Article from MSN about fluidity of sexuality…
112 thoughts on “But I’m Gay!? When sexuality is flexible.”
Comments are closed.
A college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues
Article from MSN about fluidity of sexuality…
Comments are closed.
Eddy,
I am so glad to see your post!
No problem Ann – Sometimes I’m on it and sometimes I’m not 😉
Jayhuck,
I am not really sure if those girls were even telling the truth or just looking for the reaction they could get. I do agree with you that it shows a variey of sexuality more than a fluidity of sexuality. That is a much better way of saying it than I did – thanks.
Ann,
Its probably unimportant at this time, but I don’t agree that what those women were saying on the show speaks to a fluidity of sexuality – I think it DOES show a variety of sexuality though – but these two are not the same things.
Ann,
Its probably unimportant at this time, but I don’t agree that what those women were saying on the show says a fluidity of sexuality – I think it DOES show a variety of sexuality though – but these two are not the same things.
I’m betting, though, that you and I agree on more things than we disagree 🙂
Amidst all the claims about sexual fluidity and “change”, let’s remember what Jones and Yarhouse found:
Out of 98 people very determined to experience “change”, only 11 were able to report “reduced homosexual desire and increased heterosexual functioning”. Those who are now straight (as your next-door neighbor understands the term): zero.
So whatever it is that “fluidity” and “change” mean, they certainly don’t mean reorientation.
Just a thought.
Sorry, I realized I was just hanging there at 399 on the meter board, had to go for the big 400 before I could find true peace and bliss.
Like all great records, once broken, you can’t seem to stem the tide of record-breakers. A look at the Top Commenters will reveal that Mary will likely take over the number one spot from Timothy within the next day or two. And Jayhuck is on her heels. (2100+ comments when you combine the three!) Yes, Timothy could fall into the number 3 spot by the weekend!
I’ll admit that it does depend on ‘what you mean by ‘great’ …and ‘broken ‘…and whether two people could be called ‘a tide’. We all have different definitions for those words. Not to mention ‘records’ and ‘record breakers’…I got a new turntable just last night but I’m pretty sure I mean the other kind of records. And, as for record breakers, I’m not referring to those Christians groups who break and burn records they feel are satanic. (And, I double-checked…I’m saying Jayhuck is ON Mary’s heels not IN them.)
Jayhuck,
I prefaced my comments about the Miami Ink program with an “as a side note”. I ended it by saying “Just another example of how individual we all are, that sexuality can be fluid for some people, and, how that can sometimes differ from the convential wisdom.” I do not think I confused bi-sexuality with anything because I never used that term and neither did the couple on the show – rather than using labels or terms, they chose to describe their relationship and what that meant to them. Gay, ex-gay, bi-sexuality, were never mentioned and I respect them for that. I found it interesting and thought it was another example of how unique some people can be their sexual fluidity, even though it does not follow the convential wisdom of “putting people into catagories”.
Ann,
I understand what you are saying with that Miami Ink example, but that is not about sexuality being fluid. When we talk about sexuality existing on a continuum, that really isn’t about it being fluid. Those girls on Miami Ink were obviously very bisexual, not gay – which is fine (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but we have to be careful not just to understand that sexuality exists along a continuum, but also not to confuse true bisexuality with people who are more heterosexual or homosexual.
I think a very damaging that we can do, is give the message that “everyone can change,” when, in reality we know that despite the greatest dedication and effort – some will not.
Jag,
Yes, this is very important to always remember in any kind of message or communication. No one should give the message that everyone can change, and just as important, that no one can change. The word “change” can mean different things to different people and that, in itself, should be respected. It is assuming and arrogant for anyone to put themselves in a superior role and think they have the ability and power to determine, through words and assumptions, the direction of another’s life.
Ken,
Like Ann I would inquire of their meaning.
As far as the politicising of sexuality – remember womens sexuality used to be about politics also. I see it has to do with the civil and equal rights issue – when one group prevents another group from access to the same rights of property (it’s all pretty much economically based). Count on pedophiles to make a bigger noise in the future.
Jag,
Yes, it is crucial that the right information and messages are sent. I am cognizent of that in all my communication and always want to know if I falter in this in any way. I believe in the uniqueness of each individual and want to promote that rather than hold myself up as an expert in something that none of us really know the genesis of. I see too much of that on this blog. I believe sexuality is fluid and is on a continuum – example after example have provided us with that fact. I am referring to the subect matter rather than any particular individual. Having said that, I also am aware that over a lifetime, some individuals will experience shifts and modifications, with many varying degrees, while others will not have the same experiences. We are all unique – how could it be otherwise? Judging those who experience fluidity or who don’t is neither in my heart or mind for any consideration. I feel it is important for those who opine on this subject, or who hold themselves out to be experts, not have any personal agenda attached to it. It dilutes the facts, many times at the cost of another’s emotional well being.
Christianity is mentioned on this board a lot and in an assuming way like everyone should “get it” if they are Christian. That is an identity and label that some do not share and I think should not be held up as a criteria in discussing this subject. There are many in this world who do not discrimminate and are accepting of others and it has nothing to do with Christianity or religion. If this is an exclusively Christian blog, and being a Christian is a pre-requisite for understanding how one should understand and treat another, please let me know – it is important to me.
If someone you’ve never met before told you he was gay, or that he was straight, would you understand what information he was trying to convey to you? What if he said he were ex-gay?
Ken,
This is the question you posed that I answered. If I interpreted it incorrectly, I apologize. I saw it as an interaction, not an observation, and based my answer to you on that.
If someone describes themselves with a label, that is ok with me and I am sure lots of others. If I am observing someone on tv and they refer to themselves as straight, gay, ex-gay or pumpkin pie, I am left to my own to determine what that means for that individual. If I personally meet someone and they feel it is important to tell me they are gay, straight, ex-gay, or whatever else, and I want to understand what their difinition is, then I will ask what they mean by that term/label.
Ann –
I think I have to stress what Jayhuck refers to in post 61320. Yes, sexuality is fluid for many people…but certainly not all. This is important in the messages we give to others.
I think a very damaging that we can do, is give the message that “everyone can change,” when, in reality we know that despite the greatest dedication and effort – some will not.
For me, it dives deeply into the perception that there is only one acceptable way to live in a Christian life….making those that cannot (or continue to struggle) feel like “outsiders.” It is not surprise to me why many ex-gay individuals continue in those circles – it may be the only place they feel truly accepted.
We also have to remember that fluidity is not the same as changeability. For example, just because the majority of myself is female-inclined (let’s use the 90-10 split), doesn’t mean that I can erase the majority of who I am to focus exclusively on the 10% without significant intrusion. It wouldn’t be fair to any body, no guy would want their girlfriend checking out other women. Especially since I am aware of the lack in dating men for myself (there are no “bells and whistles”) as compared to dating women. It’s not the same, and reminders of that would be everywhere.
Along with sexuality being fluid for some, we cannot say that it is fluid for all. Along with being able to be altered (I don’t know that we can say “changed,” in its entirety) for some, it cannot be altered for all.
If this continues to be the case, a message cannot be promoted that gives blanket statements of “all can change.” It is misleading to the individual, the parents of children, and the masses who are clearly not as well informed on this topic to know the details of definitions as most who post here do.
The truth needs to be the message – while some can make shifts in their orientation to better live in accordance with their beliefs, not all can achieve this.
