as to allow everyone to adapt
Evan,
Very well said – I think more people are thinking like this than they, or others, are willing to acknowledge. I am always grateful for those who seek the middle ground and are willing to communicate without sarcasm, disparaging remarks and divisive comments. It can only lead to understanding and with that, fear goes out the window – where it belongs.
Jayhuck,
I took Evan’s comment to mean that the divisive nature of identity politics within a society that is evolving to accommodate all people, will soon have limits. This is a good thing – the emphasis will be taken off identity politics and put into the middle ground where it should be. Right not identity politics is being used for agendas from all sides and all it has caused is division. If society does not permit or limits this from all sides, there will be a gravitation to common ground. If this is not what he meant than chalk it up to another idealist thought from me.
Jayhuck,
I understand how getting in a friendly environment helped you reconcile both feelings and life. But let’s take another look at how the present situation might be seen by another person who grows up hearing about people being either gay or straight and taking pressures from many sides to identify in some way. I don’t know how to understand these confessions of people who are actually sexually active in many ways, but do not identify. For me, as a bit of a philosophically inclined person with some new-found interest in brain research, trying to understand these things in terms of essence is really challenging, if not impossible. I see it as a game between culture and nature. The truth doesn’t seem to be in identity, but in a relationship between someone’s nature and the culture he grows up in and with, some other culture he later identifies with etc. I don’t believe in someone’s essential homosexuality or heterosexuality or bisexuality. They look like political and cultural crutches to me. Concepts developed in theory to try to make sense of a few directions along a two-way path. They were spilled in culture and people were eager to use them in all sorts of ways, liberating or discriminating. They did both good and damage. We are approaching, I think, a new stage, when divisive boxes will be blurred. To quote Breedlove from Deborah Blum’s book ‘Sex on the Brain’, on the role of society on this issue: ‘Yes, we’re born with predispositions, but it’s society that amplifies them, exaggerates them.’
sorry – “not” should be “now” and “idealist” should be “idealistic”
That very well may be True – or not – Evan. Many gay and bisexual activists have been saying the same thing for a long time – that these labels we put on ourselves are limiting.
However – ALL labels are limiting, regardless of what we use them for, but they have a purpose and satisfy a need. They won’t be going away anytime soon.
I do know, from having several bisexual friends, that true bisexuals seem to the be ones that have the most difficulty with labels. Often because people seem to want to place them in either gay or straight boxes. It is usually the bisexual activist voices I hear the loudest when talking about getting rid of labels because of the damage they do.
I worry a little bit about using the word “predisposition” in such a light way. Is SSA or OSA really a PREDISPOSITION when those are your primary attractions? If a guy spend his whole adolescent life fantasizing about other men, desiring to date men, longing for me – do we simply label that a predisposition? Well, there’s a problem with terms and labels again I suppose
Ann and Evan,
This is a good thing – the emphasis will be taken off identity politics and put into the middle ground where it should be.
There’s a problem with this though – Is what is going on REALLY just identity politics, are are we talking about Orientations? That may simply depend to whom you are speaking.
I’m kind of curious what Evan specifically means by the above statement though
Oooops – ME should be MEN above – LOL – Freudian Slip????
FUNNY!!!
Consider though a person that only explored same-sex relationships in the 40′s, 50s or even earlier. There was no societal push towards identifying as gay, there was a great deal of societal pressure NOT to identify as gay. And yet people still did identify as gay – in spite of societal pressures. Which says to me that this idea that we are born with predispositions and society amplifies them is missing something – that for these above people mentioned there is something very essential (not constructed) about their attractions.
One very important fallacies I see at work here. One is the ‘black is white’ slide (since there is much fluidity in how people identify the terms ‘gay’ , ‘straight’ etc are meaningless). It may be that some young people are quite ‘hetero-flexible’ but I suspect that the labels gay/straight/bisexual do a pretty good (though not perfect) job of labelling most people’s attractions. I an not an anti-labels person – I always think when people get carried away with the anti-label rhetoric that perhaps they would just be happier to removes all nouns from their language – and we can all just grunt and point
Patrick and Evan,
I personally think that bisexual people are coming into their own – and this includes young people. Because society has become more accepting of gays (it still has a long way to go) I think those people who are bisexual, and perhaps young, feel that it is alright to express that part of themselves instead of simply identifying as just straight or gay. I also think there’s less pressure on bisexuals to HAVE to identify as one or the other – although I don’t see them embracing the bisexual moniker, it is really what they are doing.
This doesn’t negate the fact that there are many people who primarily have a gay or straight orientation!
