Ecclesiastes 1:9 has nothing to do with “lesbianism” or the Showtime cable network, but that didn’t stop Exodus from cutting-and-pasting a random Bible verse into its Jan. 23 issue of Spotlights.
Exodus board member Anne Paulk ridicules ‘The L Word,’ the Showtime network’s new weekly drama about lesbian characters. After accusing the show of invading her home and threatening her children (why does she have cable, and why does she pay for erotic channels?), Paulk says:
Instead, I measured it against the truth I know. Most of the women with same-sex attraction I have known, surveyed, or interviewed have had considerable difficulties in their lives to deal with including childhood abuse, depression, alcoholism, over-eating, drug addiction and various other forms of self-medication. Depression and suicidal thoughts have been rampant and most often related to the breakup of a same-gender sexual or romantic relationship.
Ms. Paulk is among the Exodus leaders who have spent the past few years locking gay people out of their lives: cutting off friendships with gays, misquoting gay former friends in their publications, ridiculing efforts at dialogue, and lobbying for laws to promote discrimination. So it does not surprise me that the same-sex-attracted people left in their lives are, in fact, unhappy individuals who are struggling with multiple disorders while resisting treatment by “secular” medical professions.
Addendum: While Ms. Paulk criticizes ‘The L Word’ for its failure to reinforce stereotypes, independent writer Jennifer Vanasco praises the show for its depiction of lesbians as unique and complicated individuals.
Sorry to ask the obvious, but has Anne Paulk ever presented any evidence that she ever was a lesbian? A couple of years ago, I had read that she had not, even after having been challenged to do so.
A lot of these people claim that they were gay, and know what it’s like… but when questioned say, “Well, I never had any experiences, but I really struggled with unwanted attractions.” That seems to be the extent of it.
But, that doesn’t stop them from offering advice on how the rest of us should live from the “I’ve been there” perspective, or testifying before congress, organizations and the public as if they were real veterans.
I would ask Anne whether the lives of the straight women on Friends or Sex in the City match those of her straight female friends, or whether her straight female friends all look like that. I know she wants us all dowdy and depressed, but sorry, Anne–that’s not what we are.
And why a teenager would be watching this show on a school night is beyond me, anyway. It seems to me that Showtime tried very hard to market it to adults. I believe also that the girls who are interested in the L-Word were interested in lesbianism long before the show debuted.
I wonder why people who call themselves ex-gay have to prove that they were “really gay” – I mean, if I consider myself gay, and am not sexually active, I still feel as though I am “really gay.” I can see that people want to argue that perhaps successful (not sure what other word to use) ex-gays (those who claim to have gone from gay to straight) were not “really” gay – but honestly, is there any way to know?
I think people who are not “truly gay” (and what does that mean, anyway) can have a lot of gay sex and it doesn’t have a whole lot to do with how kinsey-scale-gay they are. I personally have been sexually active with many more men then woman (in my high school and early college days), but I consider myself (and have always considered myself) to be gay. The sleeping with men came from a lot of stuff that was messed up in my life – not to do remotely with my sexuality, whereas the relationships with women were a whole other ballgame (definitely the “yes, this is *right*” kind of feeling from that).
So I’m not sure that should be the test by which we judge someone who claims to be ex-gay – whether or not they can trot out all kinds of same-sex past relationships.
I know that we want to see evidence of bisexuality, or sexual confusion instead of just hearing “Well, I did it, and so can you.” I’m not sure what the solution is, I just know I’m always a bit bothered when people try to prove or disprove the gayness of an ex-gay based on “proof” of same-sex relationships or gay behaviour.
Annika, I think the real issue is that it appears a lot of “ex-gay” people are really heterosexuals who have a few unwanted same-sex attractions, and from what she has publicly stated, Anne Paulk falls into this group. If a lot of the supposed “success stories” of the “ex-gay” movement are in this group, then it further undermines the claims of change because these people would not need any sexual orientation shift to enjoy a happy heterosexual relationship.
Like you, I don’t think we can ever really “prove” anyone is gay or was gay, and having gone 6 years celibate at one point I know I was still gay during that time. Nonetheless, if someone is claiming something as dramatic as a complete and total change from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual, I certainly understand people wanting proof of their prior and current sexual orientation.
Raj, I’m not sure what kind of evidence Anne Paulk could provide to prove she was a lesbian. I met Anne and John Paulk when they were leaders of the ex-gay group I participated in. Without being cruel, I have to say they were what you would expect if a stereotypical gay man and lesbian married.
I struggled with whether I was really gay when I first joined an ex-gay ministry because I had never been sexually active. So I’m sympathetic to the internal struggle of sexual attractions. One good thing the ex-gay experience provided for me was that it definitely confirmed to me that I was gay.
Norm:
What a breakthrough / epiphany it could be if it could be proven through research that your experience is statistically significant. Namely, how could the religious conservatives back the ex-gay ministries, if it were convincingly shown that the primary result of going through their programs was to…. CONFIRM that the participants were actually GAY!? Talk about a “recruiting” tool! Fundamentalists bankrolling a ministry that, for the overwhelmingly majority of the participants makes them more COMFORTABLE and SURE of their homosexuality!
Actually, it’s funny you mention that Sharon. I was thinking much the same thing when I read Norm’s post. That’s how I felt too – at least I know that I *really* am gay, it’s not a phase, a fad, or most importantly, the result of “unhealed” or “broken” areas in my life (extensive therapy has really helped me out with many of these issues). I’ve gone through all this therapy and all these different ex-gay ministries more convinced than ever that I’m gay and it’s nothing that can be changed. I wonder how many others are out there who can look back and say the same thing?
“Raj, I’m not sure what kind of evidence Anne Paulk could provide to prove she was a lesbian. I met Anne and John Paulk when they were leaders of the ex-gay group I participated in.”
It is sweet that you met them. But, please, give me a break. She is a poster-(boob? wench? whatever) for the anti-gay ex-gay industry. It strikes me that it is up to her to provide some evidence that she was ever a lesbian. Or that she had lesbian tendencies.
She is making more than a bit of money off of her–I’ll put it to you bluntly–fag bashing And you are willing to give her the benefit of a doubt?
Please, give me a break.
The question here, I gather, is whether Anne Paulk has ever explicitly stated that she felt sexually attracted to other women.
I am not aware of any occasions when she has acknowledged past sexual attraction to women; in her writings that I have read, she circles around that basic, essential question. But I have not read her books yet.
I have read her book, Mike (Love Won Out). I haven’t read her latest one. But she definitely talks about feeling sexually attracted to women.
Fair enough (IMO), Annika.
In the book, does Anne Paulk assess her current sexual attractions — do they seem to be predominantly or exclusively heterosexual?
And does she show signs of recognition that today’s lesbians are closer to ‘L Word’ women than to a depressed, addicted, and tomboyish caricature of “lesbianism”? Or that, as with heterosexual women, there are a variety of well-adjusted and not-so-well-adjusted individuals?
Given that failure rates for reparative and gender-affirming therapies are high, what would Anne like to see among those who fail — ‘L Word’ women or something else?