In the meantime, let’s accept all of our brothers and sisters in Christ, without discrimination and all striving toward truth.
Ann,
I don’t mind you answer, but you didn’t answer the whole question.
1st, I want to point out I didn’t say the situation was interactive. The person may have said he was ex-gay on a tv show, a billboard, web-site etc.
However, assuming you could ask questions, would you also ask a gay person what their interpretation was of the term gay? What about a straight person?
Ken,
If I met someone today who I have never known before and they told me they were “ex-gay”, I would ask them what THEIR interpretation was of the term to make sure I understood what they meant. The thing I would not do is make an assumption based on MY interpretation. I know your post was for Mary so I hope you don’t mind me answering it too.
its about what we BELIEVE is possible – which may or may not mesh with Truth
Jayhuck,
Yes, thanks for pointing this out – we also have to remember the truth can vary with each person and should never be generalized to accommodate that which we do not know. My point was/is – just knowing that nothing is set in stone when it comes to our feelings and that sexuality can be on a continuum and can be fluid, as examples have provided, is a good start if someone wants to find out more information either for themselves or just to know more about the subject.
On a side note – last night when I was channel surfing I hit on “Miami Ink” – there were two girls in their 20’s who identified themselves as “lovers” and said they had been together for 10 years. They wanted matching symbols of “love” tatooed on their lower stomach area. The interesting thing was they were telling the tatoo artist that they have a rule with each other – they can date men but they will not date other women because they are loyal to each other. The artist was taken aback and asked them to explain it because he was confused – they said they loved each other, have been together for 10 years and while their pact was to be loyal to each other and not date other women, they do date other men. Just another example of how individual we all , that sexuality can be fluid for some people, and, and how that can sometimes differ from the convential wisdom.
Mary said in post 61298:
Or just ways of describing where you have been and where you are going.
If someone you’ve never met before told you he was gay, or that he was straight, would you understand what information he was trying to convey to you? What if he said he were ex-gay? Can you honestly say would you understand that in the same way you would if he said he were gay or straight?
(mostly though I think gay and ex gay and ex ex gay have to do with politics and nothing much else)
why do you think gay has to do with politics, but not straight?
Ann,
just the knowledge that they are possible and we have some say in it can make all the difference from feeling stuck to knowing their is another way.
This is the real problem though – scientifically, we don’t know what is possible – we have nothing definitive to give people, and we have all sorts of people who have gone through the process saying different things. So, at the present time and in the end, its not about what is possible, its about what we BELIEVE is possible – which may or may not mesh with Truth.
Or just ways of describing where you have been and where you are going. (mostly though I think gay and ex gay and ex ex gay have to do with politics and nothing much else)
In general, I believe that those who most dislike labels do so because they do not like what the label represents. Similarly, those who seek to define words and terms (“ex-gay” for example) in ways that are impossible to measure and which could include everyone or no one do so because they are afraid of what would result from a concrete definition.
These feel-good definitions, while emotionally appealing, are the enemy of thought, logic, and rationality. When so broadly defined as to eliminate meaning, they become emotional buttons rather than tools for communication.
Or so I think.
Jag,
Thanks – I do prefer to look at the white that is all around the small black dot in the middle of an 8 -1/2 x 11 piece of white paper. I know some look only at the small dot and don’t realize how large the white part surrounding it is. Kind of puts life into perspective – it is all in how you look at it. One just looks bigger and more promising than the other to me so that is what I gravitate to 🙂
P.S. – I did see the print ad you were referring to (Italian Vogue) in a Vanity Fair magazine – think it was Valentino – very interesting!
I’d like to be thought of as many things, but that doesn’t mean I AM those things – does that make sense?
Jayhuck,
Yes, of course it makes sense! I am talking about the ability to know there might be something beyond the point that we are uncomfortable in. We don’t have to yield to attitudes or feelings that are no longer part of how we want to live. Within reason, we have to understand there is another way to have the kind of life that is harmonious with that which we value. I’m not saying the timing is always propicious for these shifts or modifications to take place, however, just the knowledge that they are possible and we have some say in it can make all the difference from feeling stuck to knowing their is another way.
Ann,
I agree with what you wrote above – that is absolutely true about people and the changes we go through throughout life. However, there have to be some limits as well. These examples are just hyberboles, but just because I WANT to be identified as straight does not make me so. I’d like to be thought of as many things, but that doesn’t mean I AM those things – does that make sense?
Ann –
I have never seen the commercial (I don’t have television), but I do agree that:
“there are a whole lot of people who do not want to be labeled based on how they used to live or how they used to identify themselves. They have moved on and evolved according to their values and what they want for their life.”
People have the right to live under whatever label they wish, to evolve, and do so under whatever label they may choose. If we all would allow others that freedom, it takes a lot of the animosity and power out of the arguments “for” and “against” any person or behavior as far as orientation is concerned.
If we lived this way, The United States just might be a more peaceful, free, and equitable place for all people of any orientation.
Everyone has the right to self-determination, and equal treatment. We have to stop feeling threatened because someone elses choices may not be ones that we would make, or we might not even feel they are right to make…and we have to come to a place where we can be okay with that…which seems harder than it sounds.
Good points Ann…I just see both sides so entrenched in getting their own points across or getting their own way that it is hard for them to see the bigger picture. However, I think you captured it.
Anonymous,
From a business standpoint I do understand what you are saying. The problem, from my perspective, in defining a term like “ex-gay” is complicated. There are agendas attached to those who do not want to believe this is possible, therefore will have their own definition, and then those who are actually experiencing a shift or change in how they are feeling and living who are choosing to stay anonymous – we do not have their input unless they are our personal friends or family. All those in-between are in some kind of indefinable and personal process that will be very different for everyone – as it should be because each person is unique. Unlike others I do not think religion, especially, Christianity should be a pre-requisite for those who are seeking help in understanding and diminishing their unwanted same gender attractions. How can we ever be able to fairly and accurately come up with a defination that will give these individuals the respect and confidentiality they deserve? Perhaps it can be defined as “an individual who, for personal reasons and convictions, is attempting to transition out of their former way of thinking, believing, and way of living into one that is now in line with their new and different way of thinking, believing, and desire to live in harmony with that which they value”.
Has anyone seen the commercial from, I think, Citibank for Citicard showing the various stages and changes of an individual from birth to retirement age and all the labels they attach to themselves throughout this period? It is really a good illustration of how we evolve and change and attach various labels to correspond with each change. The important part is that the individual is the one who self identifies and attaches the label, not someone else, and then de-couples themself from it when they are experiencing a different set of circumstances in their life and want to be referred to in a new way. There isn’t anyone or any group telling them what they can and cannot be – they move through life and all it’s changes and they eventually become who they want to be. Contrary to what others may believe, there are a whole lot of people who do not want to be labeled based on how they used to live or how they used to identify themselves. They have moved on and evolved according to their values and what they want for their life.
Mary –
“But in truth the real cause should be for the sake and rights of an individual (rather than just gays or straights.) not of how you are born (obviously – most people with a spectrum of sexual potential.)”
You and I agree. Although I do believe there are people born 100% gay or 100% straight, this should not be our focus. It should really be on the rights of the individual. While you and I may disagree about many things, we do agree that all rights should be about “human rights,” not rights given to you because you are heterosexual, homosexual, etc…
Taking politics (and I would say, even religion) out of this, however, will be quite the challenge.