I don’t really believe in fluidity – I believe we are awakened to different parts of ourselves over time, and that, deep down, these things are fixed to a certain degree – whether we are conscious of them or not is another matter. That’s why things seem fluid, but I don’t really think they are. – just a personal opinion
Again though – that doesn’t mean that all gay people can function as a straight person or that a straight person could function as a gay person.
True – labels do become problematic at a certain point, but I really think there is a purpose for them.
Thanks Ann –
Ann said:
‘the divisive nature of identity politics within a society that is evolving to accommodate all people, will soon have limits.‘
Ann, you captured the essence of my argument in a lot less words than I used to explain it. I bet not being a native English speaker/writer really shows in my case!
Jayhuck,
I’m not sure that those people are bisexuals (if bisexuality means equal attraction to both genders). Actually it’s this label that can clarify how political sexual identities have grown. Scientific evidence does not testify in support to the existence of bisexuality, but still there are people who identify themselves as such. Do they need scientific evidence to back up and live their identity? It looks like they need it less than gays. But you talk about them as being really bisexuals, based on what they say they feel. I guess the people who volunteered to go to Bailey’s lab failed to prove what they subjectively believed and most of them did not equally react to both genders in a sexual way. So we’re going back to thinking who decides what is real in someone’s sexual identification: science, individuals, group affiliation, cultural traditions?
But I was not talking about this when I mentioned finding a less divisive approach. I’m not calling for an abolishment of labels, I’m just saying that taking labels as factual reality can be confusing to some people. And we do know how important is to someone growing up in a certain environment. At this point in time, we cannot support our labels all the way by empirical evidence, we do agree that they represent something, but part of this agreement has a political stink to it too. The question is how far are we willing to go: how do we know when we should stop, when it’s been enough of identity politics and time for pulling the lever and changing direction to a new track.
I went this year to the Netherlands to visit some places. It’s probably the most liberal place in the world for gays. They have the right to marry, to adopt children and they are everywhere in society. You could not argue that they are any more at risk of being stressed for their sexual identity than any other category. But still, I remembered that study that said gay men are more affected by psychological problems than their straight counterparts (the Sandfort et al. study from 2001). I wondered how could that be if we’re not talking about a disorder and the environment is really the same for all. I came to this conclusion, that maybe insisting too much on an isolated identity could actually create a different type of social awareness in gay men. It’s like you ask for your own space, to be left alone to live your identity and later you realise that you cut some ties that were somehow connected to other social bonds. Maybe that created a feeling of disconnectedness in gay people, even if they now gained acceptance and all the rights that the others enjoy. That was my thought when I tried to put together both what I saw in the Netherlands and what I knew from research. So I started thinking that there could be a backlash to this identity politics, that was not well-thought out or was not foreseen when other priorities took the stage.
Be careful not to make another one by mentioning Freud!
I believe in the Sandfort study they said a plausible explanation was ‘minority stress’ (they cited studies that pointed to other minorities having more social/physical health issues) which isn’t necessarily offset by living in a more tolerant society.
And I am sure some of those people in the study weren’t all from ‘gay ghettos’ where they were isolated from straight society. I don’t see how identifying as gay – cuts you off from mainstream society. I identify as gay and have about 30/70% mix of gay/straight friends. Certainly I don’t feel isolated by my identity.
Evan,
The Netherlands may be a liberal place, but you can’t separate that place from the rest of the world. There are also things that may go on in gay communities – things that are fixable or changeable within those communities, that are causing this. Again, you use ONE STUDY and then treat the results of that study as if they are fact.
I still don’t understand what you meant when you said: “but part of this agreement has a political stink to it too. The question is how far are we willing to go: how do we know when we should stop, when it’s been enough of identity politics and time for pulling the lever and changing direction to a new track.” What do you specifically mean? Please explain this for me so that I understand.
I also pulled this from the writeup on the study:
“The interpretation of these findings requires consideration of some potential limitations, which could have cumulatively either inflated or deflated actual differences in prevalence rates.25 Among those people contacted, there could have been a nonresponse related to homosexual behavior. Although nonresponse to specific questions was negligible owing to the computer-assisted interviewing, subjects might have differed in their reporting behavior. Compared with heterosexual men, homosexual men might have been less reluctant to admit specific complaints. Although some demographics were statistically controlled for, the possibility remains that at least part of the observed differences are accounted for by some other uncontrolled confounding variables. Finally, the study might underestimate the differences between homosexual and heterosexual people owing to the limited number of homosexual subjects and the consequently broad CIs of the ORs.”
The comments section of the study also gay other reasons for the numbers – ones that seem more credible than your hypothesis that people are boxed into categories. That same section also goes onto discuss how the results of this Dutch study may very well not apply to gay people in other countries.
