Jon Rowe has been blogging recently on the nature of bisexuality. Jon’s a very smart guy and his posts always provide interesting reading–and there are some implications there for the gay/ex-gay conversation.
Even the most optimistic ex-gay proponents and researchers acknowledge that reparative therapy has a modest success rate. Few ex-gays report a true "conversion" experience; the remainder simply learn to cope by maneuvering around their natural sexuality.
Following Jon’s breakdown, it’s possible that some Kinsey 4’s and 5’s (people who ordinarily would not "flourish in any other relationship than a homosexual one"), are able–through force of will–to suppress their natural instinct for sexual and emotional fulfillment because they are capable of at least some heterosexual attraction.
But what about people who are true 6’s on Kinsey’s scale? What does reparative therapy hope to offer these people? A life without any sexuality at all? They never quite answer this question… When I was in the ex-gay movement, the answer was essentially, "Tough. It’s your fault that you can’t change, because see? One guy in Akron and one woman in Tucson are Real Heterosexuals now–so it’s possible."
It’s true that a tiny fraction of highly motivated gays are able to manipulate their sexuality into some semblance of hetero-normality. However, the ex-gay movement uses that fact as a weapon to bash the majority of gay people: those who have no ability or inclination to change.
We get into a losing argument the moment we start to debate whether or not change is possible, and the theoretical merits of reparative therapies, etc. Someone, somewhere will always have an example of an ex-gay who is truly ex-gay, and happy about it. But that mere fact proves nothing.
The only winning strategy is for us to take up the banner of personal liberty–and not just as talking points. We have to mean it.
You want to live as an ex-gay? Great! Get down with your bad self. We will never interfere in your decision to pursue your happiness. Meanwhile, please mind your own business while we pursue happiness for ourselves.
Bravo. I honestly could not have summed this up better myself. I have come to this exact same realization a little while ago. Now if only my mother who wants me to become ex-gay would realize this as well.
I have a bit of a problem with Jonathan’s take on bisexuality. On his website, if you read his replies to some of the commenters, you will see that he defines bisexuality as having equal attraction to both genders (Kinsey 3). However, this is one of the biggest myths that the bisexual community has been trying to dispell. Most Bisexuals do have leanings towards one sex.
Also, in my experience, it seems that bisexuals at or near the middle of the Kinsey scale seem to exhibit a higher degree of fluidity in their sexuality. I suspect that many of the true success stories of the ex-gay movement are such individuals. In other words, they were probably individuals who started off on the “gay” side of middle, and were somehow able to reorient themselves towards the straight side of middle. So, in a sense, they started off as bisexual with homosexual leanings, and ended up has bisexual with heterosexual leanings. This would explain why, despite developing a definite degree of heteroeroticism, these individuals still experience lingering homoerotic feelings. Many of these individuals do go on to mislabel themselves as PURELY heterosexual, which, strictly speaking, is false.
Psychological musings aside, I agree with Joe Riddle that the more important issues regard personal liberties. It doesn’t matter if a person can or can’t change…even if a person is capable of change, he should be granted equal civil rights, and he shouldn’t be mistreated or harassed because of his orientation.
It is considered a hate crime to harm a person because of his religion or sexual orientation. However, there are those who want sexual orientation removed from the list of criteria regarding what constitutes a hate crime. But if you think about it, people choose which religion to follow. There’s a lot more choice involved in which religion to follow than there is in sexual orientation. So whether a person can or can’t change really shouldn’t be the criteria in whether a person deserves to be treated fairly.
I agree with the above. But I still fear going down the road of saying that people should be free to make whatever choices they want, because for me it *wasn’t* a choice.
And when fundies hear this argument, they just go “A-ha! I told you it was a choice! There’s no reason for us to protect this immoral choice.”
You can always throw back the argument that choices should be protected (eg, religion), but by then you’ve lost them.
I’m not saying that it’s a choice. It’s NOT. I’m saying that even if it was, it shouldn’t matter.
“However, this is one of the biggest myths that the bisexual community has been trying to dispell”
One of the points that I tried to make was that “Real” bisexuality — an exactly attraction to both sexes, was fairly rare. And that many of these people who call themselves “bi” perhaps ought not to, even if technically they do have some degree of bisexuality. Could you imagine the “black” community just changing everything and calling itself “mixed race,” because technically, it’s true? Blacks in America have, I think, 20% white blood.
But I realize — and I noted this in the comments — that life doesn’t exist according to a scale of 6-numbers. Rather sexual orientation exists on a continuum — like many other things: race, intelligence, height, weight. And then we come up with the precise measures.
The people who are the “real” bisexuals are the ones who lump towards the middle of the sexuality “bell curve,” even if they may be slightly to the “gay” side or the “straight” side. Most 4s and 5s understand themselves as gay and most 1s and 2s understand themselves as straight. Perhaps within the “3s” there is a little bit of wiggle room for people who tilt one way or the other.
nate, while i appreciate your fears, i disagree with your statement: “when fundies hear this argument, they just go ‘A-ha! I told you it was a choice! There’s no reason for us to protect this immoral choice.'”
actually, i think our ONLY protection from the fundy argument is to use the language of liberty. as long as we’re arguing whether it’s a choice we’re in the debate on their terms–and we will always lose because we can’t *prove* it isn’t a choice.
when they argue that it’s a choice we must say, “so what if it is? you make your choices and i’ll make mine.” luckily, we have the consitution on our side. in the end, i believe we’ll have popular sentiment on our side as well.
sorry, that last comment was to kenster not to nate.
“One of the points that I tried to make was that “Real” bisexuality — an exactly attraction to both sexes, was fairly rare. And that many of these people who call themselves “bi” perhaps ought not to, even if technically they do have some degree of bisexuality. Could you imagine the “black” community just changing everything and calling itself “mixed race,” because technically, it’s true? Blacks in America have, I think, 20% white blood.”
The most common definition of bisexuality, accepted by most researchers, is the following: A person who a) has the capacity for sexual arousal by members of both sexes, b) sexual activity or sexual desire for sexual contact with both men and women, and c) self-identification as being bisexual. In order to meet the above criteria for bisexuality, one need not have equal attraction to both. There are varying degrees of bisexuality. One is not an “unreal” Bisexual just because he doesn’t have equal attraction to both (Kinsey 3). And, if a bisexual does have equal attraction to both, this doesn’t make him more of a “real” bisexual than those who have leanings, according to the criteria put forth above.
To me, a Kinsey 2 and a Kinsey 4 are bisexuals with hetero and homo leanings, respectively. As for Kinsey 1’s and Kinsey 5’s, it would be more appropriate to make the argument that one should round up. However, one “ought” (your word) not to do anything that he/she doesn’t want to…after all, self labelling is a very personal thing, and sometimes it transcends numerical quantitations of sexual desire. To label oneself as a bisexual can also be a philosophical stance. For example, an exclusively gay man may one day find himself in a few heterosexual relationships that he finds to be fullfilling. He might then choose to change his label to bisexual, even though the desires for men may still eclipse his general desires for women. He may do this because to show that he is willing to love beyond people beyond their exterior. And I don’t think its your place or my place to say whether or not one “ought” to do this.
Express your Kinsey number via a t-shirt, courtesy of https://www.whodoyoudo.com