Jag,
I agree. There are times when I look totally gay and really don’t care. And there are times when I don’t.
I guess though for ex gays who have a similar variety of sexual feelings that run on a continuum, when a gay person (who also has also a variety) screams “liar!” then it can make a person very defensive. Two people feeling the gamut of sexual expression and one is a liar? For the most part gay activists will not admit to any opposite gender feelings and use that “I was born gay” to promote their political cause (which I understand) But in truth the real cause should be for the sake and rights of an individual (rather than just gays or straights.) not of how you are born (obviously – most people with a spectrum of sexual potential.)
Take the politics out of it and we could soon begin to really open the discussion of what is going on sexually with people. Ah – well, I’ll be waiting.
I appreciate all comments on labeling and self-labeling but you seem to say that when a person labels as ex-gay you don’t know what they’re saying. I’m amazed that you can’t agree on a common definition for ex-gay.
In business discussions, being on the same page is almost universally accepted as the basis for successful dialogue. Without a basic definition, it seems you have no same page. Don’t you need or want one?
Mary –
“That you let people assume you are totally gay is nice.”
No problem for me what people assume I am. People assume I’m straight all the time walking down the street, gay when holding my wife’s hand, and maybe heterosexual when walking somewhere downtown with a guy…who knows?
I’ve been called “gay” when kissing my wife in public – hey, it only makes me smile – I’m the luckiest woman in the world…and in the end, it’s kind of true. In that moment, I’m doing something quite “gay.”
I think the important thing is that you are comfortable with yourself…if you are, they can call you whatever you like – at the end of the day, it makes no difference. I’m happy and my life is good…call me anything you like.
I think the problem of definitions comes in when you are not secure in who you are, you don’t like who you are, or worse, you aren’t really sure.
Mary,
That you let people assume you are totally gay is nice.
I’m not sure what the alternative is – do we try and make people understand that we are PRIMARILY gay? Do straight people do that with other people? Let’s not try to pin this problem with assumptions on gay people.
We are stuck in boxes.
That you let people assume you are totally gay is nice.
“We don’t allow for flexibility – or natural variation, and I think that’s part of our problem in society.”
Jag,
Yes, I agree with the caveat that I think it is a big problem in our society. It has always led me to wonder what is the motivation or benefit to those individuals or groups who attempt to do this to others. Something to ponder –
Mary –
“And also making a point that if your gay brothers and sisters accept you as gay – then why don’t they accept ex gays as ex gay??”
To my knowledge, they let people define themselves – at least in my circles.
Because I don’t really say to any exhaustive degree what I believe myself to be, I think people make the assumption that because I am in a same-gendered committed relationship that I am gay.
For example, we all likely make mistakes with bisexual but heterosexually married women all the time. If they are able to be attracted to either gender but marry a man, you are seen as straight – no one even asks. But if you are bisexual and married to a woman, I think you would be naturally perceived as gay. We don’t allow for flexibility – or natural variation, and I think that’s part of our problem in society.
We are so stuck in boxes, and we wonder why we can’t seem to get it right.
Nor should someone feel pressured by the gay community to identify as gay. Sort of sword that cuts both ways.
Mary,
This is so important – thanks for bringing it up.
I read something the other day that reminded me of the word troubles you have here:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
The problem, though, is in the few words that we choose to use, and the way in which we choose to define those words
Jayhuck,
I agree. What are your thoughts about just asking an individual what their preference is as to how they want to be referred? I wonder if they would just say their name instead of a label?
Nor should someone feel pressured by the gay community to identify as gay. Sort of sword that cuts both ways.
I think if people want to use labels that more accurately describe who they are, or simply not use labels at all, that’s fine.
Ken,
This is how I think as well.
Ann said in post 60923:
Also, is it right for others to attach their perceived labels to anyone else or should it be up to the individual to tell us how to refer to them?
But what if the labels are misleading? Can I say I want to be referred to as “general” even though I’ve never been in the military? Can Michael Jackson tell people he wants to be considered white?
if I know some who (covertly) has sex with other men, only looks at gay pornography, and shows no significant interest in women, is it wrong of me to consider that person gay, even if he wants to self-label as straight?
I think if people want to use labels that more accurately describe who they are, or simply not use labels at all, that’s fine. However, I don’t agree that labels should be used to deceive, esp. if the reason they want to hide is because society pressures them to feel ashamed about who they are.
Anonymous,
Its not just the word ex-gay that we have problems with, but also the word Gay! The definition you left us is a good one, and it is pretty much the one I would have used
It looks like the definition is right there in your words.
An EX-GAY is: “SOMEONE WHO FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS IS NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THEIR SEXUALITY OR WITH LIVING AS AN ACTIVELY GAY PERSON”?
That sounds simple enough. Couldn’t all of you people agree on that definition? I’ve been reading here for some time. You sound ‘connected’. If you people agreed–and then passed that on to others on your respective sides–wouldn’t you begin to have a solid definition?
Warren, Ann, Mary, Jag, Jayhuck, Timothy, Ken, Peterson, David R., David B., Michael, Eddy, Alan: Do you FINALLY have your definition?
Ann,
I don’t think the problem lies within any one particular community, but in the lack of the the communities to come to an understanding on the definitions of words.
I absolutely agree that we are all unique and that it is difficult to describe any of us in just a few words. The problem, though, is in the few words that we choose to use, and the way in which we choose to define those words 🙂
Jayhuck,
Do you think the problem with definitions lies just within the ex-gay community (whoever they are) or with people in general? It seems to me that since all of us are unique individuals with our own story and that we experience sexuality in different ways and with varying degrees and on a continuum that any kind of label like this could never really describe us with complete accuracy – sometimes not even close. Also, is it right for others to attach their perceived labels to anyone else or should it be up to the individual to tell us how to refer to them?
Mary,
The problem lies with how the Ex-Gay and Gay communities define the word GAY! For me, and other gay people, simply being primarily attracted to the same sex makes one gay. For many in the Ex-Gay community, you must adopt a “gay lifestyle” meaning that you should be comfortable with your sexuality and living as an active gay person. Until we have a common definition for that word, this misunderstanding and disagreement will continue. Personally, I’m fine with calling most Ex-Gay people homosexuals, because that seems to be the most honest – they are still primarily attracted to the same sex but they either don’t act on it or try and redirect it – but they are still basically homosexual
Mary said in post 60812:
All I am saying Jag (since you have given an exhaustive excuse for your bisexuality/homosexuality) is that ex gays may still look gay and have a 90/10 attraction ratio (opposite/same) And the gay sommunity still yelss out “There, there a liar! See he/she is still GAY!
Can you cite a single case where someone went from predominately gay (10/90) to predominately straight (90/10) (in a sustained change) where anyone claimed that person was still gay?
Spitzer never found such a person. And I don’t believe Jones & Yarhouse did either.
The arguments I’ve read about questioning change dealt with situations where the gay men only had an attraction to a SPECIFIC woman, and/or still had significant attractions to men (in a few well publicized cases were caught cruising in gay bars).
Personally (note I’m not part of any “community” and speak only for myself), I would be skeptical of any such claims of significant change in orientation. however, that has more to do with the mis-leading claims of change I’ve read about it. I think change from gay to straight may be possible for some, but that if it is possible it is very, very rare.