As for bisexuals – I do think those people are bisexuals Evan, and bisexuality doesn’t mean EQUAL attraction to both sexes, it just means that you have STRONG enough attractions to both sexes to act on them.
Minority stress is a very reasonable explanation. The African American communities in the United States, as well as other minorities, all suffer from their own sets of problems – Yet we don’t blame the problems on their skin color, do we?
yeah – I don’t understand how identifying as gay has cut me off from anything. I still have more straight friends than gay friends, I have several bisexual friends, two that have families – and I have two godsons, 2 nephews and 1 niece. I have suffered from depression but I most likely inherited it – my mother and grandmother both suffered from clinical depression
Evan,
In my opinion, this kind of thinking that you are sharing is exceptional and worthy of discussion for all people who wish to advance in a civilized way.
I have often wondered what would happen if future Palestinian and Israeli children felt free to see each other as brothers and sisters without taking on their parent’s past resentments and then feeling the obligation to carry on a legacy of division and identity politics just to please the prior generation – a whole new group of people would evolve.
Jayhuck,
That was my thought, trying to put all pieces together, not a hypothesis. We are debating possible effects of identification. Right now we all agree there must be some predispositions in each and everyone’s nature and that labels can serve some purpose but they are not wholly representative. But that’s all we can probably agree on right now.
I just wrote above that they failed to respond in the lab equally strong to both sexes.
Actually there are more studies. I haven’t quoted others on the quality of life and suicidiality, because I did not want to get the topic off the track. When the subject comes up, we will discuss this. But the conclusion is still valid: what more than perfect equality is necessary to have the same results in studies on both categories of people?
You mean they failed in the lab in ONE study – and if its the study I’m thinking of, there are plenty of reasons to criticize it. It was NOT a good study of bisexuals – we can go down that road if you want to.
I’m sure there ARE other studies Evan – but you’re missing the point again. There are many many tolerant countries where man different Ethnic group show a disproportionate amount of problems from the main or dominant culture.
My problem is that I don’t understand what is going on in the Dutch culture – but I can think of plenty of other reasons other than accepting the fact that you believe people are being boxed into identities – I wholly disagree with you in that respect. That is an argument that would most likely come from an anti-gay source seeking to stop gay people from achieving equal rights.
Jayhuck,
It definitely should not – my point about Evan’s comment is that when identity is used for political purposes and that becomes divisive, only oppressive societies will and can survive under that mindset. For example look at what is happening between tribes in various countries in Africa. When there is little or no benefit to being divisive, when it is not tolerated, then people tend to gravitate to each other on common ground and evolve and accommodate each other. Right now there are people from all sides of this particular issue deriving monetary, emotional, and professional benefits from participating in this divisive identity/labeling, which only fortifies status quo and keeps everyone apart. If this was limited or looked unfavorably upon as an interference with civility from all sides, then what would their motivation be to continue the divisiveness? Rarely will you find someone like Dr. Throckmorton who is interested in fairness and honesty and doing what is right for everyone involved without compromising their well being.
Ann:
You are right. There is a pressure coming from their prior generations, although there might be more than that. But that pressure does play a part in preventing them to at least be able to reach an agreement, which keeps them deadlocked in a bloodshed.
Finding a middle ground should be about finding those reasons that make people emphasise more what they share than what totally sets them apart. I think identity politics can produce mixed feelings: it can both liberate some people and alienate others that do not support labelling. Since we are past the liberating phase, I am sure that we are going through the phase when people start feeling suffocated by what they should be, because labels became widespread enough to make people judge themselves and others according to them. I do see that in many people from my generation, who have to take identities like they are concrete realities, so they react against them or use them in a very loose and depreciated way.
Ann,
We need to define what we mean by sexual identify and orientation – Sexual Identity is a term I’ve only heard used by conservative Christians – although I’m sure some others use it.
No one I know of is USING a gay identity specifically for political purposes – if anything Christians are using a gay person’s orientation to deny them rights –
I’m pretty sure Warren is going to step in here any minute and ask us if we have anything of substance to contribute to the actual thread topic
Evan,
It is your opinion that this is about Identity Politics – those are your words. I happen to disagree with you. I don’t believe it is. I don’t like the word Identity, the way it gets used alot around here, as much as I do Orientation. Its a problem of definitions and understanding what we are talking about. You have a right to your opinion of course, but don’t frame this as a problem that gay people have because they have a gay orientation. It was not gay people who started the fight – and we are FAR from the liberation phase
Jayhuck:
I seriously doubt that I understand how gays live in the US and that you understand how they might live in Europe. That may contribute to my lack of understanding both of the background you are coming from and how would my arguments fit against that background. But I think I have less reasons to be suspected of anti-gay agenda. We don’t have this ex-gay movement around here, at least it’s not making the news anywhere I’m looking.