All I am saying Jag (since you have given an exhaustive excuse for your bisexuality/homosexuality) is that ex gays may still look gay and have a 90/10 attraction ratio (opposite/same) And the gay sommunity still yelss out “There, there a liar! See he/she is still GAY!” So, I’m just making a point. I really don’t care how you see yourself, just making a point that it really is up to the person to decide what they are and no one else. And also making a point that if your gay brothers and sisters accept you as gay – then why don’t they accept ex gays as ex gay??
I guess it goes back to the political purposes that gays should have same rights based on the “can’t change who you are program” – instead of the “be who you are program” seems like an inconsistent logic argument and double standard to me.
Mary –
“Now, if you identify as a gay woman (as you have in many posts) and you say that you have no ill for men and in fact were attracted to men before – then perhaps by your own definition you really are bi-sexual?”
I am indeed bisexual by the definition of it I suppose, but am admittedly less aroused, interested, etc..to men than women. In Jayhuck’s example…I’m probably 90-10 in favor of women…maybe a bit more or less. But, under strict definition, I have the capacity to be attracted to either gender – so call it what you will, it makes no difference to me.
Have I talked to friends about being “bisexual?” Absolutely, I never had a problem getting a date in college, but the guys never lasted. I lost interest. They know that men have never done for me what women have – no kabaam, no earth-shattering bells going off. Frankly, I think that everyone deserves more than a mediocre life…whistles and bells and the whole nine yards.
Everyone who knows me intimately would know that I’ve dated guys…I get ribbed by friends for trying to “meet the heterosexual standard” because I have long hair, am into fitness and kind of feminine, or that I’m a prime candidate for “passing.” However, they also know deep down that I’m so absolutely into women that it’s not really a possibility in my life. That, and being married. I feel very similarly to what Jayhuck describes.The largest part of me is innately attracted to women. For me, I’d have to actively work against the major part of me to be straight – if I ever wished to do that. But personally, I have no issue with it, and feel blessed to have such inclinations that have led me to the life I have.
Most of my friends (who are gay, a minority in my friend group) have stories different than mine – of never being attracted to men, dating them, etc..and have had crushes on girls since they can remember.
Maybe that’s ultimately the difference between me and someone who is ex-gay and does not want to be labeled bisexual. I don’t really care…call me gay, call me bisexual…I am simply, me. I live as truly to who I understand God granted me to be, and I always will – however you might label that, really makes no difference, does it?
Maybe that’s why I subscribe to the continuum theory…we’re all somewhere…perhaps Jayhuck and I are 90-10 on the gay-leaning (and so may think of ourselves as “gay”), and others are more 60-40…I have friends who are heterosexually married but have had past same-sex attractions (maybe 80-20 heterosexual?). Yet, she defines as heterosexual, has a family and would never think of acting on such a small portion of herself. She would say she’s not really “into” women, but has had “crushes.”
By this “percentage” way of looking at it, we’d call ex-gays simply “gay.” But, if we look at strict definition, some may actually be bisexual…who knows.
There are blurry lines everywhere.
I wonder why we are so intent on trying to make people fit into one area or another? Why not allow adults to follow their inclinations (as long as they do not hurt themselves or others)? Why would anyone want to tell us who we should be drawn to?
I’m not sure, and that’s why to some extent, I have to be content with myself and my faith and let the rest of the world work it out for themselves.
Mary,
Maybe what we are all really saying is – I’m in this camp and that’s what I choose for now. You are where you are because you have fallen in love and made a commitment to the relationship, ex gays are where they are for a variety of reasons and so are single gays and heterosexuals and other committed couples??
My apologies – I should have read further down your message – I agree with the above statement. Again, I know you addressed this to Jag, and I’m sure she will comment, but I think a great deal depends on whether the person is primarily a bisexual – know, if we could all just agree on what the term bisexual means One thing I would like to say is that the terms heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual are ways of describing one’s orientation – The term Ex-Gay is NOT a term that describes orientation, so mixing all these terms together would be wrong. Ex-Gays could be gay or bisexual. I am sorry for rambling on about this – I hope and pray that this makes some sense 🙂
Mary,
Now, if you identify as a gay woman (as you have in many posts) and you say that you have no ill for men and in fact were attracted to men before – then perhaps by your own definition you really are bi-sexual?
I know you didn’t address that statement to me, but I’m at least going to offer you my perspective – If Jag has a different take on this I’m sure she will say something.
I think I’ve said this before, but I do have some attractions to women – does that make me bisexual? Well, that really depends on what we mean by the word. I hate to use percentages, but for clarification purposes I would say that I’m 90% homosexually attracted and about 10% heterosexually. To me, given this, there really is no point in going around talking about my “bisexuality” or the fact that I have SOME attractions to women, because the biggest part of me is overwhelmingly homosexual. I mention it to some people, but I won’t act on those heterosexual feelings because I know I’d never be happy trying to establish a relationship with a woman when only the tiniest portion of me is attracted to women. I know I could never be happy or satisfied in such a relationship – I suppose I could SETTLE for that, but I wouldn’t want to (this is all assuming I wasn’t celibate, mind you). Anyway, for what its worth, those are my two cents. I know you didn’t ask for them, but I’m hoping that, maybe, that help you understand why some of us don’t go running around talking about that little part of us that might be attracted to the opposite sex. I have straight male friends, for example, that have admitted to me that have a few, fleeting attractions for men, but they don’t go around telling people about those attractions. Its not really just gay people that do this.
Mary said in post 60763:
I’ll bet you don’t go around telling each and everyone of your friends that you are really bi sexual??
Based on Jag’s description of her attractions, I wouldn’t say she was bi-sexual. She seems to have a strong preference is for women. The attractions she feels (felt) toward men weren’t the same.
So, isn’t okay then, (I mean if it is for you) for an ex gay who may have some same sex attraction but who also has opposite sex attraction to identify themselves as ex gay?
Why would they use a confusing and often mis-understood term? Why not say they are bi-sexual? Assuming the attractions to women and men are approximately the same.
And what if the attractions are not the same. What if the attraction is only to a single specific woman, while the attractions to men are to a variety of different men? Or if his attractions to women are stronger than what the average gay man might feel, but still much less than his attractions to men?
Ex-gay implies “no longer gay,” which many people take to mean “straight” or at least, no longer has any attractions to men. And from what I’ve read, that is rarely if ever the case.
Oh Jag,
Thanks for taking the bait. I love to be proven wrong. Now, if you identify as a gay woman (as you have in many posts) and you say that you have no ill for men and in fact were attracted to men before – then perhaps by your own definition you really are bi-sexual? And since you are a gay activist, I’ll bet you don’t go around telling each and everyone of your friends that you are really bi sexual??
WSo, isn’t okay then, (I mean if it is for you) for an ex gay who may have some same sex attraction but who also has opposite sex attraction to identify themselves as ex gay?? Maybe what we are all really saying is – I’m in this camp and that’s what I choose for now. You are where you are because you have fallen in love and made a commitment to the relationship, ex gays are where they are for a variety of reasons and so are single gays and heterosexuals and other committed couples??
Of course, I am frustrated with the gay community that continues to fail to see their own ignorance. I’m just plain tired of it these days. And I think Timothy can stand up on his own – as his many posts from the past have been much more snarkier than my response to him.
Fails to see their own ignorance??? Would you please explain to me Mary (because you think we’re ignorantt and while your coping out of an argument, draw me a diagram.) How I am I or any gay person ignorant because we don’t agree with most of what you are saying? Attempting to have an honest dialog and challenging misconceptions of others goals and IDEALS is not ignorance; I believe it is called not agreeing with what you’re handing US because we see through the smoke and mirrors.
I think the frustration you’re allowing yourself to revel is a result of a lack of understanding. If you’re tired try getting some sleep- that’s generally the cure.
Oh Mary –
To relay my “activist” credentials…I am someone who sits on a fairly well-known board of directors in a well-regarded gay-rights organization. I am at fund-raising events often in the name of gay rights, supporting legislation, schmoozing for the cause, etc..I have testified on behalf of same-sex marriage in front of Senators, Judiciary Committees, etc…and have spoken, been interviewed, and written pieces on behalf of same-sex rights.
I don’t think they come more “activist” than me.
Jayhuck –
Thanks, I appreciate the compliment. I suppose I see myself as one of those “gay activists”…and I’m not too proud to say where I’ve come from.
I’m a big believer in the “continuum” with some being more solidly on one side or the other. I know that I cannot generalize my experiences, but I wish that yours…and everyone elses’ can end with the positive resolution that I have found. Not necessarily in my direction, but in whatever way satisfies the desires of your own individual path.
Jag,
I am jealous of and happy for you all at the same time 🙂
Mary –
“Let me rephrase that – gay activists will not admit to having any attraction to the opposite sex and it is not publicized nor really talked about in the gay community – Although we all know someone who has gone to the other side before.”
Let me prove you wrong…
I have dated men most of my life…I have never had any problem with them, and like them very much. I had posters of Michael J. Fox in my room and McGyver, etc…but was never “boy crazy.” I never knew a gay person, and had a really happy childhood.
Once at a christian college, I also dated guys. However, in my second year, my roommate acknowledged having feelings for me – we dated, shared our first kiss, and BOOM, it was like a light went off – THIS is what all the fuss had been about! It’s not that I didn’t find men still attractive (I still dated them on and off), it’s just that I preferred women. It was like magic and the stars aligning.
I prayed about it, but never wanted to change it – I just wanted God to align me with what direction he meant my life to go in. I met with ministers around it ( at the suggestion of family), talked to some of my christian friends about it…and those that knew me, were surprised, and some were supportive. I realized either I was going to live life for me, or someone else. I was an uncompromising christian, and a woman who genuinely felt that…at the end of the day…I was who God meant for me to be. I would meet and talk to whomever my parents wanted me too, because in the end – I was comfortable with myself – I discovered myself.
All change in, especially evangelical, churches comes slowly…and I can patiently wait for that day. Until then, I have a church that embraces me and my wife, that honors my commitment to her and to God, and who sees the world how I genuinely feel it to be.
Ii am a blessed and lucky woman, but you see Mary, I have no issue admitting that – for me (and I can only speak for myself), I have dated men…and can find them attractive. But they don’t light my fire – they don’t get down to the core of me and stir me.
In the end, to me, it doesn’t really matter. I believe I have found my soulmate in this world. That she is in a beautiful woman’s body…is all the more lucky for me.
Mary said in post 60563:
Let me rephrase that – gay activists will not admit to having any attraction to the opposite sex and it is not publicized nor really talked about in the gay community – Although we all know someone who has gone to the other side before.
I’m not sure how you are determining if someone is an “activist”, however, I know of many cases of gay men who have actually married women. I also know of many who have said they can appreciate the beauty of women, but for them the feelings are not the same as what they feel for men.
Mary,
I know several gay people who will admit to having SOME feelings for the opposite sex as well as others who admit to having none. This all goes back to that spectrum I was talking about – very few people are totally and completely heterosexual or homosexual – most tend to fall somewhere in between. But just because I might have a few fleeting attractions for women does not, in the least, mean that I could ever be happy or satisfied being in a relationship with them – and THAT, to me, is what is important.
Oh for comments that say (and there are some), well, that is interesting about your life, that isn’t that way for me, but wow, what a great big world with lots of variability; tell me more…
Dr. Throckmorton,
This would be great and I think would happen more if the personal agendas and personal attacks are not posted. If your above statement is what you would prefer, then I know it is possible and can be guided this way but what you chose to post.
Let me rephrase that – gay activists will not admit to having any attraction to the opposite sex and it is not publicized nor really talked about in the gay community – Although we all know someone who has gone to the other side before.
Sorry Warren, gays may be open to sexual experiences but seem very little interested in it if it involves the opposite sex. And usually they insist on a black and white theme only of sexuality – as do most conservative christians.
And yes, it has also been my observation that people speak from their experiences. I guess yours and mine are different.
Mary – In my experience, that is not an accurate statement. In fact, you will get the opposite view from research: gays are more open to alternative sexuality.
There is a bleeding horse here that may be nearing death. My observation is that most people speak from their own experience and make it general to the classes of people involved. Gays can’t change; sexuality is fluid; gays know little; etc.
Oh for comments that say (and there are some), well, that is interesting about your life, that isn’t that way for me, but wow, what a great big world with lots of variability; tell me more…
Absolutely, Ann. Just think though, how differently you would think aboutyourself and sexuality if you were to experience such??
I am constantly amazed at how the majority of gays talking about sexuality really know very little about it’s vast variety and experiences.
Mary,
Can anyone really explain what happens or how they feel when they find themselves suddenly and inexplicably attracted and gravitating to the kind of individual that seemed so inconceivable to them before? I think it loses something if we try to analyze it. We also must remember that one does not have to be attracted to the opposite sex, only one person of the opposite sex to realize a curve ball has just been thrown.
Sorry – in addition – Jag, since you brought up the idea of a contiuum of sexuality my purpose in suggesting the idea of circumstances etc… is that if a person were incarcerated, or criminally victimized etc… they would act and feel in ways that would not be their norm – but does that make them gay, bisexual, slutty, adulterous, etc… I think not. It just means that for survival purposes they felt and acted in a way that they thought was appropriate at the time.
Jag,
I have stated over and over again in this blog that I do not believe everyone can change nor do I think people who do not want to attempt such a thing do so.
That’s my position. That Timothy has decided to twist my words into something for him to chew on is up to him. That Jayhuck took my question as an attack – well – I guess he may have some soul searching do to on that.
I stand by the idea that if a person is put under the right circumstances – they are apt to become attracted to comforts that they normally would not be. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THERAPY TO CHANGE SEXUAL ATTRACTION IS THE PLACE WHERE THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WILL OCCUR.
Jag,
Regarding #60421 –
What do you think should be told to the individual who has unwanted attractions and yet does not want to engage in acting on them and has not had any shift in feelings, etc. through regular therapy?
It is my desire to host a discussion that is about issues and that does not attack people
Dr. Throckmorton,
This could be an exact science – one kind of post attacks the subject, the other kind attacks the person. One obviously overrides any subject matter. One could be put through while the other one deleted. I’m not sure, nor is it really my right to know, what your standards or criteria are in deciding what posts go through or not. Another thought – would you consider leaving the names off the posts you decide to put through and perhaps that would temper those who want to attack the person and guide them to just attack the subject? I would perfer decent and thoughtful conversation, but as you can see, it is only possible with some and impossible with others. If you perfer not to post this, I understand and defer to your judgement on the matter.