I hope that’s true Evan
One thing that concerned me Evan, is that the only places I could online find touting the Sandfordt study were Anti-Gay sites. They were supporting that study and making inferences from it similar to yours
Jayhuck,
To quote Drowssap – one day I will come back here and tell you a big “Told you so!”
LOL, it may take a few decades, though.
To quote Drowssap – one day I will come back here and tell you a big “Told you so!”
LOL, it may take a few decades, though.
Funny – that’s just what I was thinking
Jayhuck,
I don’t know those sites, I don’t read ex-gay stuff. I think I argued in a few posts on this blog against using this ‘ex-gay’ term. You also doubted my argument at that time and said something about how important is that in the US.
As for the studies, I browsed through a whole lot of studies and I usually jump from one another using the references section.
Jayhuck,
BTW, Sandfort cannot be suspected of doing research to support some ex-gay people’s agenda. He chaired a lesbian and gay studies section in a Dutch faculty.
True Sandfort wasn’t going research to support an ex-gay agenda, nor was Spitzer – but that is certainly how the research was spun. I know NARTH had an article about the Sandfort study – the point of that article was that gays cannot blame societal factors for their increased mental health problems (there was definitely an attempt on NARTH’s part to repathologize homosexuality via the use of this study).
I don’t think anyone disputes the conclusions of this (and other) studies that show gays and lesbian have more mental health problems as compared to heterosexuals. The reason for these differences and what one can conclude from these differences – is where the disagreement is.
I didn’t say he was Evan – I said it was simply disconcerting to see how the only sites I found the study on – outside legitimate academic sites, were Anti-Gay sites putting their own spin on the study saying that it proves there must be something inherently wrong with gay people or some such nonsense – it didn’t say anything of the sort. The study went out of its way to show that there were plenty of other explanations for the findings other than there is something inherently wrong with gay people
I didn’t say Ex-gay sites Evan – I said Anti-gay – though some of the sites were both
Patrick & Jayhuck,
Hm, that makes me think. If I come to the conclusion that identity may actually play a part in many gay men’s feelings of alienation or whatever makes them feel social anxiety in a most liberal society, does that make me a neighbour to Narth and anti-gay people? Maybe it’s possible that I can think of a slightly negative conclusion, without having any other intention. It’s not like research should only paint a rosy picture of any given identity (even heterosexual). We still don’t know what Sanders will find with that gay genes study.
Evan you might want to look at this:
Distress and Depression in Men Who Have Sex With Men: The Urban Men’s Health
Thomas C Mills; Jay Paul; Ron Stall; Lance Pollack; et al
The American Journal of Psychiatry; Feb 2004; 161, 2; Research Library Core
pg. 278
It seems to run counter to your ideas about identity.
Patrick,
Actually the odds ratio of having mood disorders is almost the same for MSM as that in the smaller sample Dutch study and 2.7 larger than that of the general population of men. That actually proves the rate remains the same even if one country does permit marriage and adoption and all the other rights as the rest of the population. So someone could actually argue that identification does not improve well-being, at least that’s what’s coming from the statistical data. They say: ‘Multivariate analysis can establish association, not causality.’ and then they explain that they specifically included those possible reasons for causing distress to see whether any future interventions can address these mental health problems. Apparently, checked against the Dutch study, the odds seem to be independent of those variables; they are the same.
I don’t see how you are claiming this – the 2.6 times more mood disorders than the general population is the looking at the whole sample set of MSM (both those that identify as gay/queer/homosexual and those that don’t).
When you look at the rate of distress and depression – broken down by those are qay-etc identified versus those who are not the rates are higher for those not identified as such.
And yes correlation does imply causality – but correlation is necessary (though not sufficient for causality) – this study would seem to indicate that you cannot even show the necessary requirement to support your hypothesis.
Evan,
Hm, that makes me think. If I come to the conclusion that identity may actually play a part in many gay men’s feelings of alienation or whatever makes them feel social anxiety in a most liberal society, does that make me a neighbour to Narth and anti-gay people? Maybe it’s possible that I can think of a slightly negative conclusion, without having any other intention. It’s not like research should only paint a rosy picture of any given identity (even heterosexual). We still don’t know what Sanders will find with that gay genes study.
No Evan, that’s not it. What makes me think you have ulterior motives is that despite the study’s authors offering other explanations for their results, despite the fact that there are several other logical explanations for the results you offer, you seem to latch onto the few that are only touted by other anti-gay folks. It makes me question your intentions.
Evan,
And you seem to completely ignore the fact that in tolerant societies, several other minority groups ALSO have problems that the larger society/culture does not share