Timothy,
I was not referring to people who try and do not have change in their lives – I really was referring to the human population on the whole and extreme experiences that can make a person do just about anything. I guess that offends you. I see it as the magnitude of pliability and adaptability of the human being and our experience that allows us to survive, change, grow, etc…
Mary –
I think one thing that we have to be clear on, and that you will likely agree with (although perhaps not), is that not everyone wishes to change and not everyone who wishes to can achieve it.
So, while I agree with you that likely most individuals do have some play in the continuum…I don’t think everyone does. For some, it is a perpetually frustrating task ending in celibacy for some (inaction on continued same-sex urges and attractions) or feelings of self-loathing (that somehow, they were not faithful enough, etc..to make change happen).
If not all can change (nor should, in my opinion), we have to seriously consider what this means. In the church, in rights, etc…It’s not an easy task.
Though I align myself with more progressive christian beliefs, I grew up in a more conservative faith and understand that this is a 180 degree shift in thinking for most. How to accept the ex-gay, gay, bi, etc…in the church and be able to remain consistent in your beliefs, I am not sure – but it will be essential if we want to keep our faith in line with the science.
Any thoughts?
Mary,
I misunderstood you. I thought that you meant situations found in normal circumstances.
Perhaps through torture, cult indoctrination, drug induced hallucinations, brain damage, or war atrocities it may be possible that ex-gays who have not yet found themselves attracted to the opposite sex would do so. I really don’t know and, frankly, don’t care to speculate. We do know that electroshock, aversion therapy, and lobotomies don’t work and I’d rather not extend the study further.
However – assuming real world scenarios – I still think it unfair to suggest that any person could experience attractions to either sex under the right circumstances. I am quite certain that there are a significant number of male ex-gay strugglers who would like to believe that this is true… but who have never been able to identify or experience those circumstances.
Making an unsubstantiated claim that they could do so – despite years of effort – seems to me to be cruel.
Mary and others – Please do not speculate about the motives or lives of others on the list. It is out of bounds.
Of late, I have noticed the gloves are off and there have been a number of gloves-off, full-snark comments. I will delete comments at my discretion. Again, not an exact science; some will get by and some won’t. It is my desire to host a discussion that is about issues and that does not attack people, especially given the fact that almost everyone here is commenting without full identification.
Pretend you are in the same room with someone and act accordingly. Or and pretend you are treating that person in the way you want to be treated. Or and actually do it and don’t pretend.
Mary,
I understand your definition of change. And that’s what I mean. Are you unwilling to accept that a person could change their orientation (you see it as fixed) because YOU really want to stay where YOU are??
No Mary, I don’t choose that definition because I want to stay where I am – You shouldn’t presume to know me like that or know my motivations, because you honestly don’t. My definition of change is what it is due to things I have experienced, and the stories I’ve heard from others.
Timothy,
Think outside the box for a minute. A person under severe amounts of stress and forced into isolation of sorts will become attracted to all sorts of comforts that they usually would not.
Please read anything on – war atrocities, torture, childhood sexual abuse, the occult, and cult organizations of indoctrination. That’s just the beginning. There are much more subtler forms found in dysfunctional families other organizations.
Call me flawed in my thinking – that’s your choice not to read up on human behavior. And I’ll bet my words offend the very conservative religious bunch, too.
Jayhuck,
This will probably be the last time I respond to you since I am continually having to back track for you.
I understand your definition of change. And that’s what I mean. Are you unwilling to accept that a person could change their orientation (you see it as fixed) because YOU really want to stay where YOU are??
Really, it’s a question for you and I don’t need the answer.
Mary –
Thank you for your response. I think we have a lot of agreement in the forum about sexuality occurring on a continuum (heck, we got me, you, concerned, jayhuck, etc..in agreement on that).
I think in the absence of clear scientific data, we all tend to form our notions of what this means. While I think there are many that would agree with you that under the right circumstances *any* person could be attracted to either gender…I’m not sure either way. I couldn’t say with any support that you are right or wrong, but I think we are all at various places on that continuum…some more solidly heterosexual, others more solidly homosexual, some in the middle…and many in between with a more “primary attraction” as Jayhuck called it aligned more dominantly in one camp vs. another.
I appreciate your candor in referencing yourself, and I think we all come to our places of resolution in different ways. Once those varying positions across the spectrum can be respected by all groups, I think then we’ll be getting somewhere on this.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Mary,
You have consistently denied that people change. Why do you insist that someone is a confused bisexual instead of a person who has grown more gay or more hetero over time?? Why do you refuse to let people change?
It depends on what we mean by change Mary! I have never, ever said that people don’t change behaviors – and that, most definitely, is a type of change we see in almost all ex-gay people.
I tend to believe that a person – any person – under the right circumstances can become attracted to either gender.
I think that this statement is flawed. While some people may become attracted to either gender, I think it is irrefutable that many people on either end of the continuum most certainly will not under any circumstances.
Further, this assumption about “any person” does a great disservice to those who seek and struggle and try and work and endeavor but yet do not find themselves to have EVER been attracted to the opposite sex. It says that they are simply not putting themselves in the right circumstances.
And from all that I read and hear, a great many ex-gay strugglers – if not nearly all – would fall under this criticism. And I think that such assumptions about them are vastly unfair..
Mary,
I agree with you that under the right circumstances most people could become attracted to either gender – but, in my personal experience, a difference worth mentioning is that we all tend to have a PRIMARY attraction. I am, for the most part, gay. I do have some attraction for women, but my primary orientation is homosexual. I think you already said this too, but some people will never develop an attraction for the other gender, no matter how small.
Jag,
I agree with you. The simplest definition of the term bisexual is being attracted to both genders and nothing more. I’m sure you do have bisexuals that embrace both, but many don’t – whether they end up living primarily homosexual or heterosexual lives.
Ann,
That’s cool. I also think that some of Timothy’s responses were not posted either. I’m fine with being branded the blog bitch on this issue.
Jag,
I get what you are saying. I tend to believe that a person – any person – under the right circumstances can become attracted to either gender. And that goes for me too. I guess – for me – that I do not seek out women anymore, nor do I prefer them that makes the difference. It’s not the same as being a woman who has always been straight and who might find homosexuality a little gross. I don’t. And also, I have been through the extremes. So for me, parts of the human sexual experience has taken place and has changed over time. Does that make me bisexual – to some people it does. Really – humans are sexual beings with all sorts of connotations placed on sex. If you think about it, we can be sexually stimulated by many things. What does that make us???
Mary,
Dr. Throckmorton chose not to post my earlier comments in your defense so let me just say now that I agree with you in your post #59676. There sometimes seems to be a double standard when it comes to what is approved in a post and what isn’t. I hope this gets posted 🙂
Pam,
Of course, I am frustrated with the gay community that continues to fail to see their own ignorance. I’m just plain tired of it these days. And I think Timothy can stand up on his own – as his many posts from the past have been much more snarkier than my response to him.
Mary,
I apologize…I was actually referring to your comments to Timothy in the thread before this one. Some of these threads start to all look and sound the same after a while, don’t they? 😉
Mary,
When you speak to Timothy in such a placating manner as you’ve done in this thread, it tends to make some of us breeze right past whatever point it is you’re trying to make because of the sheer audacity of the tone and attitude with which you speak it. While intonnation can be a tricky beast when writing, yours speaks loudly and clearly. It’s this sort of tactic that, for many of us, cancels out a great deal of what could be valid points you might make.
Timothy,
I appreciate your great restraint in your response to Mary. So much of this dialogue seems to involve alot of talking around words. I’ve never understood (and had this conversation with Tdub many times during our marriage) why ex-gays spend so much time arguing that they are not gay. I always understood that I was married to a gay man who was choosing to pursue opposite sex attraction. I honestly believe that if Tdub had been able to accept the fact that he was gay, from the get-go, our marriage may have at least made it to the point of getting the boys raised and out of the house. That would have been a comfort to me.
Que’ sera.
love and grace,
pam
Eddy –
Above, I was talking about ex-gays in their “ideal” place…how they seem to have achieved some opposite-sexed attractions but still struggle with same-sex ones…I hope that makes it a bit more clear.
Sorry for the double-post…but I wanted to address your thoughts here:
“In actuality, they’re likely trying to break their embrace with the attractions to the same gender while wondering if they’ll ever have genuine attractions for the other. In so many ways, they aren’t truly bi-sexual at all.”
I agree with you…this doesn’t seem bisexual, it seems like someone who is same-sex attracted and attempting not to be. I don’t think ex-gays are always at the place I describe above…I think they perhaps hope to get there.
My point was only that what is ideally created from being ex-gay seems to align with being bisexual….hoping that, even if you have struggles with same-gendered attractions, that you can lead a more heterosexual life through the opposite-sexed ones.
Thus, that’s why I am always shocked at the church’s stance on the GLBT population in general…they have a group of people attempting to live in accordance with how they preach, who…if they are able to…become bisexual and are able to have some opposite-sexed attractions, and still, this is not good enough. Not to mention the many who could never get to that place.
I hope I clarified my points above.
Thank you for your input.
Eddy –
“Bi-sexuals embrace their attractions to both genders while an ex-gay doesn’t.”
I suppose this is where we differ. Bisexuals do not always embrace their attractions to both genders, they simply have the capacity to be attracted to either. Many who are bisexual will lead heterosexual lives and never explore their same-sex attractions, some will lead lives that are considered “gay”. There are many heterosexually married bisexual men and women.
The reason that groups have started referring to “gay marriage” as “same-sex marriage,” for example, is because we do not know the orientation of the individuals within it – all we know is that their sex is the same. This wording accounts for the fact that your partner might be bisexual.
So, Eddy, I suppose this is where it begins to get sticky for me in examining ex-gays. I appreciate your definitions from a previous post, but I suppose my notion of bisexuality (the attraction to either gender) is still very similar. Whether you make the distinction that an ex-gay individual is working to rid themselves of an attraction in a specific direction, still means that they are experiencing dual attractions.
I think that is also, my opinion, why it would be so much easier for someone who is already bisexual who attempts to become ex-gay to lead a more conventional heterosexual life if they wished. They already have this range in attractions and now it is only a matter of living unidirectionally….which, most bisexual individuals will do eventually anyway – some in a same-sex direction, others in a heterosexual one.
The capacity to be attracted to either gender (bisexuality) seems very close, if not the same, to me as ex-gay. What of a bisexual man who ends up married to a woman? Would we call him ex-gay? He has not attempted to rid himself of his attractions to men, but felt satisfied and complete in his marriage to a woman. He is “from a gay past,” but not actively changing his orientation…just satisfied where he is.
There are so many finer points that I am always seeking more input on. If you have any thoughts, I’d be interested.
JAG,
It is refreshing to hear you say that sexuality is on a continuum, that is far more than what I have been fed for years from those who could not accept that some choose not to live as gay people. I remember not that many years ago it was unacceptable to even consider bisexuality as a possibility. To many progay activists they were just not accepting their homosexuality. Thank God the science has broken that deception, now I wait for the science to show how much change is possible in men also. It does not make any sense that we would not be somewhat fluid as there are so many factors at work in the formation of our sexual identity.
JAG–
There is however a major difference from bi-sexuals. Bi-sexuals embrace their attractions to both genders while an ex-gay doesn’t. In actuality, they’re likely trying to break their embrace with the attractions to the same gender while wondering if they’ll ever have genuine attractions for the other. In so many ways, they aren’t truly bi-sexual at all.
Mary –
While I agree (with Timothy) that I have not yet seen an individual go from being gay to straight (in any conventional sense), I do acknowledge that if any of us places our attractions – our preferences and our most private in front of others…no one may fit the definition of “conventional.”
My impressions have been through research, that the closest most sucessful ex-gay individuals get to heterosexuality is that they have a lessening of same-sex attractions (although still present), and the inclusion of some opposite-sexed attractions. This interprets to me that it now gives them the freedom to act on these and have a life which is more in line with their beliefs, if they believe homosexuality to be wrong, a sin, etc…
This seems very close to bisexuality, doesn’t it? I do not say this in a derrogatory way, but just as a statement that it looks to be the way it is. Individuals who have the ability to have attractions to either gender, whether or not they like their proclivities in one direction or another, seem bisexual to me. At least closer to bisexual than heterosexual in it’s more stringent definitions.
However, Mary, I’m a very spectrum kind of woman, and think that rarely is anyone completely absolutely 100% straight or gay…we fall somewhere on the continuum…leaning more one way than another, usually. As Timothy points out, research indicates that women tend to exhibit far more sexual plasticity (fluidity) than men.
Anyway, my point is that although churches, many gay groups, and many ex-gay groups like to put orientation and attraction into two primary camps of heterosexual and homosexual, I think it’s pretty far from the truth of how the world really works.
It’s true that most individuals have heterosexual leanings that far overshadow any same-sex desires. But same-sex fantasies, experimentation, etc.. are not uncommon. Look through the pages of Italian Vogue (I love that magazine) or any high-end fashion magazine sometime to find women in fairly provocative poses with one another…and who are they primarily selling to?
You got it – straight women.
Our nature is not as clear cut as we’d like to believe.
Jayhuck,
You have consistently denied that people change. Why do you insist that someone is a confused bisexual instead of a person who has grown more gay or more hetero over time?? Why do you refuse to let people change?
Mary,
Well Timothy – you can’t see what you don’t want to see. What else can I say.
Study those who say they have changed – or did that need to be outlined more??
Mary, I’m still not sure what you are talking about.
But my guess is that you think I am unqualified to comment about changes in sexual orientation because I do not conduct studies on those who have changed their orientation. Am I guessing correctly?
But by that standard, Mary, none of us could comment. Including Warren. This blog would be limited to Yarhouse, Jones, and Wayne Besen.
I think you are aware, Mary, that I do follow the claims of those who say they have changed orientation. I follow them well enough to know when they are inconsistent, when they are unsubstantiated, when they are disputed by others, and when they seem to me to be genuine. I do “study” them as best I’m able – though I certianly am not funded to do research.
I also read a lot, Mary. I try to go to the source documents whenever possible and have read books (often dull dry ones) for decades about studies and research on sexual orientation.
That you and I differ is not because “I don’t want to see” but rather, I suspect, because you don’t like what I do see.
Warren–
Good luck replying to Jayhuck’s post. He keeps saying ‘is this a case’, or is it ‘just another case of a confused bisexual” and finally, in great style, “I question whether what we see here is truly a case of ‘fluidity’. Is he inquiring about the MSN article? Did Daniel, Tricia and Samantha somehow merge into one case? Can’t decide if he didn’t read the article, read it too quickly or minimizes anyone with this experience to the point where it justified turning these three individuals into just one case in his own mind.
Ken–
I do believe it warranted an ethics complaint. Without the complaint, the false charges would stand unchallenged and soon earn the status of ‘truth’ without being true at all. Those of us who fight with the twistings, the motive assigning, the challenges and charges…well, we’ve realized that the ‘ignore it and it’ll go away’ strategy doesn’t work. Heck, as Michael’s laundry list proves, we can even discuss it, deal with it, apologize when appropriate…only to have it repackaged and presented like its fresh.
But, aside from the strategy, it’s a serious charge against an organization to say on national television that they cause psychological harm to the majority of their clients…and use misinterpreted data to support such a claim. I agree that she likely did it without malice…that it was an honest mistake. I don’t agree, though, that it was minor.
Well Timothy – you can’t see what you don’t want to see. What else can I say.
Study those who say they have changed – or did that need to be outlined more??
Warren,
Is this really a case of fluid sexuality, or just another case of a confused bisexual? For all his faults, I think Kinsey was on to something when it came to sexuality. I see his “scale” reflected again and again in the people I meet and talk to on this blog and others. Isn’t he the one that said very few people are TRULY heterosexual or homosexual, and that most people’s sexuality falls along a spectrum? I question whether what we see here is truly a case of “fluidity” – personally, it seems more likely that this person’s somewhat innate bisexuality was awakened. While this is just my opinion, it just seems to fit so many gay, ex-gay and straight people I’ve come into contact with.
Eddy,
Hey, I’m not saying Salzar was right. Nor am I defending her. I’m just saying that most folks wouldn’t see the significance in using 96% vs. 89%. Personally, I don’t think either number can be claimed as representative, but nevertheless.
As for suggesting that all or most folks experience harm, that’s a bigger distortion. I don’t think that is true at all – or at least not the way she meant it. I personally think the greater harm is all of those folks who come out of ex-gay ministries with a fear and distrust of God and religion – to me that’s the bigger harm and one no one is discussing. But that’s irrellevant.
Yet my point two days ago was that Alan’s wasting his time. No one is going to see malice in Salzar’s inaccurate usage of S&S and the worst is that she’ll qualify her statement. Yawn. I wish she would as inaccurate quotes tend to haunt you forever (will teh 10% myth EVER die?). But, again, yawn.
In this instance, however, folks are jumping with glee about a anecdotally based opinion piece and drawing broad conclusions from it. Yikes.
But if you see my response as inconsistent, OK. Perhaps it was a bit.
Eddy said in post 57893:
But just two days ago he said: “In fact, to anyone other than an ex-gay supporter or an anti-gay, I think they would not think her statement to be much of a distortion.”
Protector of accuracy for some; justifier of distortions for others.
I didn’t see that post as attempting to justify the claims, only to argue it didn’t warrant an ethics complaint.
Timothy Kincaid said: “This Kincaid guy isn’t trying to “protect” anything other than discourse based on accurate and honest information.”
But just two days ago he said: “In fact, to anyone other than an ex-gay supporter or an anti-gay, I think they would not think her statement to be much of a distortion.”
Protector of accuracy for some; justifier of distortions for others.
Edgar,
I think you will be able to tell in time, if not already, which posts you deem valuable to continue reading and which ones you don’t.
Edgar,
This Kincaid guy isn’t trying to “protect” anything other than discourse based on accurate and honest information. Join me, won’t you?
As for what “Dr. Kinsey and just about everyone else found”, I’m not sure what your point is. Please feel free to elucidate.
Mary,
BTW, Timothy – do you at all study those who have changed???
Ummmm…. WHAT???
I’m not saying they don’t exist, but I’ve yet to meet anyone who has changed from a gay person into a straight person. Even those “successes” who were discussed in the J&Y study don’t seem to be straight in any conventional sense.
Who am I supposed to study?
Really, I have no idea what you are asking. I’m sure you have a point but, frankly, I’ve no idea what it is. Please clarify.
…
I am really amused by those who leap in delight at this article. Oh thank God, finally someone who says something you agree with and so therefore it MUST be brilliant and accurate and insightful.
Hey, I hardly blame you. Gay folks do the same. Heck, I do the same.
But, really. This is an anecdotally based opinion piece that relies on and report NO evidence or study. We know absolutely nothing about the two people she references, whether they have always been bisexual or whether they consider their orientation to have in any way changed. Most of the article is dedicated to social identity or community.
But I don’t want to rain on your parade. Heck, I’ll even throw confetti.
* + *
+ * – – #
* # + +
Enjoy.
Thanks Warren,
This article reflects much of what I have felt for years now. Change does happen.
Yeah, Eddy – it had nothing to do with religion. BTW, Timothy – do you at all study those who have changed???
This Kincaid guy seems to want to ignore what Dr. Kinsey and just about everyone else found. What are his motives? What is he trying to protect?
I think this article and these posts are right on. You can’t force a change. But if you are open to life and love you might just find some surprises down the road.
LOL! I was going to copy and post my favorite significant quote from the article but–this article had a handful. Nearly every direct quote led me to some reflection. And, oh my goodness, in case nobody noticed, this wasn’t a religious piece. Warren, please consider reviewing the quotes contained in the article and making a few of them topics here. (I can’t speak for everybody but I know that a few of us at least would relish exploring those notions further.)
What this rather poorly written article left out is that while the fluidity of sexuality has been observed not-infrequently among women, it is hardly ever observed among men. And in any case, fluidity among either sex is a very very rare phenomenon.
Reading the column, one might think it a daily occurance for previously identified gay people of both sexes to suddenly and spontaneously find themselves attracted to someone of the opposite sex. Yet I suspect that if all of us here were to pool our personal friendships – or even distant acquaintances – we’d not come up with a very long list at all.
Dave, I agree with you and Warren that fluidity cannot be forced – neither through external effort NOR through one’s own motiation and free will.
But while I’m a bit more suspect of the flexibility that Warren mentions – I leave open the possiblity with the understanding that the greatest successes in “change” are likely to be based in behavior and attitude rather than in attractions (though they may shift somewhat as well) and that such changes or fluidity are very very rare.
Sadly, there is no way to determine whether those individuals that found the most success in J&Y’s study would perhaps be among those with naturally occurring fluidity or whether the observed shifts can be attributed solely to Exodus. Perhaps continued research in this area can yield the answer. And perhaps time will tell us just which same-sex attracted people (or which path to same-sex attractions) are more likely to observe fluidity.
With that information, those seeking change could be more aware of what “change” is most likely to mean to them. Perhaps some day.
Dave,
I don’t think sexuality or attractions can be “made” to change either – nor should they be. You make a very good point. If there is any shift or modification, it should come from one’s own motivation and free will.
Dave, I agree. I do not think one can put someone through a program, beat some pillows, yell at mom and come out straight. But through individual circumstances (which may include client focused therapy), some flexibility has been observed for some people.
My own experience has taught me that sexuality is very fluid. I’ve always thought the key question in regard to the ex-gay movement was not whether sexuality can change, but whether it can be made to change.
Very, very good article and timely as well.